- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
As Tim Allen would say, "eeerrrrr??"
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
windows Xp or Vista
- Thread starter Nvidia101
- Start date
Damn, I am on a roll today. McAfee AV and other AV software... I need to go to bed...
Too add fuel to the fire, Crysis ran so slowly in Vista compared to XP at the same settings that I felt compelled to boot into XP on the machine in question for the first time in a long time. Once I'm done with Crysis I suppose I'll boot back into Vista.
This is probably my first substantially negative experience with Vista.
This is probably my first substantially negative experience with Vista.
NTJedi
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 444
I've seen lots of posts explaining how Windows Vista should be the OS of choice because the slower performance is nothing of concern, but why switch to Vista?
I mean if WinXP-64bit will run my old games and new games... why switch to Vista-64bit to run the old games and news with slightly slower performance?
It's like buying a 2004 sports car... then the 2008 sports car becomes available and shows slightly less performance, yet you purchase the 2008 sports car anyways despite your current vehicle only has 5000 miles and still purrs like new. I guess with a sports car it can be justified to impress the ladies, but here in the computer industry Windows_Vista won't catch you any tail.
I mean if WinXP-64bit will run my old games and new games... why switch to Vista-64bit to run the old games and news with slightly slower performance?
It's like buying a 2004 sports car... then the 2008 sports car becomes available and shows slightly less performance, yet you purchase the 2008 sports car anyways despite your current vehicle only has 5000 miles and still purrs like new. I guess with a sports car it can be justified to impress the ladies, but here in the computer industry Windows_Vista won't catch you any tail.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 7,200
Just to chime in here, I loaded up my XP SP2 Image and used it for a few days after using Vista for 3 months. I was surprised when I realized I missed Vista features and interface. I loaded my Vista 64 image and I felt all was right again. Would I buy it, yes. My only gripe with Vista is it takes a little more storage space then my XP install but that is to be expected. Good luck!
Ok, once and for all:
There's no reason to specifically go out and get Vista if you are completely and totally satisfied with XP.
Period.
End of fucking discussion.
Vista has left the building.
But, if you want the newest, if you want the biggest, if you want to stay on the bleeding edge, on the curve, if you want to use the operating system that will be Microsoft's flagship product for the future, then Vista is the choice.
I hope that's clear enough. There's no reason to just drop XP if it's working fine for you, that's a given. If it works, if all your software works, if all your hardware works, then stick with it.
If not, or if you're just interested in the newest OS on the block, then Vista is the choice - that is, unless you're planning on a Linux distribution or, heaven forbid, the cost associated with buying an entirely new plaftorm machine just to run Leopard.
Why is that so hard for you people to understand? It's a personal choice, period, it always has been, it always will be.
Good lord, it sure would be nice to finally see these god damned ridiculously unproductive "Vista vs the world" threads come to a close once and for all.
There's no reason to specifically go out and get Vista if you are completely and totally satisfied with XP.
Period.
End of fucking discussion.
Vista has left the building.
But, if you want the newest, if you want the biggest, if you want to stay on the bleeding edge, on the curve, if you want to use the operating system that will be Microsoft's flagship product for the future, then Vista is the choice.
I hope that's clear enough. There's no reason to just drop XP if it's working fine for you, that's a given. If it works, if all your software works, if all your hardware works, then stick with it.
If not, or if you're just interested in the newest OS on the block, then Vista is the choice - that is, unless you're planning on a Linux distribution or, heaven forbid, the cost associated with buying an entirely new plaftorm machine just to run Leopard.
Why is that so hard for you people to understand? It's a personal choice, period, it always has been, it always will be.
Good lord, it sure would be nice to finally see these god damned ridiculously unproductive "Vista vs the world" threads come to a close once and for all.
InCogneato
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
Ummm... maybe because the "slower game performance" isn't the only difference between the two and there are a boat load of other things to consider?
NTJedi
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 444
Based on RECENT reviews I would advise checking official game forums to see if Vista hurts more than helps:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMywzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA
=====================
=====================
Depending on the game DX10 can be bleeding pretty bad on performance with some low curves.
OVERALL... I recommend setting up a multi-boot environment using both WinXP-64bit and WinVista-64bit. Thus when WinVista-64 eventually catches up or passes the performance of WinXP-64bit you'll be ready.
Actually youre not.
Time and again it has been shown, without FUD and using clinical techniques, that there is no benefit in games to running Vista over XP. Indeed a performance detriment is manifest in the vast majority of cases without a commensurate increase in visual fidelity. Crysis, somewhat ironically, has lent itself to the notion that there may be a case to be made showing publishers purposefully omitting effects in the DX9 render path in favor of DX10 exclusivity.
32- versus 64-bit is an equally spurious argument. If you want 64 bit, go for it, but dont try to paint a picture of it always coming up roses, either. Bit-tech, among others, had a verifiably difficult time with Vista 64 only when trying to run the DX10 poster-child: Crysis. Some of the discussion in this thread alluding to nothing other than a 64-bit OS taking full advantage of a quad-core processor is worse than FUD its an outright lie. 32-bit just works, 64- still has problems that need addressing. I would guess that many readers of this site do probably carry the requisite stones to tinker enough to achieve parity in the reliability department, however. Intestinal fortitude then becomes a necessity.
It also bears noting that Vista is not getting measurably faster, either benchmarks of SP1 bear out Microsofts muted performance increase claims: 1 to 2% bumps are being recorded.
Ultimately it comes down to preference. I run XP side by side with a Vista box at home and I prefer XP for a host of reasons. Some like Vista but the tired arguments of inevitability, 64-bit is the only way, and DX10 gaming are worthless to anyone with a critical mind.
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 17,098
(In reference to DX10 gaming) How, then, do you explain the visual benefits in games like Hellgate, BIoshock, Company of Heroes, and all the other games with DX10 capability? Running XP means you are willing to forgo these amenities. I realize these are often at the cost of framerate, but this IS the forum for [H]ardOCP, not basiccomputing.com.
Many here have the hardware (or [H]ardware?) to be able to deal with this performance hit. I prefer Bioshock in DX10 mode, and Hellgate is ten times better in DX10, graphics wise.
After switching to Vista, I won't give up the eye candy.
And as for 64-bit. I have yet to find a piece of hardware that I have not been able to run in 64-bit mode.I chose 64-bit, not because of any percieved performance gains, but because I will need 64-bit eventually, and this will allow me to avoid a OS re-install down the line. Plus, as cheap as ram is anymore, why NOT be able to run 4gigs?
NTJedi
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 444
DX10 and Vista are not good for all games even with a super hardcore system:
"In LOTRO, the GeForce 8800 Ultra is 55% slower when using the DX10 code, than it is when using only DX9 code."
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMywzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...ZW50aHVzaWFzdA
*searched the internet for only 2 minutes and found these recent reviews*
After plenty of reading it's clear that choosing Vista as your one and only OS can possibly cause regrets for existing and future games. On the same note choosing XP as your one and only OS may work great now yet a year from now DX11 might arrive with worthy improvements. Answer: Multi-Boot
64-bit is definitely the way to go... I could write an essay, but I'm sure it's been done already a few times.
Heh I witnessed a client get competely screwed by UAC today. The poor sucker bought a Vista laptop and created a folder to 'program files' and saved a couple files there. He had to answer no less than 10 UAC prompts saving f'n files to program files subfolder.
Un effin believable. Yeah, Vista and UAC rocks!
Un effin believable. Yeah, Vista and UAC rocks!