Vista Good for Gaming?, Think Again Options

[Old Man Mike]

So you think that the new Vista operating system with 32/64 bits processing is going to help your processing speed for games? Apparently not. Microsoft once again stuffs the operating system with even more services for worthless applications so that the new OS runs slower than XP. Here are the benchmarks including one for COD:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

Yeah, I'll eventually "upgrade" to the new operating system but it will probably be after the 6 months of public debugging is finished. And it will certainly be with new hardware to overcome the Vista penalty.

Old Man Mike

[)--S@B0T-->]

Very interesting information Mike! I know I personally don't plan on buying Vista until Microsoft says they will not support XP any longer. That ought to give them enough time to get things sorted out, I hope.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

I don't understand their conclusions myself. Vista loses to XP almost everywhere, everyone in their right mind knows it is going to be buggy until they get the first service pack, yet Tom tells us to get it anyway unless we are a very select group of 1 in 1000 who runs massive processing applications. Me thinks Tom's Hardware Guide ass is showing, and what it shows is that they are more and more in the big corperations back pocket, because the actual RESULTS from their test would have given Vista a well deserved slam.

I'm in IT myself, and given the computing needs of the average user, I don't think the has been an OS less impressive than Vista for a long time. Perhaps after a few decades we've gotten to the point that there isn't much more to do with an OS than tweak it. About the only reason to move to Vista in the future is because Microsoft will stop supporting XP with DirectX updates and such. But essentially, I can't see a reason then to update before you get you next computer, whether that be in 1, 2 or 3 years.

[Doyle]

So you think that the new Vista operating system with 32/64 bits processing is going to help your processing speed for games? Apparently not. Microsoft once again stuffs the operating system with even more services for worthless applications so that the new OS runs slower than XP. Here are the benchmarks including one for COD:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

Yeah, I'll eventually "upgrade" to the new operating system but it will probably be after the 6 months of public debugging is finished. And it will certainly be with new hardware to overcome the Vista penalty.

Old Man Mike

I agree with OMM about not converting over to Vista.

I remember when XP replaced 98, everyone was in a rush to convert over and line the Microsoft coffers. I chose to wait until all the bugs were fixed or updates were made. I waited for a year when I finally changed over to XP and did not regret waiting.

Lately due to very low frame rate in game play, I have been contemplating building a new game machine, if and when I do I will have XP Pro and not Vista as my OS.

[GIJOE]

Being in IT for 30 years, I have a few things to say... first off I wish for the good old DOS days when a program had to fit in 640K... they were efficient and rarely crashed... I held out updating to "windows" OS until I could wait no more and then it was only kicking and dragging..LOL

Now as to Vista... there are advantages to running a 64 bit OS, especially when running a core 2 dual (Quad) processor...BUT the overhead is ENORMOUS and costly... Wait for the "features" (BUGS) to be worked out...

XP Pro is a proven OS and will probably be supported for some time to come... good choice

Why can't an OS be written were LESS is MORE???? ...and operates on less than 128 mb ...too bad Linux isn't more compatible with window's programs...

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Being in IT for 30 years, I have a few things to say... first off I wish for the good old DOS days when a program had to fit in 640K... they were efficient and rarely crashed... I held out updating to "windows" OS until I could wait no more and then it was only kicking and dragging..LOL

Now as to Vista... there are advantages to running a 64 bit OS, especially when running a core 2 dual (Quad) processor...BUT the overhead is ENORMOUS and costly... Wait for the "features" (BUGS) to be worked out...

XP Pro is a proven OS and will probably be supported for some time to come... good choice

Why can't an OS be written were LESS is MORE???? ...and operates on less than 128 mb ...too bad Linux isn't more compatible with window's programs...

In IT 30 years!?!?! LOL. I would have pegged your age at about 35 JOE. I hope you feel as young as you sound!!

As for OSes, it is too bad that we are basically stuck with OSes that have to build on the one before. Clearly, if you could start from scratch you could make something 10 times, maybe a 100 times smaller than XP and it's run better, more efficiently, etc. But Windows is like a monster that keeps growing, because it still has to support all the old stuff before it.

[-priority(+)target-]

Vista... well not right now but eventually! The biggest reason I am going to need Vista is for DX 10. The implications of DX-10 on Vista are astounding. As MOD says Year or two before its a go, but soon! I have seen a few pictures but suspect it to be Microsoft Propoganda than operational demo's...



Basically DX10 is taking one giant leap towards incredible immersive environments, by changing how objects are coded and therefore affecting the amount of overhead (memory to create and display them). The "problem" is that there are no plans for xp support of DX-10 but they do talk of extending dx9 I think (L) will provide something?? Most of above is in link below, and I may be paraphrasing incorrectly, forgive my feable grasp of it... Doesn't make games more fun, but they will sure as heck be purdy.



Anyway, lots of big technical words if you follow this link. I did find it informative and borderline interesting



http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...oZW50aHVzaWFzdA