Vista or XP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Hello,
First i want to apologize if this is the wrong forum for this question or
it's already been answered but it's very hard for me to find a right answer
that i know i can trust.

I plan to get a new computer as soon as i can so i wondered if i could get
some advise on if i should use windows xp or the new windows Vista when it
comes out(the cheapest version).

I will play World of Warcraft mostly maybe with a direct x 10 card
(8800gtx), my thoughts were that if i buy a geforce 8800 and Windows Vista i
will not need to upgrade my pc again for a long time.
But i read in some places that Vista won't run older games as well as Xp, so
i thought maybe windows xp and a older card like Geforce 7950GT would be
better for me.
Could someone please shed some light on the subject and advise me what to
get and when/if i would need to upgrade it and if/why Vista would run games
like World of Warcraft any slower/differant.
Answers would be very much appreciated.Thanks alot,
Paul
 
Paul said:
Hello,
First i want to apologize if this is the wrong forum for this question or
it's already been answered but it's very hard for me to find a right
answer
that i know i can trust.

I plan to get a new computer as soon as i can so i wondered if i could get
some advise on if i should use windows xp or the new windows Vista when it
comes out(the cheapest version).

I will play World of Warcraft mostly maybe with a direct x 10 card
(8800gtx), my thoughts were that if i buy a geforce 8800 and Windows Vista
i
will not need to upgrade my pc again for a long time.
But i read in some places that Vista won't run older games as well as Xp,
so
i thought maybe windows xp and a older card like Geforce 7950GT would be
better for me.
Could someone please shed some light on the subject and advise me what to
get and when/if i would need to upgrade it and if/why Vista would run
games
like World of Warcraft any slower/differant.
Answers would be very much appreciated.Thanks alot,
Paul
Click to expand...

I have been playing Age of Mythology and FEAR and no problems with RC2. I
would assume with better drivers the final release will be even better for
games.

If u have the money go the 8800 with the new Pentium duo chip ( or whatever
its called ) and go with Vista. Also get 2 gig of memory and you will be up
to date for at 6 months :-)
 
My suggestion is XP. It's a matured operating system and every company has
good, solid drivers written for it. I played WoW. Do you really want to be
trying to group with people or in a 40 man Raid that took hours to get into
and then run into driver or technical issues all because of Vista? Stick with
what works. Give Microsoft a couple of years to shake out the Vista bugs and
then look at it again.
 
ok thanks for your suggestions, i guess theres no rush for DX10 card and even
if i got one i wouldn't use games to support shader 3.0 etc (what ever makes
it cost £450) for years.
Hopfully i'll be able to pick up a none Vista GPU for cheaper and keep it
for a good few years before another.
Regards,
Paul
 
Just my 10 cents, the Nvidia 8800 series that are out, are still very
impressive cards, running DX9 games. So Buying one, doesn't mean you wasted
money on a DX10 card that there are no games for, as it chews through the
DX9 games better than the DX9 cards. The price of course is the no need to
rush. $500-700 is a little on the crazy side of things
 
I'd personally go with Windows XP for gaming, most older games lose
performance under Vista, thanks mostly to the sound changes that have been
made. If you are using only new titles release from January onwards, or ones
marked as "Games for Windows" then Vista will be fine. I'd also want to wait
for the DX10 card prices to drop!
 
If you are running an 8800, let me put in my two bits.

If you wait till after the first of the year, most computers are going to
come with XP, with the Vista upgrade. Seeing as you already own a dynamite
card, you are going to have an awesome advantage.
My bet is that you aren't going to be running a cheap, half useful computer.
If you are buying a computer like you bought your card, you can get
something like an HP Media Center Computer, probably one a lot like I just
bought. It costed me about $900US (not sure about the dollar/pound
conversion).
If you do it right, and get it XP, with the ability for a mail in, or
instant upgrade, you are going to be able to try the best of both worlds.
Install the Vista upgrade (with your fancy video card, and probably a
stronger power supply) and see how it plays. If you don't like it, you can
always hit the restore, to bring XP back to the beginning, and run that. But
you will have both. Another note, if you are upgrading from a Media center
computer, you will be receiving the Vista Home Premium upgrade, most likely,
which will be even better.
My point is this, you don't have to settle, you can have the best of both
worlds. But if you are going to do that, you only have a couple months left.
Between now, and probably February. Act now!

Hope this helps :-)
 
The only problem with staying with XP is that Microsoft is going to stop
supporting it. So no more security updates, core fixes, patch files, ect....

The main problem with Vista is that it does not support the THOUSANDS upond
THOUSANDS of game titles out there already. Most of them you can not even
install, and even if you tell Vista to run it in XP MODE it still crashes.

So once again it leaves us stuck within a rock and a hard place.
 
Hawk said:
The only problem with staying with XP is that Microsoft is going to stop
supporting it. So no more security updates, core fixes, patch files,
ect....
Click to expand...

Still got years of support left.
The main problem with Vista is that it does not support the THOUSANDS
upond
THOUSANDS of game titles out there already. Most of them you can not even
install, and even if you tell Vista to run it in XP MODE it still crashes.
Click to expand...

Thousands upon thousands? Can you name some, I've yet to come across a game
that doesn't work in Windows Vista.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/
Get ready for Windows Vista: http://www.windowsvista.com/getready/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
 
You have not found 1?
I also SERIOUSLY dissagree with his over the top, Thousands and Thousands
number, but I would not be surprised if there are hundreds from the last few
years.
I have run into a few, but have not tested as many as I planned to.

Nascar SimRacing 2003. A cool game, and the last PC Nascar game.

A few others(forget offhand) did not run, and many had graphical issues that
made them unplayable.
I will be installing and testing more on the RTM when I get a chance.

Last time I checked, Fable was unplayable due to flashing and texture
corruption-walls would disappear, etc.
Halo had some issues even after the patch.
I could not get Mechwarrior 4(and any of the packs) to run.

etc.
 
Last time I checked, Fable was unplayable due to flashing and texture
corruption-walls would disappear, etc.
Halo had some issues even after the patch.
I could not get Mechwarrior 4(and any of the packs) to run.
Click to expand...

Not tried Mechwarrior, no problems with Halo or Fable.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/
Get ready for Windows Vista: http://www.windowsvista.com/getready/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
 
Well, to say thousands and thousand of unplayable games will instantly get
someone labled a zealot. I guess there does have to be a fine line drawn
between works, works well and works perfect. So far, all the games that I
play, play fine, except for the OpenGL games, in which I\we know that ATI
hasn't added OpenGL support to the Vista beta drivers, so that is acceptable
for the moment, as it's not a MS problem.

Granted you can't put an Age on games, but I have a MathBlaster game that
doesn't run perfect under XP, so I wouldn't be surprise if it crashes and
burns under Vista. I think there has to be an statues of limitation on how
far back a game should be supported, If it's running DX8 or back, then I
think it's going to be a gamble on how well it works. It sucks, but you
can't expect them to support the old stuff forever.
 
Battlefield 2142 didn't work without a registry modification (see my
post about the temporary resolution) to disable ddi threading.
 
nVidia gForce 4 4200 ti 128mb doesn't work on Win. Vista. I must buy a new
card,
if I want to play samo games on stupid Vista. On XP evertyng is apsolutly OK
and work 100%.

My chose---XP defently!
 
I'm waiting until they ship an XBox with Vista embedded on a chip and a 300
Gig SATA drive lol.
Until then stick with XP.
The next 2 years should be dramatic changes in architecture to an instant
on/off OS and chipset.
The tech has been available for quite awhile but everyone keeps side lining
it.
Curious what the AMD/ATI partnership will bear as well.

All in all the console game/pc is where MS should make a stand with Vista.
If they build it without the retarded proprietary connectors and MS only
compatibility they could actually breathe some good business into it.


Hello,
First i want to apologize if this is the wrong forum for this question or
it's already been answered but it's very hard for me to find a right answer
that i know i can trust.

I plan to get a new computer as soon as i can so i wondered if i could get
some advise on if i should use windows xp or the new windows Vista when it
comes out(the cheapest version).

I will play World of Warcraft mostly maybe with a direct x 10 card
(8800gtx), my thoughts were that if i buy a geforce 8800 and Windows Vista i
will not need to upgrade my pc again for a long time.
But i read in some places that Vista won't run older games as well as Xp, so
i thought maybe windows xp and a older card like Geforce 7950GT would be
better for me.
Could someone please shed some light on the subject and advise me what to
get and when/if i would need to upgrade it and if/why Vista would run games
like World of Warcraft any slower/differant.
Answers would be very much appreciated.Thanks alot,
Paul
 
That really does show respect for the people who developed platforms on
microsoft products.
....NOT!

The only problem with staying with XP is that Microsoft is going to stop
supporting it. So no more security updates, core fixes, patch files, ect....

The main problem with Vista is that it does not support the THOUSANDS upond
THOUSANDS of game titles out there already. Most of them you can not even
install, and even if you tell Vista to run it in XP MODE it still crashes.

So once again it leaves us stuck within a rock and a hard place.
 
To re-iterate with less sarcasm, I Honestly doubt Microsoft would be taking
so long with Beta testing if they weren't concerned with these facts.

I'll wait until the XBox ships as a console PC/Game platform with instant
on/off features keeping Vista as an Embedded OS on a chip before taking the
plunge.

By then hopefully things will be more standardized and the system remains
open to standard market available peripherals.

Would be quite a good thing for a consumer to be able to have a Media Center
PC and Gaming console wrapped into one nifty little box.
Add external Hard drive of any size from any mainstream manufacturer and you
have a good platform. Of course it should have 2-300 GB internal storage
drive to begin with for programs like Office, or VWD, etc..

It takes a lot of the hassle away if it is done right. A stable & consistent
development platform to make up for the dramatic changes faced right now
considering the current Vista upgrade.


That really does show respect for the people who developed platforms on
microsoft products.
....NOT!

The only problem with staying with XP is that Microsoft is going to stop
supporting it. So no more security updates, core fixes, patch files, ect....

The main problem with Vista is that it does not support the THOUSANDS upond
THOUSANDS of game titles out there already. Most of them you can not even
install, and even if you tell Vista to run it in XP MODE it still crashes.

So once again it leaves us stuck within a rock and a hard place.
 
Paul said:
ok thanks for your suggestions, i guess theres no rush for DX10 card
and even if i got one i wouldn't use games to support shader 3.0 etc
(what ever makes it cost £450) for years.
Click to expand...

Probably worth pointing out at this point that the GeForce 8800 is not only
a "DX10" part, it's also the best DX9 part currently available.

Oh and that going by Splinter Cell : Double Agent, Ubisoft games, at least,
are going to require shader 3.0 support from now on. Hardly a surprise when
you consider it's actually quite mature technology, not something new.
 
Back
Top