stay with vista or go xp

DrDoU

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
2,703
have windows vista home premium installed and the gaming is terrible.Should i stay with vista? and, hope service pack 1 speeds things up or go back to xp which is faster at the moment
 
On the system in your sig???

Go back to xp... no way you should run vista on that, especially for ganimg...
 
Definitely agree with Blue Falcon. If a socket A system needs to remain in use for gaming and multimedia work then it's probably best to leave it running XP rather than upgrading to Vista.

Sure, Vista will install and run OK on the rig, for less demanding productivity tasks, but when the demands become a bit more 'heavy-duty' the age of the technology in the machine really starts to expose the heavier demands placed upon by the newer an fatter OS. Stuff which isn't an issue at all on newer hardware suddenly become a problem on the older hardware.

I know damned well that it wasn't hard for me to decide to replace my last remaining Socket A system when I moved the household to Vista rather than XP. Made sense to do so.
 
single core and a 3200+, ya, just doesnt have enough umfh to run vista and a game well.
 
I don't believe the 'problem' here is so much single-core v dual-core. Instead it's the fact that it is a Barton core and an AGP interface, coupled with a recent technology display adaptor and the gaming OS of the future which is really beginning to lend the term "bottleneck" some substantial meaning! Inadequacies in the hardware are really being exposed by the newer OS.


If replacing that rig isn't an option at this point in time then the remaining life should be wrested from it by using XP rather than Vista. It isn't going to be running games in DX10 anyway.
 
i did not know how bad it was until i replace vista with xp.it was like day and night.the games that i play became more responsive with greater frame rates.i wiil be updating around the end of the year or maybe early part of next year.i plan on keeping vista as i want it to be my main operating system.hopefully they(microsoft)will have some of the bugs worked out

thanks for the input cheers:D
 
i dual boot vista and xp,i get arround 10 to 15 lower fps in games with vista,it makes ghostrecon 2 unplayable avarage 20 to 30 fps,with xp pro i get 35 to 50 fps.
bioshock is unplayable with vista on dx10 frames as low as 15 fps.on xp no slow down at all,so i nearly always boot to xp as my main os.
 
Def. go XP, I'm finding the downside of vista right now. It only lets you upgrade your computer 1 time and then it junks your key...

I'm in the process of sending microsoft a flame letter about how shitty they are and how Im switching to bullshit-less ubuntu!
 
I don't believe the 'problem' here is so much single-core v dual-core. Instead it's the fact that it is a Barton core and an AGP interface, coupled with a recent technology display adaptor and the gaming OS of the future which is really beginning to lend the term "bottleneck" some substantial meaning! Inadequacies in the hardware are really being exposed by the newer OS.


If replacing that rig isn't an option at this point in time then the remaining life should be wrested from it by using XP rather than Vista. It isn't going to be running games in DX10 anyway.

Wow!! From the mouth of a true expert!! :eek::eek:
 
u need 2gm more ram and faster CPU, that XP 3200+ is ancient and VERY slow. infact, a 3Ghz XP would slower than a 1.8Ghz core 2 duo.
 
Right.

The issue is the performance of the CPU and the memory subsystem.
 
Without looking hard, I would say the main reasons his machine is too low performance is 3 fold.
1) slower cpu
2) single core
3) Vista does more

Vista does quite a lot of background work and likes cpu for them.
With a single core this will be a trauma for gamers.
With a slower cpu it takes longer for it to complete the background tasks so the impact is more severe

Vista and dual core minimum FTW.
 
Wow!! From the mouth of a true expert!! :eek::eek:

LOL. Some of us ARE capable of being objective, rather than merely appearing in threads to be 'bashers'.
AGP is fine and can handle vista with out issues..... so AGP is not the issue there.
Right. The issue is the performance of the CPU and the memory subsystem.
Without looking hard, I would say the main reasons his machine is too low performance is 3 fold.
1) slower cpu
2) single core
3) Vista does more

Vista does quite a lot of background work and likes cpu for them.
With a single core this will be a trauma for gamers.
With a slower cpu it takes longer for it to complete the background tasks so the impact is more severe

Vista and dual core minimum FTW.
There's no single "issue" here. There's a combination of isues which work together. You simply can't exclude single issues in that way, nor settle on one specific issue as the 'cause', nor draw all-inclusive conclusions from the situation.

In that machine, for that, purpose, under that OS, modern PC gaming is going to be rather restricted. You might get away with it by restricting the gaming to older titles and the screen resolutions we all thought 'amazing' many years ago, but who the hell really wants to do that? The dreams and goals of today's PC gamer include incredibly demanding games, large widescreen monitors and screen resolutions hardly even thought about when the core technology of that rig was all the rage a few years back. Throwing a heavy-duty graphics card and more RAM at it, in that rig, still leaves it 'borderline' as a modern games machine, and Vista, in this particular circumstance, becomes the proverbial 'straw'.

There are gamers coping well enough with AGP interfaces. There are gamers coping well enough with singl;e core CPUs. There are gamers coping well enough with Vista. etc etc etc. But it's all thrown together here. Every limitation is impacting on every other. The rig isn't even enjoying the benefits of matched RAM and dual-channel, for goodness sake, because it's a Socket A rig which draws no benefit from such a thing.

The owner of the machine is trying to extract the remainder of its gaming potential from the thing, and in this particular circumstance Vista becomes simply one more burden, and the easiest of all the burdens to shed.



Def. go XP, I'm finding the downside of vista right now. It only lets you upgrade your computer 1 time and then it junks your key...
If you're going to hijack topics with unrelated side issues you could at least make some small effort to come up with something which wasn't complete and utter bullshit misinformation ;)
 
I use a 3000+ 754
2gig ram
x800pro

FPS is higher in vista. So i don't know where you all are getting your sources lol.
 
FPS is higher in vista. So i don't know where you all are getting your sources lol.
I also get higher framerates in Vista than I see in XP, on the same rig. But there are quite a few game titles I don;t play, that a lot of other people do play, and in those games people frequently report that they get lower frame rates under Vista than they can achieve under XP.

It's dependent upon the game title itself. You simply can't draw firm 'conclusions' one way OR the other!
 
Back
Top