Is XP still better than Vista for gaming ?

gurusan · 25 Jul 2009 at 16:20

Rroff said:
What takes 3-4 steps in vista/win7 I can often do on XP in 1-2 steps

for example?

Rroff · 25 Jul 2009 at 17:12

Can't think of specific examples off the top of my head - just remember getting frustrated how many extra steps I was having to do simple things - add UAC into the mix and it could take 5 steps just to edit and save a simple textfile.

atpbx · 25 Jul 2009 at 17:40

Rroff said:
Can't think of specific examples off the top of my head - just remember getting frustrated how many extra steps I was having to do simple things - add UAC into the mix and it could take 5 steps just to edit and save a simple textfile.

No thats not the case at.
UAC does not come on when editing a text file.

Rroff · 25 Jul 2009 at 17:46

It deffinatly can have an effect on editing a text file - might be a bit complicated to try and explain it without pictures tho.

Dicehunter · 25 Jul 2009 at 17:56

Vista 64 bit is best for gaming as long as your system isnt a crippled piece of junk, xp is aged and the lesser OS for gamers.

Dicehunter · 25 Jul 2009 at 17:58

johny dolan said:
Ive enjoyed dx10 gaming for 2 years and cant understand what guys with xp dont like about vista.

Because the people moaning have crippled pc's or cant afford vista.

Rroff · 25 Jul 2009 at 18:08

Uh no - I have a Quad core, 4gig high speed RAM, 260GTX SLI... 3 disc 500Gb platter RAID5 - hardly a crippled PC and in most cases XP out performs both vista and win7 on this setup and it also feels much more "immediate" as a desktop OS - tho I kinda like the extras in win7 - vista has almost nothing to offer.

gurusan · 25 Jul 2009 at 18:10

I do remember awhile back comparing some of my 3dmark06 runs and in XP x64 my CPU score would be a good deal higher, but in Server 2008 my sm2/sm3 scores would be way higher resulting in an overal higher score.

Sean_UK · 25 Jul 2009 at 18:27

Installed Vista 64 on spare drive about nine months ago, soon after moved away from using XP32 altogether since I found Vista 64 improved fps, and to me just seems a much more stable OS.

=VTA=MANFACE · 25 Jul 2009 at 18:32

I have no problems with vista 64 for gaming, I prefer it to XP, my son has just installed it after my recommendation.

Amnesia · 25 Jul 2009 at 19:02

DF1986 said:
Because the people moaning have crippled pc's or cant afford vista.

^^^ehhh

from my experience xp has always been faster and more responsive...the vista service pack made a good difference to help it catch xp in fps but the responsiveness just isnt the same.

maybe it was the hardware ive tested but vista has been less responsive on all systems ive used.

but saying that ^^ i do find vista to run faster than xp if the xp installation is old and has lots of crap running at startup.
vista doesnt seem to get affected in the same way.......i guess im used to reinstalling windows every 3-6 months so my xp is always quick and responsive but if i were to stick with it over a year or longer then i really wouldnt choose xp over vista....stability becomes an issue with xp long term.

AMG · 25 Jul 2009 at 19:18

I used XP, and 64BIT XP

XP was great, but 64BIT :confused:

meh what was the point? had nothing but problems with it

I would say for gaming vista 64bit pwns both versions of XP, but in windows XP is a bit more faster

gurusan · 25 Jul 2009 at 19:28

AMG said:
I used XP, and 64BIT XP

XP was great, but 64BIT meh what was the point? had nothing but problems with it

I would say for gaming vista 64bit pwns both versions of XP, but in windows XP is a bit more faster

I have used 64bit XP pro since it was available in beta and have never had a single problem except with my logitech cameras...and that's hardly the operating system's fault.

AMG · 25 Jul 2009 at 19:30

well not that major issues more compatiblity on side of things, some games refused to install on it and I couldn't find any wireless drivers... and it didn't feel any faster than normal XP

jigger · 25 Jul 2009 at 19:36

Amnesia said:
^^^ehhh

from my experience xp has always been faster and more responsive...the vista service pack made a good difference to help it catch xp in fps but the responsiveness just isnt the same.

maybe it was the hardware ive tested but vista has been less responsive on all systems ive used.

I come to the same conclusion 18 months ago. I found XP run rings round Vista and maybe after a service pack the performance would start to show.

Is Vista still a pain in the arse in regards to networking with other systems ?

MikeHunt79 · 25 Jul 2009 at 19:43

jigger said:
I come to the same conclusion 18 months ago. I found XP run rings round Vista and maybe after a service pack the performance would start to show.

Is Vista still a pain in the arse in regards to networking with other systems ?

With win 7 being so close to release, it's not even worth bothering with Vista if you have XP installed at the moment.

It's just not worth the hassle!

arc@css · 25 Jul 2009 at 19:52

MikeHunt79 said:
XP is better in my experience

Same here, though I haven't tried Win7 yet. Will do though soon as.

kylew · 25 Jul 2009 at 20:51

Rroff said:
Uh no - I have a Quad core, 4gig high speed RAM, 260GTX SLI... 3 disc 500Gb platter RAID5 - hardly a crippled PC and in most cases XP out performs both vista and win7 on this setup and it also feels much more "immediate" as a desktop OS - tho I kinda like the extras in win7 - vista has almost nothing to offer.

User error to be honest...

Rroff · 25 Jul 2009 at 21:02

Quite the opposite... benchmarks kinda show that anyhow...

But I have my OSes slimmed down and tweaked for performance...

Strife212 · 26 Jul 2009 at 01:40

I really hate XP now. It feels so old.