PDA

View Full Version : Stay with XP or go back to Vista?


Pages : [1] 2

Zapablast05
12-16-07, 01:35 PM
I've beel flip flopping between OS's like Kerry did for his campaign. Now that MS has released SP3 betas and Vista RC's, I don't know which to choose from. I've read around the forums and people said that SP3 is great and that it improves performance. I was like, "I need to to try it." I haven't read much on the Vista releae, just that it's been running a bit smoother or the same. I honestly don't want to leave XP because of the free ALchemy, the working SLi and the low memory usage; RAM and HDD.

So which should I go to? I would switch to Vista no problem but I need to see more feedback on the RC. And if I don't like Vista, and go back to XP, but then I have to call MS to activate my XP copy because it's been installed beyond the limit :wtf:. It's not my fault I didin't like Vista all the 40 times I switched between the OS's..


Yes, it was really 40 times...or more.

Revs
12-16-07, 02:12 PM
SP1 RC has once and for all killed all my Vista problems (there wasn't that many anyways). I've still got XP installed as a backup but haven't had to use it for ages now.

Have a look at the SP1 RC thread and see what you think.

Dragunov
12-16-07, 03:16 PM
I would use both if u cannot make a choice

conroejoe
12-16-07, 03:17 PM
SP1 is alot better. There are still some issues, but overall much better experience. I still think XP SP3 is where it's at - for now anyways. That may change woth SP1 RTM though. Vista still needs some patches and maturity I feel.

ViN86
12-16-07, 04:19 PM
SP1 is alot better. There are still some issues, but overall much better experience. I still think XP SP3 is where it's at - for now anyways. That may change woth SP1 RTM though. Vista still needs some patches and maturity I feel.
i agree.

at least wait for the official SP1 release for Vista. tbh, you might want to wait a little while longer until video card drivers mature and game performance in Vista comes back to where it should be.

Zapablast05
12-16-07, 04:59 PM
i agree.

at least wait for the official SP1 release for Vista. tbh, you might want to wait a little while longer until video card drivers mature and game performance in Vista comes back to where it should be.


That's what I want to do, but I kinda figured that game performance will be as good as XP's with Vista's SP1. I just installed SP3 and I'll give it a try. In a week, I'll probably go back to Vista...just like I did every week over the summer, swap between OS's.

Revs
12-16-07, 06:06 PM
lol, something tells me you're a little indecisive :D

mtl
12-16-07, 06:27 PM
Does anyone else think DX10 is a huge disappointment? A giant performance penalty compared to Dx9 with a small single digit per cent additional visual eye candy, most of which can be hacked into DX9 without the performance hit.
What a joke!

ViN86
12-16-07, 06:50 PM
That's what I want to do, but I kinda figured that game performance will be as good as XP's with Vista's SP1. I just installed SP3 and I'll give it a try. In a week, I'll probably go back to Vista...just like I did every week over the summer, swap between OS's.
you should just dual boot both of them. obviously leave your games on only one, but on the other put w/e.

Zapablast05
12-17-07, 01:29 AM
But see, I don't want to dual boot, ViN. I want Vista because IMO, it's more organized. XP is too but Vista has things sorted out.

john19055
12-17-07, 03:11 AM
Windows Vista looks pretty ,but that about all I can say about it ,DX10 was a disapointment and I still have games that I like to play that vista just don't work like my XP ,I get more Feezes and BSOD with vista then I ever did with XP .I have vista installed about two months now but I still have not activated it after 30 days I just reinstall.I really think I am going back to XP and just stay there until all the kinks are worked out of Vista ,As far as game with DX10 ,I can tell they look that much better for the performance hit you get ,and like cysis you can hack it and it looks almost just as good ,really to me it looks just as good.

SlickRig
12-17-07, 03:47 AM
Does anyone else think DX10 is a huge disappointment? A giant performance penalty compared to Dx9 with a small single digit per cent additional visual eye candy, most of which can be hacked into DX9 without the performance hit.
What a joke!


Lost planet is actually Faster under DX10, Bioshock is now the same in DX10 as it is in DX9.

As for crysis I lose approximately 3fps in DX10 vs DX9 mode using identical settings.



You guys who bash DX10 obviously were not around when the transition from DX8 to DX9 took place. It didnt exactly go over so smoothly either.


You have to give DX10 time to mature and give the hardware time to catch up.

Tr1cK
12-17-07, 07:53 AM
Ask yourself which one will provide what you need. It doesn't matter what anybody else in the world uses. It is your machine, it must be tailored to suit your needs.

Personally, I am sticking with XP until I see some real benefits from migrating to Vista. The only 2 benefits I see in the possible near future is, a need to go 64 bit to support more RAM since apps and games are getting more RAM hungry and possibly DX10. I still think DX10 won't show us anything and DX11 will be the real deal.

conroejoe
12-17-07, 08:47 AM
But see, I don't want to dual boot, ViN. I want Vista because IMO, it's more organized. XP is too but Vista has things sorted out.


When outpost.com had the SATAII, 320GB 16MB cache drives for $59 out the door I picked up two. I don't dual boot, I keep one installation of each OS on each drive. I just pop my case open and switch the SATA cable and I'm in XP or Vista. This way I can hose one without killing both - the actual dual boot with MBR was a problem if I reinstalled XP I had to reinstall both. Pickup another HD and just put an installation of each on a HD. Win, Win and it's not outrageously expensive.

conroejoe
12-17-07, 08:57 AM
Does anyone else think DX10 is a huge disappointment? A giant performance penalty compared to Dx9 with a small single digit per cent additional visual eye candy, most of which can be hacked into DX9 without the performance hit.
What a joke!


Gaming performance:
Yes. I am especially angry about that. I feel I was flat out lied to about the gaming performance and in fact MS has since removed the whole "faster gaming performance in Vista" from their website. Clearly they even realized this wasnt going to happen. As for DX10 I haven't seen anything that makes it worth the performance hit - whatever happened to more on the screen with less performance hit??

Resolved issues:
My other big issue was the network performance with gigabit, however SP1 has pretty much resolved that. Driver signing isn't an issue with any of the apps I use anymore. So while I feel Vista is moving in the right direction I would really love to see a boost in gaming performance.

Price:
Honestly, academic copies FTW! Glad I didn't buy Vista at launch.

Unresolved issues:
My other issues that will never be resolved are that my printer and scanner don't work from Vista and they never will.


For those of you using XP but who like the look of Vista. I have SP3 installed with this (http://www.crystalxp.net/galerie/en.id.130.htm) installed. It gives XP the Vista look without affecting performance.

conroejoe
12-17-07, 09:03 AM
You guys who bash DX10 obviously were not around when the transition from DX8 to DX9 took place. It didnt exactly go over so smoothly either.


DX10 is bashed because it has not delivered what was promised. Some people are quick to just label people as "dx10 bashers and not remembering previous transitions". Microsoft told us - better performance, more effects. So people are bashing it because it was a lie. Its not everyone elses fault the transition from DX9 to DX10 was a rocky road, it's Microsofts fault. Now had they put it out there without telling us it would improve performance then maybe people would just chill and accept the dx9 to dx10 transition will take time.

Look, here's is the problem I hate being lied to about anything - here is a link where MS still claims DX10 will improve your 3d and gaming performance. Do you feel this is a quantified statement (maybe with the exception of Lost Planet)???

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/directx.mspx

"DirectX 10 features heavily enhanced 3-D graphics-rendering capabilities and helps noticeably improve your computer's performance in games and high-end 3-D applications. DirectX 10 empowers games to present a new generation of visual effects, and deliver more visual detail per frame than ever before."

Revs
12-17-07, 09:08 AM
While I agree that MS set us up for disappointment with DX10 performance I still think there is hope. It's not even been out a year yet so i'd say there was still time for improvement. DX9 has been out AGES and it's still improving. Although the only real benefits are things like nice partical effects. Also there is still no pure DX10 games so it's hard to say what it can do with better programming. Time will tell.

SlickRig
12-17-07, 02:53 PM
Also there is still no pure DX10 games so it's hard to say what it can do with better programming. Time will tell.


My thoughts exactly. People that jump to conclusions like Conroejoe before the final product is even completed just baffle me.

No one has seen a true DX10 title yet and it will be a while before you do so its a little bit early to be calling MS a liar.

Tr1cK
12-17-07, 02:55 PM
My thoughts exactly. People that jump to conclusions like Conroejoe before the final product is even completed just baffle me.

So by what you are saying, Vista is an incomplete product.

SlickRig
12-17-07, 03:05 PM
So by what you are saying, Vista is an incomplete product.


Why because DX10 isnt in full bloom yet? thats retarded. Nice try at putting words in my mouth however.

DX10 is not the make it or break it for Vista as there are plenty of other features that I prefer with it over XP. In time DX10 will mature much as in the same way the transition from DX8 to DX9 took place.

Honestly, it doesn't seem like many of you were around back in those days because if you had been then you would not be in such shock as to why there is not a sudden jump from DX9 to DX10.


BTW I absolutely love Vista 64, I have 4gb's of ram in my system and Vista runs extremely well and so do my games. I used to dual boot from XP to Vista a few months ago, however I deleted XP completely about a month ago as I no longer have any use for it and all of my games are running just as well and some even better under Vista for me after all of the recent performence hotfixes and beta drivers from Nvidia.

Tr1cK
12-17-07, 03:18 PM
Why because DX10 isnt in full bloom yet? thats retarded. Nice try at putting words in my mouth however.

DX10 is not the make it or break it for Vista as there are plenty of other features that I prefer with it over XP. In time DX10 will mature much as in the same way the transition from DX8 to DX9 took place.

Honestly, it doesn't seem like many of you were around back in those days because if you had been then you would not be in such shock as to why there is not a sudden jump from DX9 to DX10.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. One could qualify your statement as what I said though. The DX10 jump is a big one in the way that it is based upon a new driver model. The DX8-9 jump wasn't as big IMO, the hardware had to catch up to the software is all. Now, we have had DX10 cards in consumers hands longer than we have had DX10 itself, so the opposite is true. If the balls not in MS's court, then it is in the graphics card vendor's court.

Conroejoe is 100% correct in quoting MS as saying that DX10 would provide performance improvements, which it has not even a year after the OS has officially been on the market. Developers and hardware manufacturers have had it longer than we have also. I'd love to see DX10 flourish and provide everything MS said it would, but I don't believe it has.

Forgive me for not being on the Vista bandwagon. I just don't see any advantages that it provides at this point in time. I'm of the firm belief that MS should have released Vista as 64bit only to push technology forward. As it stands, 32bit is still the standard for the next 2-3 years.

SlickRig
12-17-07, 03:34 PM
The DX8-9 jump wasn't as big IMO, the hardware had to catch up to the software is all.

I will have to disagree with you there.


Now, we have had DX10 cards in consumers hands longer than we have had DX10 itself, so the opposite is true. If the balls not in MS's court, then it is in the graphics card vendor's court.

Your wrong on both counts, MS and Nvidia are not game devs. I guess MS might be responsible for MS flight sim but I really cant think of anything else.

Its up to the major game devs such as Capcom, EA, ETC to make use of the DX10 tools provided to them by both Nvidia with the G80 series and Windows Vista from MS.


Conroejoe is 100% correct in quoting MS as saying that DX10 would provide performance improvements

Im not disputing that at all.


I'd love to see DX10 flourish and provide everything MS said it would, but I don't believe it has.

And it hasnt because there isnt a true 100 percent DX10 title yet, thats what I have been saying the whole time and thats why you really cant call MS a liar yet until we see a true DX10 game. And again, this is up to the game DEVS to get off their lazy asses and build a true DX10 game from the ground up, None of this hybrid DX9 stuff with added DX10 effects....... that will certainly slow any game down since all it really is are extra dx10 visuals that are basically integrated into the less efficient DX9 code.

When we see a true DX10 game for the first time it is very well possible that it could run better while looking better at the same time IF AND I MEAN IF it turns out to be efficient the way its supposed to be.



Forgive me for not being on the Vista bandwagon. I just don't see any advantages that it provides at this point in time.

Then dont upgrade until you do. I went Vista 64 because I wanted to make full use of my ram so to me that part of it was worth it plus the extra security of Vista 64 over a 32bit OS.


I'm of the firm belief that MS should have released Vista as 64bit only to push technology forward.

I can agree with that.


As it stands, 32bit is still the standard for the next 2-3 years.

2-3 yrs imo is stretching it a bit. Ram limitations will be a factor before that length of time.

Tr1cK
12-17-07, 03:45 PM
lol Way to dissect a post buddy. :p

I think we agree that Vista isn't bad in it's current implementation, it just needs more implementation through developers. I'll gladly pick it up when I see that.

The one thing you said that did stand out to me is the added security of going from 32bit to 64 bit. I don't believe that's true. Vista did add security over XP, but I don't believe it has anything to do with being 64 bit, however, I could be wrong.

SlickRig
12-17-07, 03:49 PM
lol Way to dissect a post buddy. :p

Hey man, I was just trying to point out some of what I thought were some valid points. Im not trying to bash on you or anything so we are cool as far as im concerned. ;)





Vista did add security over XP, but I don't believe it has anything to do with being 64 bit, however, I could be wrong.


I am pretty darn sure that the 64bit OS provides better security than that of its 32bit counter part. I will try to look into it again.
If anything it may be the fact that not nearly as many viruses are written for a 64bit OS vs a more common 32bit OS. I realize that fact itself does not make 64bit any more secure than 32bit but I guess the chances of getting a virus are less likely on the 64bit OS. That may have been what I was thinking about.

Tr1cK
12-17-07, 03:54 PM
Hey man, I was just trying to point out some of what I thought were some valid points. Im not trying to bash on you or anything so we are cool as far as im concerned. ;)

Cool Beans :D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJL5YFKrWs8)