Vista vs xp 32 bit - Gaming

Hey, guys the new 180 drivers don't seem to be supporting 8600 m gt but the vista driver are supporting it. So it brings me back to the big decision again wether to vista or xp. If i go vista im planning on putting in 4 gb of ram for sure or 3.5 if i got 32 bit. I really want the 180.70 drivers to get an 80% increase with lost planet colonies so I can actually play the game. So my question is

Go vista 32 bit with 3.5 gb of ram and get good driver support ? = higher fps
go vista 64 bit 4 gb of ram get okay drivers?(reading the forums at laptop video 2 go the 32 bit drivers seem to better then 64 ?) and get higher fps?
OR
stick with Xp 32 bit because its still supports games the best ?

HELP ! I really want to be ready for GTA 4 during break

 

Take the performance increases quoted by Nvidia with a very large grain of salt, after upgrading I've seen absolutely no performance increase in Far Cry 2.

At all.

 

I would say go with XP, it's more stable and has been "proven" for far longer. Plus it's not such a RAM hog...

 

I'd say it doesn't really matter that much, but here are some things to think about.

-Dox's version of the 180.70 drivers (link), which are optimized specifically for 8-9 series notebook cards and fix a couple issues like the control panel and powermizer, are available in all 4 common windows flavors (XP 32, XP 64, Vista 32, Vista 64). And into the future you can still expect to good driver support with either XP 32 or Vista 64, you just might have to wait a little more.

-You should have about the same amount of RAM 'free' in XP32 or Vista64 with 4GB installed and a 256mb 8600m GT.

-A 64 bit OS will be more future proof as programs are coded more optimally for 64 bit operating systems, and the RAM market changes.

-As far as gaming is concerned, no modern game is going to benefit much from more than 3GB of RAM anyways considering your other specs.

-32 bit XP will give you better legacy compatability, IE it will work better with older software and hardware, particularly anything ancient enough to be designed for 16 bit architectures.

-64 bit is better for encryption.

-Vista has more features that you may like, like aero, the sidebar, the search/run bar on the start menu, the overall layout, mobility center, flip 3D, etc.... A lot of these can be mimicked in XP though.

-Vista has more features you may not like, like User Account Controls and in general it tries to hold your hand more as far as security is concerned, but these can easily be disabled.

-32 bit XP should still be supported for a long time, but 64 bit Vista should end up with better support in the long run, for updates and drivers and compatibility. It should be close enough to Windows 7 (the next generation of windows, basically vista changed to be less fatty and more friendly) that they basically get the same updates.

-With 4GB of RAM, you should be able to take great advantage of Vistas SuperFetch, which will eventually learn your usage habits and load the most commonly used files into all those extra gigs of memory not being used while you aren't gaming. XP has a similar technique called PreFetching, but it's much less effective when you have large amounts of RAM available to use.

 

Vista 64

XP support is already falling off. It's going to die more. I'd say gaming is fairly comparable on both now.

 

When I originally purchased this laptop, I was resigned to probably having to install 32-bit windows for support and in order to use the old apps at work.

Truth is, 64-bit Vista has surprised me...

At work, I only have 1 app that doesn't work completely... (old phone system client) and I found a workaround.

For gaming, I found Vista64 to be comparable to Vista32... which is on par with XP32.

I'd say go with Vista64... I bet you'd be pleasantly surprised.

 

The XP 64 is not a bad option at all.........
1.It brings u the features of XP like lesser memory consumption...etc
2.It can support all the latest processors and upto 8 GB of RAM just like the Vista 64
3.Besides when in a time where all coming programmes mand games may be optimized for a 64 bit.....u'd much rather go with XP than VISTA........
4.There also exists no Driver Issues.........as evry optimized driver is released even on the XP 64 platform......Including the one released by DOX........DOX u rule man.............awesome drivers.....

 

People say so bad about Vista, I say, just like with gamings and life, try it yourself and see if you like it. I kind of like XP more anyway

 

When games start being optimized for DX 10.1, then Vista would be better than XP. Farcry 2 is supposed to run AA better under DX 10.1 than DX 9.0.

Vista is just a bloated and heavier OS than XP unfortunately.

 

With a little optimization Vista isn't too bad really...

It does have more overhead, but overall game performance should be about equal to its XP counterpart with appropriate hardware.

 

Well i was originally on vista 64, 32 bit then i wen to xp 32 bit and it was better for gaming just because i had more empty ram that my games could take advantage of. Since i am planning on getting GTA 4 i thought it might better on vista since there would me more ram the game can take advantage of. Installing the 180.70 drivers for xp 32 bit. Hopefully i get huge fps boost in lp colonies!

 

Ive got my boost in LP Colonies just for you to know

 

Lavitz,
in your situation I think you would be best off with staying with XP 32. If you are soley basing the decision on a few games and an increase in FPS is desired then I think you should stay with what you have. I don't think changing your OS will give you any overall increase in FPS.

That being said, and I'm not trying to confuse you, I love Vista 64 and will never go back. All my games and programs work great and run at least as fast as they did in Vista 32, I like having tons of memory and the way my common programs are cached and startup instantly, and I like messing around with *new* technology. I know 64 bit is not new but I only used XP 64 one time and I had nothing but problems from it, so this is a whle new experience for me.

The ONLY thing I hate with Vista 64 is the browser. IE 64 bit does not work with some things (flash?) and the 32 bit version stops responding occasionally. It appears to be a known problem but I have had no luck figuring out how to fix it. This is the first time I've ever felt the need to switch to an alternate browser.

 

XP remains better because of it's support for older software.
I don't see DX10 as an advantage really given the fact it flopped.
Aside from that, Vista doesn't really offer anything new, apart from being a much larger resource hog.

Sticking with XP for now would be ideal, and Windows 7 is right around the corner anyway, so if you will really want an upgrade in OS, then Windows 7 would be better in that particular retrospect.

 

Well, I played lost planet colonies for around 30 mins , soon the realize the game just isn't meant to played with horrible mouse support a game is just not playable. I was just hoping i could get my moneys worth out of it. Anyways I think ill stay on xp till there is a bigger reason to upgrade.

Thanks guys!

 

They actually missed the decimal point on the speed increase its more like 0.08%...

Also 180.70 drivers make the gpu hotter, seems to have more bugs in dx9, and seem to crash a lot more, crashes from sleep resume on my 8600m.

Best to find a driver that works best for you and stick with it till theres something you need which requires an upgrade.

I've tested 180.70 on my desktop 9800gtx sli, no difference in real performance whatsoever. The numbers look soooo good in writing then you load up the game and go 80% my ....

 

What if your GPU doesn't support DirectX 10 (excluding Direct3D WARP10)? Then DirectX 10 wouldn't matter on Vista.