Going back to XP. Has anyone else??

Fire Wizard · 31 Jul 2008 at 12:58

memory said:
cannot remember from the top of my head, 1 of the games was about 30% slower last time i tested.

Hello memory, care to back that up please?

maybe you can name a few where vista is faster as i havent came across any...btw im not talking 1 or 2 fps difference as thats neither here or there

I belive that is what Olibubble is trying to state, some games will be faster under Windows Vista and other games will run faster under Windows XP. However, the difference is only a couple of frames per second.

does it even matter ? if your trying to tell me im the only 1 it happens to then thats a different story as maybe my secure vista has managed to get a virus straight after installtion.

What exactly do you mean by the above?

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:20

Burnsy2023 said:
This shows how misinformed you can be. What overheads are you talking about? What about the fact that all the desktop composition is now taken off the CPU and given to the GPU as they've gotton rid of GDI? Funny enough that actually speeds things up. The bulk of your assumptions don't hold any water.

Burnsy

then how do u explain vista being slower in so many games tests when compared to xp.

i wont even bother to say how ive tested since all u want to do is call bs....so feel free to use google

leoncc · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:23

been back and forth between vista/xp a lot, decided to stick with xp, it has everything i need tbh.

Mattus · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:24

memory said:
then how do u explain vista being slower in so many games tests when compared to xp.

i wont even bother to say how ive tested since all u want to do is call bs....so feel free to use google

I used Google and found this. Shows Vista having equal or faster performance in games than XP. I suggest that you use more up-to-date sources. It's no good finding twenty articles showing how slow Vista is if they're all a year old.

Burnsy2023 · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:26

memory said:
then how do u explain vista being slower in so many games tests when compared to xp.

Drivers are probably the biggest culpret, either that or an unfair comparison.

Burnsy

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:31

Fire Wizard said:
Hello memory, care to back that up please?

how exactly do you want me to back it up?
should i run tests in games to compare ? ive already done that
should i link you to some source on the internet which has tested? would you believe it or just say thats a biased site

ive just run 1 game.....vista(sp1) is a clean install with all updates. indexing and superfetch is disabled.
xp(sp2) has been installed for a while with quite a few apps and games installed(not tweaked).

the difference was 40fps in xp's favour

Fire Wizard said:
I belive that is what Olibubble is trying to state, some games will be faster under Windows Vista and other games will run faster under Windows XP. However, the difference is only a couple of frames per second difference.

im not talking a couple of fps.....i already said that

Fire Wizard said:
What exactly do you mean by the above?

maybe u need to read more than the previous post to understand it.

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:32

Burnsy2023 said:
Drivers are probably the biggest culpret, either that or an unfair comparison.

Burnsy

ive just tested a game....both using the latest ati drivers...vista is still slower(more than 1-2fps).

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:34

Mattus said:
I used Google and found this. Shows Vista having equal or faster performance in games than XP. I suggest that you use more up-to-date sources. It's no good finding twenty articles showing how slow Vista is if they're all a year old.

yeah but i usually go by my own testing...its easy enough to do.
install vista and xp as a dual boot and run time demos or use fraps.

i could use sites to and see what they say....but not all of them are fair so if u want to find the real truth then its best to run the games u would be playing and test them yourself.....but as i pointed out earlier even when the fps are about equal in both xp and vista....vista still doesnt seem as reponsive as xp

Fire Wizard · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:35

memory said:
should i link you to some source on the internet which has tested? would you believe it or just say thats a biased site

Hello memory, if you could then that would be great, thank you.

ive just run 1 game.....vista(sp1) is a clean install with all updates. indexing and superfetch is disabled.
xp(sp2) has been installed for a while with quite a few apps and games installed(not tweaked).

the difference was 40fps in xp's favour

Which game was that out of interest? May I also ask why you have turned Superfetch off?

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:39

Fire Wizard said:
Hello memory, if you could then that would be great, thank you.

no i wont i was just asking....im sure you know how to use google...if u claim that u couldnt find any sites then il take a look

Fire Wizard said:
Which game was that out of interest?

[/QUOTE]
if i answer would u believe me xp is faster or is this still going to carry on ?

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:40

Fire Wizard said:
Which game was that out of interest? May I also ask why you have turned Superfetch off?

because the last time i had a discussion about vista vs xp...i was advised by a couple of vista users to disable prefetch to stop vista thrashing the hard drive and make it a bit more snappier......it has worked so thanks to them for a good tip.

bledd · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:44

memory, i agree that xp is better at gaming (with many games), but superfetch should be left on

it thrashes the hd for a few mins on startup, after that it helps everything load quicker, just use sleep mode

Mattus · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:45

Superfetch is a really useful feature. Rather than explaining again I'll just quote myself:

You know when you start up your XP system, and the first time you run an app it's slow to load because it has to load from your hard drive? Not so with Vista. I turn on my system and open Thunderbird to read my email - whilst I'm doing that, Vista is loading all the applications I use into RAM in the background. By the time I've got through my inbox, I can open any app which I commonly use and it'll load instantly without accessing the hard drive. I'd like to see XP do that.

It does seem a little to me that you just have something against Vista which stops you from being able to accept that it has advantages.

bledd · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:48

if you have a piece of hardware that it doesn't like though, vista is a nightmare! (my old 7900gt), that's just teething problems

Fire Wizard · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:48

memory said:
no i wont i was just asking....im sure you know how to use google...if u claim that u couldnt find any sites then il take a look

I certainly can use Google.

Anyway, take a look here, it's a good article regarding the gaming performance within Windows Vista. You must also take into account that the article is around 10 months old now. I think it's fair to say that the performance in games in Windows Vista has certainly not decreased and if anything, it has got slightly better with the help of updates Microsoft have released and better optimised drivers.

if i answer would u believe me xp is faster or is this still going to carry on ?

Which game is it then?

uv · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:50

bledd. said:
memory, i agree that xp is better at gaming

it's not the OS that is better for gaming, per se, it's the drivers.

I know you already know that, but memory will likely take it out of context

Vista as an OS performs no worse - vista drivers have not yet matured (given that ati/nvidia have had 8 years to perfect XP drivers)

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:51

Mattus said:
Superfetch is a really useful feature. Rather than explaining again I'll just quote myself:

It does seem a little to me that you just have something against Vista which stops you from being able to accept that it has advantages.

why would i have anything against vista...all i was simply asking is what are the advantages of vista other than a pretty interface.

in gaming i have found vista to either be slower or less responsive....i havent slated it at all but rather than anybody giving me good reasons as to why vista is better (apart from looks) i keep getting ppl calling bs about it being slower.

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:55

Fire Wizard said:
I think it's fair to say that the performance in games in Windows Vista has certainly not decreased and if anything, it has got slightly better with the help of updates Microsoft have released.

Which game is it then?

yeah it has increased as before sp1 there was over 100fps difference between a timedemo in counterstrike source(online play) and xp....i ran the test more than once so yes it has improved massively but it still doesnt seem as responsive or as smooth.

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 17:57

uvmain said:
it's not the OS that is better for gaming, per se, it's the drivers.

I know you already know that, but memory will likely take it out of context

Vista as an OS performs no worse - vista drivers have not yet matured (given that ati/nvidia have had 8 years to perfect XP drivers)

so if the drivers arent as good and run slower on vista then can u tell me which is better to game on :confused:

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 19:36

SECURITY!.........one of the biggest benefits of using vista over xp.
its a far safer os to use with much less chance to have spyware/adware and viruses running...a good OS especially for ppl who are new to computers.

xp still isnt as good in terms of security as it really needs 3rd party apps to help keep it safe.

see..i dont hate vista