Anyone gaming on Windows XP x64?

rflcptr said:
Are you asking for help with something or are you just soliciting another OS circle jerk?
Click to expand...

Who knows. There simply is no reason not to run Windows 7 on modern hardware especially for gaming unless you have to for compatibility and there's VMs for that generally. The other legitimate reason, at least one that has some logic to it is cost.
 
CzarKasm said:
Please stop including Vista as a possible solution. That OS was a performance turd much like Windows Millennium Edition. Windows 7 is where it's at. If Microsoft had only waited a few more years and got it right...
Click to expand...

uhm please stop posting crap man. Vista has received most of the updates included in Windows 7........I have 3 computers that run Vista and 1 that runs 7 and there is no discerable difference in perforamce.........

the the OP using XP, it is time to move into the present as that OS is EOL april 2014 and newer versions of windows have things that XP does not.....
 
I had XP but alot of games are recommend to run Vista or Windows 7 so I had to switch back to Windows 7.
 
Long time XP64 fan here. Of the 258 games in my steam library, only three or four had issues. Most of the game issues were around GFWL (like Dirt2), one around some old school DRM (Blazing angels). Bench marks showed comparable to better performance for DX9 games in XP64. No DX10, however...

The Apple engineers did some really sloppy coding with iTunes. You can fix it, but gah...

I always scratch my head at the driver comments. Most of the premium boards I picked up had drivers for XP64/Server2003-x64. Same is true for NVidia cards. Granted, getting XP64 to run on a laptop can be a bit of work, but a gaming rig is simple.
 
I don't think you XP fans understand that there's a number of higher end features that don't work in XP. Besides being stuck at DX 9 you lose support for most of the interesting features on the market for PC gaming.

XP is about to die in a resounding thud once Windons 8 is released. For simple gaming setups sure XP will probably work for many years to come, with virtually no support or enhancement to features, and as far as gaming goes the feature set of XP has been stuck for years now.
 
Vista Win 7 might be simillar but I dont think anyone should advise someone to upgrade to Vista ever. It will always be worth it to shell out the extra cash for Windows 7 instead. Vista had so many performance issues that I avoided it altogether until Win 7 came out.
 
Vista wasn't nearly as bad as people claim. It's problems were largely due to poor drivers early on. Within 6 months of release, it actually out performed XP in many situations after that.

As far as gaming on XP64. Nope. Bad choice. With no DX10/11 support, it means you have a limited choice of titles you can game with. Most notibly, Battlefield 3 will not run on it. BF3 is a game I am currently playing a lot of.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
I heard that Vista had so many performance issues that I avoided it altogether until Win 7 came out.
Click to expand...

FTFY. Most of the performance issues were fixed by SP1. That, and the fact that MS lowballed the system requirements e.g. the 512MB minimum RAM requirement when it should've been 1GB.

The only reason that I would not recommend Vista is that it will go into its extended support phase this spring.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Vista Win 7 might be simillar but I dont think anyone should advise someone to upgrade to Vista ever. It will always be worth it to shell out the extra cash for Windows 7 instead. Vista had so many performance issues that I avoided it altogether until Win 7 came out.
Click to expand...

Cant you fkin read? Stop this Vista sucks bullshit, If it sucked for you, it was your POS computer, deal with it.
 
OldMX said:
Cant you fkin read? Stop this Vista sucks bullshit, If it sucked for you, it was your POS computer, deal with it.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, the longer I use 7 the more I am in the Vista wasn't so hot category. Even with SP1 Vista just doesn't feel nearly as fluid as 7 on the same hardware. Memory management in 7 is MUCH better, boots much faster, etc.

You really can't appreciate 7 until you use it on a variety platforms. In particular 7 just outclasses Vista on my Tablet PCs and my gaming rigs. Windows 7 on Tablet PCs runs MUCH better than Vista.
 
So I switched to windows 7 Pre.

Problem 1) Steam games that I backed up in windows XP can Not be restored in windows 7..WTF:(

Problem 2) I can't get any sound from the two rear speakers in 5.1 channel audio setup when listening to MP3 files(using windows media player). This worked in windows XP. This seems to be known issue in vista/7.

I'm not planing to download 100GB of game files anytime soon. So, I'm going back to Win XP for now and have fun gaming.
 
DualAmdMp said:
Problem 1) Steam games that I backed up in windows XP can Not be restored in windows 7..WTF:(
Click to expand...

The location of the steam folder changes between WinXP and Win7. Just move the steamapps folder to the new location after restoring it. I upgraded my wife's WinXP system to Win7 64bit with no problem this way. The new location in Win7 is
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\
For more info, see this.

Problem 2) I can't get any sound from the two rear speakers in 5.1 channel audio setup when listening to MP3 files(using windows media player). This worked in windows XP. This seems to be known issue in vista/7.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about that except I found a huge thread here:

http://www.sevenforums.com/sound-audio/1991-windows-7-5-1-surround-problems-realtek-27.html
 
In gaming performance, Vista SP2 = 7 SP1. I've benchmark both on the same system and there is fractional differences.
 
cwj717 said:
XP x64 works just fine and you can game on it, although there really is no reason to use it over windows 7. If you don't like how 7 looks you can make it look just like XP, I use classic shell to get the start menu to look like it does in XP for example. I used XP x64 for years on all 5 of my systems and I had no problems at all. I still use it on my dual processor system as a file/mumble server and it has been on for months without a reboot running seti@home/milkyway@home (on the gpu) and murmur (mumble server).
Click to expand...

Only problem I ever ran into with XPx64 was some apps/games saw it for what it truly was: a bastardized port directly from Windows Server 2003 x64. Sure, most stuff ran fine on it, but I had a few proggies that wouldn't because they identified it as a server OS.
 
CzarKasm said:
Sorry man, but Vista post SP1 was still slow and annoying. Slow to boot. Slow to login. Slow to create a new profile. Slow to browse network shares. At least it wasn't slow to get replaced by 7.
Click to expand...

ran vista x64 on a 1.8Ghz C2D Dell Vostro 1400. Never an issue. Ran 7 on the sam laptop for comparison and besides using 800MB vs 1.4GB, no discernable difference in system performance....

got free copy of 7 ultimate x64 from MS and installed it on my machine below that ran vista x64 ultimate, again no discernable differences in performance.....
 
OldMX said:
Cant you fkin read? Stop this Vista sucks bullshit, If it sucked for you, it was your POS computer, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Vista was trash. Whether this was entirely due to the OS or hardware companies unable to support it is irrelevant.

It was trash, and your opinion is meaningless. I'll put it next to the "Windows ME owns" crowd. :rolleyes:
 
LOL this is a replay of the "ZOMG Windows 98 gaming forevar" threads back when Windows XP came out. Bet some posts are identical word for word if you replace XP with 98.
 
Could be superfetch, prefetch, auto-defrag, system restore. When I was seeing a similar issue, it was system restore creating points at weird times. Better to move forward to 7 and tweak as needed, than move backward to xp64.

And...Vista works fine - I've got it on two rigs, and it runs flawlessly..........but there's no reson to use it over 7.
 
KayossZero said:
Vista was trash. Whether this was entirely due to the OS or hardware companies unable to support it is irrelevant.

It was trash, and your opinion is meaningless. I'll put it next to the "Windows ME owns" crowd. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This isn't an elementary school playground. If you're going to argue about something, use facts to support your claims.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Don't parrot back other people's opinions without supporting evidence, otherwise you end up spreading misinformation and look like a troll.
 
Xeth said:
LOL this is a replay of the "ZOMG Windows 98 gaming forevar" threads back when Windows XP came out. Bet some posts are identical word for word if you replace XP with 98.
Click to expand...

Could you link me to one of those threads? I can't find any. Kinda doubt they exist here.
 
ZodaEX said:
Could you link me to one of those threads? I can't find any. Kinda doubt they exist here.
Click to expand...

necro.jpg.568ba13089db517f35e257c86a4285b1.jpg
 
Furious_Styles said:
I can't remember lots of that sentiment either. I know that win2k and XP were much better than 98 in my experience.
Click to expand...
I do remember. The popular thing was to say xp was too fisher price with its ui, as well as why switch when you have 98 working fine. They also said it was too bloated. EDIT: Oh and they hated the activation requirement.
 
Last edited:
Furious_Styles said:
I can't remember lots of that sentiment either. I know that win2k and XP were much better than 98 in my experience.
Click to expand...
I ran win ME (basically ,98) until almost Vista. Did have to run XP for two years... But even then those two years were to get past Vista and on to 7, so idk. I hardly used XP. Win984lyfe
 
GoldenTiger said:
I do remember. The popular thing was to say xp was too fisher price with its ui, as well as why switch when you have 98 working fine. They also said it was too bloated. EDIT: Oh and they hated the activation requirement.
Click to expand...

Please link to the thread if it really exists.
 
Last edited:
GoldenTiger said:
I do remember. The popular thing was to say xp was too fisher price with its ui, as well as why switch when you have 98 working fine. They also said it was too bloated. EDIT: Oh and they hated the activation requirement.
Click to expand...
What fools. XP was much better on stability that 98 ever was. Also handled HW changes MUCH better than 98. And this is coming from someone who stuck with win7 until EOL.
 
Furious_Styles said:
What fools. XP was much better on stability that 98 ever was. Also handled HW changes MUCH better than 98. And this is coming from someone who stuck with win7 until EOL.
Click to expand...
Must say with 256mb of super fast pc133 Ram 98 wiped the floor with XP on the same system.
 
I should mention that this thread was about 64-bit Windows XP, which is something far different than the XP most knew and used (32-bit XP). 64-bit Windows XP was crippled by lack of 64-bit driver support for most hardware, combined with the fact that there were almost no 64-bit programs or games at that point in time. Very few people actually used 64-bit Windows XP, as there was simply no need, and the pros did not outweigh the cons.

After that, Microsoft did something pretty amazing, which we continue to reap the benefits from even today. When Windows Vista was released, Microsoft declared that they would only certify drivers if the hardware company provided a 32-bit AND a 64-bit driver. Companies no longer had the option of simply providing a 32-bit driver, and ignoring 64-bit, which is what most did with XP. A huge number of 64-bit Vista drivers flooded the internet at that point, and all of a sudden it became viable to run a 64-bit OS without compromising on hardware support. Most of those 64-bit Vista drivers are still compatible with Windows 10 and even Windows 11, making it practical to continue using old hardware, even old hardware that has been abandoned for 10-15+ years.
 
Low RAM systems pound the swap file on those low cache HDD of the day. Just saying.
 
GotNoRice said:
I should mention that this thread was about Windows XP Pro x64,
Click to expand...
Fixed to prevent confusion. Windows xp 64bit was a different OS (IA64). Yes, it's extremely confusing.

As I recall some older games also ran a little slower on xp (x86-32) than windows 98 se at the time. I'm having trouble finding links and sources to this though, so everyone should probably just assume my memory is terrible until more evidence is found of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top