New Gaming Computer. Vista or XP? - Page 5 - Vista-General-Discussion

Last message on previous page:
Well... I'm inclined to believe that XP64 would/does suffer from lack of support - relatively speaking, of course. Both from MSFT now that XP has entered maintenance/patch mode and isn't being developed any further. And also from 3rd party vendors who will look at that fact, plus the fact it wasn't widely used to begin with, and use that to justify even less support than is currently the case. Going forward, the Vista kernel and driver model are the new standard, as evidenced by Win 7 using these. So if you were to spend money today, I'd advise to use the newer OS for sure.

If you happen to have a copy of XP64 handy, though, no reason to leave it unused. And for damned sure it's not like we don't support ourSELVES anyhow.

(By way of disclaimer - I have been using Vista 64 for most of the last two years, and it has served me perfectly well during that time. In creating my system, though, I *did* apply the old "Don't Run Your New Sh*t on Your Old Sh*t" rule, and also treated like it's own OS rather than expect it to be XP SP4.

When 7 goes public Beta, I do plan on using it and as a matter of fact have purchased an additional HDD for the Dual Boot. But that's because I like playing with the new stuff, and not because I'm unhappy with V64.)

(Also, I feel it was time to retire this thread after SP1 went GA. But... <shrug> )

Message edited by Scotteq on 12-29-2008 at 10:49:32 PM

------------------------------ Being requested to remove my siggy implying some people here would receive greater personal benefit from a local Prostitute than from a new GPU in no way, shape, or form changes the aforementioned opinion.
Reply to Scotteq

Register or log in to remove.

Here's a survey...

Steam Hardware Survey: November 2008
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

It's a kind of strange survey though. It doesn't tell you how many Vistas with DX9 GPUs. And it lists XP with DX10 GPUs which doesn't even make any difference because XP can't use DX10!

Message edited by rasmasyean on 12-30-2008 at 06:03:13 PM

Reply to rasmasyean

Vista. Now with XP SP3 and Vista SP1, VISTA sp1 is far better than XP when gaming.

Reply to Jyjohn

Ok, so it looks like most people have slowly changed to accpeting Vista as superior as it progressed and became more stable. Is that the general consensus?
Also I've notices i nthe system builder series here at TH they use Vista 32mb - is that just for comparison reason? Any reason I should not use Vista 64?

Also, someone mentioned drivers. I know these were a problem in early vista days but is it hard to find video drivers and updates for vista 64 now?

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to Ka0skrew

Nope - Not hard at all.

------------------------------ Being requested to remove my siggy implying some people here would receive greater personal benefit from a local Prostitute than from a new GPU in no way, shape, or form changes the aforementioned opinion.
Reply to Scotteq

Hi,
At this time XP, but think of the near future, can you afford to buy XP today & vista soon.

Reply to erphy

On a lighter note but still (kinda) XP v Vista,

my mum bought an HP computer when i wasn't looking that came with an AMD64, 512mb RAM and Vista home basic. It's painfull to even look at.

All she does is play solitaire.

I cant decide whether to upgrade her hardware, downgrade her OS or buy her a deck of cards.

Any advice. ;D

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to mrmain

i just built a new comp with quad core and i'm running 64 bit vista home prem.

runs great, no lag, but it take sup 1.5 gb of ram just the os itself, LOL. (good thing i have 4gb)

doesnt effect my gaming experience what os it is.

good luck!

mrmain wrote :

On a lighter note but still (kinda) XP v Vista,

my mum bought an HP computer when i wasn't looking that came with an AMD64, 512mb RAM and Vista home basic. It's painfull to even look at.

All she does is play solitaire.

I cant decide whether to upgrade her hardware, downgrade her OS or buy her a deck of cards.

Any advice. ;D

downgrade to xp

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by 4core on 02-03-2009 at 12:27:09 AM

Reply to 4core

4core wrote :

i just built a new comp with quad core and i'm running 64 bit vista home prem.

runs great, no lag, but it take sup 1.5 gb of ram just the os itself, LOL. (good thing i have 4gb)

Vista reports memory usage for the system and for superfetch (a kind of smart caching system) in the same bucket. IMHO, a lot of the "resource hog" stuff would ease, if not go away, were the two broken out.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Being requested to remove my siggy implying some people here would receive greater personal benefit from a local Prostitute than from a new GPU in no way, shape, or form changes the aforementioned opinion.
Reply to Scotteq

Here's some latest statistics on Gaming:

A January 2009 survey by Valve Corporation indicated that of the 33.26% of gamers running Windows Vista, 24.47% run 32-bit, 8.79% run 64-bit. 64-bit is over one third of the Vista install base.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Message edited by rasmasyean on 02-11-2009 at 09:12:34 PM

Reply to rasmasyean

Vista but it depends on:
* The hardware because of some unstable/unavailable drivers for Vista.
* You need current hardware
* Must be Vista SP1 because no SP is like a Vista at beta stage...

Reply to chooch

Scotteq wrote :

Vista reports memory usage for the system and for superfetch (a kind of smart caching system) in the same bucket. IMHO, a lot of the "resource hog" stuff would ease, if not go away, were the two broken out.

There is a Cached category like here. It uses up practically all the "would have been free and wasted in XP" extra RAM and puts it to good use.

When the computer has more RAM, it also pages less. It doesn't put as much data in the hard drive as swap virtual RAM and allocates more space in the chips so it's faster. That's also why when you have more RAM (like 4GB), it will take up more at any given time.

Like if it needs to use 2GB...
4GB system: 1.5GB in chips, 0.5GB in HD
1 GB system: 0.6GB in chips, 1.4GB in HD <---slower

Well, that's an oversimplification but I just wanted to make a point.

Reply to rasmasyean

Ka0skrew wrote :

Ok, so it looks like most people have slowly changed to accpeting Vista as superior as it progressed and became more stable. Is that the general consensus?
Also I've notices i nthe system builder series here at TH they use Vista 32mb - is that just for comparison reason? Any reason I should not use Vista 64?

Also, someone mentioned drivers. I know these were a problem in early vista days but is it hard to find video drivers and updates for vista 64 now?

It depends on what you mean by "slowly". If you are comparing it to the notion that when Vista was released, it should have revolutionized the gaming world...then yeah it's pretty slow. But if you look at what projections were "back then", then you can interpret the following in your own fashion I guess.

Quote :

The internet-usage market share for Windows Vista, taking the latest statistic, was 22.48% as of January 2009.[102] This figure combined with World Internet Users and Population Stats yields a user base of roughly 350 million[12] which exceeded Microsoft's two-year post launch expectations by 150 million.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

It looks like Steam indicates that Vista adoption for games (33.26%) is arround 150% that of general so...

Message edited by rasmasyean on 02-27-2009 at 03:49:04 PM

------------------------------ Cure diseases with your unused processor power!

You can make a difference!
Folding@Home - Distributed Computing
Reply to rasmasyean

it has to be xp sp3. vista with sp1 and all other updates is still ultra slow compared to xp on my laptop

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to NaomiHawkins

NaomiHawkins wrote :

it has to be xp sp3. vista with sp1 and allhttp://imageshare.info/24213481828.jpg other updates is still ultra slow compared to xp on my laptop

Most laptops aren’t meant for gaming. When you have a computer past a certain “power level”, the extra overhead of Vista would be negligible. And you will get DX10 and the higher resolutions that come with it.

Reply to rasmasyean

Any decent Core 2 Duo laptop with at least 1GB of RAM should run Vista sufficiently... it's the cheaper laptops (desktops too) that have issues running Vista as it should. The laptop I'm on now has an Intel T2080, integrated Intel graphics and 2GB of RAM running Vista Home Premium 32-bit. Now while I haven't tried XP on it, I haven't felt compelled to bother trying... everything runs nicely enough. Even though it isn't a gaming laptop, it still ran WoW half decently.

(Windows Experience Index of 3.0 if you were at all curious... do you know how your laptop scored?)

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314;
Reply to Zoron

Vista. I love vista and i think its great (i don't see why people hate it so much) but you have to make sure that you have a good enough sytem to handle it. If you do get Vista get home Premium Ultimate comes with a bunch of stupid features that are pointless and no one cares about. Also sometimes Vista can cause problems in games and cause them to crash. just be wary if you don't have your hardware setup perfectly it could be a pain.

Reply to ericeagle92

my vote is for XP

Reply to softlover

Windows Vista is the MOST complicated OS I have ever used. What was simple in xp like modifying "preferences" or various "options" are so much harder to do now. U have to go in numerous menus and submenus to turn something off or on. ITS CRAZY. Im currently using vista 64 because of ram and Im playing fear2 and ra3 uprising without any problem. So if u are a gamer there is no fear some games run better on xp some on vista I dont know why (its only a couple of fps better or worse u wont even feel it). BTW vista suckes. Do as I do download pirated vista, xp, 7 and try them all.

Reply to Sulu

...because typing the name of the thing you need in the search box is *sooo* hard...

------------------------------ Being requested to remove my siggy implying some people here would receive greater personal benefit from a local Prostitute than from a new GPU in no way, shape, or form changes the aforementioned opinion.
Reply to Scotteq

He's encouraging people to download pirated software... which completely invalidates any opinion he may possess. Vista was "hard" for me for maybe a week. After that, I knew my way around. Navigating in Vista is no different than XP to me now.

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314;
Reply to Zoron

6 billion ppl on earth, maybe 2.5-3 billion are using pc, 90% of them are on windows, 70% use pirated windows, go figure. Its freakin expensive and they keep popping it every time they need money (what is essentially the same thing only eyecandy thats why vista failed and is being replaced with 7) BECAUSE IT SUCKS

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Sulu

No, they "failed" because little pirates like yourself like to download stuff for free instead of paying for it. People like you make software more expensive for the rest of us. It's funny how people steal something and then have the unmitigated gall to complain about the price of that thing. If you didn't pay for it, don't complain about the price.

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314;
Reply to Zoron

I think it depends on the spec of your PC. I have a new top end Dell PC and Vista runs like a dream but my son has an old Athlon machine and recently upgraded to Vista and its as slow as a donkey.

Vista sure does need a powerful and high end spec PC to run.

Reply to Diagnostics

Sulu wrote :

6 billion ppl on earth, maybe 2.5-3 billion are using pc, 90% of them are on windows, 70% use pirated windows, go figure. Its freakin expensive and they keep popping it every time they need money (what is essentially the same thing only eyecandy thats why vista failed and is being replaced with 7) BECAUSE IT SUCKS

As of yet, I see Windows 7 as just a Vista Service Pack release, it has yet to show me any reason to take my 3 Vista machines and upgrade them to it. And as fast as Microsoft is rushing this, I think it will be just as buggy as Vista started out being, beyond that, I don't know. It could make it a good OS, but as of yet, its more like the new AMD Phenom II, same old same old, just in a newer box. Not to be flaming, just how I see it.

Reply to Kira1010

The only reason I said Vista is because of DirectX 10 support which Microsoft (rather intelligently) made only functional on any of the new kernels (i.e. Vista or Windows 7). If DX is not really a problem for you as you are not playing the most cutting edge games, then XP any day.

Reply to Zoness

Here's some latest statistics on Gaming:

A March 2009 survey by Valve Corporation indicated that of the 36.36% of gamers running Windows Vista, 26.40% run 32-bit, 9.96% run 64-bit. 64-bit represents over one third of the Vista install base.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Message edited by rasmasyean on 04-13-2009 at 08:33:51 AM

------------------------------ Cure diseases with your unused processor power!

You can make a difference!
Folding@Home - Distributed Computing
Reply to rasmasyean

It's about addressable Ram.
XP 32 bit can only address 3 gig +-
Vista 64 bit can address 64 gig at least I believe.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to allenw1223

allenw1223 wrote :

It's about addressable Ram.
XP 32 bit can only address 3 gig +-
Vista 64 bit can address 64 gig at least I believe.

It's 2^64. But Vista still has a limit below:

It's 8000 GB.

You can only have 128GB of physical RAM, but it's 8000 GB for virtual memory for user processes and 8000 GB for kernel memory

Message edited by rasmasyean on 04-14-2009 at 12:25:16 PM

------------------------------ Cure diseases with your unused processor power!

You can make a difference!
Folding@Home - Distributed Computing
Reply to rasmasyean

Ka0skrew wrote :

Ok, so it looks like most people have slowly changed to accpeting Vista as superior as it progressed and became more stable. Is that the general consensus?
Also I've notices i nthe system builder series here at TH they use Vista 32mb - is that just for comparison reason? Any reason I should not use Vista 64?

Also, someone mentioned drivers. I know these were a problem in early vista days but is it hard to find video drivers and updates for vista 64 now?

It's about addressable Ram.
XP 32 bit can only address 3 gig +-
Vista 64 bit can address 64 gig at least I believe.

Reply to allenw1223

Two years after my original post and my favorite topic is going strong. Once again let me say a stickie post in Toms Hardware is my biggest accomplishment in life . . . I'll have to see if I can add it to my resume. Of course i kid.

For what its worth, I would like to share my experiences over the past two years and hopefully it might once again be useful to people with this same question. Currently my system dual boots with Vista and XP and I have determined that this is the best solution. I have to say I use Vista more and I usually prefer using Vista to XP--even with games. Perhaps just a personal preference.

The basic breakdown is that most modern games will work in vista just fine and after playing the game on both XP and Vista I don't notice a difference in performance. Older games usually work in vista but some times there are problems which kind of give a headache. When these come up i can almost always get the game to work in XP without problem. (this is understandable because its an older game). the breakdown of failures is small though. I would say of the games I play, about 85% work just fine in vista.

So short answer, Don't be afraid of vista, it's not bad. But if you like older games, plan on at least having a dual boot with XP just in case you cant get it to work in Vista.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to winrot

speedbird wrote :

If your building a new system then I would recommend Vista Home Premium. Windows XP will play today's games better that stands to reason, but tomorrows games will be a different story specially when DX10 games go mainstream.

I would NEVER recommend vista home premium, if you are upgrading to vista or just want to upgrade to vista, buy the ultimate edition. You'll thank me later.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to virtual-slay3r

virtual-slay3r wrote :

I would NEVER recommend vista home premium, if you are upgrading to vista or just want to upgrade to vista, buy the ultimate edition. You'll thank me later.

WHY?

Reply to Milos-stancene

winrot wrote :

Two years after my original post and my favorite topic is going strong. Once again let me say a stickie post in Toms Hardware is my biggest accomplishment in life . . . I'll have to see if I can add it to my resume. Of course i kid.

For what its worth, I would like to share my experiences over the past two years and hopefully it might once again be useful to people with this same question. Currently my system dual boots with Vista and XP and I have determined that this is the best solution. I have to say I use Vista more and I usually prefer using Vista to XP--even with games. Perhaps just a personal preference.

The basic breakdown is that most modern games will work in vista just fine and after playing the game on both XP and Vista I don't notice a difference in performance. Older games usually work in vista but some times there are problems which kind of give a headache. When these come up i can almost always get the game to work in XP without problem. (this is understandable because its an older game). the breakdown of failures is small though. I would say of the games I play, about 85% work just fine in vista.

So short answer, Don't be afraid of vista, it's not bad. But if you like older games, plan on at least having a dual boot with XP just in case you cant get it to work in Vista.

Congratulations on your accomplishment! And good luck job hunting these day! hehe.

Yeah, this question (not just for gaming) comes up all the time all over the place. It's a pitty people don't do a bit of searching before posting. But it helps when you sticky something like this and I'm sure it eliminated over a hundred repeat threads.

Message edited by rasmasyean on 05-08-2009 at 06:47:19 AM

------------------------------ Cure diseases with your unused processor power!

You can make a difference!
Folding@Home - Distributed Computing
Reply to rasmasyean

windows xp is faster os than windows vista, but if you choose xp you wouldnt have dx10 and many issues with new games that require windows vista.

Reply to gregdais

Apparently, someone didn't read the thread. The difference between the two is NEGLIGABLE. Windows XP wins some, Vista wins others... but the difference is usually less than 10%. In other words, not worth mentioning. You're always better off getting the latest OS possible... especially when the old one doesn't run any better on your hardware.

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314;
Reply to Zoron

HP, Lenovo, DELL and Sony Windows 7 Upgrade program
Upgrade windows 7 program is no good, when you buy a new computer from HP, Lenovo, DELL and Sony, you will get quick recovery copy, for example: if you replaced the hard drive to new or you have a super virus or more, you can put the recovery media in DVD drive restart the computer, after up to 30 minutes you have a new system and all drivers include service programs is installed, fast and easy, but if you have an Upgrade of windows 7 and you replaced the hard drive to new or you have a super virus or more, you start with recovery of windows vista up to 30 minutes then you continue to windows 7 Upgrade up to 60 minutes (Upgrade needed a lot of time), then you needed to install new drivers (only if you have a problem), how needs it had pain, all computers have needs to reinstall the windows at least of minimum one time in a year for maximum preferment (depend of computer work burden), so fest recovery it is up to 30 minutes and Upgrade recovery it is up to 90, and you cannot go to drink a café you must replace the DVD and more, windows back up is not good because it is work whit windows original DVD only not the recovery DVD, so the best thing to do is do not buy a new computer or windows vista (windows vista is true garbage ) and wait to 22 of October, or if Microsoft is to consider to release the windows 7 only on OEM computers like HP, Lenovo, DELL and Sony for little early like on 22 of September, so do it please because no vista and no Upgrade for work it, your old computer yes can hold one or two months more, if not go for XP or Linux for two months .

Reply to abc_1

I say Vista, right now. But just wait for Windows 7, it is probably a bit better for gaming than both of them.

Reply to Kommandant45

Vista

Reply to kyleplum_46

Vista is a POS. There are numerous hardware and drivers that aren't supported by Vista as Mikey$oft decided not to and the fact many computer companies decided to have downgrade-to-XP options just proves that Vista is totally useless unless you HAVE TO use Windows only and it has to be 64-bit. There really isn't any other reason to use it.

You could wait for 7 if you need Winblows but then it's only a 'modded' Vista so it might be better and at least, it is not Vista exactly.

Reply to Canuck1

Many companies just barely completed migrating to XP... so of course they aren't going to be migrating to Vista any time soon. This is no indication of the quality of the OS... that's just how business moves when it comes to integrating new software. Platforms go through years of development and testing before they deployed in the field. Using that to say Vista is bad means your opinion is grossly uninformed.

How old is this hardware that isn't supported? Five years? Ten years? Yeah, I thought so. Just because your printer or scanner or whatever hasn't died in 15 years doesn't mean you should expect to see drivers for every new OS on the market for it.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314;
Reply to Zoron

Zoron wrote :

Many companies just barely completed migrating to XP... so of course they aren't going to be migrating to Vista any time soon. This is no indication of the quality of the OS... that's just how business moves when it comes to integrating new software. Platforms go through years of development and testing before they deployed in the field. Using that to say Vista is bad means your opinion is grossly uninformed.

How old is this hardware that isn't supported? Five years? Ten years? Yeah, I thought so. Just because your printer or scanner or whatever hasn't died in 15 years doesn't mean you should expect to see drivers for every new OS on the market for it.

The US Army is scheduled to complete Vista (and Office 2007) migration of 744,000 desktops by the end of 2009.

http://infosecurity.us/?p=8805

Message edited by rasmasyean on 07-31-2009 at 02:21:58 AM

------------------------------ Cure diseases with your unused processor power!

You can make a difference!
Folding@Home - Distributed Computing
Reply to rasmasyean

Update on gamer survey.

A July 2009 survey by Valve Corporation indicated that 43.37% of gamers are running Windows Vista or Windows 7 beta (36.62% of which are 64-bit versions).[92]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista

------------------------------ Cure diseases with your unused processor power!

You can make a difference!
Folding@Home - Distributed Computing
Reply to rasmasyean

Vista experience turns into consumer nightmare to me. I do not want to explore the wonders of the Sidebar, don't care about a raft of "cool" new applets, and don't know a user account control from a spreadsheet.

Reply to stephny

Then by all means stay mired in the past. Change happens... you either adapt or get left behind... one of the laws of nature.

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314;
Reply to Zoron

neither NEITHER

personaly.....i would wait until windows 7 comes out in oct.....xp is old and vvista has bugs but 7 is perfect

Reply to n00b109

...not to mention this thread is a couple years old...

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Being requested to remove my siggy implying some people here would receive greater personal benefit from a local Prostitute than from a new GPU in no way, shape, or form changes the aforementioned opinion.
Reply to Scotteq

Scotteq wrote :

...not to mention this thread is a couple years old...

Yeah, XP is pretty much out of the question.

There should be a new one that is titled: New Gaming Computer, Vista or wait for 7?

------------------------------ Cure diseases with your unused processor power!

You can make a difference!
Folding@Home - Distributed Computing
Reply to rasmasyean

Why not dual boot? i agree xp is soo much better than vista but it doesn't have direct x 10. it may not be much of a leap from direct x 9 but it is better when it comes to quality gaming.

Reply to expensive gamer

If your looking into something pretty powerful, then you might want to take the the higher graphical capabilities that vista allows through DirectX10. If your looking for less headaches, then xp.

Reply to SlapHappyJesus

winrot wrote :

Hey folks. I could really use some advice. I am making a new gaming computer. (And really, I am mostly using it for gaming and music). I have to purchase a new OS anyway, should I upgrade to Vista or Stick with XP. Is DX 10 the must have for future games?

If I go with Vista, What version should I get. Do I need Ultimate or will Home premium do?

If I do get Vista what prices are reasonable? Are there any downsides to OEM versions?

Thanks for the help.

vista premium. no less, if to go for xp, go for pro, no less. you WILL have a little machine going less than those versions. I have had all of them...

the hardware, if to buy new is all larger, but if to go for older, be sure at least 1mb l2 cache in the cpu, and the 8x agp, the rest is history. :hello:

Reply to bgd73

Become a fan

New Gaming Computer. Vista or XP? - Page 5

Forum Windows Vista : Vista General Discussion - New Gaming Computer. Vista or XP?