[Al4x]

was wondering, does it place more load on the graphics card than xp?

cause im running it from my dell laptop and am thinking of switching back, i have a good laptop, with plenty of ram, but was wondering if going to xp would remove some of the graphics load when i play games

does anyone know?

 

[kejar31]

Yes, going to XP will improve the gaming performance of your machine.

 

[geniebomb]

I think that Vista is more hardware accelerated than XP, so yes it uses more graphics power when you're on the desktop. However, my CSE friend told me that Vista isn't simulating your desktop when you're playing games, i.e. the fact that you're running Aero on the desktop doesn't matter when you're playing games. There's lots of comparisons of the two OS's on google.

 

[Agnostic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kejar31 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, going to XP will improve the gaming performance of your machine.

Nonsense

 

[John E Woven]

Vista Aero runs off the GPU, and takes load off the CPU.

Plus, gaming performance is right up there with XP now, even beating it at times. It's because of premature graphics drivers that they were slower.

 

[Al4x]

problem is i think my graphics drivers are fairly old, i find it hard to find ones for my laptop card

so it does load the graphics ard more?

 

[dvessel]

It's similar to what Mac OS X does in that it offloads the UI compositing to the GPU but as it has been mentioned, when playing games as long as it's full screen that aspect of Vistia shouldn't affect performance. The rest of the system can be a factor for good or bad so I would look into that if gaming is important to you.

 

[MD1032]

IMHO, Vista sucks in general, and should be avoided at all costs. To me, it's a slower Windows XP that's been dipped in plexiglass, and with all of the settings you need hidden away.

 

[craiglester]

I find Vista more stable than XP, with a nicer interface, yeah it took a little learning, but ti's not exactly hard to find stuff.

The biggest problem I see with the OP's situation, is that you're trying to play games on a laptop. Laptops generally suck at game playing.
Laptop graphics cards are almost always clocked slower than their supposed equivalent desktop ones.

And if it's an Nvidia one, it's probably defective..

Also, what's the specs and what's the game?

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John E Woven /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vista Aero runs off the GPU, and takes load off the CPU.

Yeah, that's what I thought as well. Hence Vista is more of a graphics hog

 

[John E Woven]

That's only looking at it one way.

Vista Aero is more of a graphics hog, but that's load off the CPU, for you to do more with is a more accurate statement.

 

[kejar31]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nonsense

Ok, what ever you think.

People, Vista is more demanding on your computer even without Aero running. Vista is a bloated memory hog that will without a doubt effect the performance of games. And lets not forget the OP is using a laptop, which more then likely shares system memory with his GPU. I have both Vista and XP installed within two separate partitions on my system (core 2 duo, 2Gig of memory and an 8800) and there is no contest, XP just plays games better. Anyone who would say different just hasn't really tried both on equal systems and definitely not supported Vista for a living. Wow, I never thought I would need to even have to explain my original statement!

And for people who want to bring up articles from sites like Toms Hardware Guide, Anandtech, etc.... Just remember those guys shut off all kinds of services that effect system performance within Vista before testing. So unless you want to explain to the OPer how to do that and then try and support him every time he has some stupid problem related to a service he shut off, I say go for it.

 

[Duggeh]

The team that were responsible for Windows98 and ME made Vista. The team that were responsible for windows 2000 and primarily for XP are working on blackcomb, which had had an accelerated development schedule.


Like with ME, its time to skip a Windows generation. Stick with XP (or XP-64) until windows 7 replaces Vista. Unless you are one of those users who particularly needs slightly more efficient access to 8gig of ram and slightly more advanced power features.

Don't get me wrong, Vista I quite like, I'd pick it over OS/X in a second, but XP has had somethign that no other windows version to date has had, a long long time to mature into something which worls really really well, and particularly on modern hardware, can shine like a HDR corona.

 

[Agnostic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kejar31 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok, what ever you think. People, Vista is more demanding on your computer even without Aero running. Vista is a bloated memory hog that will without a doubt effect the performance of games. And lets not forget the OP is using a laptop, which more then likely shares system memory with his GPU. I have both Vista and XP installed within two separate partitions on my system (core 2 duo, 2Gig of memory and an 8800) and there is no contest, XP just plays games better. Anyone who would say different just hasn't really tried both on equal systems and definitely not supported Vista for a living. Wow, I never thought I would need to even have to explain my original statement! And for people who want to bring up articles from sites like Toms Hardware Guide, Anandtech, etc.... Just remember those guys shut off all kinds of services that effect system performance within Vista before testing. So unless you want to explain to the OPer how to do that and then try and support him every time he has some stupid problem related to a service he shut off, I say go for it.

More nonsense. I actually ran a lot of gaming tests at different resolutions before switching to Vista and you're talking bs. Most games I tested (and this was over a year ago) ran FASTER on Vista than on XP. I don't remember all the games I tested but F.E.A.R. for instance was 10 to 15% faster on Vista on the same system. And that was not on a system with services etc switched off.

The memory hog remark just shows you're ignorant of how Vista functions. Vista precaches information in unused memory based on usage statistics to improve responsiveness. If that memory is needed for other tasks it will simply be released.

Most of the comments in this thread are unfounded and frankly silly. This is just blind and irrational hate of Vista based on nothing but a few early impressions (if any) and the widespread Vista bashing all around the internet.

Yes XP is a ver nice OS.

Yes Vista had initial problems (mostly related to the absense of good drivers for a lot of hardware).

Xp does not have DX10 (unless you want to go through the trouble of installing a hacked version for XP) and yes, DX10, if a game supports it often looks a whole lot better than DX9.
No, XP is generally NOT faster running games, and hasn't been for a long time. I know because I tested it.

 

[skitlets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by craiglester /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find Vista more stable than XP, with a nicer interface, yeah it took a little learning, but ti's not exactly hard to find stuff. The biggest problem I see with the OP's situation, is that you're trying to play games on a laptop. Laptops generally suck at game playing. Laptop graphics cards are almost always clocked slower than their supposed equivalent desktop ones. And if it's an Nvidia one, it's probably defective.. Also, what's the specs and what's the game?

Defective indeed... my laptop died 4 days out of warranty. An hour and a half on the phone with Dell support later, I find myself waiting to ship out my machine to have the motherboard and GPU replaced with integrated video.