MulciberXP
Regular
...
Last edited by a moderator:
Vista SP1 officially released
- Thread starter PARANOiA
- Start date
The change from xp to vista wasnt as great as the one from 95 to xp. Vista however is growing on me. Just wish it wasnt so annoying at times.
Yes, I know that and I think that's part of Vista's dilemma. Some of the noticable improvements in Vista are hard to measure in a benchmark. Like when all available phsyical ram is used up XP get really, really slow, while Vista stays responsive. It's kinda hard to measure this in an objective way.
MulciberXP
Regular
...
Last edited by a moderator:
At this point I agree with you. 64bit has had its time to bad in and sort out any major compatability problems it may have had. That coupled with practically every CPU being 64bit and the fact that we are now starting to hit a memory wall makes Vista 64bit the most sensible choice.
I upgraded when Vista was brand new though so at the time I didn't have faith that the 64bit version would be without compatability issues. My plan was (and still is) to run on 32bit until my next major upgrade in a year or two thus giving 64bit time to settle in.
My next upgrade will hopefully be an 8 Core Nehalem and G100 so perhaps towards the back end of this year. Depends on the price of that Nehalem though as I ain't paying "Extreme Edition" prices.
I'm running a dual-boot system with XP 32bit SP2 and Vista 64bit with no SP1 yet. Everything's fine for the most part. Vista doesn't seem that much slower than XP. The only real difference I've seen is startup and shutdown times. Vista is a fair bit slower in that regard, but not as slow as my old PC(Which died on me.).
I've got a fairly fast CPU(Pentium Dual-Core 2160 OCed to 3.0 GHZ.), and I get the feeling that Vista is a hell of a lot slower on an older PC with any early model Athlon 64 or any Pentium4/D.
I've got a fairly fast CPU(Pentium Dual-Core 2160 OCed to 3.0 GHZ.), and I get the feeling that Vista is a hell of a lot slower on an older PC with any early model Athlon 64 or any Pentium4/D.
I'll chime in: Dual boot XP32 SP2 and Vista64 SP1.
Hardware: E8400 at ~4.34Ghz, dual ATI 3870's, 4GB of ram at 966Mhz 4-4-4-10 tRd 7.
In essentially EVERY game I have available to benchmark (Crysis, FarCry, Quake 4, STALKER, UT3 demo, HL2 and the various episodes) the performance is identical. In more than a few cases, Vista was actually faster in my games than XP is. I attribute this to my use of Crossfire and the current state of video drivers.
As for software compatability? I'm not experiencing any issues. Every game and emulator I have installed has worked on the first try -- not counting those which I had to disable crossfire (which obviously is not OS dependent.) And my game repository is not just modern stuff -- I also play FreeSpace 2, Unreal Tournement '99, Quake 3 Arena, hell I even loaded up some Descent and jDoom.
Hardware: E8400 at ~4.34Ghz, dual ATI 3870's, 4GB of ram at 966Mhz 4-4-4-10 tRd 7.
In essentially EVERY game I have available to benchmark (Crysis, FarCry, Quake 4, STALKER, UT3 demo, HL2 and the various episodes) the performance is identical. In more than a few cases, Vista was actually faster in my games than XP is. I attribute this to my use of Crossfire and the current state of video drivers.
As for software compatability? I'm not experiencing any issues. Every game and emulator I have installed has worked on the first try -- not counting those which I had to disable crossfire (which obviously is not OS dependent.) And my game repository is not just modern stuff -- I also play FreeSpace 2, Unreal Tournement '99, Quake 3 Arena, hell I even loaded up some Descent and jDoom.
Well vista reports free ram different, you cant compare what you see in task manager across the two.
I've been running Vista 64 for about 9 months now, and I only have a few complaints:
1. Nvidia's Vista drivers don't allow one to exeed the max resolution on a monitor's EDID. This limits both my plasma and my CRT to running at 1600x1200, rather than allowing me to add custom resolutions higher than what is listed in the EDIDs as I can with ATI cards in Vista and any card in XP.
2. Vista 64 doesn't allow unsigned drivers, so I can't use the XBCD drivers I need to configure a 360 controller for various older games.
3. I want VMC to run at 4:3 in windowed mode because pretty much all the content I watch windowed is 4:3 SDTV, which wastes a lot of space running pillarboxed in a 16:9 window. VMC was 4:3 windowed when I first started using the OS too, but it somehow later switched to running windowed at 16:9 and there doesn't seem to be any way to switch it back.
4. VMC often schedules recording every episode of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, reruns weeks and all, even though I have them both set at once per-day, new episodes only.
Other than those issues, I've been happy with Vista 64.
1. Nvidia's Vista drivers don't allow one to exeed the max resolution on a monitor's EDID. This limits both my plasma and my CRT to running at 1600x1200, rather than allowing me to add custom resolutions higher than what is listed in the EDIDs as I can with ATI cards in Vista and any card in XP.
2. Vista 64 doesn't allow unsigned drivers, so I can't use the XBCD drivers I need to configure a 360 controller for various older games.
3. I want VMC to run at 4:3 in windowed mode because pretty much all the content I watch windowed is 4:3 SDTV, which wastes a lot of space running pillarboxed in a 16:9 window. VMC was 4:3 windowed when I first started using the OS too, but it somehow later switched to running windowed at 16:9 and there doesn't seem to be any way to switch it back.
4. VMC often schedules recording every episode of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, reruns weeks and all, even though I have them both set at once per-day, new episodes only.
Other than those issues, I've been happy with Vista 64.
You can use unsigned drivers, you just have to hit F8 when you boot each time and select allow unsigned drivers or whatever it's called.
PITA but it's still possible to run unsigned drivers.
I discovered this when I was trying to use clockgen to overclock my cpu in vista x64.
Welp, uninstalled SP1 RC and installed SP1 and now my nF4 network driver doesn't work. HOORAY!
I think I'll buy a goddamn Yorkfield soon enough.
I think I'll buy a goddamn Yorkfield soon enough.
Myself, I've found few software compatibility issues other than GameTap's windows/Dreamcast/Saturn games not working on any 64 bit OS. The other stuff is fine.
I am not interested in Vista other than I do like Aero I must admit ashamedly. I would like to have its multicore task scheduler improvements. But my machine is running XP 64 bit nLited to heck with SP2 and all the fixes in there in a relatively tiny 234 MB iso. It takes up about 2 gb hdd space and memory usage is negligible.
My system is as follows:
Hp 30 inch LCD
Intel qx 9650 @ 1600 FSB and 3.4 ghz running 1:1 with my memory @ 4-4-4-12 timings
4 gb ram
2 x 150 gb raptors
2 x 8800 Ultras in SLI
etc etc
So its a decent system overall. My problem is that i have played and installed Vista on a few machine now and despite liking it (UI) I find it to be painfully slow. It could be because of the indexing service. Now that vLite is out I can go and get a copy of Vista with SP1 in it and tweak it down to a 600 MB iso as people have been doing and have a great OS.
But I dont want to pay the ridiculous price for the Ultimate version of the OS. I dont see a need for DX 10 based games right now since visually it makes no difference yet. My XP 64 system runs everything I throw at it. Drivers are available etc etc. So I guess I fall into the category of "Vista does not bring anything new to me". It is a bit slower but game performance is increasing all the time, the OS itself is getting polished and I am sure by the time that Windows 7 comes out and SP2/SP3 are out for Vista it will have turned into an even better OS. I just am choosing not to do it right now. Vista sucked when it came out but it is improving. I am just going to happily keep using XP 64 till I get tired of it.
My system is as follows:
Hp 30 inch LCD
Intel qx 9650 @ 1600 FSB and 3.4 ghz running 1:1 with my memory @ 4-4-4-12 timings
4 gb ram
2 x 150 gb raptors
2 x 8800 Ultras in SLI
etc etc
So its a decent system overall. My problem is that i have played and installed Vista on a few machine now and despite liking it (UI) I find it to be painfully slow. It could be because of the indexing service. Now that vLite is out I can go and get a copy of Vista with SP1 in it and tweak it down to a 600 MB iso as people have been doing and have a great OS.
But I dont want to pay the ridiculous price for the Ultimate version of the OS. I dont see a need for DX 10 based games right now since visually it makes no difference yet. My XP 64 system runs everything I throw at it. Drivers are available etc etc. So I guess I fall into the category of "Vista does not bring anything new to me". It is a bit slower but game performance is increasing all the time, the OS itself is getting polished and I am sure by the time that Windows 7 comes out and SP2/SP3 are out for Vista it will have turned into an even better OS. I just am choosing not to do it right now. Vista sucked when it came out but it is improving. I am just going to happily keep using XP 64 till I get tired of it.
But with a beast of a system like that doesn't it piss you off just a little that games like Company of Heroes, Call of Juarez, Lost Planet and even Bioshock look better on my relatively puny 8800GTS 640MB powered system?
The differences between DX9 and DX10 in those games (with the exception of Bioshock) is actually quite stark and given what your gaming on you obviously have a discerning eye for graphics.
I specifically don't mention Crysis because I guess your using the DX9 hack. Even then though the game does look marginally better in full DX10 mode.
Easy BCD has an option when checked allows for unsigned drivers to install on Vista 64bit. i am back to Vista 32 however, as it appears to be slightly faster for most games [32-bit]
i haven't really noticed any difference with SP1. i *do* like Dx10 and my Crossfire Rig can handle most games at 16x10 pretty much maxed out ... much better 'looking' than DX9c imo.
