Is vista as good as XP on gaming yet?

I wonder, with good specs, two identical PCs, one running Vista and the other XP. Which is faster?

 

The one, running with XP will ALWAYS be the faster one. Microsoft can "optimize" Vista as much as they want, but it will never be as fast as XP. That's why right now most netbooks are with XP. It's like comparing Need for Speed Most Wanted and Carbon - the new one will always have bigger requirements then the old one.

 

first: on a good spec, you won't have a problem running both. it will maybe make some fps difference, but who cares? nobody.

second: xp slowly loses support from gpu vendors. result: drivers for vista get more and more optimized.

there are other reasons why xp is on netbooks. gaming is no reason there.

 

Wonder if the appearance of windows 7 will change anything. But as for vista, a couple of tweaks can put it on par with xp in terms of gaming.

 

XP is better up to a point. Once the hardware gets to a certain point, Vista's extra use of system resources is outweighed by the fact that Vista will take better advantage of those resources. I wouldn't recommend Vista on any single core PC, or on any system with less than 3GB of RAM. But after that, it's not even a contest. Not even a little. Vista is by far a superior operating system, it's not buggy like many claim it is, and it's not nearly as bloated as people think it is - it just has a different memory management scheme (XP = free up as much memory as possible; Vista = unused memory is wasted memory, which is TRUE).

 

I don't know, sometimes you are stretching FPSs, may be with average cards.

 

Ok, so if I get a new PC, with a gf9800, I should get it with Vista, and then I even can play Crisis with 3D anaglyph effect. Is that alright?

 

What are the rest of the specs?

 

May be a core 2 duo, 3 Ghz or so, 4 GB Ram.

 

Crysis is quite a bit faster in dx9 than 10 on the same rig and about the only difference that I can notice is no God rays in dx9.

As to vista itself I wanted to throw my laptop out the window trying to get the idiot stuff sorted out. For me it went like this... Ok, lets start this brand new laptop up, WOOT! Wow, look at all that bloatware, Im deleting this garbage. Hey, where did add and remove programs go? Two minutes goes by while I beat my head against the wall then... Oh, they renamed it programs and features. I wonder why the overpaid boy wonder who dreamed that up thought it was a good idea to rename something that was called exactly what it did to something else that was far less descriptive? All well, whatever, lets get rid of the junk. Hey! What is up with this stupid popup every time I try and do something? User account control? Im getting rid of this thing right away! Hmmm, but how? 5 minute web search then.... Ah, ok, I can do that. All right, now that the bloatware is gone and I lost that incredibly annoying uac lets move some files over. Hey! What do you mean I cant access this file? This is my computer and Ill access whatever file I want whenever I want. Argggggg. 10 minute web search..... Ah, ok, Im doing the entire drive, I dont need these stupid permissions and I wish someone would have gave us the option to opt out during setup. I could go on but you get the idea.

The good news is when you finally get it figured out vista seems to work fine although I see no improvement whatsoever from xp as far as the user experience. Nothing is faster or easier in my daily computing world.

 

If you wanna utilize all 4gb of ur ram then go for vista-64bit. But based on those specs, then i don't think playing crysis would be a problem. Dx9 or 10.

 

You can play DX10 games in DX9 mode in Vista.

All you really proved with your anecdote is that you have never used XP and Vista side by side on the same machines doing the same tasks... Vista is so much faster when it comes to loading up an application you often use thanks to superfetch. Everything is moved, and it can be a little frustrating sometimes, but once you get used to it, it's plenty intuitive. I could go on and on as well.

 

My games perform perfectly on XP and many of the really older titles work better on XP than they do on Vista. However, there will come a time when Vista or Windows 7 may be the only way to go but it isn't that time yet in my opinion. Also more developers may start making games that don't support XP.

 

Windows 7 disagrees with you.

In my experience so far, Vista > XP for gaming. And yes both partitions were on the outside of my disk.

 

My experience has been pretty good except for the games that were made for XP, then their are the 64 bit problems some games have had, though very few. Also, XP would be a good thing to have for older titles that are Windows 95/98 centric and I've considered getting a copy for my notebook, but I'm not too sure about XPs compatibility with it.

 

The only pitfall of gaming on a Vista rig is the lack of dual screen support (i.e. Horizontal Span in XP). The screen will revert to a single monitor when the game launches. I believe you can span however if in windowed mode.

Other than that, I don't mind Vista for the most part. If XP was going to be continually supported by MS, especially for 64 bit, then I probably would have stuck with it.

 

Yep, you can use the dx9 mode in vista which is how I was able to comment on my personal experience with crysis which pretty much backed up what I had already read on the issue.

After a time I disabled superfetch and it made no difference whatsoever that I could detect in application loading. Once I figured out I would have to learn some new tricks to make vista do what I wanted I started reading. People go both ways on superfetch but I figured since it is easy enough to start and stop I would try it both ways. Only difference I could see was that my hard drive stopped churning constantly with it turned off. And yes, its supposed to churn for a while while its busy fetching but mine never stopped no matter how many hours you let the computer set. End result I left it off, wasnt helping me and my hard drive stopped thrashing. End of story on superfetch.

As to the operating system performance I am now on a much more potent computer and in normal day to day operation I see no improvement whatsoever with vista. Not in speed, not it stability, not in ease of use. I dont see vista as being any more or less intuative than XP. You gotta learn what you need to get around and do the things you do either way. For me doing what I do neither is better in any particular way. Overall I rate vista as ho hum as far as the user experience goes. It didnt bring anything to the table for me and if that truth hurts Im sorry.

Perhaps you can do me the courtesy of not assuming I lack the intelligence to know when something I do every day just got harder or easier or faster or slower. In exchange I'll do you the courtesy of assuming you just got overzealous and your not really a vista fanboy. Fair enough?

 

You're right that I get overzealous and assume people don't know what they're talking about, but I do this because so many people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to Vista.
It's not that I'm so madly in love with Vista - 2 of my 8 computers have Vista, 4/8 have XP, 1/8 has OSX, 1/8 has Xubuntu. I know that each OS has a purpose and Vista is not the best for every purpose or system. That said, I feel the need to defend the underdog... and right now, that's Vista. I see more unfounded and untrue criticisms on Vista than any other operating system.
It seems you have proven yourself to be intelligent, so I apologize for assuming you were one of those people. But I do still stand by my previous statements that Vista manages resources much better than XP. I haven't tried turning off superfetch and comparing to superfetch on - but I have compared XP to Vista on loading the same applications, almost identical hardware (DP35DP, E8400, 8800GTS 512MB, 6GB PC6400, 500GB 7200.11, Vista X64 SP1 versus DP35DP, E8400, 8800GT 512MB, 3GB PC6400, 250GB 7200.11, XP X86 SP3) and Vista definitely triumphs. Granted the Vista machine had more memory, and also granted the XP machine had a 250GB drive, but the data density across the two was the same.

 

I agree 100%!!!

Even when Windows and vendors sorted out the issues and drivers, I still can't get myself to like Vista.

The main reason is as you suggest. THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING THE USER ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT WINDOWS!!! Seriously. I mean you can't even sort your Start menu with folders on the top and files at the bottom now like it was with Win95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP! It's ridiculous.

I am all for them trying something new if they think it will help the novice user or improve usability, but for goodness sake, please offer the option to have it work and look similar to what you are used to. This way you can transition into it.

I also hated the disk thrashing. Everyone said it stops after a while. It doesn't. It just keeps grinding all the time.

 

yeah, make the os always be effectively two os, just for those who can't change habbits..

hm funny that win7 now has virtual xp as an option in it.. just makes this statement even more ridiculous

if you would instead simply transitioned to it the moment you switched, you would noticed that you'd NEVER bother again with the startmenu sorting and similar stuff. never. as you never access it anymore anyways


anyways, yes, older games run slower on vista sometimes. still they run fast _enough_ to be great to still play. so no, nothing's lost really when moving to vista (and the fact that games mostly can't crash-to-bluescreen anymore is another BIG win). can i say this again? a BIG win.

 

This was a year ago. A year ago:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp

 

you wanted that one?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp

which is the actual games benchmark result conclusion..

and yes, a year ago. still the page sucks for the content/garbage ratio. is there a print-version where we don't have to click trough each piece of tiny text?! terrible..


THERE IS

much nicer to read

and for the ones who don't want to click'n'read:

 

???

We're talking Vista and NOT Windows 7. But this just goes to show you that they had to do that for compatibility reasons.

I HATE THESE RESPONSES. So I'm an idiot because I like to do things a certain way?

I almost never use the search function because I can get to where I need to go with a couple mouse clicks. No need to touch the keyboard, type, remember what part of that name was, etc.

The search function is there because of all the clutter, that people are too lazy to organize. It just encourages throwing stuff on your computer without really knowing where it is or how it affects your PC.

 

It still doesn't fix the compatibility issues, or installed programs or games not appearing in the Start Menu or Games folder. You have to create all the shortcuts yourself in some cases.

 

Use whatever you feel more comfortable with.

In all honesty, I've read many things and unless the machine is that subpar, there will rarely be a significant performance increase in terms of OS unless the game itself was OS bound(ex: it's really old and won't work on Vista).

Sure there are a few thingies here and there, but it's not anything worth making a huge fuss about IMO.

 

Right on target...

When I purchased my laptop last year, it came with Vista...I played around with it for a week...and punted...my laptop did not have a DX10 card so that step-up feature (the only one really relevant to gamers) did not matter...and the first game that I installed (Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter) had sound issues...I hear that all of the sound related issues have been corrected...

But more importantly to me, I could not get Jane's Longbow 2 or System Shock 2 to run...small issue for most people...deal breaker for me...

Vista was much prettier, and I'm sure it does things behind the scenes that make the internet a much safer place for everyday users, but for me, there were no apparent improvements and some compelling reasons to leave it alone...

As far as which OS is faster, I've never understood the 'race' to get 2 fps extra...staying with XP just because you'll get 32 fps instead of 30 fps is, in my opinion, silly...I enjoy playing games not continually tweaking my system for a few extra 3D marks for bragging rights...when games become unplayable, I upgrade hardware...

And I'm not sure about 64-bit support for extreme amounts of RAM...I can't say from personal experience whether 16 GB of RAM under a 64-bit OS actually improves the gaming experience, but I suspect that it's not the super-paradise of gaming that some would have you believe...I have no doubt that it's faster, but once again, how many fps? I did do Far Cry 64-bit under XP 64-bit, and it didn't seem any better/faster than Far Cry 32-bit under regular XP...but then at one point, everyone, including the experts, thought that no one would ever need more than 640K of RAM...so I do think that one day, there will be software that benefits from 16 GB of RAM under a data and address bus that is 2x to 4x the current path size, but we're not there yet...

If I had my way, we would be using DOS 10.22, and I would have direct control of all my hardware...where I loaded it into memory and what hardware interrupt requests I was using...networking would be a little more painful, but well worth the trade-off of not having 30 background processes doing who knows what...some would suggest Linux, but this dog is too old to learn new tricks...

 

I am not actually for either operating system. In my mind if I had to rate one as superior it would be vista but not for the experience brought to the user but rather the improvements under the hood. As I said I view the user experience as being pretty much a wash.

I think where htwingnut was going (and if so I am in agreement) is that some of the changes made seem to be more for the sake of change than anything else. Add and remove programs turning into programs and features is a good example of this type of thing.

Manipulating files is a murkier proposition to make a call on since there has always been a number of ways to go about it before vista added some new twists. The only thing I feel strongly about here is that I want to be able to work my files in any fashion I choose as I have done for the last 20 odd years. It was irksome to have to fight my operating system for control over my files but since it can be done with a little tweaking I dont consider it a problem per se.

I am not sure how the start menu made its way into the conversation but to answer the gentleman who mentioned it I almost never used it in XP and the same applies in vista since I am a docker. However for the rare instances that I do open up the start menu I also wonder why they switched the view from folders up and files down to files up and folders down? Kind of takes you back to the beginning and change for the sake of change.

Going back to Crysis IMO a fellow is better off running in DX9 unless he is packing serious hardware. Much better frame rates and almost nothing lost in terms of graphical appeal. I didnt mean that DX10 should be avoided, Crysis is just flat a tough row to hoe. In most games I find that DX10 (and by extension vista in the context of this thread) is fine and have no performance issues with numbers that seem to be in the same ballpark as similar hardware in XP.

And, hep, I have to apologize, it was not my intent to lash out and my response was overly harsh.

 

I have yet to install anything in Vista that when offering to appear in the Start Menu, doesn't appear in the Start Menu. As for the Games folder.. People use that?

Compatibility "issues" are limited to badly written games and apps that aren't bright enough to understand that not everyone will use XP forever. I have games over 10 years old that install and run fine in Vista x64. If a relatively new game doesn't run in Vista, yell at the game developer.

 

Battlefield 2 took a prayer and sacrificial lamb to install properly on Vista 64bit. I don't recall how I got it to run, but eventually it did run, only after the rest of the hairs on my head were pulled out.

 

Definitely odd. I installed Battlefield 2 Deluxe Edition on Vista Home Premium 64-bit just two weeks ago, and installed the patches and everything. Still no support for widescreen resolutions, but that's entirely DICE's fault and independent of operating system.

 

My laptop came with Vista and I just couldn't get into it, I'm running XP and I'm happy with it. I mean I have a comp that after installation and automatic service pack is just ideal, no fixes, no bugs, no problems. When I tried Vista, geez, do u wanna do this ? do u wanna do that ? all the damn questions, if u don't pay attention u will never learn, u delete something without thinking, your problem. The the friggin start menu, it wan just awfull to get used to, harder to navigate and read.

yeah u can fix everything, but why ? why would I buy and use something that I have to stress over to get working the way I want it, why buy something that ppl complain over, that there's problem with drivers.
there's probably more issues but as I don't use vista I can't comment on them. But Windows is not cheap, so just buy what is working from the get go, has no problems, and don't stress.

 

UAC is very easy to disable. Start > Control Panel > User Accounts > Turn UAC On or Off > Disable, then reboot. It will never bother you again.

If UAC is really a deal-breaker for using Windows Vista, then you've got plenty to learn.

 

If everybody is turning UAC off, then what was the point in putting it into the OS?

I just feel like when the Microsoft engineers and architects were sitting at the drawing board for Longhorn, the primary goal was to cater to the beginner and not necessarily the experienced user (which in the long run, helps IT people also, but I'm neither a beginner or IT)...that strategy makes economic sense for Microsoft and possibly helps combat the perception that iMacs are easy and secure to operate while PCs are nefarious...but as I went down the list of improvements that Vista touted, I couldn't really find any to get excited about...with DX10 being the only exception...

I don't think Vista is any worse or any better than XP...

I'm just irritated at having to change...I loved Windows 98, and then XP was foisted upon me...eventually, games forced me to use XP...currently, no games are forcing me switch to Vista (and DX10 features due to my hardware aren't enough to convince me...), and I doubt that will ever happen with Windows 7 on the horizon...Vista will become like Windows Me...not that Me was particularly bad...it was just the forgotten OS between 98 and XP...

 

Quite true. And then they say it is something totally new (just change names and places). For me (regular PC user that plays games) the only three improvements Vista gave me are:
- The search option in the start menu, which I consider is very good.
- The games folder (nothing amazing, but surely a nice addition).
- Better graphics... for a higher amount of RAM.

 

It's a neat option for the seriously computer illiterate. While it's annoying for experienced users like us, it's very idiot-proof, which is a good thing for the less knowledgeable among us.

Personally, I like the way they implemented UAC in Windows 7, with multiple levels of security. I keep it set on the lowest level (just short of off).

 

With Vista I can take full advantage of all my 4GB of RAM and 512 vRAM which XP can not do and also Vista runs native 64-bit and is well supported now unlike XP 64-bit which enables me to use my games in native 64-bit mode if they support it which lets me move double the bandwidth. My games play at par or better on Vista because of these reasons. Since SP1 came out for Vista I have had no need for XP what-so-ever.

Also Vista has been much more stable for me and looks much nicer which is nice to have!

EDIT: Forgot to mention Vista has true multi-core support which XP does not have so if you have more than one core which everyone of us dhas by now your missing out with XP!

 

What do you mean 'better'? Faster? How much faster? You get 50 fps on Unreal Tournament 3 while I only get 40 fps? And yep, I have 4 GB of RAM in my laptop, and XP flat out tells me that it will only use 3.5 GB *shrug* 3.5 GB seems to be enough...maybe I don't multitask enough...

More stable? How so? I have never, since I bought my laptop last year and installed XP MCE w/ SP2 (don't use SP3), had an OS problem. When I installed NOX, I had difficulties getting the game to run, but that was an issue with the game, not the OS. Same thing for Fallout: Tactics when I bought it from gog.com...granted, during the week that I used Vista, I also didn't have OS problems...but I'm not sure that I understand stable...

And yes, Vista is much prettier than XP...hands down prettier...not even close...Vista looks better out-of-the-box than XP does after I've spent hours customizing it...

'True' support? I guess I'm uneducated here because I'm quite content with the fake support available to me under XP...not even sure what I'm missing...but the few games that I ran under Vista (GRAW, Supreme Commander, World in Conflict, UT3) during the week it was installed didn't seem to suffer too much going to XP...

But all this makes me sound like an XP fanboi, and I'm not that either...my reasons for keeping XP are two-fold and simple...Longbow 2 and System Shock 2 (I never tried Jane's F-18 under Vista)...if anyone with Vista can get either one of those running, let me know, and I'll retract everything, and make all future posts less than two sentences (which if you've seen many of my posts, then you know is very difficult for me...)

 

Uh, no. Vista has the same 4GB addressing issues as XP. You don't have full access to your 4GB.

 

Memory address has nothing to do with Vista or XP. It's the 32bit limitations of the Windows OS(considering other 32bit OSes can address 4 IIRC). Whether under Vista or XP 32bit, neither will detect and use 4Gb and higher. In either case of OS you need 64bit.

Now, if you want to argue that Vista 64bit is better than XP 64bit, that's another story. XP 64bit had poor support since the technology wasn't as widespread as it is today so I'd say in the 64bit versions, Vista tops it because there are more drivers and overall better control of this version of the OS.

 

I think he's referring to Vista 64-bit.

Actually, Windows Server 2008 (and I think 2003, don't quote me on that) can see and use up to 4 full GB of RAM, but no more than that.

 

32 bits refers to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique (physical) locations. The BIOS does report the total memory to windows but it has no way of addressing it. This limitation is shared by all 32 bit OS's as its a physical limit. This can be gotten around by mapping a view of (more) memory out onto disc but is obviously slower than physical memory addressed in a 64 bit system.

 

Vista... (Espessely x64)

 

XP will always have the slightly higher benchmark numbers, but I prefer to have Vista SP2 x64 with Vista-optimized drivers and the capability for DX10 (especially since PCSX2 runs a lot better with DX10).

 

On a "decent PC", which I would assume means the newest CPU and GPU, and at least 4G RAM (using whatever the OS can), the difference between current XP and Vista systems doesn't seem to be enough to argue over anymore.

Add to that the fact that newer games may become optimized for Vista (and the upcoming W7), and it seems clear to me that Vista is preferable right now, especially Vista 64 with all the newest optimized drivers.

I don't doubt that there are some games that run better in XP, but if it is only marginally better than I, too, would recommend staying with Vista since it is the more likely OS to improve even more.

 

I think if you were to get a new PC soon, you'd be silly to get XP. But if you have to get a PC with Vista now, best to try and get an upgrade coupon from the PC vendor to Win 7.

 

i don't have problems running games on vista...

 

I like gamin in Win Vista rather than XP. I would say its also because of DX 10.

 

Based on my system specs (Core 2 duo 2.4ish, 4GB Ram, 9800XT+) I'm waiting on windows 7, because I can't have an OS leeching resources (vista) and still hope to play games on high.

 

Call me silly.

Of course, in my defense, my 'new' laptop is actually a year old used laptop from eBay...I'm not completely silly.

And I didn't realize the Vista vs XP War was actually more divisive than the 360 vs PS3 vs Wii War...we're all PC (any Mac lurkers out there laughing at us? Not like OSX was the watershed that it was supposed to be)...can't we just get along?

However, the poll and many positive remarks about Vista (along with those hidden camera 'What? This is Vista?' commercials) have almost convinced me of the error of my ways...(Vista may have done better with Bill Gates doing his best Sally Struthers 'Feed the World' impersonation...'Please help feed my employees...$300 and you can feed 2 of my employees for two weeks...in return, we'll send you a fully packaged Vista OS disc along with free upgrades until we no longer support it...please...')

I guess my answer to the original poster (and perhaps the original purpose of the thread and poll) would be 'Go with Vista', but I'm not convinced it's faster, which was the question, and 'better' is far more subjective...and if she/he would have given me the option, I would probably have said 'Wait for Windows 7'...

 

Im getting a 9112 Vista 06 3DMark and a 9333 in XP. Slightly better in XP worth a couple of frames but not earth shattering like XP SP2 was to XP RTM/SP1 on my previous machines benches.