Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
vista
DEATHRAMENT
Member UncommonPosts: 701
any1 that ran it on vista over weekend...did it run well? I wonder if it will run better on xp then vista or if there wont be a noticable difference.
Comments
I was on vista it seemed fine to me. Not knowing how it plays on XP couldn t compare.
I think it will run better on XP unless you have 4GB RAM.
On my Vista it didn't run that well, lack of RAM. I have 2GB. 8800GT and this lousy 1.8 Ghz dual core processor.
Hehe ya i don t attempt to run anything woth my other vista machine with less then 3 gigs, I have 4 gigs on this one it still had it s moments of lag but most games do. I just pray in big sieges it s not too laggy. That i m not sure on.
It ran fine. Loaded up quickly, I had zero application issues. My only issue was the intro ads. Where it says, funcom, nvidia, etc. It was smooth the first time I loaded it, then the next day.. it became very choppy. I think that the issue there was actually the client though. I would try some other games and I would have no problems. So, that's on Funcom, not Vista.
I'd imagine that there would be a difference, Vista uses up more system resources. If you have a great rig to begin with, Vista might be better.. if you have very little RAM, then XP might be better. I really can't tell you for sure though.
I have 8 gigs though, load screens maxed at 8-9 seconds, very little if any lag while loading up all of the players on the screen.
It ran fine. Loaded up quickly, I had zero application issues. My only issue was the intro ads. Where it says, funcom, nvidia, etc. It was smooth the first time I loaded it, then the next day.. it became very choppy. I think that the issue there was actually the client though. I would try some other games and I would have no problems. So, that's on Funcom, not Vista.
I'd imagine that there would be a difference, Vista uses up more system resources. If you have a great rig to begin with, Vista might be better.. if you have very little RAM, then XP might be better. I really can't tell you for sure though.
I have 8 gigs though, load screens maxed at 8-9 seconds, very little if any lag while loading up all of the players on the screen.
8 gigs of ram? What are you running to need that much ram? I don't even think my motherboard can host that much. Details!!!!! Thanks
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
With Vista you shouldn't be asking if it runs better on Vista or on XP. The fact is most games will run just as good on Vista as they do in XP if you have the hardware to back it up. As one of the posters stated, 4GB or RAM is a starting point. If you have any hardware pre dual core don't even bother with Vista to start off with, stick with XP, and if you have a dual core or up CPU then make sure you have the memory to handle Vista plus anything else you do. My recommended system right now to run Vista with most games running just fine would be...
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 4GM RAM, 8800GT 512MB
With that as a starting point of a system you will finally start seeing Vista run good with your games. I currently run a Quad processor with the above specs and everything includeing AOC looks great and runs perfect. Oh and I am running Vista Ultimate x64.
Inevitably there will be someone on here that flames me for saying the above, with something like, "The same hardware the games run better in XP you NOOB!!". I won't deny this however the argument has being beat to death, and the same argument is used when going from ANY Windows OS to a newer Version, 98se-XP, DOS-Win, Windows 3.11 - 95, 95-98...etc. The fact remains that in order to enjoy DX10 or 11 XP has to be shelved, and in Microshafts infinate wisdom they released Vista a full year to early in my opinion. However finally like XP was, Vista is starting to come into its own, it took XP almost a full year before people STOPPED turning off all the frill so they could play there games. I remember turning off all the nice desktop effects just so my games would run, and so XP would run better, then formatting and going back to 98 or ME for the speed. Then one day hardware caught up to the OS and poof I didn't look back.
Anyways to answer the OP question, it worked fine on Vista...LOL
I'm running 8 gigs of RAM because I don't want to experience any lag. Not only that, but all of these laoding screens that take 15-20 seconds for your normal person, take less than 10 for me. When I load into cities, I have less than a second of lag before I can run around freely at high FPS.
If I am going to lag, it will have nothing to do with me. It will be Funcoms fault if I have any problems. =P
Ran fine for me in vista. Take that with a grain of salt though. I have an 8800 ultra, 4 gigs of ddr3 ram and finally, an Intel core 2 extreme cpu x9650 @ 3ghz. So if it didn't run o.k. for me I'd run screaming for the hills.
How *anything* run in Vista?
Open your computer, remove 1 GB of ram, and play some game. Thats how it will play in Vista, because Vista waste like 600 MB of ram for craptastic desktop candy.
E8400 Dual Core, GTS 8800 (G90) 512, Vista, 4gigs ram. Ran very good on Medium settings at 1650 x 1050. Notice some small visual problems, but its beta.
I asume you can disable many of the unnecessary functions, that should boost the system somewhat?
I have almost the same setup (E8400 @3.6ghz, 8800GT 512mb, 2gb ram), and I was able to run it with all settings maxed + 4x AA @ 1650 x 1050 with an avg FPS of 40 on XP