crysis on XP or VISTA??

[Imported]

I just switched to Vista recently and haven't had a problem at all with any of the games, including Crysis, and applications I use. I'd say your 95% is way biased.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Soviet
Dont choose your OS based on how crysis will run on it. I ran crysis on vista x64 ultimate and it was fine and on XP x32 pro and it was fine, no difference. I downgraded to XP because vista is a pita for other reasons.

From what i gather DX10 dosent look all that much better but theres a big hit in performance wirh DX10 enabled. If you have SLI 8800GTS 512's or something then maybe DX10 would be usefil to you.

There is *nothing* wrong with Vista [period]

DX10 does look better

but there is currently NO rigs that will play Crysis with good frame rates
[well, maybe at 10x7] ... when it DOES, Vista 64 will be the OS of choice to play it - it will run MUCH better than with Vista 32 ,, and FORGET XP if you really want to "experience" Crysis

Meh.. I'd rather "experience" my computer working properly all the time, so I'll take a pass on Vista just to get a couple of graphical effects in Crysis.

What's your problem?..... we are here to help,btw it really is not rocket science to get Vista working as good if not better then XP, infact dead easy,as to gaming I have given up on finding a 32 bit I can't run in Vista x64,think my last count was 66+ games installed (that includes Starforce,SecuROM,TAGES copy protected retail games).I also have Vista x86 on my lappy, that too is working fine and 100% stable..

DX10 is still pretty new,don't forget we have the next wave of games and video cards due,are we going to hear the same old excuses?..I remember when I could not run some of my DX9 games well when DX9 was new,nothing that tweaking settings in options or upgrading video card etc could not fix,I sure did not blame XP back then....Nothing is stopping people running DX 10 games in DX9 mode for now if they want the performance over DX10 (depending on your hardware).

One tip for Vista gamers (even XP gamers),make sure you install/update to latest version of DX9.0c(YES DX9.0c) from Microsoft's website or from here .

I cant install the id anthology disks on my vista 64 system and wish someone could tell me how to do it. All i want to do is play old school quake tennabrae or glquake and cant even get the installer to run. I've read online where people say just to copy the data directory over and play from there, but i can't even do that because i dont have a data directory. I have a setup.exe file that wont run even as winxp sp2 compatability mode and a big dat file, but no data directory.

Any suggestions?

btw, direct x 9c on vista? Won't installing that overwrite dx10?

I believe ID Anthology was released in 1996?..It's very possible that its a 16 bit based game and therefore will not run or install in Vista x64.

 

[Tempered81]

XP SP3

and then this:

Originally posted by: Canai
Run 64-bit XP. All the DX10 features that are supposedly Vista only are simply disabled via config files when running XP, so you can get a config from the crymod forums to enable all the eye candy.

First hand experience running dx10 crysis "very high" in XP here. And from benchmarks, it's faster than vista.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: slag
btw, direct x 9c on vista? Won't installing that overwrite dx10?

There's discrete runtimes in Vista for DX9 and DX10. DX10 is the first DX that isn't backwards compatible with previous versions necessitating the need for the DX9 runtime to be installed at some point after you install Vista as it doesn't come with it pre-installed. If you're running an older game, it'll be whatever version of DX9 that came with that game so as someone else mentioned, you'll want to update to the latest version or download the stand-alone version at some point.

As others mentioned, enabling "high quality" hacks in XP isn't DX10 quality no matter how you slice it; plenty of review sites have posted side-by-side images and noted the differences are even more noticeable when playing the game. XP performance is certainly better than Vista but some of that is to be expected with DX10 vs. DX9 and its typically not enough difference to make one version more playable over another. Crysis runs better in DX10 mode than in DX9 in Vista however, which seems to point to driver/client optimizations for DX10 and room for improvement in DX9 mode.

Do you have a link to this?

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Soviet
Dont choose your OS based on how crysis will run on it. I ran crysis on vista x64 ultimate and it was fine and on XP x32 pro and it was fine, no difference. I downgraded to XP because vista is a pita for other reasons.

From what i gather DX10 dosent look all that much better but theres a big hit in performance wirh DX10 enabled. If you have SLI 8800GTS 512's or something then maybe DX10 would be usefil to you.

There is *nothing* wrong with Vista [period]

DX10 does look better

but there is currently NO rigs that will play Crysis with good frame rates
[well, maybe at 10x7] ... when it DOES, Vista 64 will be the OS of choice to play it - it will run MUCH better than with Vista 32 ,, and FORGET XP if you really want to "experience" Crysis

Meh.. I'd rather "experience" my computer working properly all the time, so I'll take a pass on Vista just to get a couple of graphical effects in Crysis.

What's your problem?..... we are here to help,btw it really is not rocket science to get Vista working as good if not better then XP, infact dead easy,as to gaming I have given up on finding a 32 bit I can't run in Vista x64,think my last count was 66+ games installed (that includes Starforce,SecuROM,TAGES copy protected retail games).I also have Vista x86 on my lappy, that too is working fine and 100% stable..

DX10 is still pretty new,don't forget we have the next wave of games and video cards due,are we going to hear the same old excuses?..I remember when I could not run some of my DX9 games well when DX9 was new,nothing that tweaking settings in options or upgrading video card etc could not fix,I sure did not blame XP back then....Nothing is stopping people running DX 10 games in DX9 mode for now if they want the performance over DX10 (depending on your hardware).

One tip for Vista gamers (even XP gamers),make sure you install/update to latest version of DX9.0c(YES DX9.0c) from Microsoft's website or from here .

I cant install the id anthology disks on my vista 64 system and wish someone could tell me how to do it. All i want to do is play old school quake tennabrae or glquake and cant even get the installer to run. I've read online where people say just to copy the data directory over and play from there, but i can't even do that because i dont have a data directory. I have a setup.exe file that wont run even as winxp sp2 compatability mode and a big dat file, but no data directory.

Any suggestions?

btw, direct x 9c on vista? Won't installing that overwrite dx10?

I believe ID Anthology was released in 1996?..It's very possible that its a 16 bit based game and therefore will not run or install in Vista x64.

Yeah, i was thinking about this also. Its a game made to run under windows 95/98 and there was a patch out to allow it to run under windows xp as well.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: apoppin
in MY experience - from many dozens of threads - 100% of the time it is the user, not Vista that has "issues"

Vista is as Stable and as Fast as XP [PERIOD] in gaming.

And it is the choice for todays serious gamer .,... the rest of you still using a primitive OS are only fooling yourselves. We know better and can *prove* it to all but the most technically incompetents.

Wow.. Really? You're stating an awful lot of things as fact in that post that I'd say 95% of the people would strongly disagree with based on personal experience. I'm not saying if you tweak the hell out of Vista that you can't get it running ok, but why would I want to waste my time doing that just to get it to run ok? And I've seen Crysis in DX10 vs DX9 w/ mods, and really, you're kind of deluding yourself if you think there's a huge difference there.

My own personal experience with Vista was my sound card not working at all, games running slower, and random glitches popping up all over the place, so yeah, it was a great gaming experience.

First of all you appear - like most haters - to be clueless about Vista .. IF you tweak it you screw it up [period]
-If you try to make Vista "into XP" you castrate it completely.

I benchmarked XP-32 vs. Vista 32 back in May for the Video forum and i also benchmarked Vista 32 vs Vista 64
.. so yeah, i DO know what the FACTS are
--unlike your "95% of 'people'" who are truly clueless about Vista.

here .. Post #5 - a long mini-review- shows Vista right up with XP using both nvidia and AMD GPUs.

In House HD2900XT vs. 8800GTS 640

you might even learn something here from tests done with 4GB gaming rigs:

Vista32- vs. Vista64-bit OS Showdown *Done!*

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: slag
btw, direct x 9c on vista? Won't installing that overwrite dx10?

There's discrete runtimes in Vista for DX9 and DX10. DX10 is the first DX that isn't backwards compatible with previous versions necessitating the need for the DX9 runtime to be installed at some point after you install Vista as it doesn't come with it pre-installed. If you're running an older game, it'll be whatever version of DX9 that came with that game so as someone else mentioned, you'll want to update to the latest version or download the stand-alone version at some point.

As others mentioned, enabling "high quality" hacks in XP isn't DX10 quality no matter how you slice it; plenty of review sites have posted side-by-side images and noted the differences are even more noticeable when playing the game. XP performance is certainly better than Vista but some of that is to be expected with DX10 vs. DX9 and its typically not enough difference to make one version more playable over another. Crysis runs better in DX10 mode than in DX9 in Vista however, which seems to point to driver/client optimizations for DX10 and room for improvement in DX9 mode.

Do you have a link to this?

i have noted it ... everyone with a capable rig can *see* the difference for themselves .. it isn't even close
:roll:

 

[Mem]

For DX10 its no brainer,you have no choice but to go Vista,all the hacks in the world will not change XP into a true DX10 OS.

XP does not have true DX10 support,Vista does so if you want to game with DX10 then its really obvious which OS to go for.

Why anybody would want to use DX10 hacks with Crysis and XP is beyond me when you see how cheap Vista is (not much more expensive then Crysis itself) ,not to meantion XP coming towards the end of its life.

Bottomline stick with XP for DX9 if you don't want to go DX10 or upgrade at this time etc.. however if you want to go DX10 then Vista is what you need.

 

[kirilus]

Originally posted by: Lazark
I have a new rig, but I don`t know which OS to put in.
How about the performance between XP v/s vista in crysis (doing the "tweak" to have very high on xp)
and also, about the new games like gears of war, world in conflict, COD4, etc.. do I stick with xp or change?


thanks a lot

Apparently many people have problems with games such as Witcher, Oblivion, STALKER... because they are running Vista not because there are problems with those games. Install XP if you want a more or less game friendly OS.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: slag
btw, direct x 9c on vista? Won't installing that overwrite dx10?

There's discrete runtimes in Vista for DX9 and DX10. DX10 is the first DX that isn't backwards compatible with previous versions necessitating the need for the DX9 runtime to be installed at some point after you install Vista as it doesn't come with it pre-installed. If you're running an older game, it'll be whatever version of DX9 that came with that game so as someone else mentioned, you'll want to update to the latest version or download the stand-alone version at some point.

As others mentioned, enabling "high quality" hacks in XP isn't DX10 quality no matter how you slice it; plenty of review sites have posted side-by-side images and noted the differences are even more noticeable when playing the game. XP performance is certainly better than Vista but some of that is to be expected with DX10 vs. DX9 and its typically not enough difference to make one version more playable over another. Crysis runs better in DX10 mode than in DX9 in Vista however, which seems to point to driver/client optimizations for DX10 and room for improvement in DX9 mode.

Do you have a link to this?

Here's a few I found quickly:

Crysis DX9 vs. DX10 @ Gamespot

The hacked very high quality settings under Windows XP were almost 20 percent faster than the Vista frame rates, but comparing frame rates between the two is pointless because it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. The image differences between the two versions indicate that they don't have an identical workload.

Crysis DX9 vs. DX10 @ Crysis Cove

There has been much speculation and argument about what exactly DirectX 10 under Windows Vista would do, but not much evidence. With Crysis, DX10 defiantly brings improvements over the classic DX9 rendering.

Here's another excellent reference between DX9 and DX10 differences:
LOTRO DX9 vs DX10 @ HOCP

Personally I've found DX9 and DX10 differences to be very noticeable at the cost of significant frame rates. But most of the comments I've seen from people who say there's no difference are from people who don't have hardware/software capable of running DX10. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: kirilus

Originally posted by: Lazark
I have a new rig, but I don`t know which OS to put in.
How about the performance between XP v/s vista in crysis (doing the "tweak" to have very high on xp)
and also, about the new games like gears of war, world in conflict, COD4, etc.. do I stick with xp or change?


thanks a lot

Apparently many people have problems with games such as Witcher, Oblivion, STALKER... because they are running Vista not because there are problems with those games. Install XP if you want a more or less game friendly OS.

Actually I've seen quite a lot of comments in both the large Witcher thread on this forum and the official Witcher site where people were having problems with 32-bit OS, particularly XP with CTD's and lock-ups. Most likely caused by memory leak/addressable space problems but I played through the Witcher weeks at a time without ever closing the game on Vista 64. I also haven't had any problems playing STALKER as it has a /largeaddressaware patch specifically suited for 64-bit gaming.

 

[Imported]

Witcher works beautifully for me on Vista x64 as well.

 

[Golgatha]

There is only one solution. Dual boot WinXP 32bit and Vista 64bit like me

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: kirilus

Originally posted by: Lazark
I have a new rig, but I don`t know which OS to put in.
How about the performance between XP v/s vista in crysis (doing the "tweak" to have very high on xp)
and also, about the new games like gears of war, world in conflict, COD4, etc.. do I stick with xp or change?


thanks a lot

Apparently many people have problems with games such as Witcher, Oblivion, STALKER... because they are running Vista not because there are problems with those games. Install XP if you want a more or less game friendly OS.

Actually I've seen quite a lot of comments in both the large Witcher thread on this forum and the official Witcher site where people were having problems with 32-bit OS, particularly XP with CTD's and lock-ups. Most likely caused by memory leak/addressable space problems but I played through the Witcher weeks at a time without ever closing the game on Vista 64. I also haven't had any problems playing STALKER as it has a specifically suited for 64-bit gaming.

The Witcher now runs equally well on Vista 32 as on Vista 64 ... my testing - including load/save times could find no consistent differences playing on either Vista OS

i never had problems with STALKER on any 32 bit OS including Win2K
:roll:

the Largeaddressaware patch also works for Vista 32 ... there is zero advantage to 64 bit in most [99.99%] games - yet. in fact 32 bit is slightly faster. BUT, in 64-bit games like Far Cry, Hellgate and eventually Crysis - 64 bit gives a *solid* advantage over 32-bit

Pick Vista 32 OR 64 .. FORGET xp

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: kirilus

Originally posted by: Lazark
I have a new rig, but I don`t know which OS to put in.
How about the performance between XP v/s vista in crysis (doing the "tweak" to have very high on xp)
and also, about the new games like gears of war, world in conflict, COD4, etc.. do I stick with xp or change?


thanks a lot

Apparently many people have problems with games such as Witcher, Oblivion, STALKER... because they are running Vista not because there are problems with those games. Install XP if you want a more or less game friendly OS.

Stalker had a Nvidia driver issue and some game bug issues in general awhile back(both XP and Vista) but most of those were resolved and now run fine in Vista/XP( I played Stalker from start until the end),Oblivion runs fine in Vista x64( again I have played from start to end) as to The Witcher ,if you check their official forums even XP owners have had some issues,I had one minor issue which was it would crash in full srceen mode sometimes when you open inventory etc(common problem and a game problem rather then Vista),fix for me and many users was to run the game in Windows mode(no crashes period),you may have read they are bringing out an enhanced version of The Witcher which fixes a lot of technical issues that users have had with original The Witcher game and also has improved gameplay etc.....(The game was good but was released too early to retail IMHO).


Lets talk Oblivion for a sec ,I also have the expansion Shilvering Isles installed and a few mods (mainly house mods) and that has been 100% stable in Vista x64( I have over 200 hours of gamplay in that game).

I do wish people will stop blaming Vista for issues that's not the fault of the OS...Currently I have around 67 games(from oldies to beta online games) installed in Vista x64 with no issues.I have also installed Starforce drivers,SecuROM,TAGES drivers for their copy protection games(still does not bat an eyelid),believe me when I say I put my games through the ring with Vista.

Granted its not always easy to differinate between game bugs,drivers and OS issues ,even cpu/video overclocking issues.

Install XP if you want a more or less game friendly OS.

Do some research on Vista and you'll learn most of the drivers were taken out of the Kernel system to improve stability(most of the crashing in XP over the years were driver bugs that caused crashes),ie sound drivers will now just reboot in Vista rather then take the whole OS down like in XP.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: kirilus

Originally posted by: Lazark
I have a new rig, but I don`t know which OS to put in.
How about the performance between XP v/s vista in crysis (doing the "tweak" to have very high on xp)
and also, about the new games like gears of war, world in conflict, COD4, etc.. do I stick with xp or change?


thanks a lot

Apparently many people have problems with games such as Witcher, Oblivion, STALKER... because they are running Vista not because there are problems with those games. Install XP if you want a more or less game friendly OS.

Actually I've seen quite a lot of comments in both the large Witcher thread on this forum and the official Witcher site where people were having problems with 32-bit OS, particularly XP with CTD's and lock-ups. Most likely caused by memory leak/addressable space problems but I played through the Witcher weeks at a time without ever closing the game on Vista 64. I also haven't had any problems playing STALKER as it has a specifically suited for 64-bit gaming.

The Witcher now runs equally well on Vista 32 as on Vista 64 ... my testing - including load/save times could find no consistent differences playing on either Vista OS

Without screenshots showing how much RAM the game was actually using I'm not sure how you could make that assumption. I've posted a SS in the past of Witcher.exe using close to 3GB with total system usage over 4GB, which exceed the addressable limits of a 32-bit OS. Of course you might only reach this kind of RAM usage provided the game isn't constantly crashing on you. This typically involved playing the game normally for 2-3 hours and transitioning multiple times allowing different levels and textures to be cached.

i never had problems with STALKER on any 32 bit OS including Win2K
:roll:

the Largeaddressaware patch also works for Vista 32 ... there is zero advantage to 64 bit in most [99.99%] games - yet. in fact 32 bit is slightly faster. BUT, in 64-bit games like Far Cry, Hellgate and eventually Crysis - 64 bit gives a *solid* advantage over 32-bit

Pick Vista 32 OR 64 .. FORGET xp

Honestly I'm not sure if the /largeaddressaware patch works for 32-bit OS or not, from a few comments I read it seemed as if the flag was only switched on for 64-bit OS. In any case, if you google "STALKER /largeaddressaware" you should find a lot of comments about STALKER crashes due to addressable space issues.

As for 32-bit vs. 64-bit....I find your conclusions a bit ironic considering the differences between XP performance and Vista 32/64 are considerably greater than any of the miniscule differences you found in your flawed Vista 32/64 testing. The differences you found could be dismissed as acceptable variances that would be difficult to replicate consistently.

 

[apoppin]

SPEAKING of Shivering Isles ... unless my memory is bad, i believe both the PC version and the consoles had a serious memory leak.

and if i remember correctly, i got a good workaround for PC the next day

and chizow, it does

the issues are settled on most modern rigs for Stalker

and the tests you are asking for are *impossible* .... i double-dog dare YOU to even attempt it

the two OSes do NOT manage memory the same .. even monitoring the usage changes the results ... however, there is no difference in "smoothness" ... your imagination is overactive or you never had Vista 32 to directly compare.

The difference you describe is apparent with 64-bit games, however.

Perhaps Derek Wilson will explain it better for you ... i am really looking forward to the 'real' Oses Showdown

all mine did was show that Vista 32 had no disadvantage whatsoever with 32 bit gaming .. the RESULTS are ultimately "the same" ... there is some trade-off [period]

and i really don't give a crap what you think of my conclusions .. at least i have something to base it on ... not imagined differences by the way it "feels"
:roll:

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
and the tests you are asking for are *impossible* .... i double-dog dare YOU to even attempt it

Its not impossible, its just incredibly tedious and time-consuming as I stated in the other thread, which is why I recused myself from any voluntary testing very early on.

the two OSes do NOT manage memory the same .. even monitoring the usage changes the results ... however, there is no difference in "smoothness" ... your imagination is overactive or you never had Vista 32 to directly compare.

They do manage memory the same for any individual 32-bit app, that's what WOW emulation does. The difference is Vista 64 can do that for multiple apps without the constraints of a 32-bit OS. Sure there's some overhead involved with emulation but as your tests have proven those differences are insignificant. Monitoring usage doesn't skew results if you're monitoring for both. Any adverse impact would be the same for both as long as you were monitoring for both.

As for difference in smoothness......are you saying your games would run just as well if you stripped your system down to 1GB? Again, these are elementary concepts we've gone over again and again and you still don't get it. If your tests can't demonstrate one OS is using more/less RAM than the other why would you expect to see differences between the two? 64-bit registers that aren't being used with 32-bit clients?

I've already given you a concrete and easily tested example of a game and engine that show significant differences in performance based on amount of RAM available with LOTRO. LOTRO is not only free to try, but it has a vast array of controls and features to adjust performance (like a texture cache slider, DX9 and 10 support, high-res/low-res textures, and /largeaddressaware for 64-bit OS). You will see a significant boost in gaming performance and reduction in HDD thrasing/paging with each 1GB you add up to ~4GB just as I did as I upgraded from XP with 2GB > Vista with 2GB > Vista with 4GB > Vista with 8GB.

Another example is Crysis where you can cache the entire level of a game with a cfg file switch. I mentioned it in the other thread but I doubt you used it in your testing. One level and texture set might comfortably fit within the normal 2GB address space, but once you get into multiple levels or near the end (where performance tanks on most systems) I found more RAM was certainly beneficial. I'll have to dig around for it but I've seen my system hit ~5GB commit running Crysis.

The difference you describe is apparent with 64-bit games, however.

Perhaps Derek Wilson will explain it better for you ... i am really looking forward to the 'real' Oses Showdown

all mine did was show that Vista 32 had no disadvantage whatsoever with 32 bit gaming .. the RESULTS are ultimately "the same" ... there is some trade-off [period]

Any differences with 64-bit games aren't a result of the differences I'm referring to. A 64-bit game might use the same amount of memory as a 32-bit game but still run at higher FPS but that has nothing to do with the performance gains I'm referring to.

And as I said I'm certainly looking forward to an AT review but my thoughts are they simply gave up as they realized posting a few 30s time demos and cookie cutter FPS benchmarks wasn't going to cut it. If I had to pick someone to write it I'd actually choose Ryan Smith. He's much more familiar with the topic and has already written much about it with his excellent Messy Transition articles.

and i really don't give a crap what you think of my conclusions .. at least i have something to base it on ... not imagined differences by the way it "feels"
:roll:

Rofl, here we go again. I've based my opinions after physically observing RAM usage extend beyond the limitations of a 32-bit OS; I've even posted many such SS. But apparently something as simple as monitoring RAM usage while playing a game is too strenuous for your 32-bit OS and invalidates such findings. As for differences between XP and Vista 64, I've noticed my games run smoother, load faster, but most importantly, don't crash because they've run out of memory.

 

[SexyK]

the thread is off track, but OP, just install vista and enjoy. No reason to live in the past with xp. I've been gaming on vista for over a year now without any major issues.

 

[Maximilian]

OP dont listen to these "don't live in the past" comments, XP is still recent and will be supported by games for a number of years to come. I have absolutely no idea why there is suddenly so much vista praise on this board. Just install XP and be happy that everything works well. If your confident in your ability to workaround a few problems you may encountered and believe me vista does have its fair share of problems that are not present on XP then be my guest and install vista. I used and am still using vista x64 on this computer that i use at home for gaming and work, it has had problems, heres a short list of the difficulties i have had.

1. Supreme commander didn't work at all, patched or not. However its expansion worked.

2. The graphics driver would stop responding during some games, this was most apparent with company of hero's.

3. Vista did not remember folder view settings, navigating my folders was a different adventure each time, sometimes it was a list, other times it was huge icons.

Well theres 3 off the top of my head that ticked me off, of course theres people out there who will have played sup com fine and coh just fine, well good for you have a gold star, it dosent help those who have had difficulties any does it? Those problems above were exclusive to my laptop, my desktop which still has vista only has the forgets folder problem and thats about it, apart from that vista works fine on it and the only reason i use it is because i need it for 4GB of ram.

Of course there are people that claim "works great for me! no problems at all..." Well there are also many people who have had problems, and their points are just as valid, its not always the users fault as i think apoppin claimed earlier, it can be lousy drivers, a certain hardware configuration, or the game/app simply has problems with either vista or 64 bit or both. Save yourself the hassle dude, if you don't need vista for anything then don't bother with it, install it when you need to.

 

[apoppin]

Actually there is also nothing wrong with XP ... it is a very stable and well tested and polished OS that plays DX9 games as well as they can be played.
The only problem is that it IS "dead end" ... MS is dropping support for it eventually and most people *will* want to have the option of DX10.

i picked Vista ... and i am not looking back ... and as to "Vista 64 vs Vista 32" there are simply "trade offs" .. if you *need* more than 4GB of RAM and play 64-bit games and are perhaps an 'extreme multi-tasker', Vista64 is most logical. If you pick Vista 32 for a 'driver signing' issue, you will not lose sleep that your OS is not as "high end" as Vista 64 - you might even see a slight improvement in FPS as i got ... but any difference is tiny.

and it is not a "marriage" .. it is ~$100 bucks or a little more for Home Premium OEM ... not expensive either

and chizow, i am so done talking to you for now .. you have no clue about the "physical limitations" of Vista32 and 32-bit gaming yet you prattle on about it as though you understand what you are observing.

... and you *expect* a follow-up article comparing the OSes .. no one "gave up"
-we can rejoin our discussion - if necessary - at that time

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: slag
btw, direct x 9c on vista? Won't installing that overwrite dx10?

There's discrete runtimes in Vista for DX9 and DX10. DX10 is the first DX that isn't backwards compatible with previous versions necessitating the need for the DX9 runtime to be installed at some point after you install Vista as it doesn't come with it pre-installed. If you're running an older game, it'll be whatever version of DX9 that came with that game so as someone else mentioned, you'll want to update to the latest version or download the stand-alone version at some point.

As others mentioned, enabling "high quality" hacks in XP isn't DX10 quality no matter how you slice it; plenty of review sites have posted side-by-side images and noted the differences are even more noticeable when playing the game. XP performance is certainly better than Vista but some of that is to be expected with DX10 vs. DX9 and its typically not enough difference to make one version more playable over another. Crysis runs better in DX10 mode than in DX9 in Vista however, which seems to point to driver/client optimizations for DX10 and room for improvement in DX9 mode.

Do you have a link to this?

Here's a few I found quickly:

Crysis DX9 vs. DX10 @ Gamespot

The hacked very high quality settings under Windows XP were almost 20 percent faster than the Vista frame rates, but comparing frame rates between the two is pointless because it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. The image differences between the two versions indicate that they don't have an identical workload.

You vote to lose 20% performance to have the difference in those screen shots of vista/high vs. xp/high.

If that is a crysis dx10 vista showcase compared to dx9 in xp, the it's pathetic. When you barely get any FPS in the first place, it's not worth the 20% performance hit, IMO.