Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Bother with Vista?
I'm thinking of acquiring a copy of VISTA - DX10 is enticing. Is it worth the hassle in terms of speed improvement?
I'm running 32bit xp on a quad core and would be switching to x64 vista but dont have the patience for hassle :P
--
Note: PlayNC will refuse to allow you access to your account if you forget your password and can't provide a scanned image of the product key for the first product you purchased..... LOL
Comments
its okay to have VISTA as long as you have lots of RAM...
Andre Ward vs Carl Froch Fight Video|Andre Ward vs Carl Froch Full Fight Video|Jon Jones vs Lyoto Machida Full Fight Video
Only if you have several DX10 games, or are planning to buy several DX10 games. At the moment DX10 is the only reason to go Vista.
Even with lots and lots of memory, you will still see a performance hit, with Vista as opposed to XP, I own a copy of Vista64 Ultimate, but after installing it, with all the latest drivers, I see a 10-15% hit in my game performance.
But it looks pretty
why do you want to use vista instead of windows xp?Do you find it is ok in use?Can you say more about vista?lol
I would skip Vista entirely. I dont think there are any DX10 exclusive titles and the difference between DX9-10 titles is negligible.
With crysis- it turns out DX9 could do everything DX10 features brought on, but the developers purposefully disabled full eye candy features on DX9. They can be unlocked with a change to an .ini file I beleive- google it. I'm just using this as an example of the mediocrity of DX10.
Windows 7 is due out sometime in 2010, and DX11 is supposed to come along with it. Vista can pretty much be skipped entirely.
what year are you in? you need to update your video drivers, the perforance gap was eradicated a long time ago. The decrease in speed was due to drivers. Vista and xp get the same gaming performance in everything but opengl games.
member of imminst.org
Having an MSDN subscription, I would say you will be very disappointed to know that the next version of windows is going to have the same "issues" that many see in Vista.
Part of the issue is that the items that slow down Vista are the very same items that people scream about why Linux is so much better than Vista. Two great examples are:
Also, the "purposely" disabled portions of DX9 are in fact not true. There are some sections of the interface that are polymorphic - allowing the system to identify what it has access to or not by different registry and ini file settings. All this does is make the games "think that you have direct X 10 features" installed. If the game really tries to use them, it will either crash or default to a direct x 9 method instead. But, it is still direct x 9. Most because the driver itself is responsible for the new shader support - not windows.
actually, no Crysis can't do everything in dx9 that it can in dx10. That change opens up a "very high" detail level in crysis, but it's not the same as the very high on a vista machine
member of imminst.org
I switched from Windows XP 32 to Vista 64-bit Ultimate myself. I never bothered with XP 64 since too many games had issues with it.
But, I don't seem to have game compatibility issues with Vista x64 at all.
Couple things though:
Regardless of what ANYBODY tells you. After the release of a hotfix before SP1, it is no longer possible to load unsigned drivers unless you hold down the F8 key while loading windows. What does this mean? Well, sometimes - older hardware will not have a real driver available. When this happens usually someone like myself will hack together a driver from Windows XP 64-bit that happens to work with Vista x64. However, since the driver is not digitally signed by Microsoft, it will no longer install in Vista 64-bit. Unless you hold down the F8 key while loading windows and choose the "Disable signed driver support" option.
Does this apply to you? Well, simply put - if your hardware is from within the last 1-2 years you shouldn't have an issue. But check your Hardware vendors websites for Vista 64-bit drivers. The 32-bit versions will not work.
Secondly, because of the memory caching - I would suggest having atleast 2 gigs of memory. Also, be sure to disable Windows Search, Readyboost and Superfetch. These will DOG your system. Not because of taking up two much memory, but scanning your hard drive almost 100% of the time kills game performance.
Also, if you know anything about Services - visit www.blackviper.com/WinVista/service411.htm to see what most of the services do and which ones to disable to free up resources. I've used his site a few times and it's helpful.
Finally, DO NOT install Symantec Antivirus of any kind in Vista 64-bit. I have tried. Twice. It works fine for a while, but after some time you will notice that your performance will drop by atleast 25%. I switched to ESET NOD32 which has a 64-bit build of their antivirus software. Not that you would need a 64-bit build, but .. it's nice to use the extra performance when scanning memory.
what year are you in? you need to update your video drivers, the perforance gap was eradicated a long time ago. The decrease in speed was due to drivers. Vista and xp get the same gaming performance in everything but opengl games.
I have XP on one drive, Vista on another. I do not "dual boot", I actually unplug one drive and plug in the other, I have the latest drivers for all hardware, XP has SP3 and Vista has SP1. I can see a difference in FPS and I can measure a difference in FPS, XP outperforms Vista by 10-15%.
Granted Vista is better at DRM protection and security, two things I do not worry about, but gaming performance is still very poor. Now if you don't know any better, and just want desktop eye candy, Vista is for you, but if you are a serious gamer and want to eke out every bit of performance your rig can offer, then XP is the way to go.
Vista still has issues, why do you think that it has been rejected by businesses? Because any IT person will tell you "That dog don't hunt".
what year are you in? you need to update your video drivers, the perforance gap was eradicated a long time ago. The decrease in speed was due to drivers. Vista and xp get the same gaming performance in everything but opengl games.
I have XP on one drive, Vista on another. I do not "dual boot", I actually unplug one drive and plug in the other, I have the latest drivers for all hardware, XP has SP3 and Vista has SP1. I can see a difference in FPS and I can measure a difference in FPS, XP outperforms Vista by 10-15%.
Granted Vista is better at DRM protection and security, two things I do not worry about, but gaming performance is still very poor. Now if you don't know any better, and just want desktop eye candy, Vista is for you, but if you are a serious gamer and want to eke out every bit of performance your rig can offer, then XP is the way to go.
Vista still has issues, why do you think that it has been rejected by businesses? Because any IT person will tell you "That dog don't hunt".
Well, I'm an IT person, and Vista is a great OS. If you are having that much of a speed difference, you either have something set up wrong, or are full of shit. Too many updated reviews have been done over the past 6-12 months including ones by groups that hate Vista that have shown identical performance, not only between Vista sp1 and XP but also pre sp1 vista and XP in dx9
member of imminst.org
what year are you in? you need to update your video drivers, the perforance gap was eradicated a long time ago. The decrease in speed was due to drivers. Vista and xp get the same gaming performance in everything but opengl games.
I have XP on one drive, Vista on another. I do not "dual boot", I actually unplug one drive and plug in the other, I have the latest drivers for all hardware, XP has SP3 and Vista has SP1. I can see a difference in FPS and I can measure a difference in FPS, XP outperforms Vista by 10-15%.
Granted Vista is better at DRM protection and security, two things I do not worry about, but gaming performance is still very poor. Now if you don't know any better, and just want desktop eye candy, Vista is for you, but if you are a serious gamer and want to eke out every bit of performance your rig can offer, then XP is the way to go.
Vista still has issues, why do you think that it has been rejected by businesses? Because any IT person will tell you "That dog don't hunt".
Well, I will be honest. Vista DOES require more tooling to get raw performance out of it than Windows XP does. The reason is rather very simple. Microsoft has to cater to all types of users including the "12 o'clock flashers". You know the type with every clock flashing 12 o'clock all the time in their house? (If you don't get the reference, check out three dead trolls in a baggie some time)
Vista pretty much has every single bell and whistle running in the background all at the same time. There are about 20 different services that I ended up shutting off. Some made a noticable difference while others didn't. For example, did you know that Vista is running the Tablet PC drivers in the background even if you don't have a drawing/writing tablet? Or how about wireless security protocols loaded in memory with no wireless adapter. The list of crap goes on and on and the reason is so that Microsoft doesn't have to deal with the average Joe/Jill user that believes a software driver is a racing game. This is also why Auto-Update exists.
Vista can be made to the point where it is with a 5% tolerance range when compared to Windows XP. At that point I no longer care, because then I would need to start thinking about errors/flaws in my testing process and my ego can't have that.
To me, the last two nails in the Windows XP coffin were the Vista 64-bit version seems to be more accepted by delevelopers than XP 64-bit when drivers and software are concerned. Also, because the UI is in a completely different process space than the kernal - it allowed me to do things that I could never do in Windows XP.
There are several times that I play multiple MMOs at the same time spread out on different monitors. With two dual dvi or dual head video cards you can have up to 4 monitors running 4 seporate MMOs at the same time. And if you have a quad core along with decent memory bandwidth you shouldn't notice too much of a slow down -IF- you have good hard drive performance. I have tried this several times on Windows XP in the past and one of the MMOs would always seem to lock a window resource and cause the entire machine to blue screen on me.
I also noticed that when my video driver crashes due to some software bug, Vista automatically restarts the driver and the game that was running knows none the wiser. Once the video flickers back on in 2-3 seconds I pick up as nothing happened.
As an everyday OS I prefer Vista, it's just better for things that I do on a daily basis... For gaming I used to dual boot but drivers have come a long way since release and I see no reason not to use VISTA for gaming now.
Been gaming on Vista since January and love it no problems... As for DX 10 there really are'nt any games out that I play that are DX 10 titles... so can't help ya there.... (I did try LOTRO and CRYSIS ...looked great!)
i got 64 bit Vista and i can say its a huge improvement over my old machine...but thats not much of an achievement. DX10 is nice (especially on Company of Heroes) and (like any new system) once you learn the ins and outs you should not find any more problems than what you had with XP.
MMO's seem to run fine with Vista and as of yet i have not had any problems with running one on this machine. i cant tell you if Vista will improve performance as i went from a single core peice of crap graphics card with 1.5 gig of ram machine to a quad core 3 gig (damn that 4th stick) 512 mb 8800gts beast of a machine so my performance increase was fairly dramatic.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Well it's not using the same drivers/shaders, no- but it's my understanding that DX9 can create every effect DX10 can, and that some of those effects were purposefully and needlessly disabled on DX9 to make them look like they were only possible on DX10.
Well it's not using the same drivers/shaders, no- but it's my understanding that DX9 can create every effect DX10 can, and that some of those effects were purposefully and needlessly disabled on DX9 to make them look like they were only possible on DX10.
Although, technically you are correct, I could also say that my Motorolla 6510 processor in my Commodore 64 could in theory process the same exact effects that are used in Direct X 10.
However, the problem is that a video card with only Shader 3.0 support will be limited in how fast it can process effects. Shader 4.0 can process several new types of proprietary in-game effects that Shader 3.0 cards couldn't dream of in real time. It's not that the Direct X 9 cards aren't fast enough, it's that DX10 cards have better math operations and can contain more parameters in their formulas (Translation to the tech heads - many more gpu registers are available index/calculate off of).
All Shaders are proprietary, whether the game company purchases them from someone else or writes them in house. So, this means that it is up to the games themselves to take advantage of them. In many of the new "Direct X 10" games - two (or three) versions of the shaders are written and compiled. This allows for programmers to "cut corners" and remove most of the effect calculations that they hope you don't notice. This is for backwards compatibility.
A perfect example of this are games that have a simulated radiosity. When light bounces of an object it reflects a piece of it's color and bleeds onto another object. Shadows themselves have color. You may notice it, but its one of those subtle things that makes things look real vs. a computer generated image. Some games have newer 4.0 Shaders that are able to pull these effects off in real time. You wouldn't be able to accomplish the same with as much detail on a direct x 9 card.
Another example would be shaders that deal with light shimmering underwater. (See the new upcoming AoC changes). Direct X 9 is capable of this as well, but not with as much detail and realism unless you want to watch a slide show.
So, the question comes down to.. do you notice the difference? If you don't than you are right, Direct X 9 is good enough.
Don't bother with Vista just for DX10. I had to upgrade to Vista 64 because I had to install 8GB Ram but that was the sole reason. Luckily the graphics driver quality has improved significantly back from my first attempts with vista a year ago.
.: mmogle.com - the mmo question hub :.
vista makes you wanna have double the recommended requirements for the game... and that just saddens me...