![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
To anyone playing games in Vista...
- Thread starter arover
- Start date
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
hey guys i have vista 64.
however when i bought it came with 32 bit version too.
umm whats the differecne?
and reading conversations on this thread, 64 seems to be the choice, but why?
thanks in advance.
AFAIK the best is that it will see all 4gb's(4gb+) of memory.
hey guys i have vista 64.
however when i bought it came with 32 bit version too.
umm whats the differecne?
and reading conversations on this thread, 64 seems to be the choice, but why?
thanks in advance.
32 bit and 64 bit are the designations for the number of bits (either 0 or 1, used to represent values in binary which is the most basic logic that computer components understand) used to represent a number. This means that with a 32 bit number (32 iterations of 0's and 1's) you get a certain level of accuracy, but with 64 bit you get a higher level of precision with numerical values, because you have twice as many bits to represent the number with. Don't take this as a literal example... but it's kinda like if I said tell me pi but you're limited to 2 digits after the decimal, (3.14) but then said hey now you can go out to more decimal places.
As a result of having more numbers, you can actually assign an address to more memory modules, allowing you to have a much higher memory limitation. Basically.. if you have a system that has a certain range of numbers it can represent due to being limited to 32-bits, you could essentially use each one of those numbers for assigning an "address" to a memory module.
Memory that is plugged into your system that doesn't have an "address" is useless, because, like mail, if you don't have an address for your house there's no way for data to come to or from you. 64 bit allows a far greater number of addresses for the memory hardware (since it can fit a much larger range of numbers), so that you can actively use more memory in your system.
64 bit is the way of the future, and some people are jumping onboard right away as applications become more demanding (especially games), while others are perfectly content with where they are for now. The need for 64 bit by applications will dictate the time it takes before 64bit becomes the de facto standard. We are currently in the transition period between 32 and 64-bit, so it isn't necessary, and I don't expect it to be for at least another two or three years as far as games are concerned.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,878
Why?
i often wonder what peoples advice is based on..
e4300 and gts runing vista ultimate on new build and everything plays fine, considering most LCD's are locked @ 60FPS anything above is moot unless you like tearing.
Vista works great with NVIDIA drivers and other drivers in 32bit.
Demon_of_The_Fall
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 414
Showing your age here kid. Everyone slammed XP when it came out and said "2k4lyfe" "Im sticking with Win98SE forever" "XP is slower, it always crashes and its bloatware" etc. Grow up and realise that all new OSes take time to mature.
Personally I'm running Vista even though i was hugely skeptical about it at first. It's faster than XP for general usability by quite a noticeable amount. Games took minor frame rate hits, but nothing to make me lower any of my settings.
Disable UAC, run as an Administrator, latest patches, latest drivers = no problem.
NP. BTW the Crytek guys recommend using 64-bit because their game is so incredibly memory intensive... but it should be totally playable 32-bit as well by the time of release, especially because of the soon to be delivered Microsoft memory management fix.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,878
Everything you mentioned though has nothing to do with microsft, but 3rd party companies. any 3rd party mods installed can ruin a game, your testing i am sure was thorough, but just as many people dont have problems with vista as do.
i have vista on 3 rigs, 2 gaming rigs (one is an uncles) and i have played well over 30+ games in the last 3 months on my rig, e4300 stock, 2g, 8600GT and updates installed, and not one game has cause a crash or issue, i also dont use creative sound cards (frankly for the price they are crap), NVIDIA drivers do have some issue but mostly in SLI modes, not single card configs.
I often wonder why people don't read the link I provided and then ask what should be obvious questions.
As the link shows Vista has memory issues, chewing down up to 800MB of memory address over and above what XP uses. I consider that just a tad problematic.
Games will run out of address space and crash sooner in Vista as a result.
Bleedblue12345
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,942
vista 64-bit completely solves this problem
AltTabbins
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 20,387
God you are stupid.
As long as you have it on only 1 computer you are fine. I upgraded my entire system (x2 +3800 to core 2 duo e6320, 2gb of Valueram to 4gb XMS2, Msi SLI board to a Asus p5n-e) and still used the same key. I had to call Microsoft and get a new activation code, but it took all of 5 minutes to do that. The only thing they ask is if it is installed on just one computer.
Performance was never that bad for XP. Maybe 10% and within few months the difference was NIL... Compatibility wasn't an issue either...
I have zero compatibility problems with Vista. My favorite game, Tribes is going on 9 years old, still works. It came out when DX6 was out! I dual booted, but Ive not booted to XP in 2 months at least. I need to just delete it, but I just havent felt like it yet.
X1900 and X-Fi, and no known driver problems for me. I play a lot of games, and have a lot of different apps installed. Im sticking with Vista.
X1900 and X-Fi, and no known driver problems for me. I play a lot of games, and have a lot of different apps installed. Im sticking with Vista.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
...I was waiting for someone to tell him to do that. It's common knowledge they'll allow you to install on new hardware. Worst case, you have to call a couple of times to get a tech who isn't an utter jerk.
AltTabbins
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 20,387
Exactly. They are robots. Every time I call I give the nice person my code. They ask if this is the key that came with the computer as a bundle and if it is installed on more than one computer. Being perfectly honest, I say no and the person gives me a new activation number. Not hard at all and not even inconvenient. I have never had to hold on the phone and if you type in your code with your keypad it takes less than 5 minutes total.
Caffeinated
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2002
- Messages
- 1,451
I'd dual boot XP and 64-Bit Vista. I see no reason to install Vista if you aren't going to go 64-Bit. There is nothing right now on Vista that you can't live without, though, and many things that are still relatively flaky under Vista, so I'd have XP for gaming, etc.
Vista actually fixed an issue in a game believe it or not. Sacred Underworld had trouble with MP games with a dual core CPU under XP, but it works great with Vista. With that said, though, some things are slower. I like the sound stack in Vista better, and honestly it seems like there is far less texture shimmer/crawl in Vista (even without AA).
If you have an X-FI, there are still issues with it in Vista despite what some people are claiming in this thread. If you don't have one, I'd definitely use Vista because as I mentioned for on-board audio the sound stack seems better.
I have Vista installed on a seperate machine than my two every day PCs, though, which should tell you something. There isn't anything in Vista that I can't live without (it doesn't do anything for me that XP doesn't do currently), but there are a few things that XP does or does better.
If it was an either or, I'd say XP. Since you are dual-booting, I'd go XP/Vista x64.
Vista actually fixed an issue in a game believe it or not. Sacred Underworld had trouble with MP games with a dual core CPU under XP, but it works great with Vista. With that said, though, some things are slower. I like the sound stack in Vista better, and honestly it seems like there is far less texture shimmer/crawl in Vista (even without AA).
If you have an X-FI, there are still issues with it in Vista despite what some people are claiming in this thread. If you don't have one, I'd definitely use Vista because as I mentioned for on-board audio the sound stack seems better.
I have Vista installed on a seperate machine than my two every day PCs, though, which should tell you something. There isn't anything in Vista that I can't live without (it doesn't do anything for me that XP doesn't do currently), but there are a few things that XP does or does better.
If it was an either or, I'd say XP. Since you are dual-booting, I'd go XP/Vista x64.
Miscommunication
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 631
Lol, I don't think you read the article either. It's a problem under Vista. "The real solution is going to have to come from Microsoft, who thankfully is aware of the problem and we presume we'll be hearing about a solution from them sooner than later. ..."They let us know that the next version of Supreme Commander, Forged Alliance, will feature several engine improvements related to the issues we've covered. They are switching memory allocators to an in-house solution which is lighter and uses less memory, and are also attempting to put in a notification system for alerting users if the game has run out of address space to work with." So you see, it's again something the developers, MS, and nVidia need to work on. Otherwise who's to say we won't see games in the near future taking up 3-4GB, then what?
Without a true fix for the problem, going 64-bit so you can just throw more memory at the problem isn't going to help. What happens when a more demanding game than CC comes out and eats even more memory? Going to toss in another GB for it? No, the real problem has to be fixed by MS as stated in the article. Then those who want to stay with 32-bit and 2-3GB can and the same goes for those with 64-bit. For gaming, the move to go 64-bit is going to take a couple of years still at the least before it becomes the standard. As far as the populous is concerned, it'll probably be just as long if not longer (ex. pre-installed PCs from Dell, HP, etc.)
Developers aren't going to leave out the bulk of gamers, this is why DX9 also has a couple more years to go, side-by-side with DX10 no less.
Only listen to people who have used both fairly and can make a comparison...
I have been running Vista since day 1 and never went back to XP!
I had to deal with that "display driver stopped working" error, but that is long gone.
XP IS FASTER @ GAMING, Nobody is saying it isn't
But unless you need to count the FPS when playing a game, then I don't know what difference it makes wether you get 50 FPS Vs 70 FPS.
Really, people that count FPS are damn idiots. Unless your machine is not responding and you can play your games fine, why should you care?
Anyway, I am runnig a Q6600 @ 3.7ghz, 8800GTX and 2GB or RAM @ 1000mhz, Vista Ultimate and right now I am playing Lost Planet Xtreme Condition. Plays great BTW.
Also tried it in my brothers E6400 @ 3.2ghz / 8800GTX rig Vista Premium, with the same settings as mine. NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!
Other games we have tried with no complaints:
NFS Most Wanted
NFS Carbon
Fifa 2007
All Half-Life / Steam Games
Call Of Duty...
RTCW ET
I have been running Vista since day 1 and never went back to XP!
I had to deal with that "display driver stopped working" error, but that is long gone.
XP IS FASTER @ GAMING, Nobody is saying it isn't
But unless you need to count the FPS when playing a game, then I don't know what difference it makes wether you get 50 FPS Vs 70 FPS.
Really, people that count FPS are damn idiots. Unless your machine is not responding and you can play your games fine, why should you care?
Anyway, I am runnig a Q6600 @ 3.7ghz, 8800GTX and 2GB or RAM @ 1000mhz, Vista Ultimate and right now I am playing Lost Planet Xtreme Condition. Plays great BTW.
Also tried it in my brothers E6400 @ 3.2ghz / 8800GTX rig Vista Premium, with the same settings as mine. NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!
Other games we have tried with no complaints:
NFS Most Wanted
NFS Carbon
Fifa 2007
All Half-Life / Steam Games
Call Of Duty...
RTCW ET
Back it up with some facts. Zero problems here with the latest drivers, and any of my games. Calling me out, and not backing it up with facts to support your claim, is a blanket statement that we dont need.
0ptional
Don't Trust Your Friends with Your Decanter
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 5,593
I'd be with you on this if it weren't for my rather special case, of playing a capped FPS game where the cap is 30 and anything below that is basically a slide show...
so umm, if the current Vista drivers don't pump out the cap amount of frames, then it's unplayable for me, so I play that game (Final Fantasy XI) in XP.
Vista feels snappier and I like it as an OS, but I can't find anything that I miss from it by using XP day to day. I just can't...
Well...after reading the next massive batch of replies, I'd have to say....I definitely got quite an answer posting here
I think I might as well go out and pick up an OEM 64-bit Windows Business. Anyone know if it allows for a 32-bit install with the same key should I be unsatisifed for some reason (only reason I can think of is lack of driver support?) I think even if it doesn't work for me, I will just reinstall with Vista home-premium and use an OEM key that came on a friend's laptop (he moved back to xp on it.) Then maybe give 64 another try in the future. Who knows- I just like having options
I think I might as well go out and pick up an OEM 64-bit Windows Business. Anyone know if it allows for a 32-bit install with the same key should I be unsatisifed for some reason (only reason I can think of is lack of driver support?) I think even if it doesn't work for me, I will just reinstall with Vista home-premium and use an OEM key that came on a friend's laptop (he moved back to xp on it.) Then maybe give 64 another try in the future. Who knows- I just like having options
man. youre plain ignorant. do you know that xp oem was the same? so was me, so was all of them? not until it actually would lose M$ money does it apply. they eventually revoke the oem privledge of being transferable to a new computer.
pwnd.
moron.
hahaha.
i mock you.
dark_reign
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,314
The only game I've had an issue with under Vista 32-bit is Oblivion. Under XP, the game seemed to be more responsive after loading a save game and only hitched for a few seconds. With Vista it hitches a bit more after loading a save game and then smooths out. The game would also CTD at random under Vista. But I think this problem went away after a few more driver releases from NVIDIA. The latest 163.11 betas are pretty solid.
the funny thing about oblivion is that it isnt even a great game.
screw oblivion, screw fear. they both are lacking in all but causing people to lose cash for 2 years trying to get a good benchmark in the games.
stalker looks better than both of them and is lower tech.
I bet crysis will look awesome and play like crap. it's like having a good looking girl in hs as a girlfriend who is frigid and dull.
screw oblivion, screw fear. they both are lacking in all but causing people to lose cash for 2 years trying to get a good benchmark in the games.
stalker looks better than both of them and is lower tech.
I bet crysis will look awesome and play like crap. it's like having a good looking girl in hs as a girlfriend who is frigid and dull.
dark_reign
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,314
I enjoy both Oblivion and FEAR. Stalker is also a great game but more buggy than the other two.
I think Crysis will be an awesome game. The game developers learned from the mistakes they made with Far Cry. The AI will be better as well as game play and physics.
I think Crysis will be an awesome game. The game developers learned from the mistakes they made with Far Cry. The AI will be better as well as game play and physics.
Blackstone
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,590
I've been using Vista sinch launch and I think the bottom line is that Vista works fine. If it doesn't, it is usually a legacy game issue or is driver related--something that is not Vista's fault and can be easily fixed, and will be.
I find vista to be very stable and I love the interface improvements that they have made. I don't think it makes sense not to use Vista at this point--you might as well get it and learn it.
Creative drivers are fine. Certain games require a program called ALchemy that gives you Sound Blaster audigy and x-fi enhancement but it is only a select number of legacy games. FEAR, for example. That ALchemy program has not been perfected yet, and yes, in fear I do get crashes sometimes. That is creative's problem, not Vista.
I have NEVER, EVER EVER had a crash in Oblivion or Shivering Isles in Vista. It runs without a hitch. In fact, it runs as well as in XP.
Supreme Commander crashed like crazy at first, but then i realized it was the game, and not vista. The game needed a fix, and there is one.
If it is is more bloated than XP, I sure don't see it in my games.
I find vista to be very stable and I love the interface improvements that they have made. I don't think it makes sense not to use Vista at this point--you might as well get it and learn it.
Creative drivers are fine. Certain games require a program called ALchemy that gives you Sound Blaster audigy and x-fi enhancement but it is only a select number of legacy games. FEAR, for example. That ALchemy program has not been perfected yet, and yes, in fear I do get crashes sometimes. That is creative's problem, not Vista.
I have NEVER, EVER EVER had a crash in Oblivion or Shivering Isles in Vista. It runs without a hitch. In fact, it runs as well as in XP.
Supreme Commander crashed like crazy at first, but then i realized it was the game, and not vista. The game needed a fix, and there is one.
If it is is more bloated than XP, I sure don't see it in my games.
Pepsiennis
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,290
Well...after reading the next massive batch of replies, I'd have to say....I definitely got quite an answer posting here
I think I might as well go out and pick up an OEM 64-bit Windows Business. Anyone know if it allows for a 32-bit install with the same key should I be unsatisifed for some reason (only reason I can think of is lack of driver support?) I think even if it doesn't work for me, I will just reinstall with Vista home-premium and use an OEM key that came on a friend's laptop (he moved back to xp on it.) Then maybe give 64 another try in the future. Who knows- I just like having options
Hey arover! I think with the OEM keys you're stuck keyed to 32-bit or 64-bit, whichever you bought, but with the retail versions you can actually download the 64-bit version from Microsoft and install it. You'll probably have to make that 5-minute reactivation phone call, though. Not a problem... if the forum idiot like me can do it in pidgin Chinese, in China, then it should be an easy task where you are.
Thanks for posting the information on the memory address space issues, I learnt a lot reading that.
Sticking with XP with a new machine at this stage is a fools errand, we're quickly aproaching the limitations of a 32bit OS and that is going to start causing problems.
Before you even consider the virtual address space issues of having a 2Gb limit for each application you have to consider that there is only 4Gb of mappable memory space in the first place and that a large portion of that is used up by other hardware, on high end systems the total amount of addressable PHYSICAL system memory (RAM) might be as low as 2.5Gb depending on what other hardware you use (it was only 2.5Gb with my old 1Gb 7950GX2)
When you consider that 2Gb of system RAM has been a standard for gaming rigs ever since BF2's release (several years ago now) you can maybe start to see the issues here, the Crysis developers recomend you get 2Gb of RAM for good performance but we've recently learnt that their demonstrations were on boxes which have 4Gb which tends to suggest that 2Gb may hinder performance at high settings.
Even before the DX10 patch, Company of Heroes could push total memory usage (game+os) upto 3Gb + 1Gb of pagefile on a system with 4Gb of RAM under Vista 64bit
In my opinion:-
1) There's no good reason when considering a new OS to go with XP over Vista.
2) If you're getting Vista there is no good reason to avoid 64bit.
Let's get something straight here, there is a big difference between Vista being crap because it's actually crap, and it being crap because you have hardware for it who's developers/manufacturers don't offer good support.
When we say "all OS's need time to mature" what we actually mean is that the developers who write software and build hardware need time to develop their products for Vista. Vista itself is very stable, you'd be hard pushed to BSOD vista without having faulty hardware since the drivers are totaly decoupled from the kernel.
My suggestion for anyone putting together a new operating system would be to get Vista 64bit
Sticking with XP with a new machine at this stage is a fools errand, we're quickly aproaching the limitations of a 32bit OS and that is going to start causing problems.
Before you even consider the virtual address space issues of having a 2Gb limit for each application you have to consider that there is only 4Gb of mappable memory space in the first place and that a large portion of that is used up by other hardware, on high end systems the total amount of addressable PHYSICAL system memory (RAM) might be as low as 2.5Gb depending on what other hardware you use (it was only 2.5Gb with my old 1Gb 7950GX2)
When you consider that 2Gb of system RAM has been a standard for gaming rigs ever since BF2's release (several years ago now) you can maybe start to see the issues here, the Crysis developers recomend you get 2Gb of RAM for good performance but we've recently learnt that their demonstrations were on boxes which have 4Gb which tends to suggest that 2Gb may hinder performance at high settings.
Even before the DX10 patch, Company of Heroes could push total memory usage (game+os) upto 3Gb + 1Gb of pagefile on a system with 4Gb of RAM under Vista 64bit
In my opinion:-
1) There's no good reason when considering a new OS to go with XP over Vista.
2) If you're getting Vista there is no good reason to avoid 64bit.
Let's get something straight here, there is a big difference between Vista being crap because it's actually crap, and it being crap because you have hardware for it who's developers/manufacturers don't offer good support.
When we say "all OS's need time to mature" what we actually mean is that the developers who write software and build hardware need time to develop their products for Vista. Vista itself is very stable, you'd be hard pushed to BSOD vista without having faulty hardware since the drivers are totaly decoupled from the kernel.
My suggestion for anyone putting together a new operating system would be to get Vista 64bit
With a beefy machine - I wouldn't hesitate to use Vista. I only have three games installed, but they all play perfect at my 1680*1050 screen size in Vista. I get 10,100 3dmark2k6 points in Vista, and 10,400 in Windows XP.
*edit*
After reading some of the posts here that bash Vista and seem hellbent on implying that the OS is some kind of unstable buggy fiasco, I felt compelled to repsond by adding to my first post. Although I thought Vista was ghey as hell at first glance, now find myself unable to turn back. I've known computers for a good while. I've used a lot of OS's. Apple II E's, Apple IIGS, all the Windows versions, Mac OS 8, OS 9, OSX, (Panther, Tiger), NT 4.0, 2000 and 2003 Server, several Linux flavors including Mandrake, Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, and now Vista. Vista rocks. Vista feels great, looks great, and is stable and more secure than ever. I never used the XP theme in Windows XP. The first thing I did was turn it back to classic. In Vista, I leave the stock theme, and use the Aero Glass. I love all the new features. It's the best OS yet. I can't wait 'till Crysis comes out. I'll be enjoying the crap out of it's DX10 goodness. I haven't thought about buying or using a Mac since I started using Vista.
*edit*
After reading some of the posts here that bash Vista and seem hellbent on implying that the OS is some kind of unstable buggy fiasco, I felt compelled to repsond by adding to my first post. Although I thought Vista was ghey as hell at first glance, now find myself unable to turn back. I've known computers for a good while. I've used a lot of OS's. Apple II E's, Apple IIGS, all the Windows versions, Mac OS 8, OS 9, OSX, (Panther, Tiger), NT 4.0, 2000 and 2003 Server, several Linux flavors including Mandrake, Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, and now Vista. Vista rocks. Vista feels great, looks great, and is stable and more secure than ever. I never used the XP theme in Windows XP. The first thing I did was turn it back to classic. In Vista, I leave the stock theme, and use the Aero Glass. I love all the new features. It's the best OS yet. I can't wait 'till Crysis comes out. I'll be enjoying the crap out of it's DX10 goodness. I haven't thought about buying or using a Mac since I started using Vista.
Similarly Upgrading to Vista when you alread have XP is a fools errand. You get nothing but extra suffering. You are paying to beta test.
Similarly for dual booting. Why pay for Two OS's at this time when Vista gets you nothing.
Finally. The vast majority of Vista users are using the 32 bit vista with has much worse memory addressing space issues than XP.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3044
Under the circumstance that you were getting a new computer and were forced to pay for a new copy of an OS, then and only then it might make sense to go with Vista, and then only if you go with Vista64.
In any circumstance where you already have XP you are just wasting time and money getting Vista.
That's why I said for a "new machine", upgrading an existing machine to Vista may or may not be a good payoff feature wise for the person doing the upgrade. Please understand however that this is not because of any inherent problems with Vista, rather the users requirements/need from their OS at the time, some can justify the cost, others simply cannot.
There is no "suffering" with Vista, support is very good and has been for months, if you were talking about 0-3 months after release I might be more inclined to agree, but that's not the case. Any "beta" accusations at this point are meaningless without some kind of explination as to why you think that.
Thats exactly why I said that if you do get Vista you might as well get 64bit.
Exactly.
I disagree, you may not personally see benefit from it, but I do, and so do many others. Each users requirements are different and while I agree that SOME users may not be able to justify the cost of Vista right now, it's certainly not the case for everyone.
I put Vista Home Premium 32-bit OEM on my new build last month and I haven't had any problems with gaming, although I've only tested out Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, Half-Life 2, and World of Warcraft. I've never had any of these games crash once on me during game play. The DX10 in CoH runs like crap though, so I play it in DX 9. I suspect it has nothing at all to do with Vista, and more like a driver issue somewhere since DX10 is still in its infancy.
C2D e6420
2GB Corsair
Geforce 8800gts
C2D e6420
2GB Corsair
Geforce 8800gts
I have Vista installed on two out of my three personal machines. One laptop running Windows Vista 32bit and the gaming machine running Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition.
I waited about two months originally as the NVIDIA drivers were really bad at first. Until SLI started working, I wasn't interested in Vista. Now that it does work and the new drivers make things better all the time, I have come to really like Vista. I couldn't imagine switching back to XP at this point. As for performance, the performance of Vista is fine if you have semi-recent hardware. My laptop isn't exactly a rocket and it runs Vista, and multiple VM's without issues. My desktop on the other hand needed a memory upgrade to get decent performance out of Photoshop, but that's it. Vista does need more memory to run as well as XP does, but at current ram pricing that shouldn't really be much of an issue. Game performance is fine. I can't tell the difference in performance anymore with newer drivers. Yes, benchmark scores are lower but I spend almost zero time benchmarking and a hell of alot more time playing. I am not a benchmark whore, so that is of little importance to me. I often just run benchmarks to make sure my system is on par with what others are getting.
In short, Vista isn't as bad as all the nay sayers who've never actually run it think it is. It's about as revolutionary as Windows XP was to Windows 2000. Meaning that switching now doesn't do alot for you, but a year or two down the road, they'll be little to no reason to hold on to Windows XP.
I waited about two months originally as the NVIDIA drivers were really bad at first. Until SLI started working, I wasn't interested in Vista. Now that it does work and the new drivers make things better all the time, I have come to really like Vista. I couldn't imagine switching back to XP at this point. As for performance, the performance of Vista is fine if you have semi-recent hardware. My laptop isn't exactly a rocket and it runs Vista, and multiple VM's without issues. My desktop on the other hand needed a memory upgrade to get decent performance out of Photoshop, but that's it. Vista does need more memory to run as well as XP does, but at current ram pricing that shouldn't really be much of an issue. Game performance is fine. I can't tell the difference in performance anymore with newer drivers. Yes, benchmark scores are lower but I spend almost zero time benchmarking and a hell of alot more time playing. I am not a benchmark whore, so that is of little importance to me. I often just run benchmarks to make sure my system is on par with what others are getting.
In short, Vista isn't as bad as all the nay sayers who've never actually run it think it is. It's about as revolutionary as Windows XP was to Windows 2000. Meaning that switching now doesn't do alot for you, but a year or two down the road, they'll be little to no reason to hold on to Windows XP.
And this post, ladies and gentlemen, is worth a big fat QFT
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,124
oh yea! one more great thing I noticed about vista, is with the ATI cards, when i get the Video Card driver has stopped working during a game, but it doesn't crash the game or the system. it recovers and continues the game !
!I'd agree that the nay sayers are blowing it out of proportion, most of what they complain about has little to do with Vista, and more to do with bad initial support from corporations like Nvidia which has been address long ago anyhow.
It IS about as revolutionary as Windows XP was to 2k, but in my opinion it's better, we take for granted how good XP is now after about 5 years of development and improvement, and it's easy for some people to forget how much of a change SP2 made to XP.
XP 8 months after release was NOT anywhere near as good as Vista is now, not by a long shot.
I love Vista, I think Microsoft did a brilliant job with it, there's loads of little touches that I'd miss with XP and quite a lot of significant changes that now I can't live without.
There are. It's the little things that I like about Vista and make it all worth while. Like being able to copy and paste items from inside multiple folders to another folder at the same time, or being able to choose to copy files to a directory and have the OS automatically change the name of the files so that you don't have to manually rename them or overwrite them. It's the small things like this that truly save time and make Vista enjoyable to use. Small changes that honestly should have been in the OS years ago IMO.