Crysis with Vista SP1 is way better performance

skullman said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-XP-SP3-Twice-as-Fast-as-Windows-Vista-Leaves-Vista-SP1-in-the-Dust-72059.shtml

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Hey skullman, the source where softpedia received that information from is here. Looking through that particular blog, it honestly looks to me that the person that has submitted these results seems to have some kind of problem with Windows Vista itself going by his other articles and you cannot draw any kind of serious conclusion from that blog in my opinion. Now I am not simply saying this because I like using Windows Vista. If websites such as Anandtech, Tweaktown and other reliable sources were also reporting the same kind of performance results then I would be very much inclined to believe that this is actually the general consensus. :)
 
Last edited:
skullman said:
...but SP3 for XP will also increase performance supposedly.
Click to expand...

Got SP3 beta installed, trust me it does nothing. Its just a collection of 150mb of updates, a few administrative changes(adds a better descriptions into services and some other bits and bobs) and thats about it really. Absolutley zero performance increase. Which makes sense really, why improve XP's performance and give users a reason not to move to Vista.

Anyone slagging Vista has just not used it properly in my opinion, perfectly fine for me. Cant see any slowdown at all from XP and played all sorts of games on it lately without once thinking of booting into XP.
 
Last edited:
I would say they know more than you and use it more than you and the SP1 RC actually addresses perfomance issues.

You obv dont Copy/Move large files around or you would know this 1 major bug.

Advise you read the MS Report on all fixes for the Vista RC.
 
Fire Wizard said:
Hey skullman, the source where softpedia received that information from is here. Looking through that particular blog, it honestly looks to me that the person that has submitted these results seems to have some kind of problem with Windows Vista itself going by his other articles and you cannot draw any kind of serious conclusion from that blog. Now I am not simply saying this because I like using Windows Vista. If websites such as Anandtech, Tweaktown and other reliable sources were also reporting the same kind of performance results then I would be very much inclined to believe that this is actually the general consensus.
Click to expand...
The benchmarks were done using a scripted tool that the company that made the the somewhat sensational claims publish.

On the back of the claims the company involved has had massive free publicity. Accessing the original blog entries for more info include links and comments pointing you to the tool on a page along with all their other products.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions...
 
I wouldnt mind switching to Vista at some point, baring in mind I only have 2GB RAM. Is performance really on a par with XP now, as far as gaming is concerned?
 
skullman said:
I wouldnt mind switching to Vista at some point, baring in mind I only have 2GB RAM. Is performance really on a par with XP now, as far as gaming is concerned?
Click to expand...

Seriously don't worry about 2gb of ram, thats what i've got and its fine. My 7800GTX on a 20" monitor however isn't dealing with the latest games so well - but i imagine it's nothing to do with vista.

At present there are marginal performance issues in terms of games with vista, but the positives far outweigh the negatives imo, i think its a brilliant OS and in no way does it deserve the title of 'windows millennium part 2'
 
Nope, but your hardware will carry it if you have a good CPU/GPU and 2-4GB of Memory (depending on Games).

The support is so much better from Drivers etc and APPS, than even 6months ago.

I found it unusable at RTM and that was Nov 2006 for me as a Tester I got a free copy, think it was Jan/Feb 2007 for Joe Public.

Its obv gaming in XP and DX9C with less overheads is faster than in Vista with DX9C or DX10.

I finally went over to it Sep 2007 and wont go back to XP after I complete the SP3 Testing for MS.

I feel Vista wont be that great until SP2 but its got a short planned life as it was thrown out the door 2 years late with lots of functions left out, so they said right after it RTM'd that the next Desktop OS would be 2009 (unsure if start or end of year).

XP has been a great OS, very successfull and SP2 (not mearly a SP more a new OS like 98SE was) made it the best OS ever to date.
 
Last edited:
Athanor said:
snip
Click to expand...

Hey Athanor, that's fair enough. I am more reluctant on drawing any kind of conclusions from that particular website since it isn't particularly written very professionally and some of the comments made are slightly childish. :)

skullman said:
I wouldnt mind switching to Vista at some point, baring in mind I only have 2GB RAM. Is performance really on a par with XP now, as far as gaming is concerned?
Click to expand...

Hey skullman, 2GB of RAM is absolutely fine if you are using Windows Vista. As far as gamming is concerned, as per my own experience, it is exactly the same as Windows XP and have experienced no problems or performance loss in Windows Vista. You may be interested in this article. Their are very little problems with Windows Vista now as a whole. Though I have to agree that Windows Vista Service Pack 1 isn't anything special but Windows Vista as it stands is an extremely good Operating System in all aspects and if you are looking to change to Vista, really no need to wait for Service Pack 1. Now one of the main problems that Windows Vista has is the slow transfer rates but this is fixed in Service Pack 1 anyway. :)
 
Last edited:
skullman said:
I wouldnt mind switching to Vista at some point, baring in mind I only have 2GB RAM. Is performance really on a par with XP now, as far as gaming is concerned?
Click to expand...

I bought Vista Ultimate when it first came out and promptly removed it. Not because it was rubbish but because the software manufacturers had decided to drag their backsides on releasing compatible updates even though they'd had the beta version for over a year.

I stuck it back on last week and can honestly say its fantastic, first thing I did was buy another 2gig of ram and its great. It ran fine on 2gig before but it now flies with 4gig in it. Love the Aero interface.

Still wish M-Audio would get off their idle backsides and release me some drivers as I'm still stuck with creative and my £200 card is collecting dust :(

I've seen zero performance loss in gaming but then again I dont care about losing 3 fps because XP plays it better.

Just change asap matey, gaming is fine, it looks great and its rock solid stable.
 
To be honest I tend to view Vista as a ~ par performance to XP on modern hardware but with advantages to UI & Security etc proposition.

I'm sure if all I wanted was smallest footprint and speed of OS on modern hardware Windows95 (or DOS 6.22, my personal fav OS, would suffice. :)
 
i just tried this, and hes right, the performance is definately better. it is playable at my monitor's native resolution 1920x1200 now, rather than having to play in a tiny window. for some reason though my sound stopped working after installing SP1, but i dloaded some new creative drivers which fixed it.
 
Hmm, how long are service packs usually in beta before going to a finished product. Call me cautious but the idea of installing a beta that buries itself so deep in my system for a couple of fps is daunting to me.

Ive kinda put Crisis on the shelf atm until it's smoother for me completely maxed out, whether that be by software fixes or the next Gen card.
 
Unfortunately I wont be able to switch to Vista full time untill either Microsoft or Nvidia get their fingers out and fix the nvlddmkm.sys error :(.
 
Athanor said:
To be honest I tend to view Vista as a ~ par performance to XP on modern hardware but with advantages to UI & Security etc proposition.

I'm sure if all I wanted was smallest footprint and speed of OS on modern hardware Windows95 (or DOS 6.22, my personal fav OS, would suffice. :)
Click to expand...

As fast as it is, Win95b doesn't support dx9 which would make it pretty poor for a gaming OS :)

Realistically I think XP is great OS and the fact that people are still using it in preference to Vista, some 6.5 years after release bears this out. It was the first version of Windows that I didn't have major gripes with.
 
Last edited:
such rubbish. remember when XP came out? there were loads of problems, it didnt become the fine OS you know until SP2. just because people are using it after the release of the newest OS doesnt mean anything :confused:

people dont like change. they have used it for 6 years and dont want to mess up their carefully tuned OS's.
you will be in the same position when the next one comes out. clinging to Vista saying the same thing. just because XP is a good operating system (after 6y years of updates) doesnt mean Vista is any less of a system after 1 year.

i prefer it a lot over XP and im very glad i changed. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom