Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming in Vista

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 11, 2007 11:16:46 PM

I'm currently planning on a complete format and I don't know if I should stay with my 32 bit win XP or go with the 64 bit win XP or Vista.

I just bought new ram to get a total of 4 GB and would like to use it, but I'm not sure if my game will support any other OS.

I do play lot of BF2, COD4, WIC and also older games like AOE 3, Farcry, Rainbow Six Las Vegas, the Splinter Cell series and MOH. Does those game run under Vista or XP 64?

Thanks

More about : gaming vista

December 13, 2007 10:41:01 PM

Hey! I just got a brand new pc with vista that can play cod4 with ease , single player works perfectly but when i click on da multiplayer icon or shortcut in the game it looks like it will load to the multiplayer startup screen but will then say it has encountered a problem. Please help me sort this problem out as I want to get the multiplayer working. Thanx !
December 14, 2007 10:35:19 AM

Torres17 said:
Hey! I just got a brand new pc with vista that can play cod4 with ease , single player works perfectly but when i click on da multiplayer icon or shortcut in the game it looks like it will load to the multiplayer startup screen but will then say it has encountered a problem. Please help me sort this problem out as I want to get the multiplayer working. Thanx !


Don't just hijack his thread. Thats quite rude. You didn't even attempt to answer any of his questions
Related resources
December 14, 2007 10:42:41 AM

Vista is a pretty new OS and in the future more games will come out (of course) meaning that games will require Vista or some other OS that's pretty new. My OPINION is that you stay with XP for gaming for now, and once programs start coming out that don't support XP, that is when you switch to a newer OS. But I'm staying away from vista, lots of bugs and issues with that OS.
December 14, 2007 10:52:36 AM

"lots of bugs and issues with that OS. "

??? If you aren't running it, how do you know? I run Vista on 3 of my 6 systems. It's VERY stable. I think the problems people are running into are because they're screwing with "tweaked" drivers and/or overclocking their systems. MOST people don't do that. Most people don't need to. For as long as I've been a system/network engineer, I've never been able to validate the "cost" of overclocking. Every system I've owned still works. I have maybe 15 sitting in my basement cause I'm a packrat for this stuff.

Anyways, Vista is more stable than XP was even at SP1. I run it on my Gaming PC. I can't think of a single game I've played over the past 3 years which doesn't run under Vista as well, if not better than on XPsp2. I set my gaming rig up to Dual boot and find I never go to XP except to sync my Tapwave Zodiac.
December 14, 2007 11:05:56 AM

Stromm - It doesn't matter what Vista's actually like. Or that it really *is* better than XP was at the equivalent stages of development. People don't care and will continue to believe what they want to believe.

You've been around long enough to know it's the *exact* same crap as when XP was released: It sucks. My blah~de~blah doesn't run... Resource Hog... Bugs... Bugs... Bugs... Oh My G*D I'm going back to blah blah blah...
December 14, 2007 11:11:13 AM

stromm said:
"lots of bugs and issues with that OS. "

??? If you aren't running it, how do you know? I run Vista on 3 of my 6 systems. It's VERY stable. I think the problems people are running into are because they're screwing with "tweaked" drivers and/or overclocking their systems. MOST people don't do that. Most people don't need to. For as long as I've been a system/network engineer, I've never been able to validate the "cost" of overclocking. Every system I've owned still works. I have maybe 15 sitting in my basement cause I'm a packrat for this stuff.

Anyways, Vista is more stable than XP was even at SP1. I run it on my Gaming PC. I can't think of a single game I've played over the past 3 years which doesn't run under Vista as well, if not better than on XPsp2. I set my gaming rig up to Dual boot and find I never go to XP except to sync my Tapwave Zodiac.


I mostly agree with this. I have run Vista since it was in beta form and think that it is a good operating system considering all. I haven't found any problems that i couldn't overcome with a little google query or fourm searching. The fact is Vista is the future, its not a matter of if your going to switch to vista its a matter of when.

stromm said:
For as long as I've been a system/network engineer, I've never been able to validate the "cost" of overclocking.


Not true!!!!!

Overclocking is a viable means to obtain performance with knowledge instead of money. If you do your research on mobo processor and ram you can get much more system for the money.

If you try to overclock your hardware without investing time into researching what to expect your most likely going to have problems or very limited results.

December 14, 2007 12:06:28 PM

It's stable and it offers DX10 support. That's about all I really see in it at the moment. I support about 4 users on the Vista platform and it is a bit problematic at times... mainly the compatibility issues with older software (non-gaming software). There still is a few games that have initial issues, but sometimes "compatibility mode" can get around them.

Now I think there is a list or program somewhere that will test all your software / hardware compatibility with Vista which you may want to run before you upgrade. Then you can know what types of problems to expect when / if you upgrade.

I'd also suggest you read some tweaking guides because there are quite a few services and features that you will likely want to disable after you install. (the auto-defrag is one example)

If I've still got your attention... :p 
Anyways, upgrading will provide minimum performance increases for you (most likely a decrease, especially in DX10), and with the 64 bit OS you need to make sure you are getting 64 bit drivers! I'm not a Vista hater, but I am trying to provide you with as much information as possible from a neutral stand-point.

Quote:
You've been around long enough to know it's the *exact* same crap as when XP was released: It sucks. My blah~de~blah doesn't run... Resource Hog... Bugs... Bugs... Bugs... Oh My G*D I'm going back to blah blah blah...
Yep, this always happens and will continue to happen. I hate seeing people say how much it sucks when they haven't even used it, but "Saw a video online" or "had a friend of a friend's cousin's uncle" with some Vista incompatibility issue. A particular video comes to mind where this guy tried to install Vista on a 4 year old machine (even if he got it installed - I'd be surprised if it performed well at all) and surprise! it wouldn't install. Of course people always want an easy answer, so no one actually researches or tries to validate the answer on their own... they just spread rumors. (it's easier than backing up your words with facts, right?)
December 14, 2007 1:59:29 PM

stromm said:
"lots of bugs and issues with that OS. "

??? If you aren't running it, how do you know? I run Vista on 3 of my 6 systems. It's VERY stable. I think the problems people are running into are because they're screwing with "tweaked" drivers and/or overclocking their systems. MOST people don't do that. Most people don't need to. For as long as I've been a system/network engineer, I've never been able to validate the "cost" of overclocking. Every system I've owned still works. I have maybe 15 sitting in my basement cause I'm a packrat for this stuff.



wow! this is very strong argument... it just lacks any support :) 

First, all tests are clear - all games run slower under vista. I dont remember even one test that would say otherwise

Second - my C2D 4300 runs on over 3ghz for 9 months now. The CPU was $125 at that time, 3ghz CPU was many times more. Do your math... And yes, I need 3ghz
December 14, 2007 7:17:09 PM

I have both vista and windows xp pro and for me windows xp runs every single app much better than in vista

it is a fact, the vista OS uses both more memory and cpu resources on it's self, which means less resources available for the programs you run

on pretty much every benchmark you see, when running a direct x 9 game in windows xp and with vista, the game played on a XP install generally ran much better

vista is less efficient
memory read and write speeds are lower than those in windows xp
December 14, 2007 8:29:41 PM

leckig said:
wow! this is very strong argument... it just lacks any support :) 

First, all tests are clear - all games run slower under vista. I dont remember even one test that would say otherwise

You're arguing a completely different point. Stablility and performance are different. Performance is more on the shoulders of software and hardware developers. Let's see XP has been out for 7 years, Vista for less then one. Which one do you think developers will have more experience with and thus produce better results? The fact is Vista is the most stable Windows OS at release so far, and from what I've heard has fewer problems then the latest MacOS. With adequet hardware for Vista performance is barely behind XP and is gaining steadily and WILL eventually overtake XP in every application, probably sooner rather then latter. With my machine I've been gaming on Vista Ultimate since it was released. I've yet to run into one instance with either brand new or older games where I've ever wanted to return to XP. Also Vista is NOT less efficient with memory then XP. It does take more to run, but once you have enough you're better off then XP. In XP I used to pull the Windows key off my keyboards (except for my G15 which has on on/off switch for it) because going to your desktop in the middle of a game meant having to restart the game. In Vista I can run multiple games (WoW and CivIV for example) in windowed mode w/Aero and tab between games without performance loss. I'm not here to tell people to use one OS or another, but please understand what you're talknig about when criticizing something.
!