does Vista degrade in performance as XP? (as a gaming rig)

[aekaraole]

Hi , i just got rid my old hard disk and I was wondering whether Vista degrades in performance as fast as xp. I want to build a new gaming rig? and then 32 or 64?

What should I put? I hate when windows xp does not clean all the junk and I have to do it!
I hate when after 6 months I need to reformat (if only macs had good games).

The pc will be used for gaming only. What should I do?

it is:

qx 9770 3.6
790 ultra
2gig of ram (can upgrade for 64 )
memoright drive 64gb for boot velociraptor for data

To help you help me:

1. I hate reformating my drive because the backup process takes ages (settings, outlook express etc) The most important reason to choose between xp and vista is whether the pc loses in performance after a while.

I use a lot of demos and uninstall junk/install

2. Dont care about direct x 10 since there is not a huge difference

3. Security stuff I know the dangers dont need UAC

4. The PC is fast, will be able to run vista with no probs. Dont care if I loose 5fps in Crysis due to vista

5. It will be clean install with no crap from hp, dell etc

6. I play some old games not many though like UFO series (bought it from steam)

7. I heard before that vista had a problem with sounds... Does it still exist?

Does vista clean up the programm junk better? Does it work better after long periods of time??? Should I get the 64 version???



THX

APostolos

 

[zerogear]

Originally posted by: aekaraole
Hi , i just got rid my old hard disk and I was wondering whether Vista degrades in performance as fast as xp. I want to build a new gaming rig? and then 32 or 64?

What should I put? I hate when windows xp does not clean all the junk and I have to do it!
I hate when after 6 months I need to reformat (if only macs had good games).

The pc will be used for gaming only. What should I do?

it is:

qx 9770 3.6
790 ultra
2gig of ram (can upgrade for 64 )
memoright drive 64gb for boot velociraptor for data

To help you help me:

1. I hate reformating my drive because the backup process takes ages (settings, outlook express etc) The most important reason to choose between xp and vista is whether the pc loses in performance after a while.

I use a lot of demos and uninstall junk/install

2. Dont care about direct x 10 since there is not a huge difference

3. Security stuff I know the dangers dont need UAC

4. The PC is fast, will be able to run vista with no probs. Dont care if I loose 5fps in Crysis due to vista

5. It will be clean install with no crap from hp, dell etc

6. I play some old games not many though like UFO series (bought it from steam)

7. I heard before that vista had a problem with sounds... Does it still exist?

Does vista clean up the programm junk better? Does it work better after long periods of time??? Should I get the 64 version???



THX

APostolos

So far I have had my Vista x64 installed for over 6 months, and I have no performance degrades. UAC doesn't only prevent you from doing stupid stuff, but also prevents programs from unnecessarily modifying files from Windows directory and Program Files (which helps with system stability, especially if you install/uninstall a lot of stuff). So unless you also run HIPS (Host Intrusion Protection System) I would suggest running UAC. Personally I run both HIPS and UAC. Vista never had a sound problem, it was a lack of support from Creative and other audio card companies since they were complaining how they changed the way audio was handled and refused support while blaming Microsoft. (Which they did even when 98->XP, so its moot point). You might have some trouble running 16-bit games if you're on x64, but most game run fine. Vista SP1 is as fast or faster than XP SP2/3 in the latest benchmarks for most games.

To boil it down, if you want long term stability, schedule backups often (automated). Use UAC while running Vista, I can almost guarantee that your machine shouldn't have to undergo another reformat unless your HD dies.


Does vista clean up the programm junk better? <- I don't know what that means, you mean remnants after you've uninstalled a program?

 

[BD2003]

I've never noticed it degrade like XP did. I had my first vista install for almost 2 years before feeling the need to reinstall, and that was due a new motherboard more than anything else.

I highly recommend you use UAC - you rarely see the prompts after the first day or two of setup, and you pretty much dont need a real-time antivirus anymore with it on - that has obvious performance benefits.

Your system can handle vista great, memory is so cheap you might as well throw another 2gb in there for $30-40 while youre at it.

There is no noticeable difference in frame rates between XP and Vista. You might be able to measure somthing in a benchmark, but youll never notice it in real life.

 

[DefRef]

If you really want security, add on the free Comodo Firewall Pro. It will drive you crazy in the beginning as it stomps on anything you're trying to install - to the point of quarantining your application's install files - but after you get things set up, the occasional warnings when you start new programs (like games) that are trying to access various system resources reassure you that it's unlikely something bad is going to slip thru unnoticed. It's not for rookies or people adverse to being pestered, so if you're annoyed by UAC, you will DESPISE Comodo, but it does the job and the price is right.

 

[MarcVenice]

Wow, you guys are promoting UAC ? I HATE IT. Whenever you try to get into the config screen it pops up. I've NEVER seen it pop up for something usefull though, like files being modifiyed without me knowing. TBH, I don't think it's usefull in any way, but then again, I might be wrong ... Vista 64x is still going strong for me, even w/o UAC.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Wow, you guys are promoting UAC ? I HATE IT. Whenever you try to get into the config screen it pops up. I've NEVER seen it pop up for something usefull though, like files being modifiyed without me knowing. TBH, I don't think it's usefull in any way, but then again, I might be wrong ... Vista 64x is still going strong for me, even w/o UAC.

UAC can be annoying but it is worth using. At least I believe so.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

i'm using vista 64, and haven't noticed any degradation, or bit-rot. now that drivers have improved a bit (still behind where they were in xp when i switched, imo), games run fine. my sound card isn't creative, so it works great. all of my games install to Program Files (x86), as i haven't seen any 64-bit games. i've also yet to see a game that uses dx10. i don't use UAC.

 

[Oyeve]

My second main PC is on an XP build thats going on 4 years now. Its has 5 HDs in it and I have been waiting for a year and a half to move those drives to my first main PC. I did a fresh install of XP on the rig in my sig below but have not moved any HW from my second (main PC still) to it. I feel like just moving the C: drive to the new system and rebuild XP but the new HDs in the new (well, 1 1/2 year old) system has much better/faster drives in it. I'm such a lazy bastrd. Anyway, the 4 year old XP build takes about 2 full minutes to boot and become ready for use. Not bad considering how much crap is on it. I think I will just call in sick for a few days and get the system in my sig up and fully functional.

 

[KeypoX]

I know what your talking about, its weird with xp, but havent noticed it with vista.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Wow, you guys are promoting UAC ? I HATE IT. Whenever you try to get into the config screen it pops up. I've NEVER seen it pop up for something usefull though, like files being modifiyed without me knowing. TBH, I don't think it's usefull in any way, but then again, I might be wrong ... Vista 64x is still going strong for me, even w/o UAC.

Well, the way I see it, you basically have four choices, in my own personal order of desirability:

1) Keep UAC on, and don't bother with real-time virus scanners. A virus wont be able to infect your system beyond repair unless you choose to allow it to. The reason you dont see it pop up a prompt for anything "useful" like a file being changed without your consent is that virus infections generally dont happen if youre using safe computing practices, but it CAN happen. You might have to click an annoying prompt every now and then, and actually pay attention to what youre clicking, but theres no drag on system performance. Run a virus scan every week while youre away just to be sure nothing got by.

2) Turn UAC off, and run a traditional real-time virus scanner - you'll be 99% passively protected by the scanner, but every single file read and write needs to pass through the scanner which is a drag on performance that I'm no longer willing to make. I find an occasional prompt to be far more desirable than running a constant resource hog, not to mention its free.

3) Use UAC AND a scanner - youll be super protected, but you get all of the disadvantages of both.

4) Use neither - great performance, no prompts, but youll regret it when you get hit by a rootkit (as I did) and have to reinstall everything.

UAC is one of the best features of Vista, even it can be a little annoying at times. But most people will rarely see the prompts after the intial setup and install of all your programs.

 

[RiDE]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Wow, you guys are promoting UAC ? I HATE IT. Whenever you try to get into the config screen it pops up. I've NEVER seen it pop up for something usefull though, like files being modifiyed without me knowing. TBH, I don't think it's usefull in any way, but then again, I might be wrong ... Vista 64x is still going strong for me, even w/o UAC.

Well, the way I see it, you basically have four choices, in my own personal order of desirability:

1) Keep UAC on, and don't bother with real-time virus scanners. A virus wont be able to infect your system beyond repair unless you choose to allow it to. The reason you dont see it pop up a prompt for anything "useful" like a file being changed without your consent is that virus infections generally dont happen if youre using safe computing practices, but it CAN happen. You might have to click an annoying prompt every now and then, and actually pay attention to what youre clicking, but theres no drag on system performance. Run a virus scan every week while youre away just to be sure nothing got by.

2) Turn UAC off, and run a traditional real-time virus scanner - you'll be 99% passively protected by the scanner, but every single file read and write needs to pass through the scanner which is a drag on performance that I'm no longer willing to make. I find an occasional prompt to be far more desirable than running a constant resource hog, not to mention its free.

3) Use UAC AND a scanner - youll be super protected, but you get all of the disadvantages of both.

4) Use neither - great performance, no prompts, but youll regret it when you get hit by a rootkit (as I did) and have to reinstall everything.

UAC is one of the best features of Vista, even it can be a little annoying at times. But most people will rarely see the prompts after the intial setup and install of all your programs.

I chose #4 because I like to live life on the edge. Oooooooooh yeah!

/flex

 

[Zenoth]

What degrading are we supposed to be talking about? I've had my current XP 32-Bit installation since a good 9 or 10 months on this particular HDD, with Vista x64 on a second partition, and I've never ever noticed any performance degradation over time. All of my games perform the exact same, my system boots at the same speed, nothing has changed at all. I do defrag it regularly (about once per week), and at times I run some CCleaner and registry cleaners/spybot checking softwares but really, nothing has gone wrong over time.

 

[Bateluer]

I haven't noticed performance in Vista drop since I reformatted it last June. Reason for the form was because I wanted to completely rework my hard drive partitioning, not for any issues with the OS.

I currently run with UAC turned off though I am thinking about turning it on for a period, see how things work.

 

[lxskllr]

I've never noticed degradation with XP or Vista.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Get True Image and make an image of your freshly installed, activated XP -or- Vista. After 6 months, you can restore the image in about 10 minutes.

This works best if you use multiple partitions with C: just used for the OS, eg on a 640 GB WD drive, C: = 85 GB, D = 510 GB. Install all the games and applications to D:

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
I've never noticed degradation with XP or Vista.

Me either. Sounds like PBKAC.

If you were reloading XP every 6 months then you should stop doing whatever horrible thing it is you were doing to your OS. You may have better luck with Vista as it puts the clamps on quite a bit of dumb user behavior.

 

[aekaraole]

The problems is that demos, games and utilities all leave stuff behind that make the computer less responsive. Even if you use cleaners like I do (I use another uninstaller) not windows, still....


I also use registry mechanic etc.... It still happens. My boot time increased exponentially over the years.....


Windows registry gets bloated

 

[LumbergTech]

it degrades performance of games that are CPU bound, i can tell you that much..

there is like an anti-anti-vista brigade here that wont just tell the truth

a lot of games run roughly the same, but some simply wont , no matter how much they try to tell you

for instance, the source engine takes a significant hit on vista

(i have 3.2ghz C2dD, 4gb ram, 8800GT 500gb 7200rpm)

 

[HumblePie]

Using vista 64. I run Comodo Pro, UAC, and Avast home 64. Yes, I'm paranoid. It's annoying at first but after a bit, once things are configured and set up, it's much smoother.

As far as driver issues. There are still some. Creative still hasn't got off their fat lazy arses and written decent drivers to run with Vista 64. They have ZERO PCI input drivers for vista 64, which means no game port or fire wire or sometimes even midi input if your sound card supports those. It's worse if you have 4GB+ of memory for some reason. There are numerous posts on the internet about Creative sound blaster (xfi or audigy) + Vista 64 + 4GB of memory so go read about the specifics yourself. It's also somewhat random.

Even now, I'm running into lock up and sound loss issues with my card. If you are planning to use vista 64, don't use a creative card. Use the on board sound as most motherboards come with great sound chips nowadays.

Also, older devices sometimes never had vista 64 drivers written and never will. I have a usb wireless device, a Buffalo 54g adapter that has no vista drivers. I have and older Cannon bubble jet printer, and epson printer. Neither have drivers that work.

Despite that, by and large, I've had more good out of vista than XP. No bitrot from installing and uninstalling junk. The Restore system actually WORKS the majority of the time.

With a good system, quad core, 4GB+ of ram, the computer just runs smooth. Better than XP.

It does take longer to install vista as it is that much bigger of an OS.

 

[Maximilian]

No, and neither did XP, its a made up phenomenon. If it actually happened then there is a cause behind it, it dosent just wear and tear for no reason.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Maximilian
No, and neither did XP, its a made up phenomenon. If it actually happened then there is a cause behind it, it dosent just wear and tear for no reason.

Its difficult to quantify, but I've most definitely experienced it firsthand over the years. It was massive with 9x, its much less apparent with XP, but I simply havent noticed it at all with Vista.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't think it's real. A fresh install of Windows is extremely snappy because you haven't loaded any programs yet. That makes it very noticeable after using a "broken in" install for a year or more. Once the standard compliment of software is loaded Windows stabilizes forever unless you do something to screw it up.