|
Next
|
|
| Author |
Thread : New Gaming Computer. Vista or XP?
|
|
More Information
|
Last message on previous page: |
|
Related Pr oduct
|
Register or
log in to remove.
|
|
More Information
|
I went with Vista because of DX10.1 and to be DX11. After some benchmarks I knowticed Vista is much faster then XP.
|
|
More Information
|
If your computer can fly by with vista, get Vista, if not get XP |
|
More Information
|
I was very undecided about getting Vista for a long time. Like the OP I needed a second OS. It has been declared by Microsoft that they want to stop producing and supporting XP so part of my reasoning for purchasing Vista was longevity, I didn't want to buy another copy of of XP only to have it lose support in a year.
|
|
More Information
|
For Gaming go Vista. Face it, its the future. No point in sticking with XP. Gone are the days when Vista was giving compatibility problems and all that stuff.... Its become lots better with SP1. And for gaming and music, get Vista Home Premium. Ultimate is Home Premium + business features + stupid ultimate extras(the only ok thing thing in Ultimate Extras is Dream Scene which lets you play videos instead of a desktop Wallplaper{totally unnecessary}) Home Premium ought to suit you just fine. And make sure you get adequate RAM. For games like Crysis in Vista, I'd recommend 3-4 gigs... |
|
More Information
|
http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentin [...] he_vi.html
|
|
Plays with his WEI
More Information
|
Jack - You may want to reread the article - It's not 1/3rd of 'people', it's 1/3rd of enterprise users. Software standards being what they are at most corporations, the surprising number isn't 1/3rd are being downgraded back to XP, it's that 70% are keeping it.
Intel upgrades to Windows 2000 six months after Windows XP was released: Sluggish corporate adoption of Windows XP: Microsoft offers new licensing terms and other incentives to jump-start stalled corporate XP adoption: Three years after release, XP uptake still too slow: Four long years after XP release, more corporate desktops still using Windows 2000:
Message edited by Scotteq on 08-20-2008 at 12:12:30 AM --------------- The more I read the forums, the more I feel that a number of individuals would be well served by skipping their next GPU purchase in favor of a little "Stress relief" from the local 'Working Girls'" |
|
More Information
|
"Performed more slowly..."
--------------- Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. |
|
Always Aim Higher!!!
More Information
|
I'm using both XP and Vistabut whenit comesto gaiming Xpisbetter since I don't have yet a DX10 card still waiting it at the post office.
|
|
Logic is only the beginning of Wisdom. By Mr Spock
More Information
|
Go for XP! --------------- /Bear Spirit |
|
More Information
|
New computer = Vista x64.
--------------- Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. |
|
Insert clever quote here
More Information
|
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] efault.asp
Message edited by ThreatDown on 08-28-2008 at 06:15:18 PM |
|
More Information
|
The debate go's on. I have a HP with Vista 64 running a Nvidia 8800, a Toshiba laptop with Vista 32 and a Falcon Northwest with Windows xp 32 all with Nvidia cards. I work for a modeling simulation company. With that in mind here is my take. First I would say let the need or the software decide which OS. It's not so much that Vista or Xp is better, it's more a matter of how well the (games in your case) are written for said OS. That being said as we move into 2009 there are games that will take advantage of direct X 10, which by the way is volummetric smoke and light and "godray effects" like the lights coming through the clouds. Games like ArmA for example do not run well on Vista esp Vista 64. Games like Crysis run fine on both OS, you just don't get the DX-10 effects on XP. However Crysis is a perfect game to compare DX9 vs DX10. From there you can decide if DX10 is worth your while. I do not like Vista's attempt at security, the fact is it's not more secure so much as it is paranoid. You have to undo the security features, esp if you plan to mod. On that subject it is the modding of games like Gears of War and HL2's Hammer editor and ArmA that prompted me to go back to XP as ArmA runs much better on XP again it's the software not the OS. Note ArmA2 coming out next year will not take advantage of DX-10. I know the original writer of this thread had made his choice, however I know there are others who are still making that choice. If your out there please be more specific about your set up and I can research it to give a better answer. Again only my opinion based on the 10 gaming computers I have. |
|
More Information
|
What security features do you have to undo? I've been running Vista on both my laptop and desktop and have yet to come across any need to disable any sort of security. If you're referring to UAC and for some reason you still can't run a program... then you simply run it as administrator. Yes, it will prompt you everytime you run it that way... but at least you can run it and you don't have to disable anything.
--------------- Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. |
|
More Information
|
xp without a doubt i use both xp and vista, like most gamers I choose xp for gaming. Vista I use but hate to many reasons to dislike, if you are useless with computers and like wasting time then go with Vista. |
|
Next |
MyDiscussions.Net Forum, Version 2007.1
© 2000-2006 No1Dev

