Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Gaming- XP VS. VISTA

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 7, 2008 6:38:31 PM

Ok its October 2008 and I'm trying to get a feel if more people are switching to Vista from xp. Whats your opinion? Do you perfer Vista over xp or vice vera? Or are you waiting to the next release(Windows 7).

More about : gaming vista

October 7, 2008 6:51:53 PM

I have used Vista Home Premium 64bit since I got back from overseas in July. I have not had a single crash, bsod, or error since I've been back. I can confidently say that the OS has been drastically improved since release. I think XP will still run DX9 applications faster in most cases though.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2008 6:52:43 PM

I'm sure this will probably turn into a flame war pretty fast.

I have been using Vista for a year and a half with no problems at all. Vista SP1 is a very stable OS now. I would highly recommend 64-bit Vista and 4GB of RAM.

Here's an interesting article on 2GB vs 4GB if you're interested:

http://www.corsairmemory.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Per...
Related resources
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 7:05:07 PM


Personally if i was to build a PC today i would most probably put Vista on it. Some of the benchmarks that are coming out now are showing the DX10 path to be faster than the DX9 path for the same card so there has been a lot of improvement there. Yes it wants more Ram and there are a few things it does differantly, but thanks to those early addopters most of the glitches have been ironed out and any help support should it be needed is only a click away. You know i think these guys should get a discount on the OS considering all the help they provide. not only to others but in feedback to MS as well.
Cant really see why people would wait for a new OS release, im not sure but dont think its out anytime soon is it ?
The next DX will be available for Vista so thats no reason to wait and i havent heard of any must have feature.

Mactronix
October 7, 2008 7:05:22 PM

I am with the previous two posters. I have Vista Ultimate 64bit with 8GB of ram. Not one blue screen in about 6 months...and the FPS of games I play does not differ from XP to Vista at all. 3d Mark scores were almost identical.

I can confidently suggest Vista for a solid gaming environment.
October 7, 2008 7:23:34 PM

Of course Corsair's benchmarks show 4GB giving a boost. Duh, they sell RAM! Feel free to thumb this down.
a c 363 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2008 7:26:17 PM

No intentions to upgrade to Vista. Waiting for Windows 7 instead.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2008 7:39:55 PM

modtech said:
Of course Corsair's benchmarks show 4GB giving a boost. Duh, they sell RAM! Feel free to thumb this down.


Here's a couple more reviews on 2GB vs 4GB that were not done my RAM manufacturers:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=667

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-mem...

This isn't even the topic of the post, but I thought it was interesting. I recently upgraded from 32-bit Vista and 2GB RAM to 64-bit Vista and 4GB of RAM and am very happy with the performance improvement.


What I'm getting at is that for a new build, there is no reason not to go with 64-bit Vista and 4GB+ RAM, especially considering the current price of RAM.
October 7, 2008 7:42:38 PM

Windows 7 is based on Vista's kernel - I am not expecting a lot of differences. I wouldn't change to any new operating system immediately after release though, unless you like running a dual boot configuration. Drivers and such seem to take an eternity to come out for new OS'es, then another eternity to get a good stable release.
October 7, 2008 7:43:50 PM

I've been running Vista for months, no errors or crashes. Vista Home Premium 64, with 4GB of ram.

If you're going to get Vista, don't bother with the 32 bit version. Get the 64 even if you don't have 4GB of ram.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2008 7:49:03 PM

frozenlead said:
If you're going to get Vista, don't bother with the 32 bit version. Get the 64 even if you don't have 4GB of ram.


+1

I ran 64-bit Vista with 2GB of RAM for a couple months. It does use a little more RAM than 32-bit though. However, I would recommend just starting with 4GB and being done with it so you can get a 2x2GB setup.
October 7, 2008 7:52:48 PM

vista ultimate for about a month with no problems, yes its a resource hog but hey if your system can handle it then go fo it.

i dual booted with xp just to be safe =]
October 7, 2008 8:09:40 PM

I was on the early side of adoption. Early on the biggest problems were display driver crashes. Even they were hard to blame on Nvidia or MS as they were application specific. For example at one point I identified punk buster as a cause, which they offered no solution for.

My main gaming computer ran dual boot until some recent recent upgrades. After not having booted into Vista for months I dropped the XP partition.

I now have in my house two laptops on Vista premium and three desktops on Vista 64bit. My HTPC with 8 gig of ram and pagefile disabled has never BSOD'd or locked up. I still have one computer on xp and it is the least stable of all (crash every couple of weeks), but in all fairness it is an old install and an always on machine to handle downloads etc.

My feeling is that with 1gig of memory on video cards and real benefits with 4 gig of ram that Vista 64 sp1 is the best gaming OS. If you have an older system with 2 gig of ram and a dx9 card then don't bother.

October 7, 2008 8:16:58 PM

petevsdrm said:
I have used Vista Home Premium 64bit since I got back from overseas in July. I have not had a single crash, bsod, or error since I've been back. I can confidently say that the OS has been drastically improved since release. I think XP will still run DX9 applications faster in most cases though.


It's like you posted word-for-word my experience with Vista Home Premium 64 bit (SP1).


October 7, 2008 8:17:20 PM

Apologies to readers if this is already stated in a post above. I have used Vista 64 - 2 months - 4GB memory - no problems. That said, you have to be careful when you buy an older game. Some games are not compatible with Vista/32 or Vista/64. I am enjoying Age of Empire II at the moment no problems. Most of the newer games should run fine on Vista 64.
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 8:27:43 PM


This is turning into a bit of a Vista love in :kaola:  While all the above is perfectly fine i feel the need to point out that while its all well and good getting a new system with plenty of ram or updating a fairly new system, people reading these posts might get the idea that its all roses. The flip side of this comes when someone with a fairly old system with associated peripherals, Printer,Scanner etc tries slapping in a C2D and some extra Ram, installs Vista and finds that none of the peripherals work. I'm not saying it will happen in all cases but its been a well reported problem.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2008 9:15:54 PM

If someone with "a fairly old system" tries to install Vista without researching driver support, they deserve what they get. It's the same with any OS.

You'll notice most of the people still bashing Vista have either never actually used it, not used it long enough for it to sort out its HD indexing and SuperFetch, or are installing it on unsupported/old hardware.
October 7, 2008 10:04:02 PM

I personally prefer vista over XP. Though I have been running the 32bit version (my school sells it for $10) once it is available for the 64bit version I will be jumping on that immediately.

Best,

3Ball
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 10:15:50 PM

Good point by Mactronix. I have an older gaming system that i have running XP and it's not going to get changed to Vista. Older peripherals may not be Vista ready and it isn't for every machine.
October 7, 2008 10:36:07 PM

shortstuff - I think you're being a little harsh. I read two separate questions here. One was about switching and the other was about experiences. The consensus seems to be that with the proper equipment, Vista doesn't offer any detriment and there really isn't much of a reason to revert back to XP if the system is up to it and if it came with XP. The other side is if it's worth while to buy Vista to replace XP. That's where people are saying that there doesn't seem to be a significant advantage with Vista and you may have some legacy software that won't work correctly. It's not that Vista is bad, it's just that it takes more resources and it may not be worthwile to upgrade just to run Vista.

If a new system comes with Vista, then it'll be just fine as long as you have enough memory.

As far as crashes - I haven't had any of my systems with XP or Vista crash in the last 6 months.
October 7, 2008 10:42:45 PM

piratepast40 said:
shortstuff - I think you're being a little harsh. I read two separate questions here. One was about switching and the other was about experiences. The consensus seems to be that with the proper equipment, Vista doesn't offer any detriment and there really isn't much of a reason to revert back to XP if the system is up to it and if it came with XP. The other side is if it's worth while to buy Vista to replace XP. That's where people are saying that there doesn't seem to be a significant advantage with Vista and you may have some legacy software that won't work correctly. It's not that Vista is bad, it's just that it takes more resources and it may not be worthwile to upgrade just to run Vista.

If a new system comes with Vista, then it'll be just fine as long as you have enough memory.

As far as crashes - I haven't had any of my systems with XP or Vista crash in the last 6 months.



I'll give you a +1 for that, if you already have xp installed, there is not much reason to upgrade other than for a 64 bit operating system if you are adding RAM. Vista is good, but doesn't have a must-have feature in the absence of DX10 games.
October 7, 2008 10:52:46 PM

i'm using 32bit XP SP3 rite now, i would upgrade to vista64 but there are no 64bit ventrilo yet and that's very detrimental to a gamer.

there is an alpha release if anyone is curious, but i'm waiting on a real release.
October 7, 2008 10:54:16 PM

I used vista on y brother in-law's computer to play world of warcraft on a dual monitor setup. This was probably ~6 months ago. The major problem I ran into was complete computer lockup. No blue screen, no ability to ctrl-alt-delete, everything locked up. This happened probably 10+ times in the two weeks I was at my brother in-laws house.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2008 10:54:17 PM

Just to put this in perspective, I'm also currently running 32-bit Vista on an old P4 2.8GHz machine with 1GB of RAM and I don't notice that it's any slower than XP was on the same machine. Of course I made sure all my hardware would work with Vista BEFORE I installed it. That's all I'm saying. Older hardware may be able to run Vista, but it's up to you to verify it before installing it. If someone installs Vista on older hardware without checking hardware compatiblity and it doesn't work, that's not Vista's fault.
October 7, 2008 11:43:58 PM

I've been running Vista Ultimate 64 since release and can honestly say that (to me) it's better than XP. I have not had a single crash and have been able to play every game I've put on it.

I had 3gb of ram on my last machine with was an AMD64 3000+ and now an Q9650 with 8gb ram on a Gigabyte EP-45 Extreme mobo. In my experience, Vista runs so much smoother than XP but I haven't noticed if was any slower. I am however, looking forward to Windows7.
October 8, 2008 12:31:43 AM

I agree with the positives above. I recently build a new rig and put Vista Home Premium 64bit on it. It has ran fine for over a month with no problems whatsoever and seems as fast, in most ways, as XP was now that SP1 is out. My only regret was checking more thorougly into my motherboards ability to handle all 4 dimms full well. It does not so my 4x1gb sticks, of which only 2 will function due to mobo issues will soon be replaced by 4x2gb.

Not an issue with Vista, mobo issue but Vista is running fine with the 2gb. I expect it will just be a bit better with 4gb tomorrow.

As to the comments about old hardware, yes it is a potentially risky venture to slap vista OS on equipment that is around 2 yrs old or more. For current hardware though or at least pretty recent? I think Vista is now a no-brainer.
October 8, 2008 12:45:45 AM

a few months ago, i upgraded from XP 32-bit to vista x64. even though my system only has 2GB of ram, vista is very responsive and games run just fine. i would never go back to xp now.
October 8, 2008 12:47:32 AM

dont like it, dont want it, it cant even instal crysis right
a b U Graphics card
October 8, 2008 1:01:10 AM

I just installed Vista Business 32bits from the MSDNAA that my University has, so i'll be testing it this week... Just gotta re-install the games for it... I have a triple boot rig: Gentoo, XP SP3 and now Vista SP1.

I'm too lazy to re-install Crysis, GRID, and CoD4 just for testing purposes xP

Anyone knows a way to run the XP-installed games on a Vista install? XD

They are on a different HDD, so there should be no "path" problems.

And lazyness aside... I have to say i had my doubts, but it is a nice lookin' and feelin OS. They moved a lot of things, but core admin thingys are still the same, wich i just like taht way.

Anyway, i liked Mojave better. That was a damn fine OS right there.

Esop! X'D
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 8, 2008 9:51:54 AM


@ shortstuff,
Nobody said it would be Vista's fault. All I was doing was mentioning it as it is an issue and I didn't want people who are not as tec savy as the rest of us reading the above posts and thinking. Ooh Vista that sounds like its ok now I think its time I upgraded. Sadly not everybody knows that such a thing as compatability or driver profiles exist. Just because you know something is no reason to assume everone else should and saying they "deserve what they get"

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
October 8, 2008 10:33:02 AM

aznguy0028 said:
i'm using 32bit XP SP3 rite now, i would upgrade to vista64 but there are no 64bit ventrilo yet


I've been using the 64 bit beta for a year, and it works fine: http://www.ventrilo.com/dlprod.php?id=4

But yah, I see your point that there is no more recent build. Probably they took their existing code, dumped it into a 64 bit compiler, and put it out there after noticing it didn't nuke people's sytems... :lol: 





Been using V64 for over a year now - Works fine, and has been *more* stable than my prior XP build. Be advised it is *different* from XP, tho, and that an awful lot of people seem to hate it just for that fact.
October 8, 2008 11:29:58 AM

I have no doubt that Vista64 + 4GB RAM is great but there's nothing wrong with XP SP3 + 2GB RAM either. I can't get rid of XP yet due to several software incompatibilities (all my hardware is fine) so I'd need a proper compelling reason to add yet another OS to my boot menu.
October 8, 2008 2:06:22 PM

It comes down to DX10 vs DX9. If you run DX9 in Vista everything is fine. DX10 though is a little screwy and slows things down IMO. DX10.1 is the actual DX10 or what DX10 was supposed to be but no games will have a DX10.1 version. Everything will skip DX10.1 and go to DX11. Nvidia has that pretty well buttoned up with TWIMTBP. :pfff: 

Crysis comes to mind when talking about DX10 performance. Crytek held back the visual settings in the DX9 version to make DX10 seem significantly better. If I do the very high settings trick in XP, I get exactly the same visuals with higher FPS. Again, just my opinion, if DX10.1 fully made it to the table things would be different but DX10 is so far just a market scheme to sell copies of Vista.

I have both Vista and XP and I use XP exclusively for gaming. I like Vista for music/internet...no problems. It has been said above...if you have XP, there isn't a need to switch to Vista. You aren't missing much by running games in the DX10 version that isn't really DX10. DX11 sounds like it will be interesting with the multithreading....waiting for Windows7 and DX11 GPus sounds like a good idea to me.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 8, 2008 2:21:48 PM

rangers said:
dont like it, dont want it, it cant even instal crysis right


Now there's an insightful comment! :lol: 

Sounds like a personal problem to me. There are a ton of people running Crysis on Vista without any problems. Don't blame Vista for your inability to correctly install software.
October 8, 2008 10:38:31 PM

rangers said:
dont like it, dont want it, it cant even instal crysis right


Funny, I'm running Crysis just fine...
October 8, 2008 11:06:04 PM

everything works fine for me. I can't see myself going back to Xp anymore. It runs very smooth and is responsive. Plus I'm abit more secure with it.

Vista is faster than XP in every way except file transfer over a network. From what I read atleast.

I'm very excited about Windows 7. If its a flop like Windows Vista (the first year of its releasal) then I'm more than happy to switch over to Linux or MAC:D 
October 9, 2008 12:09:09 AM

shortstuff_mt said:
Now there's an insightful comment! :lol: 

Sounds like a personal problem to me. There are a ton of people running Crysis on Vista without any problems. Don't blame Vista for your inability to correctly install software.


I right, like you didn't have to go to c\program files\crysisEXE and make a shortcut to the desktop
ive fecked around with vista sp1 its still the same, yes it runs crysis but that wee problem and the fact that transfering files from disk to disk take an age, all i can say is im happy with XP
October 9, 2008 2:09:29 AM

BTW my computer has been on for four weeks solid no BSOD
a b U Graphics card
October 9, 2008 2:24:30 AM

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that.

I've had this same XP install for... 4 years now. From the time i built this Athlon64 X2. I would've kept the install from the P3, but well, that seemed kinda dangerous, lol. Besides, i bought a new 250GB HDD at that time XD

And i've never had a BSOD in this XP 32bits :p 

I remember 3 in Vista Beta though, lol.

Esop!
October 9, 2008 3:15:30 AM

rangers said:
BTW my computer has been on for four weeks solid no BSOD


lol well thats nothing to be proud of, seeing as I never got BSOD unless I oced past the max point. my computer was left on all summer till Sept full throttle with 3D screensavers, Utorrent, Limewire Pro and Nightly Defrags :) .

Honestly I think both Vista and XP are past the BSOD unless your having driver issues. Vista hates nforce and Nvidia drivers for some reason, but once you get past em your good.

October 9, 2008 3:46:35 AM

I have to agree with shortstuff about the specs you need for vista. I installed vista 32bit on my server, what used to be my main system. P4 2.4ghz, 1gb ddr, radeon 9200le and as far as speed went it was about just as fast as XP. Software issues didn't destroy my system as bad as XP... except when it went horribly wrong. However this was when vista JUST came out. My fps for CSS went down from an average of 20fps to an average of about 12-13 fps as well.

I also got a sweet error once after exiting CSS where my desktop became a texture for some messed up polygon that was glitching out and the points of the polygon were moving. It was quiet trippy. Only happened once thou.

Oh I and I've used vista 64 on my new system since I got it over a year ago, and haven't had a single problem, besides the rare software not working on 64bit. Had to give up google desktop =(.
October 9, 2008 4:38:06 AM

I use Vista more than XP.
A thing that I have noticed is that Vista is slower than XP.
A simple task to open a folder too more time on Vista whilst its just in an instant on XP. Vista also consume a lot of RAM for nothing.

Games play best on XP even it didn't have the DX10.

XP is better than Vista....
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 9, 2008 5:36:11 AM

Funny. I can open folders (even huge ones) instantly on vista. In fact, on this computer (which was dual boot for a while), Vista is faster than XP in almost every way. As for the RAM used for nothing? That's superfetch - it prefetches the commonly used files into RAM when the computer is idle. In other words, it's actually speeding up your computer. If you start a program that needs a lot of RAM, and Vista is using it, it will free it up and the program will be able to use it, meaning this RAM usage will not in any way impact your gaming or other program capabilities.
October 9, 2008 6:10:51 AM

Do you guys think that 8gb of memory is necessary for vista 64bit? I have 4GB right now but it seems like it's starting t become the norm =/ It's like how you need 1gb to run XP for most of the programs we use today.
October 9, 2008 6:26:01 AM

mactronix said:
Personally if i was to build a PC today i would most probably put Vista on it. Some of the benchmarks that are coming out now are showing the DX10 path to be faster than the DX9 path for the same card so there has been a lot of improvement there. Yes it wants more Ram and there are a few things it does differantly, but thanks to those early addopters most of the glitches have been ironed out and any help support should it be needed is only a click away. You know i think these guys should get a discount on the OS considering all the help they provide. not only to others but in feedback to MS as well.
Cant really see why people would wait for a new OS release, im not sure but dont think its out anytime soon is it ?
The next DX will be available for Vista so thats no reason to wait and i havent heard of any must have feature.

Mactronix

I really want to meet you ...
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
October 9, 2008 6:31:08 AM

murdoc said:
Do you guys think that 8gb of memory is necessary for vista 64bit? I have 4GB right now but it seems like it's starting t become the norm =/ It's like how you need 1gb to run XP for most of the programs we use today.

8GB? It's nice, but not necessary. In fact, I would even say 4GB isn't necessary. I'd place the lower limit for 64 bit at 2GB, realistically.
a b U Graphics card
October 21, 2008 1:11:41 PM

Ok, i've been testing Vista Business SP1 32Bits (versus XP Pro SP3) with a few games (two actually, lol) and the results are these:

Ragnarök Online, a DX8.x (has HW T&L support) MMORPG runs BETTER in every way on Vista than XP. I don't know why, i don't know how, but it does. and it's not a minor improvement, but a big one. An old game like that one shouldn't be affected that much going from one OS to another (in Gentoo-Linux runs like in XP, just for the record).

And the next game i've been using to check how old titles run is Starcraft Broodwar. I wouldn't say there's an FPS improvement though, lol. It has an issue that i saw on some XP machines too, but not a serious one. Colors get wacked when you open it up, but has an easy fix: minimize it and back to the game until it gets fixed, lol. Network wise, no problems at all. Same latency than XP. I'd say it's the same good old SC-BW from 98SE, lol.

Well, i have to try our more games and all, but i've been on a tight schedule lately XD

I'll be installing FEAR and Crysis this week for testing, so i'll post then with some results XD

Hope you guys find this usefull :p 

Added: I forgot i also installed a game named "Archlord" by Code Masters (korean port actually), wich is DX9-something, not sure though. This one also runs better in every aspect like RO.

Esop!

EDIT: Added a few thingys.
EDIT2: Forgot i tried another game, lol.
October 28, 2008 5:25:20 PM

FYI I play starcraft broodwar in XP with no issues like you stated. Maybe you've messed up your XP?
!