Best performance MS Operating System for gaming

[Dorkenstein]

Right now I am running the windows 7 beta RC1, but I want to go back to either xp or vista 64 bit. I would go with xp except I know there's no directx 10 for xp. I am also a little hesitant because of lack of full 64 bit driver support for xp. Does Vista SP1 outperform xp anyway, or is xp still a solid choice for gaming? Thanks for any help.

 

[Modelworks]

Curious as to why you want to go back to vista from windows 7 ? Is it a driver issue ?
Vista uses quite a bit more resources than Windows 7, so if you are low on memory or cpu power I would stay with 7.
XP is still good for gaming, not many dx10 titles out there as of yet and even fewer games with 64 bit support.

 

[zerocool84]

I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP. All that fancy desktop stuff gets turned off when you're playing a game full screen and the extra RAM that Vista uses is just to load up programs faster so you won't notice anything. Vista is infinitely more secure than XP and much faster. Sure it uses more resources but wouldn't you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games? Why don't you want to game on W7???

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP. All that fancy desktop stuff gets turned off when you're playing a game full screen and the extra RAM that Vista uses is just to load up programs faster so you won't notice anything. Vista is infinitely more secure than XP and much faster. Sure it uses more resources but wouldn't you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games? Why don't you want to game on W7???

Everything he said!

Also - zero mentioned any resources Vista uses for caching purposes are turned off - anything that is already allocated in main memory for that, is deallocated when needed. Don't let people fool you into thinking XP is better in any way shape or form.

-Kevin

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP.

you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games

the two statements are completely contradictory. which is it, the same or different?

Vista is infinitely more secure than XP

infinity times zero is...still zero.

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Don't let people fool you into thinking XP is better in any way shape or form.

-Kevin

nobody here has quantified why vista is better, only qualified that it's not worse (in the context of video games).

it is now the middle of 2009, and:
64-bit computing is unused by games
4GB+ RAM is unused by games
quad-core chips are now barely used by a few games
DX10 is used in a small handful of crappy games

please, keep telling me how awesome vista is for games! :roll:

i have:
vista ult 64 sp2
q9300
4GB ram
2x 9600gt

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP.

you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games

the two statements are completely contradictory. which is it, the same or different?

Vista is infinitely more secure than XP

infinity times zero is...still zero.
You are insane if you don't think Vista is more secure than XP

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Don't let people fool you into thinking XP is better in any way shape or form.

-Kevin

nobody here has quantified why vista is better, only qualified that it's not worse (in the context of video games).

it is now the middle of 2009, and:
64-bit computing is unused by games
So use 32bit Vista, I don't care. What does that have to do with anything.
4GB+ RAM is unused by games
I believe I remember reading that Supreme Commander would occasionally allocate more than a 32bit machine would allow in an article a few months back. Additionally remember that a single program can only allocate up to 2GB for itself even though the OS can address up to 4G. Outside of that, once again, use 32bit Vista, it doesn't matter
quad-core chips are now barely used by a few games
What do any of these things have to do with the OS? Just because a single application doesn't use all 4 cores at once, doesn't mean the OS scheduler can't schedule processes for a separate core. Extracting 4 levels of parallelism in a game is pretty tricky
DX10 is used in a small handful of crappy games
Assassin's Creed, Company of Heroes, Far Cry 2, Crysis, Bioshock, Gears of War, all of those are crap? If DX10 isn't important to you then just turn it off. The fact remains that the driver/hardware interaction (HAL), and the security in themselves justify using Vista over XP -- regardless if Vista loses you a frame/sec or 2

-Kevin

please, keep telling me how awesome vista is for games! :roll:

i have:
vista ult 64 sp2
q9300
4GB ram
2x 9600gt

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP.

you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games

the two statements are completely contradictory. which is it, the same or different?

They're only contradictory because you choose to say so...

nobody here has quantified why vista is better, only qualified that it's not worse (in the context of video games).

it is now the middle of 2009, and 64-bit computing is unused by games

True - There are no 'native 64 bit' games. Seems 32 bit ones run just fine, though.

I would opine, however, that "unused" is off base in the context of this conversation:

4GB+ RAM is unused by games

This is a misstatement: Application space in 32 bit MSFT OS's is 2GB. Not 4. And there are most definitely 32 bit games which can, will, and do use more than 2GB of address space/memory should that be made available to them.

You want to hit me with the /3gb switch? Be advised that should you choose that path, you are reducing the address space set aside for the system by 1GB - Need more? and you will get errors and related crashes due to the lack of resource for the system.

I see you have 4GB of RAM installed on your system - It's interesting to me that you installed Vista 64 so you have the address space to use it all.

And speaking of address space, what about when you want that Uber Multi-GPU setup? Do you really think a 32 bit OS will be able to handle that and still have the space left over for all your RAM?

quad-core chips are now barely used by a few games

Another misstatement - Just because the game itself is not or is poorly multithreaded does not mean those extra cores go unused. Even when you're only running the game, your computer is still running a lot of other processes. Processes that would need to run in the same space as your game. So even if the game itself doesn't use the additional cores, the computer/OS can assign processes to run on a core your game isn't using. Which guarantees your game gets the full benefit of whichever cores it *does* run on.

DX10 is used in a small handful of crappy games

Judgment call - Gamingphreak was kind enough to supply a list. Whether you personally happen to like them or not is rather irrelevant. A better statement would be something along the lines of you "I don't like the current DX10 games".

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Vista is infinitely more secure than XP

infinity times zero is...still zero.

Read, and be educated: http://technet.microsoft.com/e.../library/cc507844.aspx

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Scotteq
True - There are no 'native 64 bit' games. Seems 32 bit ones run just fine, though.

Actually, While there are very few, Crysis has a 64bit executable.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: Scotteq
True - There are no 'native 64 bit' games. Seems 32 bit ones run just fine, though.

Actually, While there are very few, Crysis has a 64bit executable.

I am of the understanding it is a 64 bit "mode", rather than an executable compiled as a full blown 64 bit app. And that the result of that mode is the game is run with no limit on address space. I could easily be incorrect on this, though - I'm not an FPS fan and don't own the game.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are insane if you don't think Vista is more secure than XP

you are insane if you think vista is secure.

Originally posted by: Scotteq

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP.

you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games

the two statements are completely contradictory. which is it, the same or different?

They're only contradictory because you choose to say so...

they are mutually exclusive. it's either one or the other. same or different.



Assassin's Creed, Company of Heroes, Far Cry 2, Crysis, Bioshock, Gears of War

out of the 6, crysis and far cry are nothing but eye candy, right? that leaves 4 titles. my cup runneth under.

 

[dguy6789]

It's amazing how naive some people can be even to this day about Vista. I suggest you do some more reading on the subject before saying more silly things.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are insane if you don't think Vista is more secure than XP

you are insane if you think vista is secure.

Originally posted by: Scotteq

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP.

you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games

the two statements are completely contradictory. which is it, the same or different?

They're only contradictory because you choose to say so...

they are mutually exclusive. it's either one or the other. same or different.



Assassin's Creed, Company of Heroes, Far Cry 2, Crysis, Bioshock, Gears of War

out of the 6, crysis and far cry are nothing but eye candy, right? that leaves 4 titles. my cup runneth under.

Tell me, How is Vista insecure? The infection rates for vista have dropped tremendously thanks to UAC. While not as secure as linux (you can still stupidly push "yes I want to run this") It is definitely not insecure.

As for the mutually exclusive statements, no they aren't. Superfetch doesn't make your games run faster (or slower), but it does make them load faster. Thus, the OS is taking advantage of the extra hardware (Free ram) while not effecting the performance of your games.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Dorkenstein
Right now I am running the windows 7 beta RC1, but I want to go back to either xp or vista 64 bit. I would go with xp except I know there's no directx 10 for xp. I am also a little hesitant because of lack of full 64 bit driver support for xp. Does Vista SP1 outperform xp anyway, or is xp still a solid choice for gaming? Thanks for any help.

If you have 4GB or more of RAM it dosent matter, 64 bit vista will be best simply because it can use the full 4GB. With 2GB some games might lag on vista, depends on the game and settings etc, any less then 2GB stick with XP.

But really windows 7 is gonna be better than both, its not a ram hog like vista and its not out of date like XP. Windows 7, the best of both worlds :thumbsup:

 

[The Boston Dangler]

lol you guys are right, vista is really really great

hey scotteq, i noticed your sig, and since you seem to be so knowledgeable and enthusiastic, maybe you could explain something to me:

i installed sp2 today, hoping to get rid of my #1 vista.....oddity. every time i open a directory, explorer greets me with a random view of its contents. sometimes it alternates between 2 view settings, sometimes truly random. i figured since a lot of people having the same issue, and several attempts at reg hacks to fix it have failed, and it's right there in your face every time you use the computer, maybe microsoft would fix it. what do you think about that, professor?

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
lol you guys are right, vista is really really great

hey scotteq, i noticed your sig, and since you seem to be so knowledgeable and enthusiastic, maybe you could explain something to me:

i installed sp2 today, hoping to get rid of my #1 vista.....oddity. every time i open a directory, explorer greets me with a random view of its contents. sometimes it alternates between 2 view settings, sometimes truly random. i figured since a lot of people having the same issue, and several attempts at reg hacks to fix it have failed, and it's right there in your face every time you use the computer, maybe microsoft would fix it. what do you think about that, professor?

Without knowing what you've changed in the registry, I wouldn't even want to try. After all, it's not up to me to unscrew what you've done. And given your tone, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't acknowledge a proper answer were you given one.

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Vista is infinitely more secure than XP

infinity times zero is...still zero.

For the second time - Read, and be educated: http://technet.microsoft.com/e.../library/cc507844.aspx

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are insane if you don't think Vista is more secure than XP

you are insane if you think vista is secure.

Originally posted by: Scotteq

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP.

you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games

the two statements are completely contradictory. which is it, the same or different?

They're only contradictory because you choose to say so...

they are mutually exclusive. it's either one or the other. same or different.

(Gaming) Performance between Vista and XP is equivalent - Early differences were due to poorly optimized drivers for Vista. This has been handled in due course, and is old old news:

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2302495,00.asp

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...nce_update/default.asp

Vista has the added advantage of being better able to utilize more resource should you choose to build it into your system.

These things are only "mutually exclusive" in the minds of puerile forum trolls.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are insane if you don't think Vista is more secure than XP

you are insane if you think vista is secure.

Why? Like Cogman said, with UAC turned on Vista is a fairly secure operating system. Yes, Linux still is the current crown jewel (Merely because not many program malware for it), but Vista is so much more secure than XP it isn't even funny. Not to mention the revamped driver system is much more pleasant to work with.

Originally posted by: Scotteq

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I use Vista64 for gaming and notice no difference between it and XP.

you want something to take advantage of all thse extra hardware you pay more for to play games

the two statements are completely contradictory. which is it, the same or different?

They're only contradictory because you choose to say so...

they are mutually exclusive. it's either one or the other. same or different.



Assassin's Creed, Company of Heroes, Far Cry 2, Crysis, Bioshock, Gears of War

out of the 6, crysis and far cry are nothing but eye candy, right? that leaves 4 titles. my cup runneth under.

I'm sorry, he said all the games are crap. I listed 6 titles I knew of that were fairly popular. There are plenty more out there. At any rate, like I said, "don't run DX10 games then" - I don't care what you run it like. But at the same time it is ludicrous to suggest that DX10 is the only reason to use Vista.

If you have 4GB or more of RAM it dosent matter, 64 bit vista will be best simply because it can use the full 4GB. With 2GB some games might lag on vista, depends on the game and settings etc, any less then 2GB stick with

But really windows 7 is gonna be better than both, its not a ram hog like vista and its not out of date like XP. Windows 7, the best of both worlds

I run 2GB of RAM in Vista and have never had any problems. Any "extra" RAM it is using is deallocated when a program requests it. All it is doing is merely caching frequently used/executed programs - I have no problem with that. I paid for 2GB of RAM, I would prefer that my computer use as much as possible when I'm not using it to make it faster when I do need it.

i installed sp2 today, hoping to get rid of my #1 vista.....oddity. every time i open a directory, explorer greets me with a random view of its contents. sometimes it alternates between 2 view settings, sometimes truly random. i figured since a lot of people having the same issue, and several attempts at reg hacks to fix it have failed, and it's right there in your face every time you use the computer, maybe microsoft would fix it. what do you think about that, professor?

Ooooh - so you have to click 2x to fix a minor bug in explorer.exe. Man that really downgrades Vista to the absolutely unusable, horrible, piece of junk category right there. Jeez - why were we thinking about security when *gasp* explorer changes the view of the icons.

See I can be sarcastic too.

-Kevin

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
you are insane if you think vista is secure.

Unless you can provide proof to counter all the evidence to the contrary that is a simple google search away, your opinon on this subject is just pure speculation and has no basis in fact. You do realize that XP is prone to drive by malware and that Vista in it's configuration out of the box is not? The infection rates for XP are a lot higher than that for both Vista and Windows 7 too. Hell, even OSX is easier to hack and break into than Vista according to actual hackers that use and love OSX.

You may not like Vista, and there is nothing wrong with that but don't go spreading misinformation about it. Vista, combined with a limited user account and a NAT firewall is just as secure as any nix on the planet. That is a statement of fact, not speculation.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
lol you guys are right, vista is really really great

hey scotteq, i noticed your sig, and since you seem to be so knowledgeable and enthusiastic, maybe you could explain something to me:

i installed sp2 today, hoping to get rid of my #1 vista.....oddity. every time i open a directory, explorer greets me with a random view of its contents. sometimes it alternates between 2 view settings, sometimes truly random. i figured since a lot of people having the same issue, and several attempts at reg hacks to fix it have failed, and it's right there in your face every time you use the computer, maybe microsoft would fix it. what do you think about that, professor?

Try this.

Worked for me.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
lol you guys are right, vista is really really great

hey scotteq, i noticed your sig, and since you seem to be so knowledgeable and enthusiastic, maybe you could explain something to me:

i installed sp2 today, hoping to get rid of my #1 vista.....oddity. every time i open a directory, explorer greets me with a random view of its contents. sometimes it alternates between 2 view settings, sometimes truly random. i figured since a lot of people having the same issue, and several attempts at reg hacks to fix it have failed, and it's right there in your face every time you use the computer, maybe microsoft would fix it. what do you think about that, professor?

Try this.

Worked for me.

thank you. i tried that exact page, and another one that's similar. both seemed to work for a day or two, then it goes back to business as usual. i just thought, ya know, it would be better than this. oh well.


having completely ruined this thread, i'd like to leave the OP with some actual advice:

if you already own vista, use it. if you don't, i suggest saving your pennies for win 7.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
lol you guys are right, vista is really really great

hey scotteq, i noticed your sig, and since you seem to be so knowledgeable and enthusiastic, maybe you could explain something to me:

i installed sp2 today, hoping to get rid of my #1 vista.....oddity. every time i open a directory, explorer greets me with a random view of its contents. sometimes it alternates between 2 view settings, sometimes truly random. i figured since a lot of people having the same issue, and several attempts at reg hacks to fix it have failed, and it's right there in your face every time you use the computer, maybe microsoft would fix it. what do you think about that, professor?

Try this.

Worked for me.

thank you. i tried that exact page, and another one that's similar. both seemed to work for a day or two, then it goes back to business as usual. i just thought, ya know, it would be better than this. oh well.


having completely ruined this thread, i'd like to leave the OP with some actual advice:

if you already own vista, use it. if you don't, i suggest saving your pennies for win 7.

This.

Windows 7 is just around the corner, so if you haven't invested in Vista yet, there is no reason to now. Just grab the Windows 7 RC and wait for the full release.