Mustang
Premium
join:2005-06-27
Fort Lauderdale, FL
edit:
June 24th, @04:12PM
| XP or Vista
When I changed to Vista I also bought a larger HD. Well Vista went crazy last night, crashed, corrupted file etc.
Out of frustration I plugged in the old HD with XP on it, and everything is of course looking great.
Here's my question. IS it worth reformating the Vista HD and starting again, or should I stay with my old XP and use the HD as additional storage?
I noticed a few extra DX10 effects in Vista in COH and I think in Bioshock.
But then again COH did run slightly slower.
Which is better for gaming XP or Vista?
System
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB
NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard
BFG Tech BFGR88768GTXE GeForce 8800 GTX |
|
jouno53
McCain Palin 08
join:2006-03-04
United State | Did you have SP1 by chance? I'd just reinstall Vista, XP can just as easily get corrupted. |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Salt Lake City, UT | reply to Mustang
XP service pack 3 has higher performance than Vista service pack 1.
You can always dual boot both. |
|
Mustang
Premium
join:2005-06-27
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Dual booting was the idea I was coming to as well. Reformat the crashed HD and load up Vista, using it for the games that need DX10 for the fancy stuff. |
|
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Mustang
So basically you are boiling it down to whether DX10 is worth it or not. Cause you know Vista can crash just like XP.
While I might keep my parents on XP I wouldn't go back to XP personally.
Yes, SP1 does make a difference.
Longstreet, can you quote the sp3 versus Vista sp1 reference? I have not heard this nor was there changes made to the OS to affect framerates...or so I thought.
--
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -Marie Curie |
|
ender7074
join:2006-11-21
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Mustang
i'm running Vista 64 Ultimate and have not noticed any lower performance than my XP rig. Just the opposite in fact. Vista is quite a bit faster. I would reload Vista but be sure to update it to SP1. |
|
bdk203
@comcast.net | reply to Mustang
Reinstall, don't format |
|
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA | reply to Mustang
I've run both XP and Vista on my gaming rig (dual boot). I recently reinstalled and went with XP only. I see no need for Vista what-so-ever. The only PCs that run Vista in my house are my wife's laptop and the HTPC. |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Salt Lake City, UT
edit:
June 25th, @11:55PM
| reply to Mustang
@Ender
@Master
This is fairly common knowledge, but the burden of proof is mine.
quote:
Conclusion: K.O. For Windows Vista?
Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications).
Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors.
There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it.
link
»www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-···-11.html
Here's a closer look at a few more games :
»www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2···0,00.asp
Clearly, Vista is getting very close to XP with the latest service pack (and got rid of alot of driver problems to boot) but it doesn't seem to quite match XP yet.
Granted, I've had all flavors of both (including 64 bit versions) -- and done some intensive gaming. At least on my system, contrary to other opinions and some tests, the performance gap was even more in favor of XP - sometimes by an order of magnitude.
I'm not sure if the SLI problem on 64 bit Vista has been solved . . .I was unable to play certain games . . and others would lock at a low framerate.
If choosing Vista, I'd stick with 32 bit and a non SLI setup until nvidia has ironed out the problem (which may already be solved)
In either event, XP is guaranteed to work, plus the tests prove it's also faster - albeit just a little bit faster. |
|
Margolis
Premium
join:2003-11-24
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Mustang
If you have Vista, and a computer capable of running it, run Vista. I'm not sure what happened, but I doubt that it was Vistas fault that you computer crashed and corrupted data. |
|
Mustang
Premium
join:2005-06-27
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| reply to Mustang
Running a dual boot system now (first time ever). Vista was very easy to install and offers the dual boot choice during boot up. So it was XP first then load up Vista...
Vista is a bit of a snob though...refers to XP as 'older operating system'...lol Doesnt even call it XP
Loading up the games I think will benefit from being on Vista or what I play the most. I think between using older Creative drivers (god bles creative...not) and audacity (sound mixing program) crashing, Vista got corrupted. Add in a DVD drive that seems to be on its way out and I can see why the repair option on the Vista disc wasnt working.
Reformated, new creative drivers (finally) and no audacity (sound mixing program) on the vista HD so I'm hoping this will run fine.
Upside...get to play through Assassins Creed again:)
Thanks for all the input!!!! |
|
jouno53
McCain Palin 08
join:2006-03-04
United State | reply to Mustang
Let me ask you guys something, is it a wise idea to buy Vista if you're running XP, currently? |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Salt Lake City, UT | If it ain't broke, don't fix it |
|
Margolis
Premium
join:2003-11-24
Saint Louis, MO
·Charter Pipeline
edit:
June 27th, @09:02AM
| reply to jouno53
said by jouno53  :Let me ask you guys something, is it a wise idea to buy Vista if you're running XP, currently? vista is a good os, but if you are happy with xp, then there is no need to upgrade. Like longstreet said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Now if you have a newer 64 bit cpu, arguments could be made to upgrade to vista 64 to take advantage of the hardware you have. But it isn't really required.
But if you build a new computer, then there is absolutely no excuse for not going with vista 64. |
|
Taters
@gunnman.net | reply to Mustang
With your specs I'd go for Vista. |
|
jouno53
McCain Palin 08
join:2006-03-04
United State | said by Taters :
With your specs I'd go for Vista.
I know, I have a new computer (built Nov. 2007) with specs that can easily take advantage of Vista.
Thanks for the suggestions |
|
ender7074
join:2006-11-21
Saint Louis, MO
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Charter Pipeline
edit:
June 27th, @11:06AM
| reply to longstreet
said by longstreet :@Ender @Master This is fairly common knowledge, but the burden of proof is mine. quote:
Conclusion: K.O. For Windows Vista?
Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications).
Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors.
There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it.
link » www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-···-11.htmlHere's a closer look at a few more games : » www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2···0,00.aspClearly, Vista is getting very close to XP with the latest service pack (and got rid of alot of driver problems to boot) but it doesn't seem to quite match XP yet. Granted, I've had all flavors of both (including 64 bit versions) -- and done some intensive gaming. At least on my system, contrary to other opinions and some tests, the performance gap was even more in favor of XP - sometimes by an order of magnitude. I'm not sure if the SLI problem on 64 bit Vista has been solved . . .I was unable to play certain games . . and others would lock at a low framerate. If choosing Vista, I'd stick with 32 bit and a non SLI setup until nvidia has ironed out the problem (which may already be solved) In either event, XP is guaranteed to work, plus the tests prove it's also faster - albeit just a little bit faster. I've seen quite a bit of this info too but it's just not matching the experience I'm having on Vista. Now, it could be that my computer is just powering its way though what a different hardware makeup would have more problem with but between Vista and XP I only notice a 1-3 FPS difference but it's never been any kind of an issue. Even the huge disparity reported between DX9 and DX10 doesnt seem to be that different on my box. For example, World in Conflict only has a couple of FPS difference between DX9 and DX10 and its not noticable. COD4 has about the same difference too although thats not DX10. It seems kind of like a numbers manipulation when tech sites are saying that theres a 5-10% drop in framerate. While that's technially true in some cases, it only amounts to a few frames per second for the most part. The difference between 54FPS and 60FPS is not noticable by the human eye but 54% is a 10% drop in framerate. It's all a bit misleading.
I also may have been a bit vague on what I ment by speed. I've found that on boot up, Vista blows the socks off XP. I've also found that my programs load much faster and are more stable on Vista. I do have crashes on Vista but no more than I had with XP and 99.9% of the time its my fault since I have my machine overclocked to the ragged edge of stable. Kinda hard to blame that on the OS  |
|
Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium
join:2002-12-05
Mullica Hill, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Mustang
im basically in the same boat, only by choice. bored so ima put vista on my system. been running XP64 since launch. havent had any major issues at all, including drivers. most of the 64bit driver nonsense was a hoax. almost every major MFG had at least beta 64bit drivers out at launch.
XP64 is probably the most stable OS MS has ever put out. based on Server 2003 it has a more enhanced codebase over standard XP Home/Pro.
i havent ever really been anti-Vista. i've done a LOT of work in the OS, both at an old job, and at home. i kept Vista on all new PC purchases for friends and relatives that didnt have specific business software that didnt run on vista at the time. the software in question has newer versions out that run under Vista great, but many corporations dont upgrade major software for a few years so many folks are stuck running XP exclusively for business use.
i ran Vista on this same base box in December or Jan and it was incredibly slow. i later found out my motherboard was bad and had it RMAed. i never did get around to giving Vista a fair chance on my main/gaming rig.
my only concerns over the last year have been these:
•XP64 is ultra-stable, and very fast. why upgrade?
•games run slower
•random programs, both very large and very small, have sometimes weird issues. ive seen some apps open with the GUI completely blank. random weird stuff like that. most of it has been fixed by the software devs over the past year. i mainly call this concern "Quirks".
•File sharing is horrible. i dont know what MS changed, but my 2 XP64 boxes share files b/w themselves, a 3rd XP32 laptop, and 5 Vista PCs completely trouble-free. Vista PCs can pull files off mine without issues. however, VISTA TO VISTA SHARING IS ANNOYING AS HELL. it doesnt seem like Vista can share a root HD/partition AT ALL. there doesnt seem to be a simple "Share this folder" option. you have to use the simple sharing option, and then still go into advanced sharing and set privileges. even allowing full access to every user and "Everyone", i still get constant errors and log-in boxes. i shouldnt have to login to access a shared folder when said shared folder is set to share to everyone without quotas or access restrictions.
either way, i'ma jump to Vista and try it out probably tomorrow (today by now). if none of my apps or games have huge issues, i'll probably stick with Vista 64 Ultimate.
--
Somnambulator - t3h 5133pw41k3r
SEyE TF2 Server
~Choosy moms choose Jif~ |
|
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to longstreet
said by longstreet :If it ain't broke, don't fix it Now that is some good advice. |
|
Juke Box
Free From Marketing
Premium
join:2001-01-29
Bar & Grill
·Comcast
| reply to Mustang
I am running Vista 64 bit and I am not looking back on XP. It is a good O/S and far from Windows ME (according to some comparisons I have seen and heard of).
Your specs should run Vista fine and since you are playing games, then why not take advantage of DX10?
Most failures are from people O/C'n, dirty machines which no O/S could help them, or equiv.
Move on and move UP with the operating system (game). It is a blast. 
--
If you are having half as much fun as I am, then I must be having twice the fun than you are. Do The Math! |
|
