Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
XP vs Vista for AoC: Is there a difference?
Skatty2007
Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 231
I currently have XP and am thinking of upgrading to Vista. Besides all the normal Vista-related concerns, the one I have for this forum is: Does Vista help the performance of AoC? Is it more stable? Does it run smoother? Or is it just the opposite? I know DX10 is not in game yet, but when it does, how will that figure into the equation?
Please refrain from fanboi/troll comments as the goal of this topic is more of a technincal topic if the merging of AoC and Vista is recommended by the general AoC populous.
Here is my current PC specs just in case, though this topic really is for anyone wondering if they should upgrade to Vista.
Chip: Intel QX9650 Yorkfield 3.0g
Mem: 4GB DDR2 1000
Vid: 9800 GX2 1G
HD: 500gb 7200rpm
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks folks!
I'm not creative enough to have a signature
Comments
In my experience, Age of Conan runs much much worse in Vista than it does in XP. I get about 20-30 FPS more in XP on average.
I would avoid upgrading if you want the game to perform well.
Wish I could compare but Ive been playing it on Vista 64 since launch with zero performance problems. All the issues I had seemed to be server side.
I ran the game on the same PC which has 2 different partitions. One with XP 32bit and the other with Vista Ultimate 64bit. My specs are as follows.
AMD Athlon 3800+ 64 X2 Dual Core 2.00 GHz.
4GB of ram (XP reads 3GB)
Nvidia 8800 GTS 384MB
With the above specs, I got better performance on my Vista partition. Had steady 25-35FPS. That is until a few patches later, when Funcom did something and my FPS dropped to 10. But the game still played smoother on Vista than on XP.
Mind you, this was a few weeks ago. I can't check now as I don't have an active AoC account.
I've never had a problem in Vista. I haven't run XP on the same hardware however, so I can't say I've compared.
Vista's fine, I've played using both the 32 and 64 bit editions.
I played AoC on both windows xp and vista 64
same rig, 4 gig of ram, E6750 2.66, 8800 gt
I use Vista, and the FPS is almost identical. When DX10 comes out obviously you will need Vista to take advantage of that.
--------------------
-Currently playing FFXIV, and BDO.
Did it play better on one OS over another, or did was it the same on both? Any noticeable difference on one vs the other?
I'm not creative enough to have a signature
It will run way better on xp just because of the fact that vista is nothing but a resource hog. With 4g of ram you will have plenty left over to play AoC. In vista (depending on your settings) it will take up at least 1.5 to 2g of your ram. Now if you upgrade to the 64 bit vista version, you can probably upgrade your comps ram for better performance but the 32b version caps on 3g plus whatever your video card has.
Hope this helps
Hahaha, I wouldn't hold my breath on that DX10 patch.
It doesn't help, because you don't know what you are talking about and don't understand how Vista's memory management works.
It doesn't help, because you don't know what you are talking about and don't understand how Vista's memory management works.
Sure...you can tweak vista to take less resources but all in all xp is the version with 4g of ram.
ps...you can blow me smartass! Im just tryin to help the Op so you can FO
same computer 2 partitions....
one with vista ultimate x64
one with xp pro 32
the xp blows the vista one out of the water.
It doesn't help, because you don't know what you are talking about and don't understand how Vista's memory management works.
Sure...you can tweak vista to take less resources but all in all xp is the version with 4g of ram.
ps...you can blow me smartass! Im just tryin to help the Op so you can FO
You still don't know what you are talking about. Here, learn something new. There's nothing more tragic in this day and age than willful ignorance.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=superfetch&btnG=Google+Search
Vista is a 'resource' hog because those 4GB of ram (XP 32bit will only recognize about 3GB) are not meant to be sitting idly. If you're playing Age of Conan and the game is taking up 2GB, guess what? You're wasting the other 2GB. What Vista does is it tries to determine your most used programs and then pre-load them into your ram for faster load times.
Moreover, a lot of people seem to think of ram as a resource, which it really isn't. Ram is more of a cache. It's not bad if it gets filled it. If you're only using 2% of your ram, you're completely wasting the other 98%.
Well from my experinces I wouldn't touch vista with a bargepole, my gaming laptop came with it and it was nothing but trouble.
It got so bad it would take over an hour to load up, print a letter and shut down, completely unacceptable. Put XP back on it and it goes like the clappers.
Ask yourself this why did Microsoft have to bring XP oem discs back until this Xmas at least and have to support XP to 2012?
Answer was that so many people were having such a terrible time with Vista that PC's were going back to the shops in record numbers. PC world stated in their company report that Vista was the sole reason that they had record returns of PC's.
Upgrade if you want to but it won't be given that it will all work ok.
Actually, the reason for Vista hate, is that the business world is still a bit reluctant to embrace Vista. See, a lot of the business world operates on outdated hardware and in order to switch to Vista they had to upgrade which makes it a little expensive. Not to mention the cost of training involved. A lot of people get confused by this and automatically assume that Vista sucks. It really doesn't.
Mind you that Vista 32 bit is a complete waste of money and really does suck. Vista 64 bit is great though. My PC runs smoother than on XP and I get no freezing or 'lag'.
It doesn't help, because you don't know what you are talking about and don't understand how Vista's memory management works.
Sure...you can tweak vista to take less resources but all in all xp is the version with 4g of ram.
ps...you can blow me smartass! Im just tryin to help the Op so you can FO
You still don't know what you are talking about. Here, learn something new. There's nothing more tragic in this day and age than willful ignorance.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=superfetch&btnG=Google+Search
Please go see your shrink and up the dosage on your meds. I think its clear who is right and who is wrong about the OP's question at hand. Instead of flaming someone for no reason, why dont you just give the guy your opinion on which would be better.
It doesn't help, because you don't know what you are talking about and don't understand how Vista's memory management works.
Sure...you can tweak vista to take less resources but all in all xp is the version with 4g of ram.
ps...you can blow me smartass! Im just tryin to help the Op so you can FO
You still don't know what you are talking about. Here, learn something new. There's nothing more tragic in this day and age than willful ignorance.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=superfetch&btnG=Google+Search
Please go see your shrink and up the dosage on your meds. I think its clear who is right and who is wrong about the OP's question at hand. Instead of flaming someone for no reason, why dont you just give the guy your opinion on which would be better.
I hate to get in a middle of a flame war but I think the whole point is that you're giving the OP wrong information. Ram is not a resource, it's a cache. If you're running XP and the OS only uses 2% of your ram and the game uses another 48%, guess what? You're wasting the other 50% of your ram. In other words it's not doing what it's suppose to do. What Vista does is it determines which programs you use the most and pre-loads them into ram for faster loading. It's not bad if you're using 90% of your ram. That's what it's there for. It's a cache used for temporary storage. It makes your computer work slightly faster because the more ram you have, the more stuff can be temporarily stored and it's faster to load stuff from ram than from the hard drive.
Vista 64 bit is a great OS and runs flawlessly on decent hardware, especially with 4gb of ram. Now if you're still using a PC from 2001, than I can understand why you would hate it.
After two days of switching from a 32-bit Vista to a 64 Bit Vista (Thanks to ATI for crappy drivers on my 3870x2) Then going to a 64-bit XP and back to my Vista 64bit... I have concluded that Vista does run AOC for my setup at 10FPS faster. The 32Bit causes memory leaks and crashs from the client (3GB limit). The 64Bit Vista is recommended if you Video Card loves you and has perfect drivers.
AMD Phenom QuadCore 3600.
5gb DDR2 6400 ram.
OS-10k RPM Sata 150gb.
Games- 10k RPM sata 150gb.
One 1gb ATI 3870x2 (Using xp64 drivers)
Creative Audigy 2.
Vista 64Bit
~Asia
Asia
Vista x64 with 4G or more of RAM FTW.
On some older hardware Vista does drag in games, but with modern gear and using x64 and a good wad (4G is good sweet spot) of RAM Vista really starts to shine. A very comparable gaming platform and a nicely evolved desktop experience. Don't believe the FUD on Vista, especially if you make the jump to x64.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Unless you need/want DX10 there is no good game related reason to upgrade to Vista. You wont see a performance increase and Vista's sound API's suck for DX9 titles. But whatever, I'm sure Microsoft will thank you for the business.
Simply not true - many of today's games are benifiting from the extra RAM x64 affords - tommorow's games will certainly benifit from this capabilty. As for the sound - 99.9% of users will never and could never tell the differance to the extent there really is one, and much of that differance is due to crappy drivers from vendors. XP is still the all around better performance base but with good hardware the differance is minimal and the x64 advantage (doable with XP but much, much, much more painfully than in Vista) easily makes up for that, not to mention the myriad of minor improvements in Vista over XP.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
To the OP
With your computer spec Vista 64 will be better. It also offers better future proofing and good DX10 compatability for AOC and many upcoming games.
Not the case, I have 4gb of RAM and it uses all of it with 32 bit Vista(Shows all 4gb in Vista).
--------------------
-Currently playing FFXIV, and BDO.
I have about the same machine, except for an 8800GT video card, and using Vista, the game ran flawlessly on high settings. Had something like 80 to 90 FPS.
Of course, that was more than a month ago when I last played (at launch).