XP vs Vista: Redux @ [H]

[Redshirt #24]

i'd love to see this too since my Gigabyte 590 SLI board with 4GB of memory can neither properly install nor run Vista with all 4GB installed in it (even after applying the hotfixes and other tweaks).

AIUI, there's a specific MS patch that has to be installed before Vista can deal with 4GB of RAM at all--I think it's KB929777--though I've seen reports of people installing various 64-bit iterations of Vista just fine on 4GB systems, so no doubt YMMV.

 

[Proxy]

Just a personal update, I have been running Vista Ultimate on my rig in sig, and when I turn off Aero, performance does in fact get better in games.

 

[svet-am]

AIUI, there's a specific MS patch that has to be installed before Vista can deal with 4GB of RAM at all--I think it's KB929777--though I've seen reports of people installing various 64-bit iterations of Vista just fine on 4GB systems, so no doubt YMMV.

This is exactly the hotfix I was referring to in my original post and it does not help at all. Still BSODs during boot. I've tried everything I can think of (BIOS updates, MS hotfixes, latest drivers from nVidia, removing hardware (sound cards, etc)) and the problem still persists. To me, there's not really a motivational factor to "upgrade" to Vista anyway since the core features I was originally excited about (WinFS and Monad) have been stripped from the retail product, so not upgrading to Vista is no big deal to me. I was just trying to install it to see what it's like.

The folks who hang you with me over in #genmayhem on IRC have heard me say it a lot, but I'll say it here in the forum too. The _only_ reason I'll consider upgrading to Vista for the long-term is if the DX10 patch for FSX adds _real-world value_ to the product. I'm a student pilot and use FSX and X-Plane to keep sharp on procedure and basic instruments (since the FAA doesnt certify either for any other kind of usage). Right now, FSX runs FABULOUSLY under WinXP x64. No reason to rock the boat if I don't need to.

 

[prof_HATE]

This is exactly the hotfix I was referring to in my original post and it does not help at all. Still BSODs during boot. I've tried everything I can think of (BIOS updates, MS hotfixes, latest drivers from nVidia, removing hardware (sound cards, etc)) and the problem still persists.

That patch worked for me. If the patch doesn't work for you, I guess the only conclusion we can draw is that there's some other problem that prevents you from booting with 4 GB. A few questions for you:

• other people with 4 GB on the same mainboard are not having the same problem ?
• memtest86+ passes with all 4 GB installed ?
• ORTHOS passes (with any/either 2 GB of the 4 GB installed) ?
• does the problem occur with 4 GB on a brand new install of Vista ? (i.e. before you install any extra drivers)
• all parts are running at spec ?
• do you have 4 x 1GB or 2 x 2 GB ?

Probably you've tried most/all of that already, but I wanted to take a stab at it anyway, in case I could be of any help.

Best regards,

 

[svet-am]

That patch worked for me. If the patch doesn't work for you, I guess the only conclusion we can draw is that there's some other problem that prevents you from booting with 4 GB. A few questions for you:

• other people with 4 GB on the same mainboard are not having the same problem ?
• memtest86+ passes with all 4 GB installed ?
• ORTHOS passes (with any/either 2 GB of the 4 GB installed) ?
• does the problem occur with 4 GB on a brand new install of Vista ? (i.e. before you install any extra drivers)
• all parts are running at spec ?
• do you have 4 x 1GB or 2 x 2 GB ?

Probably you've tried most/all of that already, but I wanted to take a stab at it anyway, in case I could be of any help.

Best regards,

I actually haven't seen other people citing my exact board when claiming that they've got 4GB working in Vista. At any rate, it's a Gigabyte GA-M59SLI-S5 for reference. My memory (Mushkin model 996527 DDR2800) is configured as 4x1GB. None of my gear has ever been O/C'ed or over-volted. It's all run stock since the day I got it.

The memory has passed every stress and stability test I have thrown at it. On a whim, I let memtest86+ run in a loop when I went out of town for three days. When I came back, it was still sitting there churning away with no errors.

As to how the problem shows it's head, with the 4GB installed, the Vista installer will BSoD before even getting to the GUI. Per the google hits on the topic, I remove 2GB of memory and the installer (and Vista) run properly. Once installed, I installed all of my gear (which includes a 590SLI chipset, an 8800GTX, a PhysX card, an X-Fi Fatil1ty, and some misc USB peripherals like my bluetooth dongle -- which by the way I have removed all peripherals at one point and installed that way to see if they were the problem and it still happens). And, yes, I make sure to install all of the hotfixes and updates on Windows Update as well as explicitly installing the "large memory support" hotfix. After installing all of these, I let Vista reboot a few times to let any post-restart installers finish up. Then, I shut it down and re-install my last 2GB of memory. Upon reboot with the entire memory installed, BSoD again.

It's very frustrating, but in the end I'm not worried about it. Vista has no compelling feature that makes me think "I _must_ get Vista installed or else!" I'm perfectly happy under Win XP x64 and Linux x64. Some people may feel like Vista is a "must" and that's their right, but for me it's too much headache for far too little gain. And, even with the hotfix, Microsoft should be thoroughly embarrassed that they shipped a 64-bit OS that chokes when large memory is installed (which is one of the compelling reasons for installing a 64-bit OS in the first place).

 

[prof_HATE]

It's very frustrating, but in the end I'm not worried about it. Vista has no compelling feature that makes me think "I _must_ get Vista installed or else!" I'm perfectly happy under Win XP x64 and Linux x64. Some people may feel like Vista is a "must" and that's their right, but for me it's too much headache for far too little gain. And, even with the hotfix, Microsoft should be thoroughly embarrassed that they shipped a 64-bit OS that chokes when large memory is installed (which is one of the compelling reasons for installing a 64-bit OS in the first place).

I can understand there will be some bugs in a new OS - I was more annoyed by the fact that the patch didn't show up in Windows Update, since I would have actually avoided having any headaches with 4 GB if they just put the bloody patch in there... It just seems silly to me - I'd love to know their rationale for not putting the patch in Windows Update.

Anyway I do appreciate what you said about not having an urgent need to install Vista. Personally I'm really enjoying Vista (64-bit), but I'm not on a personal mission to convince everyone to switch over

 

[prof_HATE]

I actually haven't seen other people citing my exact board when claiming that they've got 4GB working in Vista. At any rate, it's a Gigabyte GA-M59SLI-S5 for reference. My memory (Mushkin model 996527 DDR2800) is configured as 4x1GB. None of my gear has ever been O/C'ed or over-volted. It's all run stock since the day I got it.

I've heard of issues on AMD platforms with 4x1GB that can be "worked around" by over-volting the memory and/or CPU core (which has an integrated memory controller). Also you could try clocking the memory down to 667 (just for testing!), or better yet swapping in 2x2GB (if you can borrow it).

It's kind of a longshot I suppose - but worth a try

 

[Catweazle]

For goodness sake.

This would have to be one of the most blatant threadjacks I've seen here yet! What happened to the actual TOPIC, people?

 

[stillspiraling]

AIUI, there's a specific MS patch that has to be installed before Vista can deal with 4GB of RAM at all--I think it's KB929777--though I've seen reports of people installing various 64-bit iterations of Vista just fine on 4GB systems, so no doubt YMMV.

I had to google a lot to find this hotfix and it indeed solved my problem of being unable to boot with 4G in. I also did a bios update which probably helped.

 

[prof_HATE]

For goodness sake.

This would have to be one of the most blatant threadjacks I've seen here yet! What happened to the actual TOPIC, people?

Goodness gracious! If the TOPIC has been neglected, your post certainly does nothing to revive it, since it only contains a complaint, and no comments relating to the TOPIC.

Anyway I don't see how it was a "threadjack", since the relative stability / reliability of Vista had been under discussion. My own experience with running 64-bit Vista on 4 GB (w/ the hotfix) has actually been very positive. I couldn't actually ask for more stability, since Vista is not crashing on me at all. So I thought it would be interesting (and even relevant to the TOPIC) to see if svet-am's problem with 4 GB could be hardware-related. Yes, it's a bit loosely related, but it's not like it's way off-topic, like we were talking about who's going to win a sporting event or some shit. Anyway it seemed like interest in the thread had pretty much died down.

Anyway, please go ahead and bring the discussion back on a straight and narrow course, I for one have no plans to stop you Or maybe you'd prefer to complain more ?

 

[mjz_5]

I can understand there will be some bugs in a new OS - I was more annoyed by the fact that the patch didn't show up in Windows Update, since I would have actually avoided having any headaches with 4 GB if they just put the bloody patch in there... It just seems silly to me - I'd love to know their rationale for not putting the patch in Windows Update.

Anyway I do appreciate what you said about not having an urgent need to install Vista. Personally I'm really enjoying Vista (64-bit), but I'm not on a personal mission to convince everyone to switch over

true. same goes with the patch to repair slow network file transfers...

 

[Gregor7777]

So....has anyone done any reviews with Xp/Vista comparisons with the latest Nvidia/ATi drivers since this article was written?

I've heard that nvidia has improved a bit.

 

[BLUEFISH44]

I've had lots of luck gamming with the newest cat's, all my games are moved over to vista 64 and i have not looked back. I have to say the biggest improvement for me came when the X-Fi driver disk came from creative, I need my surround sound.

For the record I'm just playing BF2 and 2142 and frame rates are smooth as silk.

 

[Catweazle]

So....has anyone done any reviews with Xp/Vista comparisons with the latest Nvidia/ATi drivers since this article was written?

I've heard that nvidia has improved a bit.

There aren't any 'newer' drivers. The 'Redux' article uses the 158.18 WHQL release. The current 158.24 WHQL release is the same thing, basically, with a bug correction which corrects some SLI mode problems which popped up in the 158.18 release, as well as a few other minor problems. The most recent (formally available) driver revision from Nvidia is the 158.45 Beta driver, and that'n may not end up being an actual WHQL release. And whilst it does provide some DirectX10 performance enhancement, it doesn't add much in the way of improved DX9 performance. The 162.xx revisions (which you can find via tweaking and enthusist sites) are predominately addressing 88xx card series bugs, and aren't yet up to distribution standard. They cause crashes for quite a few people.


The 'Redux' article uses Nvidia drivers which have perfectly acceptable performance for gaming under Vista. With regard to Vista, we've already moved past the point of "I want to be able to game" and well into the petty/pedantic territory of "I know I can run games but I really just want a bigger number!" Some individual games will persist with larger framerate discrepencies from one platform to the other. For some of those it'll never change. There's still a "World of Warcraft" issue. There's still a "Battlefield2" issue, according to reports.

The whole point, though, is that for gaming in general the vast bul of discepencies you can detect and measure are not of a magnitude which will prohibit you from running games at the detail levels your hardware is capable of reproducing. I posted this (elsewhere) a while back, in response to a 158.24 question:

I can't offer you anything in the way of formal benchmark results, because I didn't bother recording them for posterity, but I did run some rather meaningful testing on my own rig with the 158.24 driver and I'm happy to provide the 'executive summary'.

When the driver was released I had a pair of 128Mb 6600GT cards in the rig. That suited it for minimal to medium DX9 activity, with little to no anti-aliasing and lowish levels of texture filtering.

First effort was to test framerates in a range of games which suited what the cards had to offer, and at the screen resolution I prefer to use. That 'measurement' testing was followed by the more important testing (which the review sites don't provide because they claim it is too 'subjective') designed to assess if the alternative OS actually introduced the need to reduce settings in games. Using the games which the cards were capable of handling, I increased graphics settings to the point where playability suffered. That is, to the point where stutters and jitters render the game 'unplayable'. For me that point is, in framerate terms, somewheres around an average framerate of 45fps and a minimum framerate of 25fps. It'll vary from person to person. Everybody has their own take on 'acceptably playable'. It won't vary too far, though.

In the past couple of weeks or so I've replaced the 6600GT cards with a pair of 256Mb 7800GT cards. I've repeated the above tests with those cards installed, using the couple of games I had handy which were able to make heavy demand on the new rig, with HDR enabled and improvements to jaggies and texture filturing coming into effect. FEAR and TR:Legend provided that testing.

So, to the outcome of the testing.

Raw framerate comparisons between XP and Vista showed differences, but they were minimal to negligible. The worst I encountered was a difference of about 8%, and most tests were closer than that.

The playability testing showed ZERO difference! There was not a single game I ran which required me, when running in Vista, to reduce graphics settings in order to maintain that 'playable' framerate range!



I don't play WoW or BF2. I play singleplayer games, usually shooters or action/adventure. But 3D is 3D, and I'll repeat. There was no real-world performance detriment from Vista. The slight framerate differences measurable were not of an extent where they prohibited me from going to 'the next level' in graphics detail settings, even right up at the performance limits of my cards!

Windows XP/DirectX9 is a "dead end street" with respect to Nvidia device drivers. It's now lagging way behind, and Nvidia's attention is directed toward Vista and DirectX10. The 94.24 WHQL driver is the currect WHQL release for that platform, and Beta releases since only add support for new hardware, really. They've reached end of line, and aren't going to get any better from here on in. Don't hold your breath waiting for future 'optimisations' under XP. You'll end up turning purple.

The XP platform is no longer moving forward. Any detectable performance detriments of the Vista platform are negligible. That's all there really is to it all!

 

[Finn]

Windows XP/DirectX9 is a "dead end street" with respect to Nvidia device drivers. It's now lagging way behind, and Nvidia's attention is directed toward Vista and DirectX10. The 94.24 WHQL driver is the currect WHQL release for that platform, and Beta releases since only add support for new hardware, really. They've reached end of line, and aren't going to get any better from here on in. Don't hold your breath waiting for future 'optimisations' under XP. You'll end up turning purple.

The XP platform is no longer moving forward. Any detectable performance detriments of the Vista platform are negligible. That's all there really is to it all!

1) Vista has so major performance problems that manufacturers have to use all resources to get it working even marginally good
2) XP driverbase is long optimized and faster than Vista. We can breathe normally.
3) Forcing people to migrate to the crappy Vista is completely lame.

 

[Catweazle]

1) Vista has so major performance problems that manufacturers have to use all resources to get it working even marginally good

Big statement, and IMO one which is personal dissatisfaction wrongfully transformed into an all-inclusive claim. Plenty of people reporting that Vista is perfectly acceptable for them even right out of the box. In my own case the Vista installation put in place on 30th January, with initial release device drivers, gave quite acceptable performance in everything other than gaming. It was way beyond "acceptably good". That's the trouble with "big statements", Finn. When you talk BS you only really sound like you're prone to spout BS.

Let's look at the 'performance problems' you see frequently reported:

There's game performance. But when you have a closer and more informed look you find that it really only relates to a specific few titles. Most games play at performance levels matching or copmparable with XP. There's the file copying/moving problem. But it doesn't happen for everybody, and the reasons/circumstances for it aren't yet clear. And that's about it.

2) XP driverbase is long optimized and faster than Vista. We can breathe normally.

XP is a very nice computing platform to use. Nobody is claiming it's not. Not even the people who prefer Vista

3) Forcing people to migrate to the crappy Vista is completely lame.

Nobody is being 'forced' either. Unless you're somehow referring to the practice of including the current version of Windows with pre-installed retail systems. But thenm that'd be "lame", wouldn't it? Isn't a product anywhere, ever, for which manufactuers keep providing (and retailers keep stocking) 'last year's model'!

 

[mndeg]

Just a personal update, I have been running Vista Ultimate on my rig in sig, and when I turn off Aero, performance does in fact get better in games.

aero is not enabled in games. it does not make a difference.

im running vista ultimate x64, it runs great.
4 gigs of ram
geforce 8800 gts
x-fi extreme gamer pro

 

[chaikovski2002]

aero is not enabled in games. it does not make a difference.

im running vista ultimate x64, it runs great.
4 gigs of ram
geforce 8800 gts
x-fi extreme gamer pro

I second that!

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

On older machines though, you do feel the squeeze of Vista. I did some timedemos (timedemo demo1) of Doom 3 running on both XP and Vista Ultimate x86. I discarded the results of the first bench because there would be slight slowdowns due to the system pulling things off the hard drive, so I didn't count those. I used the latest drivers available as of this week. The timedemos were run at 1024x768 without AA and was set to high quality.

Athlon 64 3700+ Clawhammer 2.4GHz, 1MB L2
2GB Corsair XMS-3200 2-3-3-7
nVIDIA GeForce 6800GT 256MB PCIe 350/1000
nVIDIA nForce 4-4x Motherboard (ECS nForce4 A754 with latest BIOS)
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 160GB w./8MB cache

Windows XP SP2 - 90.1fps
Windows Vista x86 - 58.9fps

Pretty big discrepancy, no? It may be different with 7 or 8 series cards, but my impressions with 6 series cards, OpenGL performance takes slightly over a 1/3 hit. I think I'll stick with XP for now or make the switch when nVIDIA's Vista drivers get better. I'll retest again and post up a comparison again when I get my X2 4200, nForce 570 SLI and my 7950GT in.

 

[powersurge]

We are 9 months into Vista thus far and IMO its still in sad shape. I've been using Home Premium for a few months now on my main gaming desktop and I'm still finding software and games that either have issues or won't even install correctly.

I mean come on is this a joke? I'm not using any odd ball gear with funky drivers just your every day stuff and XP era games. I've even come across some XP games that I couldn't even install at all. The installer either crashed multiple times or in the case of one game the installer wouldn't even launch. No fixes atm for them from the devs of the games.

Don't even get me started on the glitches with iTunes running in Vista or the DRM issues WMP11 seems to be having with online vendors such as directsong (Still waiting on a email from them on that one).

I'll most likely be switching my main partition back to XP when I get the time with a small one left for Vista only stuff (Halo2 and Shadowrun).

 

[Catweazle]

We are 9 months into Vista thus far and IMO ...

Oh boy! Did YOU just do a woopsie!

It's five months since Vista was retail released. That's how far back the consumer-market stuff you're talking about relates to.

It's 7 months since Vista was released to volume license channels, for business use, where the stuff you're talking about is an irrelevence.


And it's only 8 months since the friggin' RTM version was finalised!

 

[powersurge]

Ah my bad I thought it went retail back in Nov. Still I seem to recall my move from Win98 to XP being a lot smoother. I know Vista offers a lot of new features and goodies but its still frustrating.