XP or Vista for a gamer?

R

runev

n00b
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
26
I've got this cheap family-like computer set up, which will probably be mostly used for some Office activity and most of all, games.

It's a IntelCore2Duo 2.33Ghz, with 2GB RAM, and a cheap GeForce 8500GT.

I've got a copy of both XP from older times, and Vista Home Premium, which i use on my laptop. But not sure which to install, as Vista seems to be quite slow on my laptop compared to what XP might be.

Any ideas why i shouldn't go Vista and install XP instead, or vica versa?
 
If you play older games, you might want to stick to XP. If you play more recent games, Vista should be fine.
 
I'd say quite the opposite. XP can do everything Vista can from a productivity standpoint, but Vista is better for gaming because it's the only way to run games in DX10.

Now the 8500GT is far to weak to really take advantage of DX10, but going forward, the point stands.
 
Dural said:
I'd say quite the opposite. XP can do everything Vista can from a productivity standpoint, but Vista is better for gaming because it's the only way to run games in DX10.

Now the 8500GT is far to weak to really take advantage of DX10, but going forward, the point stands.
Click to expand...

Id rather have games that run right then....no games that use DX10 really. Maybe in a year or two it will be no-brainer for Vista but for now I disagree.
 
I run Vista and I do a lot of gaming, I wouldn't go back to XP.
 
performance keeps getting closer between the two. you really can't go wrong with either now IMO. SP1 isn't that far off, you can always wait til then.
 
In the context of the 8500GT, it has to be XP. That card is not nearly powerful enough to benefit from its DX10 capabilities. You're going to need every FPS you can get hold of and that means XP.
 
I was actually surprised reading a couple BioShock reviews that the Vista version ran just as well as XP. I think the recent fixes in Vista and the newer drivers have really helped.

I'm going to give it a shot soon too I think.
 
The fact of the somewhat underpowered graphics card is NOT reason for choosing XP over Vista. The choice should be made in accordance with the topic poster's desires.

runev, how much RAM is in that laptop? If it is 1Gb or less then that'd explain the 'slowness'. A Core2Duo rig equipped with 2Gb RAM and an 8500GT graphics card should easily enough handle whatever gaming the display card is capable of handling, irrespective of whether you use XP or Vista.

In your situation I'd be using Vista on the gaming rig, and XP on the slower laptop. I'd only be reverting back to XP on the gaming rig if it turned out that a particular 'favourite older game' proved to be completely and utterly incompatible with Vista, and I was unwilling to discontinue using it.

And even in that cirsumstance I'd be installing XP as a dual-boot, rather than as a replacement for Vista ;)
 
I came across that too and I completely agree. Once I check that all my apps will run I'll be set.
 
For right now, both comes to mind as the best answer. Some of the great games coming out right now are going to be vista only.

In the long run, it pays to have been using vista for a while, so you're more familiar with it's quirks.
 
Cirkustanz said:
In the long run, it pays to have been using vista for a while, so you're more familiar with it's quirks.
Click to expand...

That's the real reason it's a better choice to bung Vista on a capable rig rather than XP. Sooner or later you're going to be using it anyway, there's no real reason not to use it now, because the 'performance' issues have been basically overcome, so you might as well install and use it and get the 'learning curve' behind you now rather than later.
 
Monkey God said:
If its primarily going to be used for games, go XP
Click to expand...
Oh how I tire of blanket statements such as these.

The fact of the matter is- nobody on a forum can tell you what OS to go with. End of story.
Statements such as the above are just ridiculous.

YOU need to decide if it is right for you.
The main question is compatibility. Does your hardware work? From what I can see it will. You also need to research what applications/games you use, and see if they work on Vista. If not, chances are you might have to go download the Vista version (if you upgrade). If you are finding problems on forums around the internet, check to see if they are easily solved, or if there are patches out there that fix the problem. I would venture to say 95% of the time you can find a solution to it. It's just that most people are either too lazy to find a fix, or throw the towel in and gripe about it (the end result being more time spent complaining vs. finding and applying the fix that worked!)


Cirkustanz said:
In the long run, it pays to have been using vista for a while, so you're more familiar with it's quirks.
Click to expand...
Exactly. What would be better? Familiarize yourself with the OS and its ways NOW?
Or... be forced into it when company XXX stops supporting your app, or your company requires software XXX to run, and it only supports Vista? All of a sudden you have this new system thrown at you, and you have very little experience with it!



The bottom line, general statement of gaming and Vista:
Most games out there were designed to run on XP. Hence there were initial problems. Most of which have been solved. There are some valid reports of slower FPS on Vista, but these amounts are so small that tools were required to measure it (A human cannot tell the difference in FPS), or there is no difference at all! Some folks actually report improved FPS in Vista.
Most people are having no problems whatsoever with Vista and gaming. I would say the #1 key is doing your research ahead of time.
 
I have more games installed now with vista then I did with xp no complaints here cept for some of the annoying run as admin things
 
So this whole Xp-Vista battle is over the fact that -older- games run better?
if thats the case why ever upgrade anything because you know that Game A
is from the 90's and runs just fine on______(incert circa 1990 processor)and on (Windows 98)



...GO VISTA.....
 
Xoidie said:
So this whole Xp-Vista battle is over the fact that -older- games run better?
Click to expand...

Nope. Not even that.

I've seen games (older or newer) to run just as well since some fairly early display driver revisions. On Nvidia cards I've been able to achieve playability under Vista without reducing any of the graphics detail settings I'd use under XP.

This " whole Xp-Vista battle" is over small differences in benchmark test result, which a lot of people don't seem to understand won't really have any impact on the gaming itself ;)
 
Catweazle said:
This " whole Xp-Vista battle" is over small differences in benchmark test result, which a lot of people don't seem to understand won't really have any impact on the gaming itself ;)
Click to expand...

Originally I would have to say kinda, but not exactly. Even as a Vista lover I would have to admit as much. Now on the other hand? Yeah pretty much what he said :p

I haven't noticed any performance differences between XP and Vista lately. So much so that I think I am finally going to do away with my XP on this rig. Honestly I haven't booted into it except to test config settings and see in months and haven't even booted into it at all in a week or two.
 
zacdl said:
Oh how I tire of blanket statements such as these.

The fact of the matter is- nobody on a forum can tell you what OS to go with. End of story.
Statements such as the above are just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
He asked for opinions and some people provided one. Who the hell are you to tell people their opinion is worthless? Piss off.

Most people are having no problems whatsoever with Vista and gaming. I would say the #1 key is doing your research ahead of time.
Click to expand...
Most is not all, but sure people should do their own research and make up their own minds, but that doesn't mean other peoples opinions have no value. ESPECIALLY when directly asked for. Get off your high horse.
 
For gaming XP is better IMO. This article confirms that too.

http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_110a.html
OS Shootout 2007:
Windows XP Professional vs. Windows Vista Ultimate

I have run Vista64 and have Vista32 installed currently but for gaming I still use XP almost exclusively. I have about 80 games installed on my XP box and only 2 in Vista. If frame rate is important to you then you will choose XP for gaming.
 
^^ and many other arcticles, recent show that VISTA is quickly catching up and the diff between XP and Vista s getting smaller and smaller every day and for most the difference right now is too small to claim vista is no good for gaming.


Also i think i am going to trust a hardware site over "simhq" for reviews, especially whe they give no info on AA/AF, what settings in control panels, NOTHING, that is a joke of a review.
 
It's not a review, it's a comparison and John Reynolds knows WTF he is talking about. How is enabling FSAA on Vista going to make it run faster than XP? Get real, dude. I don't buy top end video cards to have them hobbled by the OS. What's a joke is all the BS about how Microsoft claimed DX10 would make games run faster. So far the opposite is true with little graphics quality difference. In fact, Call of Juarez over does the HDR lighting in the DX10 version and makes it look too contrasty. No, the sky is not full of burned out whites when I look outside my window.
 
If your on this forum then we have to assume you know what your doing, or at least I choose to make the assumption. Dual boot XP and Vista 64 is what I would do if I were you. Now granted I have not booted in Vista in 4 months except to test bioshock but at least its ready for SP1 and for games that will require DX10 when they come out.

For now though I boot to XP, all the games I have run great and I installed bioshock in Vista and XP and since they looked the same to me I decided to run it in XP. So Vista is still on the shelf for me.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Also i think i am going to trust a hardware site over "simhq" for reviews, especially whe they give no info on AA/AF, what settings in control panels, NOTHING, that is a joke of a review.
Click to expand...

Not only did he not give specifics on that- he didn't even give needing article-writing nessesities, like a date!

I could produce the results he did in a complete 180 direction, with the lack of data given. I could even "prove" Linux is better for gaming :)
 
Dural said:
I'd say quite the opposite. XP can do everything Vista can from a productivity standpoint, but Vista is better for gaming because it's the only way to run games in DX10.

Now the 8500GT is far to weak to really take advantage of DX10, but going forward, the point stands.
Click to expand...

I do believe DX10 will work with XP, ill lok for the links

S!

sorry, there is a working preview ...that is all :(
http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp-from-alky-project/
 
I think right now vista is popular with people but still I like the xp for game.
 
zacdl said:
I could produce the results he did in a complete 180 direction, with the lack of data given.
Click to expand...

Put your money where your mouth is then. There are plenty of articles on the internet comparing gaming performance of Vista to XP and XP wins every time. I just happened to post the latest I came across and because it uses games I actually own. Once again, why would I pay big bucks for a top end video card and then hobble the performance with Vista as the gaming OS? That seems quite a stupid thing to do to me.
 
It's quite simple, really.
An OS has no effect whatsoever on the physical speed of the hardware. Any difference in performance all lies purely in the software/drivers.
Windows Vista uses a new driver model for DX10, and has to emulate DX9 on these drivers, which means it will always have to do more work than Windows XP. So Vista will probably never be faster than XP with DX9.
This work is all done on the CPU ofcourse, so as CPUs get faster, the difference gets smaller.
Also, both Microsoft and nVidia/AMD are working hard at closing the gap by optimizing the drivers and the DX9 emulation layer. They have come a long way.

By carefully selecting these two factors, one can either prove that XP is *much* faster than Vista, simply by not using the latest drivers and hotfixes for Vista, and running it on a relatively slow CPU (at low resolutions and low quality, to emphasize the CPU-bottleneck).
On the other hand, one could take a very fast CPU, and an up-to-date Vista to show that there is little difference.

But this is the story for DX9 only. With DX10, it's different. Firstly, Vista does *not* have to emulate anything to run DX10, so the performance will be better than DX9. In fact, the DX10 driver model was specifically designed to reduce the CPU overhead that has been bottlenecking high-end GPUs for a while now. This means that DX10 games will probably run faster in DX10 than in DX9, given the same graphics quality settings (and DX10 probably adds extra quality and effects not available in DX9 at all). And lastly, there *is* no DX10 support for XP, so you simply cannot run games in their full DX10 glory...

So my conclusion on XP vs Vista for games is this:
- For DX9 games, XP is better, and will probably never be surpassed by Vista.
- On a fast system with up-to-date drivers and hardware, Vista can now run DX9 games nearly as well as XP, so it's not like you *have* to run these games in XP. For especially older DX9-titles (eg Far Cry or Half-Life 2), the difference is mostly theoretical.
- For DX10 it's no contest. DX10 games will probably run as fast or faster than the DX9 equivalent, even on XP... and in XP you won't be able to use the DX10-only graphical effects and features.

On a side note... the DX10 emulation layer for XP? I have developed quite a bit of OpenGL and DirectX code in the past, and an currently working on a DX10 engine myself... so I have a reasonable idea of the task at hand. I think it's not going to happen. It will take a long time to get the full functionality working at a good enough level to actually run the latest games. We're probably talking 2 years or more. By then the point is just moot. Even if they do get it to run on XP, there no longer is a reason. By then Vista is mature enough that most people will probably have switched to Vista already. By then people will also be playing a lot of DX10 games, and DX9 performance in Vista will not be an issue anymore (if it even is today). And the hardware will also be more powerful, so the difference in hardware requirements between XP and Vista will fade away.
On top of that, even if they do get DX10 running on XP, it will suffer the same problem that DX9 suffers on Vista now: the extra emulation layer takes CPU overhead, which degrades performance.
 
Scali2 said:
We're probably talking 2 years or more. By then the point is just moot. Even if they do get it to run on XP, there no longer is a reason. By then Vista is mature enough that most people will probably have switched to Vista already.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out that Vista still needs 1-2 years to mature enough to be a viable option for all-round work. :)

DX10 isn't all that it was supposed to be. It's actually downright disappointing. I'm much more blown away from the new engines produced at DX9. DX10 was and is a huge bubble that has burst in anyones but the biggest fanbois eyes (or the ones who shelled $x00 for a buggy green box).
 
VISTA has gotten alot better than when it first came out
the performance is almost equal plus it has DX10 which you will need here very soon
 
milkweg said:
Put your money where your mouth is then. There are plenty of articles on the internet comparing gaming performance of Vista to XP and XP wins every time. I just happened to post the latest I came across and because it uses games I actually own. Once again, why would I pay big bucks for a top end video card and then hobble the performance with Vista as the gaming OS? That seems quite a stupid thing to do to me.
Click to expand...


Because all of the reviews i have seen recently - dont show this apparent "horrible" gaming performance any more, that games are with in a few FPS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top