Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vista vs XP performance comparison.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by haslo View Post
    Well, things like changing the background picture and generally setting up stuff (hardware, system settings, ...) is different, but that doesn't necessarily make it worse. Particularly changing the background picture actually takes less clicks in Vista than in XP, if you know where to look

    (I made tons of posts bashing Vista before, time to even it out a bit)
    Mh ... but...

    In XP you just open the Pic in Windows Viewer, then right click and select "use as wallpaper".

    First, i doubt that it takes less clicks in Vista.

    Second, even if it does take less clicks..... if THAT is what people come up with when they talk about the advantages of Vista then that's really telling a lot LOL.



    As i see it, Vista amounts to this:
    Basically you trade a major part of your FPS for a free but inferior "Windows Blinds".

    Comment


      Vista does have advantages, to me at least, and i don't feel confortable on XP anymore, it seems to lack a lot of things i like.

      BUT...

      In the end what matters is what OS is capable of giving ppl what they want, and XP is still better at that than Vista. 7 years of perfecting software and drivers for that operating system won't just go away like that, so i think its quite fair that ppl still like XP so much.

      But trust me, after a couple of service packs, Vista will become more solid and much better than what it is now just like it happened with XP itself. For instance, some performance issues of Vista have become much better already in SP1. Some benchmarks show it actually outperforming XP SP2 in some systems when copying files and extracting thru winrar.

      I don't get why ppl get so emotional about this, its not like you win something of getting ppl to use one OS or another anyway. There is no better OS, the OS is just a tool for you to take advantage of your machine and use the applications you desire, and since everyone has different needs and tastes, any OS might be a great choice.

      For my gaming desktop, i think Vista is the best as it performs great, has support for DX10 and is compatible with pretty much every game i might want to play. For my laptop, for instance, im forced to use dual boot due to work, but Ubuntu would be my first choice.

      P.S. And NEVER spell the name of the greatest club in the world wrong, that's heresy. BENFICA!

      Comment


        Originally posted by Cenotaph
        P.S. And NEVER spell the name of the greatest club in the world wrong, that's heresy. BENFICA!
        Yeah, don't even dare

        Não ligo nada a esta *****. Como é que ficou c/o Paços de Ferreira?

        Comment


          Ficou 4-1

          Comment


            I bought a new highend system on Monday. I just installed UT3 and the newest drivers. I had 180 fps ++ uncapped, but the game was hitching a bit ... which is bleh in ego shooters ...
            So I just installed a clean copy of XP and tried ut3 there. I cant say I expected it, but the game runs sooo smoooooth ... even the aiming is a bit better ... (when it comes to mouse drivers).

            Its wrong to say, XP is better than Vista. But when 90% say XP runs better than on Vista + me, I would prefer XP for gaming, though I like the layout of Visa ... its a nice operating system, surelly more friendly than xp ... but then again, just in my opinion.

            Get yourself a XP 64 bit version and try UT3 ... it surelly depents on the hardware, but 90% of the gamers cant be sooo wrong, aight?

            Btw. the discussion which is the best operating system, bleh ... I needed 20 minutes as a PC freak to find out, how vista works. People stick to older systems, because they know how it works. Or should a WinXP user for years, just install a ubuntu linux version, just because of the game, and doesnt know how to get into the internet? =)

            Just my 10 cents !

            Comment


              Exactly why I saved my money and stuck with my trusty old XP

              You will always get people who have bought vista coming along trying to justify why they bought it and why it is so much better than XP. Funny stuff

              Comment


                Originally posted by at0micsmurf View Post
                Exactly why I saved my money and stuck with my trusty old XP

                You will always get people who have bought vista coming along trying to justify why they bought it and why it is so much better than XP. Funny stuff
                What about the people that didn't buy it?

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Xangma View Post
                  What about the people that didn't buy it?
                  In that case they must of bought an already built computer with it pre-installed, which is retarded in itself. Anyone who has any right to comment about anything computer related buys all their parts and builds it themself, then decides what OS to install

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
                    Auzentech is a better card by far....
                    Hardly. It's still a Creative card by all rights because it uses the X-Fi chip set.

                    Originally posted by at0micsmurf View Post
                    Exactly why I saved my money and stuck with my trusty old XP

                    You will always get people who have bought vista coming along trying to justify why they bought it and why it is so much better than XP. Funny stuff
                    +1

                    I find Vista to be a laughable OS at best. The last OS that was pure junk was ME. Vista feels awful close to it. IMO.

                    The problems with Vista is because they tried to clean up the kernel and user land code from all the bloat and legacy code that's been floating around in Windows for years. Vista would have been a better OS if it was the OS that it was promised to be. They [MS] really need to drop the majority of the legacy code from Windows. Why on earth in 2008 does someone need the capability to Windows 1.01 & OS/2 2.1 apps?

                    Comment


                      i find almost all vista features great, yet its awfull release since it has so many bugs and issues to resolve, after the official sp1 you should all try vista again and see if the ingame performance continues lower than Xp and if the several hardware incompatibilities still are there too... Who knows maybe microsoft woke up and released a good fix... if not wait for sp2... if sp2 is the same wait for sp3... and so on.
                      oh and the update that i care most is the one that leet you CHOOSE wether you want vista to use system share or not for your graphics card... because srsly its rly awfull to be forced to use that "feature" on since some ppl dont even need it.
                      ill install vista myself after the official sp1, if it doesnt change much i will seriously be disapointed.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by SpitFire View Post
                        If you want performance :- use a GNU/Linux distribution ( gentoo preferably )
                        If you want eye candy :- use a GNU/Linux distribution
                        If you want a stable and "crash free" system :- use a GNU/Linux distribution
                        If you want a user friendly interface :- use a GNU/Linux distribution ( with a kde desktop )
                        This windoze X vs windoze X argument is like comparing turds - all are **** , it really is as simple as that.....
                        If you really have too much time without something useful to do- use a GNU/Linux distribution.

                        If you love typing sudo _____ times infinity- use a GNU/Linux distribution

                        If you have PROPER hardware and enough brainpower left to know what's taking REAL advantage of your hardware- use Windows.

                        Linux kernels are incredibly idiotic that they ARE slower than Windows on most gamers' PC. Ram usage means ****e. Unless you patch the kernels with the -CK patchset (and he's not making it anymore) you are enjoying HELL performance. As in the lack of it.

                        I'm not even gonna compare- Fedora 8 vs Vista on the same PC starting Firefox/Amarok (vs Winamp or Foobar), using those apps, Photoshop vs GIMP (which sucks again), even Vista feels MUCH faster and much more responsive.

                        Linux acts like it's running on a single core P4 machine. It uses less resources but takes MUCH longer to load anything. Even updating the stupid packages occasionally freezes the update manager if your internet is too slow. (Athlon X2 "4500+" here, full smoothness on Vista)

                        Comment


                          I have to agree, as much as I think Ubuntu looks great, if your going too use a PC for performance, you use Windows.

                          Linux is great for office apps and the rest.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by MrCobra View Post
                            (auzentech card better?) Hardly. It's still a Creative card by all rights because it uses the X-Fi chip set.
                            The chip != the whole card. You are ignoring the OPAMPs (one of which is even replaceable), the optical/coax combo port (I hate getting a card with the wrong type) the Dolby Digital Live capability (added via driver admittedly, but something Creative hasn't done) which is something that's awesome for those of us with home theater speakers with only DD5.1 input (or people who just like fewer cables). There's also the standard front panel audio connectors. I like that because I can use it with the built in audio connectors on my Coolermaster Stacker (there's no room left for a creative front panel module after a rheobus, optical drive and 3 120mm fans).

                            Finally, for me but obviously not for everyone there are Linux drivers (not out yet, but planned, like UT3 linux client ) which the X-fi lacks entirely. Well, creative seems to be working on some, but they are likely to be binary only (and thus **** from a Linux perspective). Those may be what Auzen will be using, so I guess that wouldn't be a plus after all hehe.

                            They listened to what people wanted in a card and put it in, enough of it that it is for me substantively better than the Creative card that uses the same chip.

                            **********

                            RE: Linux
                            I do most of my gaming on Linux. I keep windows around for some games (Crysis comes to mind) but really the only one I'm still playing after a few months is UT3, and someday it won't need windows. Obviously gamers are going to like Windows better but for some of us, Linux does fine in that department too. If one is using nVidia, the drivers are even pretty much the same (same codebase), so performance is comparable. In the end, it's no worse gaming-wise than OSX and that's not holding Apple back.

                            It's certainly not for everyone, and I don't see myself ever recommending it to someone who hasn't had the idea himself. But it makes things possible for me that windows does not. If I want to change something about how Explorer works, I can't. Not everyone who uses Linux is going to take advantage of having source code available, but I do. I am really unhappy with the desktop environments lately. None of them can seem to figure out what they want to be.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by MrCobra View Post
                              Hardly. It's still a Creative card by all rights because it uses the X-Fi chip set.


                              +1

                              I find Vista to be a laughable OS at best. The last OS that was pure junk was ME. Vista feels awful close to it. IMO.

                              The problems with Vista is because they tried to clean up the kernel and user land code from all the bloat and legacy code that's been floating around in Windows for years. Vista would have been a better OS if it was the OS that it was promised to be. They [MS] really need to drop the majority of the legacy code from Windows. Why on earth in 2008 does someone need the capability to Windows 1.01 & OS/2 2.1 apps?
                              You're not thinking broadly enough.

                              The reason it needs backwards compatibility is that a lot of companies still have VERY old software, simply because new software with the same purpose isn't made.

                              As for Vista being ****, that's a personal and biased opinion. I just recently went from Vista back to XP, and to be honest, I'm missing Vista.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by brdempsey69 View Post
                                I have XP/Vista dual boot and tested UT3 on both platforms and Hickeroar is 100% correct. Vista is totally inferior to XP when it comes to running this game.

                                I have 8800GTX and I think that what's Hickeroar has as well.

                                ATI solutions may be a different story.
                                I have a 8800gtx and have never hit 40 fps with Ut3 when using vista as a os.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X