its ok vista for games......?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mit78

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
383
i have many friends,and complain about this ,in games work like shit ,stalker not working good,and crash.My opinion is ,this os is not mature,like xp in 2003-2004.Many problems.
what is your opinions?
 
Every game I play runs as good as it did on XP.

Thats SupComm, all the major Source titles, Battlefield 2/2142, Doom3, FarCry was a bit buggy but I worked around it.

I enjoy Vista and its definitely become my OS of choice for general PC use. WMC is a pretty awesome program, I never had XP MCE so it was a big + for me.
 
turn off that aero stuff, and a lot of stuff that runs in the back ground your performance should go up.
 
i dont understand?,its good or bad?
I told you,many friends with many problems.
 
All the games I play run great under Vista.

Take this with a grain of salt, as the only games I've played lately are UT2K4, Jedi Outcast, and CS:S.
 
Its fine...some games may give you some problems but it is a fine gaming platform.
 
i understand,i want to install this os.How its possible to instal with low cost investement.
how much is america this os?,hier in romania is 90usd oem home basic is the lowest,and the greatest vista ultimate is 400usd,too much for a os.
 
The prices you listed are on par with American cost.

If you search around you may be able to upgrade for cheaper.. I will say no more.:cool:

Basic should be fine for gaming. It doesn't offer every feature, but mostly only disables the extra graphical stuff you may(or may not) want.

Home Premium would be the average gamers choice as it comes with media center also, but no support for domains.

Business, on the other hand, will come with Bitlocker data encryptor if you want extra security as well as domain support, it does not have Windows Media Center.

Make sure you do NOT get a -N version of any. The "N" means without windows media playback/software.

For more information see Windows Vista: Choose an Edition (textual) and Windows Vista: Compare Editions (graphical chart).
 
Best of luck!

Let us know how it went good/bad. If you have any issues many of us here will be happy to work with you through them.
 
"Every game I play runs as good (*well not good*) as it did on XP.

Thats SupComm, all the major Source titles, Battlefield 2/2142, Doom3, FarCry was a bit buggy but I worked around it."

Statement 2 violates statement 1.

In terms of how fast things run, unless you've bnechmarked the two, any statements about how well they run are pure conjecture. I'm sure the OP can google this topic. The general findings are that XP is about 5% faster and has fewer problems. Thus to the OP's question, is Vista ok for games? Yes, it is ok. XP is ideal. This is similar to how things were with 2000 vs XP. It will likely change with a service pack. Vista *!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!s ignore this sentiment however.
 
general said:
"Every game I play runs as good (*well not good*) as it did on XP.

Thats SupComm, all the major Source titles, Battlefield 2/2142, Doom3, FarCry was a bit buggy but I worked around it."

Statement 2 violates statement 1.

In terms of how fast things run, unless you've bnechmarked the two, any statements about how well they run are pure conjecture. I'm sure the OP can google this topic. The general findings are that XP is about 5% faster and has fewer problems. Thus to the OP's question, is Vista ok for games? Yes, it is ok. XP is ideal. This is similar to how things were with 2000 vs XP. It will likely change with a service pack. Vista *!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!s ignore this sentiment however.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't need a benchmark to explain my gaming experience to me. Far Cry was the only exception, but Far Cry has always given me issues, I think its a hardware problem, and as for any statements about how they run is conjecture, thats definitely false, any statements on how they run is based on first hand experience, I'm not theorizing my gaming experiance. I play at all the same settings I did on XP and the game still runs great, and thats all I care about.
 
Write down a list of all the games you have.
Then start searching around the internet for information about Vista compatibility.

I suggest searching for "title Vista", just replace title with your game's name.

That should give you plenty of newsgroup and forum postings about your games- which will give you info on if it runs on Vista or not.
Visit the software designer's website as well. They may have Vista patches.

Keep in mind, all comments you hear about a game running under Vista don't mean yours will be the same way. Someone could have an odd compatibility issue that most other people won't, and not realize it is the cause of their problems, so they think the game just doesn't run well under Vista.
 
calebb said:
Aero doesn't make a difference when you play games. In fact, it's an improvement over XP with respect to the effect of eye-candy on overall performance.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/
Click to expand...

I fogot to comment on that, but calebb is right.

Plenty of performance results. All of them that have run on the same exact hardware as XP, show that Aero has zero additional load to the system than XP has.

As someone already mentioned as well, games automatically switch the system over to the Basic look (no Aero) when you are playing them, so there really isn't need for the whole Aero thing to be worried about.
 
"Sorry I don't need a benchmark to explain my gaming experience to me."

Well then your observations are irrelevant. It's akin to someone saying that their grandmother owned a **insert crappy unreliable car here ** and had no problems and thus it must be reliable.

"I play at all the same settings I did on XP and the game still runs great, and thats all I care about."

Great is subjective and can mean many things. Running 10% slower might be great to you, but I'm sure that most people would say that running slower is not great. Take the emotion away from you Vista purchase and you'll see that Vista as a gaming platform is not great. It is slower, has more hardware issues and game compatibility problems than XP. Those three things, in and of itself, would mean that Vista is not great for gaming.
 
general said:
"Sorry I don't need a benchmark to explain my gaming experience to me."

Well then your observations are irrelevant. It's akin to someone saying that their grandmother owned a **insert crappy unreliable car here ** and had no problems and thus it must be reliable.

"I play at all the same settings I did on XP and the game still runs great, and thats all I care about."

Great is subjective and can mean many things. Running 10% slower might be great to you, but I'm sure that most people would say that running slower is not great. Take the emotion away from you Vista purchase and you'll see that Vista as a gaming platform is not great. It is slower, has more hardware issues and game compatibility problems than XP. Those three things, in and of itself, would mean that Vista is not great for gaming.
Click to expand...

Says you..

Many would beg to differ..both are subjective..

But as a gaming platform, will XP ever officially offer Dx10 gaming? No?

Then for a major purchase, such as an Operating System, Vista is the only viable option where present AND future gaming is concerned.

The more days go by, the more apparent this will become.. As with all growth..But maybe you're suggesting we just stop technological advancement (whether you or I approve; as long as it's not unethical) because you say so?
 
general said:
"Sorry I don't need a benchmark to explain my gaming experience to me."

Well then your observations are irrelevant. It's akin to someone saying that their grandmother owned a **insert crappy unreliable car here ** and had no problems and thus it must be reliable.

"I play at all the same settings I did on XP and the game still runs great, and thats all I care about."

Great is subjective and can mean many things. Running 10% slower might be great to you, but I'm sure that most people would say that running slower is not great. Take the emotion away from you Vista purchase and you'll see that Vista as a gaming platform is not great. It is slower, has more hardware issues and game compatibility problems than XP. Those three things, in and of itself, would mean that Vista is not great for gaming.
Click to expand...

OP- it is not near as bad as some lead you to think. Ol' general here seems to be an active anti-Vistatite (check prior posts).

Vista is not slower- plenty of performance records show it. Show me a good study that came up with Vista being slower than XP. I'm talking about the same hardware and configuration settings on each machine. I've seen plenty of people claiming "I have proof Vista is slower!" but they don't even keep the two OS on the same playing field.

Get something straight, PLEASE get something straight- Vista does not have hardware issues. Given Vista drivers- show me hardware that won't work in Vista. You'll find little to none that do not work given Vista drivers. This equates to driver issues. And this of course is not a "Vista issue", it is a Creative/nVidia/ATI/etc issue.

Game compatibility issues. Once more- show me a game that won't work in Vista made AFTER it came out, that says it works with Vista. Running a 5 year old game obviously might have some problems- Vista wasn't availible to game developers then.
If that old game won't work- try Compatibility Mode.
I added the "That says it works with Vista" because there are still a few recent games that weren't designed for Vista- just a disclaimer ahead of time.

Now, I'm not a big gamer, so I really can care less about Vista gaming- wether it is there or not. But listening to all this junk circulate really tires me.
I'm not claiming at all that ALL games work in Vista. All I'm saying- is show us a list. Give us a list of games that you can honestly blame Vista for.

The whole "Vista is not great for gaming" is pure crap, plus it is hard to take someone seriously that doesn't even know how to use the quote function... :rolleyes:
 
With both the old and new forceware, Source, CS 1.6 (Quake 3 engine), Need For Speed Carbon, Diablo 2, are all games that have worked fine for me, and as you can see below my rig is pretty unstable. Stalker has a few issues with Forceware 101.51, but the new 151 works like a charm.

In general I have very very few complaints about this OS, although it is not as intuitive as I had hoped it would be.
 
zacdl said:
Show me a good study that came up with Vista being slower than XP. I'm talking about the same hardware and configuration settings on each machine.
Click to expand...
I found this comparison of game performance in Vista vs XP. I didn't see anything ostensibly erroneous about the comparison, but I'm all ears...

As the author points out, this is largely an issue of driver performance, but that's not relevant in answering the question, "Which OS will run the game faster/slower?". Anyway, the article is dated late February, so I'm certain performance has improved, but as of that time, Vista seemed to be slower for the majority of games.
 
jimmyb said:
I found this comparison of game performance in Vista vs XP. I didn't see anything ostensibly erroneous about the comparison, but I'm all ears...

As the author points out, this is largely an issue of driver performance, but that's not relevant in answering the question, "Which OS will run the game faster/slower?". Anyway, the article is dated late February, so I'm certain performance has improved, but as of that time, Vista seemed to be slower for the majority of games.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, the problem with the article is they relied upon the initial Vista drivers for the hardware which, by now, no longer would be a proper comparison. (For example, they were using ATi's 7.1 Catalyst drivers which were, at the time, all they could do. However, ATi has made massive improvements in their Vista drivers in the last three months.)

The trick of course is to find something more current...(I've seen anectodally that under the most recent Catalyst drivers speed/performance is on par with XP - but nothing rigorous worth linking to...)
 
I wouldn't be surprised at all if that were the case. Even with those older drivers the performance gap was small enough that I personally wouldn't care.

Someone with an abundance of free time ought to do some tests that are up to date.
 
jimmyb said:
I wouldn't be surprised at all if that were the case. Even with those older drivers the performance gap was small enough that I personally wouldn't care.

Someone with an abundance of free time ought to do some tests that are up to date.
Click to expand...

The new 151 nvidia drivers were definitely an improvement (gaming experience did suffer with the older drivers), but all my games run great at the settings I'm used to and I imagine it will only get better as time progresses. I mean imagine Vista with 5 years worth of hardware and drivers behind it the way XP has now.
 
Even if Vista is a bit slower now, 3 to 6 months from now that will likely not be the case..
This happened when we Xp started to take over from 98se.. At first games ran slower on Xp than 98.. Drivers caught up and now in modern games Xp is as fast or faster most of the time..
Ati and Nvidia, and everyone else are going to be shifting more of their driver writing personnel over to writing Vista drivers.. We will still get updates for Xp til it hits eol.. However, those updates are going to more, and more, be aimed at just fixing issues, instead of increasing performance or adding features..
Eventually, Vista will end up being as fast or faster than Xp in modern games because of that..
 
general said:
"Sorry I don't need a benchmark to explain my gaming experience to me."

Well then your observations are irrelevant. It's akin to someone saying that their grandmother owned a **insert crappy unreliable car here ** and had no problems and thus it must be reliable.

"I play at all the same settings I did on XP and the game still runs great, and thats all I care about."

Great is subjective and can mean many things. Running 10% slower might be great to you, but I'm sure that most people would say that running slower is not great. Take the emotion away from you Vista purchase and you'll see that Vista as a gaming platform is not great. It is slower, has more hardware issues and game compatibility problems than XP. Those three things, in and of itself, would mean that Vista is not great for gaming.
Click to expand...

Actually, the end-user's experience of playability is the only measure which truly matters. A variation in general benchmark results is rather meaningless if:

  • It is so slight that it makes no perceptible impact on user interaction.
  • It reflects a performance difference which only exists at settings which the user does not have configured.
  • It reflects a performance differential which is outside the range of human perceptibility.

If a particular 3D benchmark test, for example, is measuring an application performance where framerates are down around 10 - 15 FPS, it makes no difference to the user that one result exceeds the other. Both are unplayable. If a particular benchmark is measuring application performance where framerates are up around 100 FPS or more, it doesn't matter how much one result exceeds another. The difference is measurable only, and generates no added benefit. If a suite of benchmark tests shows difference at screen resolutions and settings which the user does not use, then the results become dismissible because they are irrelevent. A different combination of hardware/software, for example, might produce little difference at lower resolutions such as 1280x1024, but generate improvement when resolution gets up around 2560x1600. Makes bugger all difference to the bloke with a 17" LCD monitor though, does it?


In the end, the only really relevent measurements are 'playability' and 'user satisfaction'. Subjective they might be, but they're the measures which matter.
 
Vista gaming is great right now. It's amazing what a few short months has done.
 
Not so great for me. Source lost about 60 FPS and Prey chugs (only two games I've tried so far). Both worked smooth as butter in XP
 
Tylerdurdened said:
Not so great for me. Source lost about 60 FPS and Prey chugs (only two games I've tried so far). Both worked smooth as butter in XP
Click to expand...

Which drivers were you using?

On my P4/3.2GHz & 8800GTS, I get slightly better FPS in CS:S with the 158 drivers than I did with whatever the current drivers were for XP in January 07. (granted, I might get better performance in XP using the current XP drivers, but I'm happy with 1920x1200, everything max & 60+ FPS.
 
calebb said:
Which drivers were you using?

On my P4/3.2GHz & 8800GTS, I get slightly better FPS in CS:S with the 158 drivers than I did with whatever the current drivers were for XP in January 07. (granted, I might get better performance in XP using the current XP drivers, but I'm happy with 1920x1200, everything max & 60+ FPS.
Click to expand...

158.18
 
i read the link with comparation,vista its not the correct choice.
i stay with xp,couple of months .maximu 6 months,and after this purchase to the vista.
 
I have thrown Supreme Commander, STALKER, Test Drive Unlimited, and BF2 at my Vista install and so far minus BF2 and that "your OS doesn't have the proper privileges" all of them have run smooth and without problems. Even STALKER. I even cranked SC settings all the way up without seeing a hitch in the frame rates.

I have a pretty beefy machine and so far my third Vista install is going good. I'm impressed so far. The first two resulted in a BSOD that never recovered and a failed hardware hard drive.
 
mit78 said:
i read the link with comparation,vista its not the correct choice.
i stay with xp,couple of months .maximu 6 months,and after this purchase to the vista.
Click to expand...

To each his/her own.

When you do decide to give it a try for yourself, let us know how things go!
 
general said:
"Sorry I don't need a benchmark to explain my gaming experience to me."

Well then your observations are irrelevant. It's akin to someone saying that their grandmother owned a **insert crappy unreliable car here ** and had no problems and thus it must be reliable.

"I play at all the same settings I did on XP and the game still runs great, and thats all I care about."

Great is subjective and can mean many things. Running 10% slower might be great to you, but I'm sure that most people would say that running slower is not great. Take the emotion away from you Vista purchase and you'll see that Vista as a gaming platform is not great. It is slower, has more hardware issues and game compatibility problems than XP. Those three things, in and of itself, would mean that Vista is not great for gaming.
Click to expand...
If you can't tell it's slower then what is the difference?
 
darkangel74 said:
I have thrown Supreme Commander, STALKER, Test Drive Unlimited, and BF2 at my Vista install and so far minus BF2 and that "your OS doesn't have the proper privileges" all of them have run smooth and without problems. Even STALKER. I even cranked SC settings all the way up without seeing a hitch in the frame rates.

I have a pretty beefy machine and so far my third Vista install is going good. I'm impressed so far. The first two resulted in a BSOD that never recovered and a failed hardware hard drive.
Click to expand...

The BF2 problem is solved by running as administrator. I don't know if you knew that already, it sound like you solved the problem from the tone of your post, but I figured I throw that out there just in case :D
 
feek said:
If you can't tell it's slower then what is the difference?
Click to expand...

Because it means you're not getting the desired performance. Even though you can run DOS games smoothly, it doesn't mean that new games will run as good. For example, my CS:S is 120 FPS (from 180 in XP), smooth, sure. But Prey and CoD2 are unplayable, both were smooth (or "I didn't notice a difference") in XP
 
feek said:
If you can't tell it's slower then what is the difference?
Click to expand...

If you can't tell, that's great for you. However, if you can't tell, that doesn't adequately predict what I will experience since everyone's perception varies. "Irrelevant" might be a bit strong...but such a statement more difficult to apply widely. (So, the difference is not in whether or not you care, but in how useful your experiences are in answering the question of what others will experience. Numbers could do a better job...)
 
From my experience things were a bit slower in Vista at first (luckily the 8800GTX is powerfull enough to make up for it!) but after nvidia's last couple of driver updates it was been flying along at XP levels.

Games Played: Supreme Commander, Test Drive Unlimited, GTR2, GT Legends, Flight Simulator X, GRAW (outside of game issues anyhow), Half Life 2, Dawn of War, etc. All at 1600x1200 /w everything maxed.

Before the 158series drivers anything about 4x AA @ 1600x1200 was laggy but now that is smooth as silk with higher AA levels.
 
LhasaCM said:
(So, the difference is not in whether or not you care, but in how useful your experiences are in answering the question of what others will experience. Numbers could do a better job...)
Click to expand...
Agree, but with qualification. The user perceptions need to be observations made of a comparable combination of hardware and software titles used by somebody else in order to be meaningful when used as a predictive measure. So do the benchtests which generate the numbers.

Tylerdurdened, for example, when suggesting " But Prey and CoD2 are unplayable, both were smooth (or "I didn't notice a difference") in XP" is obviously talking about titles which are right at the potential edge of playability (for him) on a particular combination of hardware. It's probably important there to get an indication of what screen resolution and detail levels are being used. Somebody else might have a different perception of what 'acceptably playable' means, and general benchmark results won't necessarily isolate that.

Similar deal in the other direction. You see 'numbers' such as "5% to 10% slower than XP bandied about, but do those numbers reflect what another person does on his PC? Yeah, new games mightn't "run as good", but is the person likely to be trying to run "new games" on that rig anyway, and is the performance differential going to impact onm what a person does run?

To be applicable to somebody else's experience numbers need to be accompanied by yet more numbers, and perceptions need to be accompanied by details of explanation. In neither case does a generic, generalised explanation suffice.

In my own circumstance, for example, with a pair of SLI'd 6600GT cards for game-playing there is a limit to what I'd expect to play on the system, and that limit is imposed by hardware rather than by software restrictions. Given the monitor I have in use I game at 1680x1050, and although I'm not anal about maxxing out detail levels I don't want to really go below what most games will configure as 'Medium' levels. I can put F.E.A.R. on that rig and average 50 FPS or thereabouts at those settings. Minimum framerates drop enough to give me lagginess here and there, which can be annoying, but not so much that I couldn't live with it. Initial release Vista droipped the numbers (and the user experience) far enough to render the thing unplayable. Since the 101.41 drivers the numbers (and the playability) have been back. Benchmark results which reflect a performance differential in less demanding titles are a non-issue. Benchmarks results which reflect a performance differential in more demanding titles are a non-issue also, because those titles would be a 'non-starter' on that rig until such time as the graphics hardware gets upgraded.


Sorry, people, but you just can't suggest that a benchmark difference will affect what happens in future games unless your hardware is currently not imposing any limitations whatsoever on you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top