Not had a single issue on Vista x32 Home Premium so far. I only have a few older games as I game on the 360 instead. AoE II & III, GTA: San Andreas, GTA: Vice City, C&C3, Mafia - all these games run fine with no issues at all.
IS VISTA up to scratch yet for games?
- Thread starter bloodline76
- Start date
which is what i'll be using on my new rig.
For me, Vista is as fast as XP and more responsive on the desktop, as for games, I would say its almost there, Crysis in XP is a lot faster for me, well not a lot, but its very choppy in Vista at max, 1680x1050, no aa.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 2,684
- Location
- England
I'm using Vista & could write down a 'bug' every 2 minutes during normal usage, but it seams to be able play games in 3D.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
so far(bar some nvidia drivers) i find most crashes from say gfx drivers issues with games tend to be crash to desktops. i get far far far fewer bluescreens on vista than i ever got on xp when it was first around.
vista is as stable or more stable than xp from my experience, and from anyone that seems to actually USE vista rather than comment on other people talking bout how it ran a year ago in beta.
there were 3-4 drivers missing on release, creative and the like, yet sound still worked, just not great, nothings been a problem since i moved months ago. gaming is at worst 4-5% slower in dx9, in dx10 its inbetween 7000% and infinity % faster, as xp can not do dx10. there are noticable differences in some games with dx10, not monumental and game changing, but they are there already and will only get more pronounced. theres zero reason to not use vista right now. yes, i personally don't use anything thats vista specific, the alt tab windows on an angle, useless, but pretty, once. preview windows on taskbar, useless, but pretty. aero, prettier, i turned it off at first, reinstalled, didn't turn off, prefer, not a huge deal. only real reason i'm on vista is, its what everyone will be using in a year, it won't be any different, no reason to not play in dx10 for a year to spite M$.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 2,684
- Location
- England
Fact is you got to go vista for dx10 because Bill is blackmailing you to upgrade from xp, though I find when it crashes every half hour or so, you can recover & carry on without a reset.
Vista is like a Lada with air-con, like its nice to be cool but you aint going get anywhere very fast!
Vista is like a Lada with air-con, like its nice to be cool but you aint going get anywhere very fast!
Another thumbs up from me for vista ultimate, not 1 single crash from release day
All the games I have tried run fine. Quake wars, lh, MOH airbourne, bioshock, ghost recon 2, supreme commander and oblivioin. The only game i have had problems with is stalker, slow downs were dreadful.
All the games I have tried run fine. Quake wars, lh, MOH airbourne, bioshock, ghost recon 2, supreme commander and oblivioin. The only game i have had problems with is stalker, slow downs were dreadful.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,586
- Location
- Swindon, Wiltshire
Absolutely fine with vista even with the battlefield games.
Heck simcity 3000 works with it!
Heck simcity 3000 works with it!
Yeah well its IMO, just because your a Vista fanboy, don't mean we all have to love it, don't like my posts, you know where the ignore tab is.
Telling me there's an ignore tab is the first useful thing you've posted here.
And the last
I'm dual booting XP/Vista but keep finding myself going back to XP for 2 reasons:
1) Vista takes about 30secs longer to boot up and at least twice as long to shut down
2) Every time I unrar something I get the UAC bugging me. I know I can turn it off but I'd much prefer it if I could add winrar to some sort of exceptions list like a firewall, but I can't find anything.
Anyway, until those 2 things are fixed I'll be sticking to XP
1) Vista takes about 30secs longer to boot up and at least twice as long to shut down
2) Every time I unrar something I get the UAC bugging me. I know I can turn it off but I'd much prefer it if I could add winrar to some sort of exceptions list like a firewall, but I can't find anything.
Anyway, until those 2 things are fixed I'll be sticking to XP
Vista is very resource hungry and has'nt offered me anything I could'nt do with XP. Got a dual boot setup and find myself constantly booting into XP.
Until MS stop supporting XP, I will be sticking with it. Having said that I'm not saying Vista is bad, its just that it does'nt offer me anything new or ground breaking in terms of funtionality.
Maybe when the DX10 games really do take a leap over the DX9 games in performance, that may start convincing more people its worth the change.
Until MS stop supporting XP, I will be sticking with it. Having said that I'm not saying Vista is bad, its just that it does'nt offer me anything new or ground breaking in terms of funtionality.
Maybe when the DX10 games really do take a leap over the DX9 games in performance, that may start convincing more people its worth the change.
you know where the ignore tab is.
added
For people who have issues with Vista, the main causes seem to be:
1) User Ignorance
2) Operator Error
3) Lack of 3rd party drivers for some (usually old) hardware
.
.
.
x) Actual 'defect' in Vista that needs sorting
The one problem I've had with Vista so far that I think could actually be considered as an proper O/S defect is very slow copying of file over my network (this seems to have been reported by quite a few people).
Vista is easily as good as XP in all but a very few specific cases.
There's no way I would suggest that everyone who already has XP should be looking to upgrade immediately, as Vista isn't that different to XP. But if you've built a new machine and need to buy an O/S, then IMO there's very few reasons not to chose Vista now.
Vista is just as stable as XP for me. I've had zero lockups/crashes in the few weeks that I've been using it as my main PC. In XP I only had a few crashes/lockups (over about 4 years) that I can think of and almost all of them were while gaming. So I would suspect that those issues in XP, were actually driver conflicts/problems rather than an issue in XP itself. I've no idea what some people do with their machines if they encounter numerous crashes/lockups in either Vista or XP.
Going by Raven's rants against Vista and his apparent lack of any detail in what is wrong with it. It would seem that he hasn't managed to get past the first 3 causes of Vista problems, as detailed in my list above
I've not heard of many people suffering from this problem. Certainly my boot up and shut down times in Vista are incredibly quick.
Perhaps there's a program you've installed in Vista that's causing the slow boot up times?
If that sort of thing annoys you, are you not best to turn it off completely? I agree with your idea about a list of 'exceptions' - that would be nice. But if you're the sort of person, who knows what you are doing, are there any of these warnings that you aren't gonig to want to disable? If so, then why not just disable them completely?
I don't belive Vista is 'resource hungry'. Just that it uses as much of the available resources as possible, and then releases these resources as soon as something else needs it.
In XP people consider things like high RAM use to be a 'resource hog'. But you should actually want your O/S to be using as many resources as possible. So long as it then makes the resources available to other programs when they need them.
This is just a much more efficient way of using your system resources.
I agree with this completely. If you've got XP and are happy, then there is no reason to move over to Vista. But if you need to buy a new O/S, then IMO Vista offers just as much as XP and it doesn't make sense to go back to XP, unless you know of a specific Vista issue that will inconvenience you.
Quoted for the truth. Unless you really have to have DX10 support, there's no need to upgrade.
However, if you need a new OS licence, you'd be mad to go for XP, Vista has caught up in virtually all facets.
For those of you who uninstalled Vista before August, particularly nvidia owners, you might want to give it a go now - you'll be suprised at the improvements in gaming performance with the latest drivers.
something not right there, Vista is quicker at shutting down than XP, also boots faster than XP too at taking 4 bars for me, taking 14 at the moment tho
, probs just Avast AV screwed up.I disable UAC and Windows Firewall, if you really need a software Firewall I think some 3rd party software would be the best, UAC aint needed, I think its for noobs tbh, to me UAC is like your parents in a way and can get annoying. I mean its your PC, you know what you are accessing, no need to have extra messages bugging you everytime you want to open something.
Last edited:
I started off when vista full was realesed to MSDN and had a lot of driver issues. About a month after it was realesed to the general public all driver issues where sorted for me. I dual booted them at first but never ended up using XP in the end as I prefered Vista. If you where conserend and want XP to do what i did and use a virtual computer.
I have heard reports of people using some of the latest Vista drivers and games work faster than in XP but havnt bothered comparing myself.
I have heard reports of people using some of the latest Vista drivers and games work faster than in XP but havnt bothered comparing myself.