I am using XP and dont really want to change that. But.. I really want to play all the latest games with high graphics and want to know if it is worth installing Vista just to be able to use DX10? I have used Vista before and I preffer XP. Please let me know. Thanks dude Jah Bless
Your computer (on your sig) is more than Vista compatible, so Vista will/should run perfectly smoothly. Vista offers many things over XP... however if it is JUST for DX10, I must agree with Smilodon, wait several years (maybe until the end of like of Windows 7, well anyway until you start seeing DX10 only games). However if you want all the minor annoyances in XP solved, auto-maintenance system that doesn't slow down over time, Super-fetch, pre-fetch (that actually works), instant search, the new Start menu, have the OS itself take advantage of your dual core, and use the full potential of your 64-bit CPU by unlocking it (Vista 64-bit only, minor difference for 32-bit application) and give you the ability to run 64-bit applications (Vista 64-bit only). Then yes Vista is a good choice.
simple answer - No. Obviously, DX10 only affects games, so any differences will be seen in them. However - there is NO game on the market that showcases DX10 to a level that makes it a much better (graphically wise) to DX9. Even games like Bioshock & Crysis don't standout when in DX10 mode.
Definatly not worth it. I got used to the vista interface so i dont want to back to the boring looking xp one. BUT vista EATS ram and processors for lunch. i bet my pc would be faster in xp if i went back, Crysis whould run fin in xp just not dx10 which adds err...hmmm..errr yeah...stuff? i think if u ran it in high youd be pushed to tell the diffrence. Id stick with xp for now if i was you. you can always use window blinds if you want to get a new interface for xp( which i should prolly do). But vista is just to much of a bloaty bugger if ur used to xp speed.
That is Superfetch, actually if you run programs you will see that the RAM doesn't increase, or just a tiny bit, as SuperFetch size gets decrease live. If you start a heavy game play a bit, and quit, and quickly open the Task Manager, you will see that your RAM will be at about half (or even less) of what it was, and increasing. You can disable Superfetch if you think you that your RAM should not be used at it's full advantage, however expect to have application starts at XP speeds. As for CPU, I really don't' know what you are talking about. The CPU level is the same as it was on XP for me... perhaps you have something running on the back, or perhaps look in the TaskSchedule to see if something is running on the background at an inconvenient time. Using WindowBlind, as a great software it is, it eat up the RAM that you don't want the OS or application to have (apparently), and uses CPU (remember that in Vista (Aero only (all other theme including Aero Basic uses XP engine, which uses the CPU)) it is the graphic card that draws the interface (until you run a fullscreen game), and that in XP, it uses the CPU. Last time I check GPU was design to draw graphics, not the CPU. Yes Crysis will work fine under WinXP, the game is a DX9 game with gimmicky DX10 here and there, which you will probably not see the difference. Right now companies are starting to discover DX10, and see what it can do. Also, as most people still have WinXP and/or still have a DX9 video card, game developers don't focus much on DX10.
agree with most of the posts above. Vista for "improved graphics" in the form of DX10 isn't worth it, it'll reduce the performance for very minor differences. i made that mistake already. however, i prefer the small OS improvements vista gives over xp's flaws.
with 4GB of RAM, you are committing a crime NOT installing Vista 64bit. my friend have exact same spec as you, except he only have 2GB of RAM, and his computer runs Vista beautifully. having said those, with your X-Fi and your sole goal of Dx10, no, not worth the money to buy it (but DO try to get it for free from universities)
