![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Best gaming OS?
- Thread starter fubak
- Start date
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,116
Prolly Vista(either 32 or 64) or Xp32, or what would be my current personal favorite, (provided I had your hardware), both in dual boot.
leSLIe
Fisting is Too Mainstream for Me
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 14,074
Windows ME
...just kidding
u need DX10 support, go with Vista
...just kidding
u need DX10 support, go with Vista
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,116
Windows ME
...just kidding
u need DX10 support, go with Vista
What's with you and the WinMe jokes lately?
Let me add, imho, that dual booting Vista/Xp still seems the best option for gaming right now. In a few months that will likely change. It will definitely change when we get DX10 cards that are actually capable of DX10 at reasonable speeds. And we get games that are properly coded for DX10. Sometime in 2008 hopefully, early 2008 if we are lucky. Then I will switch full time to Vista and consider removing my Xp partition.
Yeah and fails, OEM vista compared to OEM XP what $20 difference for superior stability and using a OS that you'll most likely upgrade to anyways, even if DX10.1 isn't amazing or anything Its still a better OS.
buffbiff21
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,014
Unix
XP32
XP32
XP x64 for me.
Quake 3 framerates are 22% faster in XP x64 than in XP itself, but in light of the fact that it appears XP SP3 is providing a nice bump in performance, I might just have to retest sometime this week with the beta and see what all the fuss is about.
XP x64 isn't XP; it's actually Windows Server 2003 with an XP "facelift/theme" on it, hence it outperforms XP by a considerable margin. And adding the 64 bit base, that's even better.
Quake 3 framerates are 22% faster in XP x64 than in XP itself, but in light of the fact that it appears XP SP3 is providing a nice bump in performance, I might just have to retest sometime this week with the beta and see what all the fuss is about.
XP x64 isn't XP; it's actually Windows Server 2003 with an XP "facelift/theme" on it, hence it outperforms XP by a considerable margin. And adding the 64 bit base, that's even better.
-(Xyphox)-
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 6,518
Vista Ultimate
NTJedi
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 444
I recommend dual boot with XP and Vista
DX10 = Hype. Go with XP32 and you won't be disappointed. We won't see any DX10 games come out for a while that really gets better performance than DX9 in either XP or Vista. But you know kids these days, they like the brand names and labels so DX10 is cooler, even though it ruins performance.
Big ²
Uh, DX10 and >4 gb memory support. My games work fine.
InCogneato
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
or theyre people who have common sense and dont let internet memes run their psyche
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
I play games on my PC. You know what? Unless I turn on an FPS counter, I don't notice a difference.
In-game performance is far from ruined, and in general usage I find it to be far more responsive.
With that type of hardware any of those OS's, provided they all have good drivers, will run games at decent resolutions and frame rates. If you want to eek out the fps...read up on your specific hardware and what others have achieved with those OS's.
That being said, if you just dropped bank on the latest harware why stop with the OS. Go Vista x64.
That being said, if you just dropped bank on the latest harware why stop with the OS. Go Vista x64.
Oh please, this is complete bull. I use my Vista64 system for tons of games like Half Life 2 (and all its derivatives), Command and Conquer 3, Battlefield2142, Civilization 4, Call of Duty 4, Guild Wars, and lots of newer demos and stuff. NO problems and smoking frame rates. Same goes for all my friends who game and use Vista.
This 'ZOMG Vista is teh fail~!!!!1" attitude is pretty much baseless.
Like someone else mentioned, it sure seems like most of the people vocally bashing the OS are getting their details from internet meme rather than actual experience with it.
Just wanted to share some benchmarks I did with Inno3D's 8800GT. My review should be out on NVNews.net here soon but here's a sneak peek for topic's sake.
Intel Core Quad Q6600
2GB Corsair XMS DDR2 RAM
Inno3D 8800GT
MSI P6N Diamond Mobo
Western Digital 74GB Raptor
Zalman 600Watt PSU
Dell 2005FPW
Both have 169.09 Drivers, running at 1680x1050.
Both OS's are 32-bit.
Crysis - AVG Frame Rate
Vista DX10 - Very High - 13FPS
Vista DX10 - High - 19FPS
Vista DX9 - High - 27FPS
XP DX9 - High - 33FPS
Guess you are saying "DX10 has more advanced graphical features, especially since it has "Very High" settings". Actually no. You can achieve DX10 graphics in DX9 with a simple .cfg file.
XP DX9 "Tweaked" - 26FPS
Even with the same DX10 "features" enabled in DX9 and XP, you STILL get better framerates on average. Play Crysis in DX10/Vista with 19FPS as the average framerate, that's pretty sad comparing it to XP's performance. I think my PC has some pretty top notch parts in it so don't blame it on the parts.
I'm sure that DX10 will get a whole lot better as time goes on but for RIGHT NOW, Vista + DX10 is nothing but crap when it comes to gaming. It's funny for people to sing praises on how Vista is so much better, when in reality, gamers can have better framerates by gaming in XP. But I guess the true gamers want to have crippled performance.
purple_haze
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,124
since i dont really see any improvements over xp with vista, i'll stick it out with xp until there is some badass application that makes damn sure dx10 blows dx9 out of the water. I thought crysis would be the killer app, but i don't really see any big improvements over vista.
InCogneato
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
Just wanted to share some benchmarks I did with Inno3D's 8800GT. My review should be out on NVNews.net here soon but here's a sneak peek for topic's sake.
Intel Core Quad Q6600
2GB Corsair XMS DDR2 RAM
Inno3D 8800GT
MSI P6N Diamond Mobo
Western Digital 74GB Raptor
Zalman 600Watt PSU
Dell 2005FPW
Both have 169.09 Drivers, running at 1680x1050.
Both OS's are 32-bit.
Crysis - AVG Frame Rate
Vista DX10 - Very High - 13FPS
Vista DX10 - High - 19FPS
Vista DX9 - High - 27FPS
XP DX9 - High - 33FPS
Guess you are saying "DX10 has more advanced graphical features, especially since it has "Very High" settings". Actually no. You can achieve DX10 graphics in DX9 with a simple .cfg file.
XP DX9 "Tweaked" - 26FPS
Even with the same DX10 "features" enabled in DX9 and XP, you STILL get better framerates on average. Play Crysis in DX10/Vista with 19FPS as the average framerate, that's pretty sad comparing it to XP's performance. I think my PC has some pretty top notch parts in it so don't blame it on the parts.
I'm sure that DX10 will get a whole lot better as time goes on but for RIGHT NOW, Vista + DX10 is nothing but crap when it comes to gaming. It's funny for people to sing praises on how Vista is so much better, when in reality, gamers can have better framerates by gaming in XP. But I guess the true gamers want to have crippled performance.
nice job using crysis, one of the most poorly designed games in history. youre repeating the same nonsense example everyone else is and its only proof of you following an internet meme. id like to see your test done with other games. im not trying to say dx10 has amazing results, but its not as bad as people like you try to make it look like and dx10 enabled on some games does look significantly better.
if you have the hardware, why not? with your graphics card you wont see any slow down at max settings with dx10 in any other game available, yet you choose to bring up crysis, a game thats barely playable no matter what graphics card you have, to justify sticking with xp? not only is that laughable in itself, but you would choose to pass up a brilliantly designed desktop operating system experience just because of it.
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
Oh teh noes! An average difference of six FPS! M$$$$$, what were you thinking??????
Neither of those is something I'd consider playable.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never once mentioned image quality.
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
Where is the linux option? You can download games for free using your package manager!
The main reason I used this is because Crysis was supposed to be the "flagship" DX10 game. I was really hoping that it would really show DX10 benefits, but really, it doesn't.
So just because I posted some benchmarks, I'm just like the rest of the crowd? Absolutely not. There are people that hate Vista just because. I dislike Vista for multiple reasons, poor performance in gaming is one of them.
Ok. Let's use some benchies from [H] on DX9 vs. DX10.
Hellgate London
World in Conflict
Like I've said before, DX10 will be good . . in about 2-3 more years when hardware gets a whole lot better than it is now. But for RIGHT NOW, it's silly to go DX10 unless you want low FPS.
Again, check the benchies above. I use Vista everyday on my laptop so I know what the "new features" are that aren't included with XP. I'll agree that Crysis isn't the best coded game on the market. Crytek made a lot of promises that they didn't keep. But I have faith, they are supposed to upgrade the game as newer hardware becomes available.
I don't understand why people want to us DX10 in games right now. There are absolutely no performance gains, nor are there any visual gains when playing. All you are doing is screwing yourself out of your PC's full potential. I don't see the big deal in trying to get everything I can out of my machine by using XP. It's almost like Vista users are a part of a cult or something . . . Some Vista users are just brainwashed.
Vista is still considered new, I don't care what you say. I know that in the PC world something is considered "old" within a week but Vista is still new. XP is the tried and true, it's matured and just simply performs better than Vista in gaming.
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
If DX10 performance is currently slow, then the solution is to use DX9. Vista vs. XP != DX10 vs DX9.
InCogneato
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
firstly, there are indeed significant visual gains in most games with dx10 enabled. if you deny this you havnt been a gamer very long and expect way too much of a jump from something as simple as going from dx9 to 10. and second why would you expect dx10 to perform better than dx9? thats like saying you expected vista to have the same system requirements as xp.
notice in the dx10 list for those games they have better options enabled. again, do you expect performance to be the same? with these better options enabled you get a little over 20 less fps on average. switch some options on your dx9 games to a lower setting and watch your fps climb up just the same... ITS MAGIC!
im sure in your eyes when this is being done on dx9 its normal but when the same principle is applied to dx10 its a failure? no one is saying dx10 is the cats meow, but its better than dx9. arguing this based on a performance comparison is merely your preference as to what your gaming experience should be like.firstly, there are indeed significant visual gains in most games with dx10 enabled. if you deny this you havnt been a gamer very long and expect way too much of a jump from something as simple as going from dx9 to 10. and second why would you expect dx10 to perform better than dx9? thats like saying you expected vista to have the same system requirements as xp.
notice in the dx10 list for those games they have better options enabled. again, do you expect performance to be the same? with these better options enabled you get a little over 20 less fps on average. switch some options on your dx9 games to a lower setting and watch your fps climb up just the same... ITS MAGIC!
Haha. I've had this debate with others before. Take a look at some videos of Crysis or even Bioshock via DX9 vs DX10. I don't see any visual difference at all. Wait a minute . . . I believe in Bioshock, the water makes trails as you walk through it in DX10!!! OMGWTF!!! Gotta reboot into Vista RIGHT NOW!!!!
Seriously though, there are no visual differences. I don't expect it to be a night and day difference but if DX10 is supposed to be "so much better" then why does it not show anything to make that statement true? Everyone has a different opinion on how their game should run. I want my machine to put out as much as it possibly can therefore I don't use Vista for gaming. Others just want the label of a "DX10 user" but they are penalized.
InCogneato
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
lol videos. that just ruined your entire argument. now we know why you think theres no significant difference in any game.
also where does it say on my Vista box that DX10 is SO MUCH BETTER. i cant find it. i also cant remember when using the next directx was ever SO MUCH BETTER either
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
You've got Vista users all figured out. Especially all the Vista users with DX9 cards
Ok, screw the videos. I've ran Crysis and Bioshock with both DX9 and DX10, no visual difference.
FrozenLiquidity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,588
My buddy and I run almost the same exact systems (Q6600s with 8800GTs and plenty of RAM) same mobo, same hard drive. The only difference is that I run XP32 and he runs Vista. Having to troubleshoot both of these OS's at work has made me quite biased against Vista. I hate struggling with it's immature pranks and the other crap it likes to pull on me and other users. For that reason alone I will not touch vista until there is an overwhelming reason to be using DX10. That said though, I often compare my framerates with his as well as overall system reliability.
From what I've seen this far, XP offers slightly higher framerates in DX9 applications, and as for DX10, I have not seen any compelling reason to be running in this mode anyway. It seems to seriously impede performance on his machine, and does not end up looking that much better than a side by side comparison with my XP DX9 program. Not to mention he's had significantly more compatibility problems with drivers and older games.
In the end it's a personal choice, for me though I'm not touching the OS until there's a blaring reason to.
From what I've seen this far, XP offers slightly higher framerates in DX9 applications, and as for DX10, I have not seen any compelling reason to be running in this mode anyway. It seems to seriously impede performance on his machine, and does not end up looking that much better than a side by side comparison with my XP DX9 program. Not to mention he's had significantly more compatibility problems with drivers and older games.
In the end it's a personal choice, for me though I'm not touching the OS until there's a blaring reason to.
Those are all newer games. I don't play only newer games. Now go install some older games and come back with your opinion. BTW, I ran Vista64 for quite some time so do have experience with it. I've even ran XP64. And what the hell is "internet meme"?
Then by your own admission Vista is not the better OS for gaming on. That's what the poll asked and not what you think is the better future gaming OS. And hardcore gamers don't use laptops for gaming.
That's what Microsoft wanted us to believe. They said DX10 will give us better image quality and better performance. Image quality sure, performance, no.
For the better future gaming OS will eventually be Vista, however, like I have pointed out, XP is better for RIGHT NOW.
Maybe not the Vista box but here is the text from a LondonDrugs ad in Canada trying to hawk a shitty 8500GT to gamers. IMO the ad is BS and BS'ing in ads is against the law.
Upgrade to DirectX10 Performance
Take full advantage of the next generation graphics technology in Windows Vista called DirectX10. Provides an incredibly detailed experience for gamers of every type. DirectX10 puts gamers and multimedia buffs on the leading edge of graphics performance.
Nvidia Geforce 8500GT PCI Express
Redefines the PC gaming experience. With a revolutionary unified architecture and full support for Microsoft Directx10 games. Geforce8 series GPUs delivers unprecedented performance, extraordinarily detailed environments and film quality game effects.
They are so stupid at that store that they don't even list how much Vram it has in the ad. Just hyperbolic BS.