Which one is better Windows Xp OR Vista For playing Games!!! Check it out...

[lekhi123]

Technology-Post, took the headache to tell the readers which one is better operating system in terms of playing games and showing the performance. I know many of you will straight away many people will say that new technology and new parameters of Vista are better than that of the Xp.

However if you believe me (or start testing the things on ur own!!) you will notice that performance wise Xp is quiet better and it beats the vista by long margin. My parameters were swapping among the screens, browsing them and many others like ( resource dead lock problem and many more).

@technology-post.info

[TheEnd187]

vista drivers suck now and prblaly till next year i had better performance in xp, note i am running vista ultimate, with all updates some older games dont even play wtf? it comes up with dx9.dlletc... cannot be found but it is a dx5-8 games, and other games are just choppy, nvidia drivers are getting etter but everything else still needs to be fixed in order to take advantage of dx10, although vista makes my gui look pretty at the expense of 1.5gb of ram

[Mak213]

Originally Posted by lekhi123

Technology-Post, took the headache to tell the readers which one is better operating system in terms of playing games and showing the performance. I know many of you will straight away many people will say that new technology and new parameters of Vista are better than that of the Xp.

However if you believe me (or start testing the things on ur own!!) you will notice that performance wise Xp is quiet better and it beats the vista by long margin. My parameters were swapping among the screens, browsing them and many others like ( resource dead lock problem and many more).

@technology-post.info

This is ture if you use a single core CPU and the bare minimum of RAM. But if you use Dual Core or Quad Core and have at least 2GB of RAM or more you will see that Vista is actually better. The reason, Vista is designed to use Dual Core and Quad Core efficently. XP is not. So while your article does hold true it is only for certain PC's not all PC's.

TheEnd is right. The driver support is far from great and shotty at best. But even so i am still able to play all Steam games easily. Along with UT2004, Doom 3, Halo among others. The only games i have issues with are the ones that wont install. Quake 4 is the first one that comes to mind.

[jasonhtml]

im using a dual core and have 2 Gigs of RAM and Vista runs just fine while playing games such as BF2 on highest settings

[g_booto]

Run Games on XP. there are still lots of problems with running games on vista. i used Vista ultimate and it uses so much of your ram that games will run slower. well more demanding ones anyways. for eg. i could run Quake 4 on ultimate graphics on xp no lagg. on vista, its coppy and real laggy. lolz. you could close the explorer.exe and that would cut down alot of ram usage. then u just start the explorer.exe task again laterz. anyways, stick to XP for games, i had to learn the hard way. now im puttin XP back on my system. yay....

[beedubaya]

XP for gaming! My framerate in some games was cut nearly in half when using Vista. Others weren't affected as bad, but I didn't see improvement in anything.

I also heard MS may be pulling the plug on Vista early like they did with ME, in favor of a newer, much better version. Don't know how true that is.

[macdude425]

This is ture if you use a single core CPU and the bare minimum of RAM. But if you use Dual Core or Quad Core and have at least 2GB of RAM or more you will see that Vista is actually better. The reason, Vista is designed to use Dual Core and Quad Core efficently. XP is not. So while your article does hold true it is only for certain PC's not all PC's.

How many people have that? How many people can afford that? It is absurd that Microsoft would essentially FORCE people to upgrade so as to use their new software - especially when a good deal of hardware that struggles with it is still being sold.

Actually, in my experience, XP doesn't handle dual cores/procs too badly.

Actually, I think XP is a better performer - period. I have seen XP and Vista run on NEAR identical hardware and XP was more responsive; it booted faster and it didn't stall. Granted, these machines didn't have two gigs of RAM, but that's just absurd to call that a minimum to run an operating system.

[Mak213]

Originally Posted by macdude425

How many people have that? How many people can afford that? It is absurd that Microsoft would essentially FORCE people to upgrade so as to use their new software - especially when a good deal of hardware that struggles with it is still being sold.

Actually, in my experience, XP doesn't handle dual cores/procs too badly.

Actually, I think XP is a better performer - period. I have seen XP and Vista run on NEAR identical hardware and XP was more responsive; it booted faster and it didn't stall. Granted, these machines didn't have two gigs of RAM, but that's just absurd to call that a minimum to run an operating system.

Did i say anywhere in there that 2GB of RAM was MIMIMUM? No. The minimum for Vista is 512MB. Granted it runs like XP does on 64MB but still. With newer software require more hardware.

I hear all these complaints about Vista but yet no ones says a thing when a game requires these things. Nor do they say anything when a a photo application requires these things. So why is it that a brand new OS that has some eye candy among other things require it people go nuts?

Since Dual Core is now becoming the standard with at least 1GB on all pre-built systems i would say the chances are better than most now. Yes XP does boot faster, as it does have to load the totally new OS built from scratch instead of built of a older kernel like XP was. So yeah it boots faster it is also just the NT kernel with a couple new things added to it. The NT kernel was created in 99 or so. That offers a lot of security. Hence why XP is so easily hacked. Unlike Vista which was built from scratch off the Server 2003 Kernel which has yet to get a vulnerability found for it.

So which will i go for. The old outdated kernel which is like swiss cheese, or the new and improved kernel which offer more security for not only me but my family. Tough choice there really. My machine is over 3 years old and it performs with Vista Ultimate just fine.

So when people start asking questions like why BF2 requires just as much as Vista then maybe i wont gripe aobut this. **** at least Vista will run on all GFX cards unlike BF2. Yeah you may not have the Aero but it will still run.

As for the problems with Quake 4 it is well known that Quake 4 isnt even compatable with Vista. So trying to run it of course will produce problems. That is why it isnt compatable. Shocking i know.

[macdude425]

Unlike Vista which was built from scratch off the Server 2003 Kernel which has yet to get a vulnerability found for it.

Dude...Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition - Vulnerability Report - Secunia

I don't think I need to say much more.

[beedubaya]

Originally Posted by Makaveli213

Did i say anywhere in there that 2GB of RAM was MIMIMUM? No. The minimum for Vista is 512MB. Granted it runs like XP does on 64MB but still. With newer software require more hardware.

I still find it hard to believe why it takes 2GB for Vista to do what Mac OSX Tiger or Linux w/Beryl does in as little as 512MB.

Originally Posted by Makaveli213

I hear all these complaints about Vista but yet no ones says a thing when a game requires these things. Nor do they say anything when a a photo application requires these things. So why is it that a brand new OS that has some eye candy among other things require it people go nuts?

Because Vista requires way too much for what it does. If it is going to require this much resources, it needs to have something to show for it.

Originally Posted by Makaveli213

Since Dual Core is now becoming the standard with at least 1GB on all pre-built systems i would say the chances are better than most now. Yes XP does boot faster, as it does have to load the totally new OS built from scratch instead of built of a older kernel like XP was. So yeah it boots faster it is also just the NT kernel with a couple new things added to it. The NT kernel was created in 99 or so. That offers a lot of security. Hence why XP is so easily hacked. Unlike Vista which was built from scratch off the Server 2003 Kernel which has yet to get a vulnerability found for it.

No, dual-core and 1GB are not standard. At least in my area, 9 out of 10 PCs we sell are Celeron D processors with only 512MB of RAM. People buy the cheap stuff, the stuff on the front of advertisement flyers. Also, Vista is still on the same NT kernel that has existed since 1993. There are some differences, but its essentially the same under the hood. I ran into a Vista machine today with so messed up with spyware nothing could save it but a complete reformat. There were like 5-6 toolbars in IE too. Vista is far from completely secure.