- This topic has 19 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
AMerrill said:
Same. I just hope its a better gaming OS than vista.vista can game just fine if you have decent hardware.
I have ran tests with comparable hardware with the two os playing WOW. The xp machine always came out on top.
AMerrill said:
I have ran tests with comparable hardware with the two os playing WOW. The xp machine always came out on top.may I ask by what margin? and when you say comparable do you mean identical?
See cause I dont consider a 3% loss in FPS a big deal because 100FPS vs 97FPS is really not noticeable and that is about all the difference I get on my computer.
I don’t have any kind of write up or anything. Its significant loss..around 5%-10% performance loss. I only compared wow. Its not like this is a new discovery…
Lets not even get into the disaster of directx10
AMerrill said:
Lets not even get into the disaster of directx10like the fact that you cant use dx10 in windows XP?
AMerrill said:
Its not like this is a new discovery…After Nvidia and ATI got their heads out of their asses and made decent drivers and MS released SP1 I assumed this whole issue became null as all the XP holdouts got extremely quiet about it.
I like graphs. You like graphs?
If you ever use a game designed to take full advantage of DX10, you’ll find that it’s far from a disaster. DirectX is just like Windows, after every major release all the holdouts bash it until it becomes the standard then they quietly switch to it, wait a few years, then laugh at how some people could ever defend the old version over the newer one.
People used to hate XP with a passion and claim that Win98 was far superior in the realm of gaming. Well yeah, GG on that one. We’ve come full circle, will you be the early adopter or the holdout that still thinks Win2k is the best OS ever coded when everyone else was using WinXP SP3.
MasterP said:
After Nvidia and ATI got their heads out of their asses and made decent drivers and MS released SP1 I assumed this whole issue became null as all the XP holdouts got extremely quiet about it.I like graphs. You like graphs?
If you ever use a game designed to take full advantage of DX10, you’ll find that it’s far from a disaster. DirectX is just like Windows, after every major release all the holdouts bash it until it becomes the standard then they quietly switch to it, wait a few years, then laugh at how some people could ever defend the old version over the newer one.
People used to hate XP with a passion and claim that Win98 was far superior in the realm of gaming. Well yeah, GG on that one. We’ve come full circle, will you be the early adopter or the holdout that still thinks Win2k is the best OS ever coded when everyone else was using WinXP SP3.
Windows 2000 was probably the best client machine OS ever written for an enterprise network. It couldn’t do much for a home user but with a pure NT kernel, that’s not what it was written for.
Kuros said:
Windows 2000 was probably the best client machine OS ever written for an enterprise network. It couldn’t do much for a home user but with a pure NT kernel, that’s not what it was written for.I agree x100.
Plus you could get a vista skin for it. lol.
Right, so the thing is this. If you want a more robust operating system you have to have something run it. Just like if you want to add a bigger graphics card, you have to have a bigger power supply. Windows Vista is more robust than windows XP. Like it or not, someday you will need the robustness it has to offer. Even if you skip it and go for Windows 7, you’re still upping the power demand. Plus, Windows 7 will inevitably start out just like every windows OS.. buggy.
Seriously, if you have the hardware, go get Windows Vista now. If you’re still a student here you can get Ultimate for $10, but get it now because the budget cuts aren’t looking good to support that next year.
i dont even know how anyone can hold an argument that vista has been a better os performance wise.
I love the new features, but I myself switched back to xp last month and love it.
AMerrill said:
I advise against some of those things. If you know the ins and outs of Vista, that article reads like it was written by a moron. The few tweaks he actually got right apply to XP just as much as Vista.
Adam, those of us with faster computers see no performance decrease and considering that XP wasn’t really designed for any sort of multi-core use, especially not quad-core, Vista uses our computers to the max. When I used XP, load balancing was absolutely horrid, XP would let a core max out and leave others completely unused. Sure if you’ve got an older computer you shouldn’t be using Vista but if you’ve got a gaming computer built in the last 2 years there’s no reason not to use Vista.
For what its worth, I have 3 computers: 1 laptop and 2 desktops. I run vista ultimate on both desktops and windows 7 beta on my laptop. I love windows 7 beta and cant wait for the full release because it seems suprisingly good, much better than the vista beta was. I mean I could put XP on any of my computers but you start missing little features you thought you would never miss. Hell I know moving to my desktop I miss some of the windows 7 features that are on my laptop. I think you all will be very pleased when windows 7 reaches retail; MS is doing a MUCH better job making sure it is ready for release and it has been on the *edited* of hardware manufacturers to get drivers right for release so we won’t have the vista debacle we had.
BTW, in case you all didn’t already know, the vista that is out now with full updates is worlds away from vista how it was at release. XP was the same way, and people eventually realized that MS got things right and moved over and I think it would have happened with vista too except with windows 7 coming out so fast I can see a lot of ppl just skipping vista.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.