• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

battlefield 2 - xp vs vista

ciproxr

Senior member
Im thinking im going to be getting alot of lag on vista, since xp only uses 150 mb ram where vista uses 450mb. should I just make a dual boot with xp and uses xp for battledfield2 or can i use a usb drive to as ram? (dont remember what its called)
 
vista usb drive is call ReadyBoost..

since BF2 already need 2 gigs to run smoothly in XP, no question it'll need at least that much in vista. To answer ur question, get vista with 2 gigs ram + readyboost, test and see yourself how it runs
 
Originally posted by: Oxaqata
I ran BF2 on a 6200 for about 2 months....albeit 800x600 lowest detail =b

It never ceases to amaze me that people can run at those low resolutions and details and be satisfied. I suppose you don't miss what you never had. One taste of decent hardware and most people like that would be forever hooked. 😛
 
I have played BF2 on XP and now on Vista. With my 6800GT, P4 2.8C, 1GB DDR, I notice a substantial performance penalty in Vista. Whereas I ran on mostly high settings in XP under 1024, I have to play on low with no AA on Vista. I am considering dumping Vista entirely for this and other reasons until things get better.
 
Originally posted by: duffman1
it is proven that all games run slower on windows vista. Because it takes up 1gig of ram to run vista.

scientifically huh... lol BF2 on my system high 1280 x 1024 in xp

low on 1024 x 768
 
6600GT, p4 2.4C @ 2.9Ghz, 2GB of ram. game ran fine with high details, 1280x1024, 2xAA.

of course, the rig in my sig plays bf2 with everything cranked and 4xAA.
 
Back
Top