[nor_spoon]

XP is sooooo 2001!
No, seriously, Vista runs ok as long as you have an ok computer with a decent amount of ram. And you do not need to use Aero. Although I agree that it was easier to navigate to some system settings in XP, I have had zero technical problems with Vista so far.

 

[Arainach]

Aero is disabled whenever a game or application is using the 3D part of your card, so it is not degrading your performance in that way. Quote:

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.

Err.....no? I'd love to see your source on this, since I've worked on the Windows team and know plenty of people who have worked steadily on each version since 3.1/95/etc.

 

[DemonicLemming]

Quote:

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

Why is it that Vista basically requires 2gb of memory to really function properly, while an XP machine can get by on 1gb just fine? That is an actual question, not a sarcastic remark or anything.

Side-by-side comparison of my buddy's Dell running Lord of the Rings Online, spec'd nearly the same as my box running the same game, and mine was notably faster. Call of Duty 4, same way - my box was consistently faster.

His computer also took about 7 minutes from initial power-up to the point where he could start doing things, vs mine that boots from a cold start to opening applications in under a minute.

Vista utilizes a lot of useless pretty junk (window transitions, visual effects, etc) to make it more attractive which, no matter how you look at it, is going to load the gpu harder than XP. Now, during games, that won't affect anything, but I've found, just in general, Vista machines I've used to be more sluggish than my XP machine. We have a Vista box at my work with AutoCAD and SolidEdge loaded on it, and it's actually painfully slow to use sometimes.

 

[John E Woven]

Vista runs fine on 1gb. Not as well as 2gb, but still, fine. I know, I ran it with 1gb for a long time.

a computer that takes 7 minutes to start up to a point you can start doing things? Thanks, oem crap. Clean that stuff out, clean out the msconfig, and startup folder, and it should be starting in under a minute. It's the oem's piling on crap that make it slow.

CoD4 and TF2 run about 7 fps faster on Vista than XP, with the same specs.

Don't like window transitions? You can turn them off too. Rightclick Computer, then properties. Then select Advanced system preferences, then Performance under advanced, and just select best performance.

Welcome back to 1995.

 

[DemonicLemming]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John E Woven /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...CoD4 and TF2 run about 7 fps faster on Vista than XP, with the same specs...

Well, you might take that up with his computer then, because the games loaded more slowly and had lower framerates to boot.

Same amount of memory in both machines, and same video cards. Game settings were the same on both machines, only differences were the cpus - and his is a faster C2D than my AM2.

*shrug*

 

[kejar31]

Quote:

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

Dude, Vista prefetches / SuperFetches (I'm not sure what precaches is) memory but that doesn't change the fact that its a memory hog. Its all the extra process, that makes Vista bloated, running in the background that makes it a memory Hog. Why do you think Vista needs 2 gig of ram to even resemble something that runs decent?? Also it has been my experience the DX10 does in fact look no different then DX9 on most games released. So to bring up that crap is just silly. Come on, do you really think he is going to see the benefits from DX10 on a laptop?? I guarantee you his GPU isn't even compatible.

You tested F.E.A.R? How about you try testing some games that are at least as new as Vista itself and utilize DX10. I have test games like COD4, UT3, Crysis, Bioshock, Lost Planet and even Guitar Hero and they all ran smother in XP. And with the games that did have DX10 like UT3, Crysis, Bioshock and Lost Planet, I didn't see a single difference between DX10 and DX9.

Also, don't even try to paint me as some ignorant noob that hates Vista. You don't even know me, let alone my background. I have been supporting Workstations / Servers in one form or another for the last 12 years professionally. Working for companies like Kraft, Abbott, and Intel. To top it off, I like Vista and use it for everything but gaming. I have been testing Vista since well before it went RTM, setting up and supporting multiple machines that programmers used within my office.

 

[geniebomb]

People are getting a little heated here.

Really, how much of a difference will there be, at most, in switching from XP to Vista and vice versa?

 

[kejar31]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geniebomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif People are getting a little heated here. Really, how much of a difference will there be, at most, in switching from XP to Vista and vice versa?

Ok, I calm

On a notebook you will see a significant difference in overall performance. On a high end gaming system it will be much less.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kejar31 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok, I calm On a notebook you will see a significant difference in overall performance. On a high end gaming system it will be much less.

I would agree with that, but not in the way you mean. My laptop (Dell Latitude D620, 1.66Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, Quadro NVS 140m) ran significantly faster on Vista than on XP. My main gaming machine (AMD X2 4800+, 2GB RAM, GeForce 7950GT) ran about the same.

 

[fjf]

Getting to the original post that started this, we do not have your laptop specs so it is hard to guess, but in not-top-of-the-line portables you can run vista by disabling aero. If you dont have a good video card. Every friend/relative that gets a laptop runs to me begging me to downgrade it to XP. Usually doable, finding the drivers. A real shame that manufacturers sell crappy laptops with crappy onboard video cards force you to use Vista and sell it with full aero enabled (and normal users dont know how to disable it). Franky unusable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al4x /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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?

 

[Al4x]

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?

my laptop has the 7950 nvidia card, hasnt had any problems, s

command and conquer 3 plays fine on highest settings, but im pretty sure i cn get crysis to run on higher settings on an xp machine i had, with a worse graphics card than i can on this machine with vista, its just gonna be a pain to switch over, btw, if crysis plays on medium-high ill be happy!

dx10, not gonna happen on my laptop, neither does my card support it anyway

seems like mixed opinions with more in favour of xp, also, i dont like vistas hidden processes and automation

 

[Nocturnal310]

RAM is the Cheapest component of a Computer

and Unused RAM is a Wasted RAM..

hence Vista works on this principle.

it uses Superfetching to let u run programs Faster by loading them on RAM before hand.

Vista is much better than XP in 2008 after release of SP1.

yes 2 yrs back Vista Sucked..now it OWNS XP in any way.

 

[Al4x]

laptop specs

t7600g @ 2.86ghz core 2 duo
4gb pc2 5300 ram [but its a 32 bit os]
nvidia geforce 7950 gtx 512mb ram
2 hard disks, but the primary is a 7200 rpm 160gb 8mb segate something

 

[MD1032]

XP can even run fine on 512MB. Heck, I did it for a few years. Vista can barely function with that little RAM... it's a memory hog, plain and simple. I know people who own and use both, and nobody that I've ever met at school likes Vista, at all. The only thing Vista does is look pretty. Beyond that, I hate to say it, but XP really does everything better.

I'm sure eventually Vista will have the advantage once everyone's running 64-bit and has higher-end systems, but for now, I think XP is very much in the lead. There's a reason Microsoft is going to discontinue XP in a year or so... because their own product (XP), right now, is outselling and outcompeting their newest product (Vista), by a significant margin.

 

[guyx1992]

I have a 4 year old computer (P4 3Ghz - 1.5GB 533MHz - X600Pro) and I run Vista fine, and games aren't running better or worse than XP.