Windows Mojave!

As if 2GB ram costs an arm and a leg nowadays. I believe some people just love arguments more than XP or Vista.

For me vista is the best OS microsoft has ever produced. Well done to them. I hope newer systems are even better.

You are looking at a few years of use aswell so paying 200quid over 4-5 years of using a piece of software is not that bad!
 
bledd. said:
vista feels sluggish when doing those tasks unless you've got 2gb>
Click to expand...

Oh please, I've got Vista on all my machines at home ranging and one or two in work.

I've used it on low end laptops to high end gaming rigs.

You seem to go on about this 2GB to 4GB thing like it's a night and day difference.

It just isn't, and damn near everyone disagrees with you :confused:

It's okay with 1GB, certainly not as fluid as XP on 1GB but it's okay with it.

My Media Centre uses 2GB on Home Premium 32bit (due to lack of x64 drivers from Hauppauge for all platforms at the time of the build for my TV card).

My main computer uses 4GB on Home Premium 64bit. General desktop use, task switching, speed of applications loading... it's just not noticeably quicker.

You can quote that task switching is 10 or 11x faster all you like, but realistically task switching is that quick anyway you wouldn't notice it being 10x faster.
 
are you all idiots, ive tried Vista vs XP gaming and every single game ive tried its twice as slow

heres a list
BF2 (acutally not a problem because i max it out anyway)
FEAR
GRID
MASS EFFECT
SUPREME COMMANDER
SUPCOM FORGED ALLIANCE
TEST DRIVE UNLIMITED
CRYSIS
FRONTLINES FUEL OF WAR
ARMA + FEW MODS
COMMAND & Conquer

If you think vista is 1-2FPS slower than XP then your more insane than i am..


FEAR
-----

Q6600 + 4850 AT 1680*1050 ON VISTA =
http://screenshot.xfire.com/screenshot/natural/f5a6a702a23b99d96b2c4f00b959c918dbc3fb91.png


Q6600 + 8800GT AT 1920*1200 ON XP =
http://screenshot.xfire.com/screenshot/natural/514a5a3a5a098d3fa98d9601f37f7e38939ac592.png

All settings were the same and i lowerd my clock to stock for that.

I did notice that the 4850 had 1200FPS in the ATI TOOL 3D view, while i only get 650-700, so im pretty sure its all set up properly... (getting 13k in 3d06 with q6600 at 2.4ghz on vista)

Should i start a "Gaming; Vista VS XP Thread" or is there one already, (should be sticky)
 
platinum87 said:
are you all idiots, ive tried Vista vs XP gaming and every single game ive tried its twice as slow
Click to expand...

If Supreme Commander is half as fast on Vista as on XP, then how do you explain this?

0,1425,i=209759,00.jpg


Shows Vista SP1 giving higher framerates than XP SP3. They also found the same in Crysis and World in Conflict.

I'll concede that Vista was much slower than XP for gaming when it first came out. But with SP1 and greatly-improved graphics drivers, the difference is a thing of the past. You'd be hard-pushed to tell the difference between gaming on an XP and Vista system.

I suggest that your friend updates his drivers and checks for other problems with his system, because the problem isn't with Vista. It's not me who's uninformed. You have no evidence whatsoever that it's Vista causing the problems - you're jumping to a conclusion based upon what you've heard about Vista being rubbish.
 
Mattus said:
you're jumping to a conclusion based upon what you've heard about Vista being rubbish.
Click to expand...

i dont care about what anyone says, i dont listen to people, i do it, i see it and i tell you what happened, i have no bias, im just saying what has happened. im basically an evil emotionless scientist.

mabye he does have problems but i seriously doubt it.

all preferences aside, the most important thing is gaming performance, as what i have seen myself and not from others shows be 100% that vista is slower.

and so i removed the 64bit vista and put XP32bit instead

the only explanation left is that vista therefore is extremely glitchy and some peoples systems just develop faults for no reason which causes extreme lag.

have you even seen the difference yourself, you seem to post benches from sites instead of saying "it was fine for me, only 1 or 2 fps drop on X game" so i think your the one making wrong conclusions based on third party evidence.
 
platinum87 said:
i dont care about what anyone says, i dont listen to people, i do it, i see it and i tell you what happened, i have no bias, im just saying what has happened. im basically an evil emotionless scientist.

[...]

so i think your the one making wrong conclusions based on third party evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you're making it up! I don't doubt that your XP system is performing better than your mate's Vista rig.

I'm saying that the problem isn't with Vista. I don't have any personal experience of gaming on XP and Vista on the same machine - so what it comes down to is that I can either believe you or I can believe the review site. The review site has explained its testing methodology in detail and has built a rig especially for the test, with fresh installs of XP and Vista. You haven't really said anything more than 'my XP rig is faster than my mate's Vista one in lots of games'.

The review site did a test which eliminated all the factors which influence performance apart from the OS. On the other hand there's a thousand reasons why your rig could be faster than your mate's. Your mate might have a slower CPU, or old drivers, or spyware, or lots of other problems. There's nothing wrong with being an emotionless scientist, but if you want to convince people, you at least have to conduct a fair test (as they tell you a million times from GCSE Science onwards!)
 
My view of Vista is that I have no issues with it (post-SP1). It came with my desktop so I'll use it - I'm not going to fight to keep XP. However, if I was still on XP then I wouldn't be rushing to upgrade, it's just not worth the asking price.
 
platinum87 said:
-
Click to expand...

Wow, there's something seriously wrong with that PC if it's only getting 26FPS @ 1680x1050. My old 7600GT AGP would probably beat that :p

Ever thought that your mate's PC isn't running as well as it should rather than instantly blaming the OS it's on?

platinum87 said:
have you even seen the difference yourself, you seem to post benches from sites instead of saying "it was fine for me, only 1 or 2 fps drop on X game" so i think your the one making wrong conclusions based on third party evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did extensive tests when going from XP to Vista. There was literally a couple of FPS difference between the two, so I went with Vista.

Battlefield 2 & SF
Battlefield 2142
Dawn of Magic
Oblivion
Hellgate
Titan Quest & Immortal Throne
Command & Conquer Tiberium Wars
RF Online
Serious Sam 1 (both of them)
Serious Sam 2
Half-Life 2
Rise of Nations
Need for Speed Most Wanted
Colin McRae DiRT
Gears of War
Crysis
BioShock
Call of Duty
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 4
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Unreal Tournament 3
Just Cause

Every single one ran the same under Vista as it did in XP.
 
well im going to do a bit of benching as the evidence is stacked against me and it prob is my friends PC, so expect a thread about that soon enough..

however i stand by the fact that it was slow in my PC too and im sure i configured everything correctly. however, i'll do it again, (getting my Xonar on tuesday) so expect me to post the first set up results later that day or wednesday :D...

and no i didnt take 2 years to learn it, thats done in 1 week, after 2 years i stopped being ****ed off at it, well actually mabye 1 year, bit exag

but btw the only diff really is the GPU in my mates, everything else is nearly the same.

I'll post Fraps 1 min recording of a intensive session and i'll do it a few times, work it all out with excel, and i'll do that with vista aswell, i'll not bench crysis fyi because that tbh is a rubbish game
 
I got Vista the day it came out on OcUK, home premium version. I installed it and I went straight back to XP - it was ****ing ****. Then I installed Vista again yesterday after allowing drivers and updates to mature instead of judging it like most XP fanboys, and to tell you the truth, Vista is god damn amazing. I'm shocked at how well it's running and I wouldn't go back for anything. It's smooth, it's stable, the search is unreal, it's just overall an upgrade.

Edit: Oh, and I was seriously gutted about wasting £180 I think I spent on Vista. It's worth it now.
 
bledd. said:
how can you say it's 'perfect' if you've only used it with 2gb!

i'd consider it useable if you have 2gb, defender real-time disabled, and no antivirus installed
Click to expand...

Perfect for me yes, I don't play games, I listen to music, Web browse, do the odd video encoding sometimes & chat. Vista is perfect for me for what I do.

I use avira & have no problems seems lightweight & defender is turned off.

I'm not arguing that 4gb would be better. But using it right now it is perfect.
 
The only annoying thing Im finding with Vista is the fact that Windows Media Player often needs to be "End Task"ed in Task Manager as it sometimes doesn't shut down properly and ends up running in the background. Not a major issue, but when you come to launch a new piece of media, it wont open.
 
rafster said:
No surprise, most Vista hate is by people who have never used it/are fragrant Mac lovers.

Vista is the best OS for me.
Click to expand...

As far as the articles I've read the users were shown a video of the O/S...They didn't interact with it and were pretty much shown a promotional video for it.
 
platinum87 said:
well im going to do a bit of benching as the evidence is stacked against me and it prob is my friends PC, so expect a thread about that soon enough..
Click to expand...

Been done, results seen and I can confidently say you're wrong. Hopefully FatRakoon will rehost his results for you to look at :)

Burnsy
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Been done, results seen and I can confidently say you're wrong. Hopefully FatRakoon will rehost his results for you to look at :)

Burnsy
Click to expand...

im in a position to do it myself, so i will, i have vista 32 and vista 64 here and xp home. but yes id be interested in those results, although ive seen a few websites and the difference is small but for me it wasnt that small.
 
platinum87 said:
im in a position to do it myself, so i will, i have vista 32 and vista 64 here and xp home. but yes id be interested in those results, although ive seen a few websites and the difference is small but for me it wasnt that small.
Click to expand...

If you're going to do this, take a page out of what FatRakoon did and document everything you do down to every detail, becuase I will be pouring over everything with a fine tooth comb ;)

Burnsy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom