PDA

View Full Version : Vista - Gamer heaven or gamer hell?


DarthMaulUK
08-19-2007, 03:36 AM
Vista has been around along time now and Microsoft keep telling us how good for gaming Vista is. Or is it? With millions experiencing various crash issues and alot of Vista only bugs combined with the fact that Vista refuses to play certain games, is it really the operating system promised for gamers?

Sabretooth
08-19-2007, 10:37 AM
I don't have Vista, but I don't think Vista has anything uber-cool other than DirectX 10. Am I wrong, Vista-lubbers?

urluckyday
08-19-2007, 04:11 PM
lol..I'm just waiting for the flame war to start. Honestly, Vista is no better or worse than XP for gaming. People just can be stupid that they don't try several things before deciding "Vista Sucks for Gaming!"
Okay, so who's the Mac user who's gonna start bashing Microsoft?

Let the flame wars begin...

The Source
08-19-2007, 05:16 PM
When I upgraded from Win98/ME to WinXP, there were several games that didn't make the transition. I think this is just the result from evolving technology and software. So, I kind of except this as beeing normal. It would be nice for game companies to update their files, so people can download a patch for the next software generation. Eventually, technology will allow gammers to return to Vista.

Kurgan
08-19-2007, 06:00 PM
Two things I need for gaming: computer power and money.

Vista costs money = less money for games

Vista uses higher processing power and system resources = less for games

Now true, you say, new games require greater computers than older games, but if I have the same computer running an older OS that uses less system power, that means more power for the games, and more money left over from not having purchased Vista to run them!

Any M$ OS is not going to be worth getting early because you know service packs are coming and so forth, so over time it will be less painful to use. But I sympathize with the newbie computer users who are forced to get Vista with a new PC. :P

I'm going to hold onto my copy of Win2kpro and linux as long as I can!

M$ and so many other companies seem to be doing all they can to shoot PC gaming in the foot anymore... but then when they price their consoles so high and they have technical problems, you figure you might as well just go the extra mile and get a decent PC. At least you've got thousands of titles from the past to run...

Jeff
08-19-2007, 06:08 PM
I don't have Vista and I don't plan on upgrading until I really have to. I run XP home and Linux and I'm happy with my setup. I'd probably have to upgrade my PC if I got Vista anyway so theres even more money for what many tell me is a crappy OS. Maybe when SP1 or 2 comes out I'll give it a try.

The Source
08-19-2007, 06:14 PM
Two things I need for gaming: computer power and money.

Vista costs money = less money for games

Vista uses higher processing power and system resources = less for games

Now true, you say, new games require greater computers than older games, but if I have the same computer running an older OS that uses less system power, that means more power for the games, and more money left over from not having purchased Vista to run them!

Any M$ OS is not going to be worth getting early because you know service packs are coming and so forth, so over time it will be less painful to use. But I sympathize with the newbie computer users who are forced to get Vista with a new PC. :P

I'm going to hold onto my copy of Win2kpro and linux as long as I can!

M$ and so many other companies seem to be doing all they can to shoot PC gaming in the foot anymore... but then when they price their consoles so high and they have technical problems, you figure you might as well just go the extra mile and get a decent PC. At least you've got thousands of titles from the past to run...
Very nicely said. I think you won me over a little. Your logic is very truthful and wise. A few days ago, I walked into a Best Buy. I wanted to compare my latest PC with the latest technologies. Even though I bought my PC in March, the RAM limit was surprisingly low ended. What I found out was that the latest computers can go upto 8 Gig of RAM. Within a three months period of time, PC have evolved almost double their RAM rate. Since Vista uses a good Gig and a half to run, I think this was a great move by the PC companies. Now, there will be plenty of RAM for gamming. I kind of consider "Vista" as a "Millenium 2" release. I don't think it will be the definitive version, which everyone will purchase within the next few years. I think consumers will push Microsoft into releasing a "Windows XP 2". Hopefully, they will return to "XP"'s way of controlling RAM. More RAM for games, utilities, and software.

Even though I bought a PC in Q1, I will buy a more Vista capable one in October.

Negative Sun
08-19-2007, 06:50 PM
There have been motherboards capable of 8Gb of RAM out there for longer than three months pal, XP doesn't "control" RAM any better, it just uses less, plain and simple...

Just to line it out for some people out there, I'll use some specs to illustrate my point:

- Vista Premium's minimum requirements AFAIK:
*CPU: 1.0Ghz
*Memory: 1Gb RAM
*GPU: DirectX 9 capable GPU with Hardware Pixel Shader v2.0 and WDDM 1.0 driver support
*Graphics memory: 128 MB RAM supports up to 2,756,000 total pixels (e.g. 1920 1200) or 512 MB+ for greater resolutions such as 2560x1600
*HDD: 40Gb min, with 15Gb free space
*DVD-ROM essential

- Windows XP's recommended requirements AFAIK:
*CPU: 300Mhz
*Memory: 128Mb RAM
*GPU: Super VGA capable
*HDD: 1.5 Gb free space
*CD-ROM essential

Now let me ask you this, who uses a dinosaur PC like that to run XP?
My PC is about 3-4 years old and my CPU is 1.9Ghz, and I run 768Mb of RAM with an Nvidia GeForce 4 MX4k

To get about the same comparison to run Vista, you should have a PC that does about this:
*CPU: 6Ghz
*Memory: 6Gb RAM
*GPU: Probably an SLI 8800 GTX setup or something

Anyways, catch my drift?
The problem lies not with Vista as an OS, but in the hardware and drivers we all like to play on/with, don't blame MS, Vista is a beauty of an OS IMO, it just needs the hardware to back it up, and atm only a select few can afford that...The problem lies with people trying to run Vista on PCs they were running XP on and expect the same performance from it...Gee Sherlock, whaddaya know, Vista doesn't run as smoothly!
Suppliers are being stupid ****s as well since they try to slap Vista on a PC that barely meets the minimum specs most of the time (the compromise is usually made in the GPU department, which is something Vista desperately needs to run Aero and such)

So give Vista a break already, it kicks the **** out of XP with the necessary hardware, and I haven't even begun to speak about DX10 yet

*waits for Astro to enter this thread*

The Source
08-19-2007, 07:17 PM
^^^^
You make it sound like I have installed "Vista" on an old computer. Lol... I bought a computer with "Vista" on it.

Your forum name really does reflect your attitude. Lol.. Just kidding man. Since I haven't been paying attenion pal, I didn't realize that computers were capable of 8 Gig for longer than three months. I think it was a necessary step, so people can utilize the latest programs in "Vista". Adobe Photoshop CS3 is a RAM guzzler, and I will need more than just 3 Gig.

Overall, you do touch upon some good points. Its just a matter of time when outside technology and software companies catch on.

urluckyday
08-19-2007, 07:43 PM
I honestly am waiting for SP1 just b/c that's what I did w/ XP (maybe even SP2), so I'm not gonna worry bout it for the time being...but no matter what...I was able to get Grim Fandango working on XP, so I'll be dual booting my comp w/ XP and Vista when I make my own.

The Source
08-19-2007, 08:19 PM
I honestly am waiting for SP1 just b/c that's what I did w/ XP (maybe even SP2), so I'm not gonna worry bout it for the time being...but no matter what...I was able to get Grim Fandango working on XP, so I'll be dual booting my comp w/ XP and Vista when I make my own.
I managed to get the following working:
Adobe CS 2.0
KotOR I
Tom Clancey (Rainbow Six: Raven Sheild & Athena's Arrow)
Microsoft Office 2003
Ghost Recon II - Advanced
Starfleet Command III
Star Wars Battle Front

Fish.Stapler
08-19-2007, 08:37 PM
Don't have it yet, honestly it looks like it's not really better or worse as long as you have the proper setup. Unfortunately, that's not easy to come by...now it's a waiting game for the hardware to be out long enough to become mainstream so that the public can afford it and thus use Vista...expect the OS to change a lot when that happens.

Negative Sun
08-20-2007, 02:51 AM
^^^^
You make it sound like I have installed "Vista" on an old computer. Lol... I bought a computer with "Vista" on it.
That was my point as well if you read my post carefully...Manufacturers are selling PCs with Vista on it while that system barely meets the minimum requirements in some fields (I've seen Vista Premium PCs being advertised with only 1Gb of RAM and onboard graphics for crying out loud!)

My point is, the mid-end systems that are being sold nowadays make XP fly like a fighter jet, but to run Vista you'll be going in a steam train, especially if you want to run RAM or graphics intensive programs with a PC like I mentioned above...I would stick with XP to run Photoshop tbh, unless you can afford 4Gb or more RAM...(though Vista does claim to have that readyboost technology for flash sticks, but I don't know what it does performance wise, maybe someone can help me out here?)

Just to lay it out flat, I made that comparison to show that what we run on XP now, is about 7 to 8 times the recommended amount of RAM (if you count 1Gb), if you wanted Vista to act the same, you would have to have about 8Gb RAM installed om your rig...

DarthMaulUK
08-20-2007, 03:45 AM
Anyways, catch my drift?
The problem lies not with Vista as an OS, but in the hardware and drivers we all like to play on/with, don't blame MS, Vista is a beauty of an OS IMO, it just needs the hardware to back it up, and atm only a select few can afford that...The problem lies with people trying to run Vista on PCs they were running XP on and expect the same performance from it...Gee Sherlock, whaddaya know, Vista doesn't run as smoothly!
Suppliers are being stupid ****s as well since they try to slap Vista on a PC that barely meets the minimum specs most of the time (the compromise is usually made in the GPU department, which is something Vista desperately needs to run Aero and such)

So give Vista a break already, it kicks the **** out of XP with the necessary hardware, and I haven't even begun to speak about DX10 yet

*waits for Astro to enter this thread*

I did give Vista a chance and I did upgrade my PC to handle it, above and beyond the requirements. But when simple programs have different errors, thanks to so called updates and games that were only released last year, fail to work now as Vista throws its traditional fit, gives the impression that Vista clearly FAILS as a true gaming platform.

Vista has too many issues still and needs that SP1 FAST!

ChAiNz.2da
08-20-2007, 11:48 AM
Okay, so who's the Mac user who's gonna start bashing Microsoft?
* raises hand, notices he's vastly outnumbered... slowly lowers hand * :ninja2:

Don't have Vista yet, but I'm running XP Pro on my (yes) dual-boot Mac. Until a DirectX 10 game that I actually want gets released, there's no pressing reason for me to get it. It's sad to that I'm having to wait for a game for an OS release :rolleyes:

XP Pro does all the other stuff I need just fine... and if it doesn't, well OSX does (and probably did it 3 years before Windows ever did.. booya! hehehe) :lol:

Negative Sun
08-20-2007, 05:51 PM
I did give Vista a chance and I did upgrade my PC to handle it, above and beyond the requirements. But when simple programs have different errors, thanks to so called updates and games that were only released last year, fail to work now as Vista throws its traditional fit, gives the impression that Vista clearly FAILS as a true gaming platform.

Vista has too many issues still and needs that SP1 FAST!
As was pointed out by one of our fellow board members in another thread, there is no way MS can make Vista compatible with everything that was released beforehand, it is the devs' responsibility to release drivers for Vista, not vice versa...

I fail to see how it doesn't live up as a true gaming platform, it's the next-gen of PC gaming, and it stands about where the PS3 stands in the console market, it's a great achievement, but maybe a bit ahead of its time...You can't judge Vista as a DX9 gamers platform because that's not what it's designed for, just like the PS3 isn't designed to play PS2 games.
And we have yet to see the first DX10 games rollout to let us see what Vista can really do with DX10 gaming and PC gaming of the future...

Just out of curiosity, what version of Vista were you using and what specs did the PC have? (roughly, I don't need an in-depth analysis ;))

stoffe
08-20-2007, 06:59 PM
I fail to see how it doesn't live up as a true gaming platform, it's the next-gen of PC gaming

Gaming is not just about the future or what just was released though, really great games can have a significant lifespan. Some older classic games are still worth re-playing every now and then more than a decade after they were released. Being able to do so is just as important as being able to play the latest and the greatest to me. Most of the companies that made these venerable games no longer exists, so the chances of any "Vista compatibility patches" being released are pretty much non-existent.

PoM
08-20-2007, 09:50 PM
I pick heaven.
The poll needs less extreme options though.

Negative Sun
08-21-2007, 02:55 AM
Gaming is not just about the future or what just was released though, really great games can have a significant lifespan. Some older classic games are still worth re-playing every now and then more than a decade after they were released. Being able to do so is just as important as being able to play the latest and the greatest to me. Most of the companies that made these venerable games no longer exists, so the chances of any "Vista compatibility patches" being released are pretty much non-existent.
But isn't it the same for XP though? A lot of people have problems playing Win95/98 games (or older) on XP as well...Some techies have already begun to make an XP emulator for Vista, just as there are countless of emulators for different consoles and OSs for XP already, but they didn't sprout overnight did they? ;)
It's up to the community to take care of that, and I've no doubt whatsoever that it will all be done in due time.
Besides, why should Vista play dinosaur games anyways? Isn't that a bit overkill? Just dust off your old Pentium II compy and roll it on that...

GeneralPloKoon
08-22-2007, 07:36 PM
I have Vista but not that many games, only a few problems that can be easily fixed. But I like it! Its really cool!

stingerhs
08-23-2007, 12:33 PM
well, i've been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit for over 3 months now, and i can honestly say that i've had relatively few problems running anything on this OS. for gaming, DX10 is finally here in the form of BioShock (which looks fantastic), and it runs very well.

so, i think the upgrade to Vista was well worth it. the only problem i've had is driver related with Nvidia, but those problems are pretty minor.

i think the biggest problem with Vista is that there is too many people out there that want to make assumptions and stick by those assumptions like it was the word of God. yes, there have been a lot of driver issues during the first couple months, but most of those have been resolved by now. most games work very well with Vista with a couple of exceptions. the problem is that people hear about the exceptions more than they hear about the successes. the truth of the matter is that too many people are listening to people that don't know any better and they aren't listening to the people that do know better.

anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter.

Negative Sun
08-23-2007, 04:39 PM
Yes, listen to stingerhs you must!

I'm still jealous of you pal...

Do you find that the 64-bit version is better (gaming and otherwise) than the 32-bit version?

jawathehutt
08-23-2007, 08:04 PM
I'm not getting vista until GFW is seriously changed or removed.

vader815
08-23-2007, 08:58 PM
i personally dont like it when people start dissin vista with gaming because they decided to upgrade the OS instead of doing a fresh install. even the most basic research (which i bet few people do) will tell you that if you are planning to use vista, or any OS, for gaming, not to upgrade from your old OS and do a clean install. next many people don't have vista premium systems to run vista. anyone, for starters, who uses less than 1gb of RAM should except problems from the start.

The Source
08-25-2007, 10:55 AM
At this point in the game, I think its all about timming. Since I bought my PC at the beginning of "Vista's" release, I'm probally going to have to buy another computer soon. I have plans on buy a 8 Gig system. I think only having a 4 Gig system will hinder any type of progression. Since I use a lot of graphic design programs, I will need all the memory I can get while running Vista.

"It is what it is."

Ctrl Alt Del
08-25-2007, 01:58 PM
I'll get Vista, perhaps, along of a quad-core processor.

MacTavish
08-25-2007, 05:50 PM
I say it's both. I wish they could have made Vista compatible with ALL videogames made before it, instead of having to download patches and other stuff for only SOME of the games to work.

But, Vista's Windows Media Center is very good.

grievous797
08-25-2007, 05:52 PM
Utter hell, maybe it wont be a living digital hellhole once the newer version comes out.WITHOUT bugs.

Negative Sun
08-25-2007, 08:01 PM
I say it's both. I wish they could have made Vista compatible with ALL videogames made before it, instead of having to download patches and other stuff for only SOME of the games to work.
lolz then Vista's release would have been pushed back to about 2050 me thinks...
Why is this so hard to understand? Games that were released before Vista were optimized for XP, so if you want to play that game in Vista it's at your own "risk", it's not MS's responsibility to make sure it is compatible with everything out there, that's just unreasonable and rather stupid if you ask me...
Don't blame Vista for it, blame developers f the games you like to play for not bringing Vista patches to us.


Utter hell, maybe it wont be a living digital hellhole once the newer version comes out.WITHOUT bugs.
What kind of "bugs" does it have?

swphreak
08-26-2007, 02:33 PM
I don't plan on getting Vista until it gets shoved down my throat. Luckily, I got this desktop with XP Pro before OEMs started phasing out it out.

Orzo17
08-27-2007, 12:39 PM
uhm....haven't got it.I'm actually thinking of getting a pc that can support vista,for all the games that are labelled "Next-gen",or "Only for Vista",but then again,I don't have the time for gaming anymore,.Think,i'll wait at least an year.

stingerhs
08-27-2007, 06:53 PM
Yes, listen to stingerhs you must!

I'm still jealous of you pal...

Do you find that the 64-bit version is better (gaming and otherwise) than the 32-bit version?actually, by using the same computer at work with both the x86 and x64 versions of Vista Ultimate (a duel boot, of course), i can honestly say that the x64 version runs better than the x86 version by almost 10-35% depending on the game. XP still runs games faster (approximately 5-15% better than Vista x64), but that's only because it uses less system resources.

and again, i just don't understand why people are so incredibly adamant about sticking with XP over Vista. if you're upgrading your computer, XP is more than adequate, yes, but why not Vista, particularly the x64 version?? the improvements both graphically and security wise are more than enough for someone like me (not to mention that i need to evolve with my field). with gaming, DX10 will make a difference when developers take advantage of it, and that isn't very far off from now either.

stoffe
08-27-2007, 07:00 PM
and again, i just don't understand why people are so incredibly adamant about sticking with XP over Vista. if you're upgrading your computer, XP is more than adequate, yes, but why not Vista, particularly the x64 version?? the improvements both graphically and security wise are more than enough for someone like me (not to mention that i need to evolve with my field). with gaming, DX10 will make a difference when developers take advantage of it, and that isn't very far off from now either.

In my case because there is not enough reason to go through the cost and effort to switch to Vista, while there is still plenty of reason to stick with XP (speed, compatibility, less cpu/memory intensive). Vista may have improved security, but this isn't something there is much use for on a home PC if you use common sense and are careful what you install and run. In particular since you're required to disable some of the security measures and use an admin account to get some older games and applications to work properly under Vista anyway.

Vista may have some extra pretty lights in (some) games, but that's not enough to justify the rather steep cost of Vista, and the time and effort required to make the switch. :)

If Win XP is sufficient for your needs, why get Vista? The upgrade isn't exactly free, and you can have more fun for that money instead.

Negative Sun
08-27-2007, 08:19 PM
Good point stoffe, except that in that light, is it fair to make Vista out to be the next ME?

Vista is expensive (even more so here in the UK believe you me!), and so is getting a decent system to run it on...But it was the exact same when WinXP was released, I was trying to stutter along with 256MB of RAM and an old school Radeon 9600 for Pete's sake, but now you can get that kind of system on Ebay for less than a mobile phone...

The systems sold on today's market are perfect for XP, but not for Vista, which is reserved for the hardcore gamers or devs or whatever...I find it only logical that it runs games slower than XP, because:
1) Vista is way cooler but also way more demanding on your system than XP ;)
2) I doubt anyone has forked out for an 8800Ultra or a 2900XT at this point in time, nevermind the 4GB of RAM to go with it...

Vista is optimized for DX10 games, and the recommended specs of those games would be enough to put most of our PC to shame at this point in time...So why buy a Vista system to play DX9 games I ask you?
It's unfair to judge it at this stage, which is why I find this poll a bit odd to say the least.

Q
08-28-2007, 10:50 AM
Good points, stoffe & NS.:) At this point, I really see no reason for any home user to go out of their way to upgrade to Vista if they don't have to. It's a different story if you're building or buying a new machine, though.

Still, I love this voting option: Hell - go on microsoft, go to hellI LOL'd when I first read it.:)

stingerhs
08-28-2007, 02:02 PM
my thing is this: if you are building/upgrading to a brand new computer with mid to high end hardware, why stick with XP?? i'm not saying that everybody should go run out and upgrade to Vista (quite the opposite, actually). instead, i'm saying that if you have a brand spanking new computer, why would you pick XP over Vista?? the costs are not all that much different if you go by OEM (retail versions are always overpriced), so why stick with XP??

Negative Sun
08-29-2007, 11:43 AM
I does depend what you are wanting to do on that compy though, if it's to play DX9 games and then complain that Vista sucks as a gaming OS, I would stick with XP ;)

Sigundr
09-06-2007, 03:36 PM
You just have to give it time. Everyone flamed XP when it first came out just like Vista. It'll get better in the future. Always does.

joesdomain
09-13-2007, 08:14 AM
Don't know! I still have Windows XP! I have no problems with it so far. Don't know if I will ever get Vista.

Prime
09-25-2007, 01:52 PM
my thing is this: if you are building/upgrading to a brand new computer with mid to high end hardware, why stick with XP?? i'm not saying that everybody should go run out and upgrade to Vista (quite the opposite, actually). instead, i'm saying that if you have a brand spanking new computer, why would you pick XP over Vista?? the costs are not all that much different if you go by OEM (retail versions are always overpriced), so why stick with XP??For me, and I think many others, it is because I still use older software and peripherals that are not supported by Vista. I have heard lots of reports, both first and second hand, about things that I use regularly that don't run properly or at all with Vista. For example, my printer/scanner runs great with XP and I have no problems. But I have read numerous reports about it having issues with Vista. The games I play on the PC are old, but I still play them regularly. I still play JO/JA, X-Wing Alliance, KOTOR and others "a lot" and don't plan on giving them up any time soon. There are lots of reports of these not running on Vista.

Now, many of the issues that people are having could possibly be for other reasons that could be rectified one way or another. But as it stands currently why deal with that if you don't have to? Apart from brand new games, my machine can do everything I need it to (browsing, email, older games, all teh simple stuff). So personally I would rather get a new machine with XP and know that everything I want to run on it can run on it, as opposed to getting Vista and dealing with the strong possibility that things I want to run I can't at worst or have to fiddle a lot with at best. And what does Vista provide me that I need right now? It is more appealing to me to be able to get a new machine with XP and wait for Vista to get stuff sorted out and manufacturers get up to speed with it before switching.

Am I saying Vista sucks? Not at all. Nor am I saying that these issues won't be worked out over time. But right now there is nothing about Vista that jumps out as a must-have to make the headaches something I'm willing to deal with. This is just a personal view.

On top of that, there aren't any games that I can think of off the top of my head that are on the horizon that would make me want to switch. Everything that grabs my interest (Mass Effect, Ace Combat 6, NBA 2K, Halo 3, etc.) are all console titles anyway. I am traditionally a PC gamer, and I wish it wasn't going this way, but the fact is that in the future the vast majority of gaming I do will have to be on a console. Most a pity. :(

Alegis
09-28-2007, 03:03 PM
In my case because there is not enough reason to go through the cost and effort to switch to Vista, while there is still plenty of reason to stick with XP (speed, compatibility, less cpu/memory intensive). Vista may have improved security, but this isn't something there is much use for on a home PC if you use common sense and are careful what you install and run. In particular since you're required to disable some of the security measures and use an admin account to get some older games and applications to work properly under Vista anyway.

Vista may have some extra pretty lights in (some) games, but that's not enough to justify the rather steep cost of Vista, and the time and effort required to make the switch. :)
I disagree with your misinformed opinion. I'd bother to go in very close details, but considering you haven't read much yourself either on the subject considering your prejudices I think I'll only bore you to death. Nonetheless I can try.

Everyone ready gentlemen?
Yes. It's an upgrade, and it costs money. May be an incentive for some to switch to Linux, but if you consider that's better for gaming I wish you good luck and a cup of coffee for when you wake up. Those who are students will have access to cheap upgrades, those who don't well, the home premium upgrade is $150. That is indeed quite some money. In fact, if you compare it with a chocolate bar - that's a hell of a lot of chocolate! If you compare it to other software packages (mainly applications) and the difference in a mere application and what Vista has to offer, you'll view things in a different perspective. But let's move on. "Wah, it uses so much Ram? Its worthless!" Yep, the requirements are higher, yet can be toned down to disable some extra features if you wish for it. However, RAM management is not worse. Anyways, RAM usage is one hell of a misunderstanding. It's explanation is on different places on the web, but no one bothers to actually do their research before go on ranting sprees. Hell, it's the national sport. That's why I will do it for you. Here you go. (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html) Don't like the writing style? Try another. It basically comes down to this:You have to stop thinking of system memory as a resource and start thinking of it as a a cache. Just like the level 1 and level 2 cache on your CPU, system memory is yet another type of high-speed cache that sits between your computer and the disk drive.

And the most important rule of cache design is that empty cache memory is wasted cache memory. Empty cache isn't doing you any good. It's expensive, high-speed memory sucking down power for zero benefit. The primary mission in the life of every cache is to populate itself as quickly as possible with the data that's most likely to be needed-- and to consistently deliver a high "hit rate" of needed data retrieved from the cache. Otherwise you're going straight to the hard drive, mister, and if you have to ask how much going to the hard drive will cost you in performance, you can't afford it.
It's being used for a reason. It's not wasted. Next point. Speed/Stability. I have two theories as to why people claim XP is more stable: People are used to XP's quirks after so many years They just like to rant. Pick the theory that fits you the best, as it is not less stable. Past 10 months I've had less problems than one month of XP. Only bluescreen I've ever had was with a corrupted external device. And it isn't just me, how about XP users inform themselves by asking Vista users rather than come up with reasons to consider themselves superior as XP users.
As for speed, there was one issue with copying files over networks and drives. They released a speed patch earlier, but the issue has been circumvented with SP1.

Don't get me wrong here, there is nothing wrong with you using XP. I'm not telling you should switch. I'm merely saying that this unfounded slander isn't really an intelligent way to approach things.

Vista is much more stable than XP and feature rich. The RAM clogging is nonsense.
I invite you to prove me wrong, but you'll have to do more than wishful thinking just because you want to convince yourself it isn't a better product.

Negative Sun
09-28-2007, 07:13 PM
Nice one Alegis...I was just reading about the RAM-guzzler myth today as well and it cleared up some things.

Fact still is though: when it comes to raw benchmarks and FPS scores on the exact same system, XP comes out on top hands down...But then again: Xp's minimum requirements are laughable compared to Vista's, and as such it's not exactly comparable (if you know what I mean)

XP better for games? For DX9 ones maybe, but if you want to step into the future of DX10 you will have to upgrade...

A lot of it comes down to drivers as well, most DX9 games have limited or no support at all for Vista, nVidia's SLI is buggy as well apparently and it seems Ati (surprisingly) is managing to boost framerates in Vista with better drivers but "lesser" hardware...

A lot of factors to consider it seems, if I were able to upgrade, I'd probably dual-boot ;)

Da_man
04-29-2008, 12:45 AM
(in response to the orginal question) WHat I think that people don't like about Vista is that, they don't play the games they like. THink of it like this, XP has been the gaming OS since it came out seven years ago. You kinda have to admire Microsoft for making Halo 2 Vista-only. Not only do they get Halo 2-crazed fans to make impulse uys on flawed technology, they also make money off of the people who try to get around them by sueing them for (I don't know what the real term is but) undermining MS by making an XP patch for it.

But, yeah. VIsta is a gaming computer, if you want great graphics and no plotline. Halo 3 had about, say, 10 guys working on the plot, while there were literally hundreds of people working on the textures and stuff. The guys doing the plotline did a great job though.

I'm sure there are other games like Halo 2 that are VIsta only, but I wqas only using it as an example.

littleman794
05-05-2008, 11:16 AM
Vista Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the only thing good about it is it's graphics capability!!!