Ok, so Age of Conan is out on the 20th and Vista has been increasingly getting on my tits. SP1 was supposed to be the savior but quite frankly, I don't feel saved. AOC is a DX10 'Games for Windows' title which is supposed to utilize Vista and make it run better...I think. Anyway, I've gotta make a decision, and this isn't just about AOC, but about all games... Do I nuke and go back to XP Pro? or do I just keep Vista? Which one would you prefer to run your games? EDIT: Erk, Poll broked? Mods?
I've tried Vista twice now. Once 6 months after release and once just after SP1 released. I still hate it. FPS in all games is still lower or the same at best. Some games the FPS is diabolically low. Compatibility is like crap; I tried to to use 3rd party Defraggers of which all were Vista compatible but they all messed up my system, big time. Unless you keep your system on 24/7 Vista is generally slower, all that cache'ing crap is pointless if you regularly reboot (I have 4GB of RAM too). And lastly, DX10 is not that great. Of all the games out that support it, Crysis is the only one which looks different in DX10 without intentionally looking for the details; and those DX10 settings can be gotten in XP with 'hacks'. So yeah, my personal opinion is stick with XP, its still far superior IMO, and with WindowsBlinds you can make it look even better too (without the graphics card overhead). Of course, everyone's experience is different, but IMO your best sticking with XP; you know it will work with all your software and games, and you already know how to work it.
Vista SP1, is not supposed to make your gaming faster, nor introduce new features. It is just a bunch of released and unreleased updates and bug fixes for Vista itself, and give you Server 2008 support, like SP1 and SP2 was for XP (Sorry this firewall thing is nothing, a blank gray window is more useful than this), sorry to disappoint. Yes, XP SP2 is just update which made the system more stable, but it was mostly time and new driver release that made XP what it is now. Same for Vista, since its release drivers have improved significantly, however there is something of a mess in Vista. You see when you update Vista with Windows update it installs your hardware drivers, however the driver may not be the latest ones or actually released by the company publicly. So you have to test Windows drivers, else try the company (like nVidia) drivers, and compare which make your system better. About games and DX10 So far I think Crisys is the only game that actually used DX10, however still not at 100%. Most games now, are made in totally in DX9, and at certain places where you have light or water they put an if condition and execute DX10 API. Why? Because developers are not comfortable with DX 10 yet, there is a lot to learn, and re-learn how to optimize things. Moreover, many people still has DX9 video cards... so developers don't really bother with DX10. It will take several years before the actual switch is made, like it occurred with DX8 and DX9. Specially that even today, so many company's (HP, Dell, Toshiba, etc..) assemble new computer with still crappy DX9 video cards, as they want to empty their old stock before switch to the new DX10 video card (specially that it make no sense as DX10 video card cost just as much as DX9 and are more powerful) About the issue... My friend, I don't know where you got your information, but defragmenting your hard drive won't help in your games, at most it will make the OS startup a bit faster, and your applications and games load faster. This is about it. Also I don't know what program you used, but that is a personal first that I hear that. I think you have some malware or something on your system not working at 100%, or perhaps you did not try a proper defragmentation tool. I personally suggest O&O Defrag 10 for Desktop edition (noth 32 ad 64-bit editions exists) (NOT Server edition (unless you run Windows Server)), or Perfect Disk. Once you install your system, you can do a defrag with O&O defrag, by sorting files by Access Time (just once a year thing, after that you can do the normal defrag which is very quick), it will take all night to do, but the results are worth it. You can boost a bit your system performance by using the full potential of your 64-bit CPU, by using Vista 64-bit. This will unlock your full potential of your system and allow you to use 4 or more GB of RAM. Now, you won't see anything major on your 32-bit games and applications, but you will see a little increase in performance. The beauty comes when you run 64-bit game (currently none), and 64-bit applications (few), now you will see a great visual performance increase in performance. If you have Vista 64-bit, try this. Install a 64-bit codec pack, and run Windows Media Player 64-bit (shortcut set on your system is the 32-bit, you have to go in "Program Files" and run it from there, and load a big HD video, and compare CPU usage, you still it uses about half (depends on your video, so it is hard to test), of the CPU resources it uses. Anyway, also if you have 3Gb or more Dual Channel, I suggest to disable page file, so that Windows only uses your RAM. The downside about it, is that if you are low in RAM, Windows will appear a dialog box a saying "You are low in memory, if you reach the max of your RAM your applications WILL crash, and you will lose all your unsaved work. I recommend to close the following application(s): [item or list of applications that uses the most RAM]". If you have 4Gb of RAM, you have no choice to go with Vista 64-bit. I mean you can go with Windows XP 64-bit... but get several bottles of Advils and Tylenols... you will need both. About the miss information that you have Also, no you don't need to run Vista 27/7. If you don't want your system to perform Windows Defender scan, or Windows defragmentation because you have your own defragmentation tool and your own spyware too, that you do use at least once a month (like you should under XP), than you can disable that, and make your computer free from those tasks. About new OS What makes you say that the OS should make your games faster? What? A new OS's have to hack your BIOS and OC your CPU and RAM like crazy, to boost a PIII 800Mhz into 3Ghz... come on now.... You are supposed to see the same results. Again, this performance decrease that you see is a driver issue. I know it sucks, but companies don't care their have old hardware, even if you have a Geforce 8800 Ultra, Nvidia (applies for all other companies) won't touch anything, unless there is something major that needs to be fix. They focus on new product, their 9800 series drivers, same for their motherboard. Same for the game optimization, just now they start optimizing and actually testing (more than: "Ok, guys I see the menu of the game on the Vista machine, it works!!! No need to go on!") their games under Vista environment, so I would guess new games that gets released in end-2008, early-2009, will be running comfortably under Vista. :| Oh that is nice, so instead of having your fine GPU generate the interface, and not generate it when you play a game, you use your CPU and force it to draw your interface while your game runs, and to top things over you use WindowBlinds and a background image to slow things even more. Niiiiice... CPU's are not design to make graphics. That is why in the very old games wheer you had the choice between "Software Render", or "Hardware Render" graphics, your game was actually playable with "Hardware render" My thoughts I would expect Age of Conan, to run about the same speed as WinXP, maybe 5 fps lower at most. If you do see a difference that means the game is already a slide show and your video card and it is either way not compatible to playing the game to the settings you set. You want a game to run over 45fps on average, and 30 fps on the worst scenario (like most games on your gaming console!).
can anyone here get more than 25fps in crysis dx10? coz i can't with my 8800gtx so its pretty pointless having dx10 when it runs like poo
just wait, wait till the game gets cheaper, and till theres more patches or something for Vista. always good anyway, game will be cheaper, and overtime they'll most likely patch vista again..
My personal feelings are that XP is preferable because it runs all the older games. At work I play on a Vista system to get the new stuff, but at home I play things like Thief and System Shock more often than World in Conflict or Crysis. That's why I'll soon be moving back to XP at home.
Well I tried to be friendly and helpful, but clearly my advise is shot down and/or misinterpreted and I'm made to look a fool. I wont be posting here again if that how i get treated when I try to offer my help and experiences..... "defragmenting your hard drive won't help in your games" - Honestly, where did I say it did? I merely said i had issues with them and Vista. And no, there was absolutely *nothing* wrong with my system (it was a fresh install too). "What makes you say that the OS should make your games faster?" - I didn't mean that, though I should have worded it better. I meant most games run worse and if your lucky some may run as good as XP. "you use your CPU and force it to draw your interface" - I think you'll find WindowsBlinds has ZERO impact on games. Please, do some testing first before making these remarks. If it does impact your system, maybe you also have malware or something? I think you need to stop being so defensive about Vista too. He was asking for advice, and like others above I recommended XP and tried to give reason. No need to attack me for christs sake.
yes, but not all on Very High. all on Very High gets me 21FPS. i personally think they are the same, Vista just gets a few less FPS which who cares?
I run vista home premium 64 bit and xp in dual boot, I mostly use vista now and just have xp for benching and as a compability mode for stuff that doesnt work with vista. as for gaming, well, there is no game out yet that requires vista (alan wake will be the first one) and dx10 adds only a smal amount of eye candy but at a massive performance hit, so for gaming your still better off with xp.
Quite frankly.....vista only looks good at the core it is a bad os....im saying this because if you remember right....when windows xp came there was a lot of speculation ut at the root there wasnt much difference in core system usage for win98 winme and win xp....but at the same time xp looked way better. the problem with vista is that it looks good but screws around with your system...add to that the security issues that it hasnt been able to solve and you have a complete loser is the longer run....now as far as gaming is concerned its pretty straightforward.....if you wanna run your games at a better performance .....go for xp...as it liberates more momory and cpu for other applications vis-a-vis vista
This morning Vista determined its own fate when it decided to no longer allow me to use my second monitor. Bye bye.
Haha interesting to see that things as little as that are enough to make people switch back. I think operating systems are beginning to shoot themselves in the foot, system wise 2000 is fine for getting things done, the main reason its not of any use anymore for gaming is DX stopped at 8 (Drivers stopped for my 3000 series graphics as well, that was a sad moment). I seem to recall somewhere that DX10 features are possible on XP and its Microsoft's pushing Vista that it hasnt been released for XP. In the future (Late DX10 / early DX11 probably), DX9 wont be supported very well by developers and will get dropped. Then I would probably make a switch to Vista, while ever DX9 runs well and looks okay (I didnt really notice Crysis graphics after about 30 seconds of playing) XP will probably be the better choice. Unless of course you care more for using windowed apps, then there will be little bits of Vista that are an advantage.
I already setup dual screen with Vista... works fine, I don't see the problem. The features are the same as when I was in XP. Smells like driver problem with your video card. Did you report this bug to the company?
