Guest DarthMaulUK Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 Vista has been around along time now and Microsoft keep telling us how good for gaming Vista is. Or is it? With millions experiencing various crash issues and alot of Vista only bugs combined with the fact that Vista refuses to play certain games, is it really the operating system promised for gamers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 I don't have Vista, but I don't think Vista has anything uber-cool other than DirectX 10. Am I wrong, Vista-lubbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 lol..I'm just waiting for the flame war to start. Honestly, Vista is no better or worse than XP for gaming. People just can be stupid that they don't try several things before deciding "Vista Sucks for Gaming!" Okay, so who's the Mac user who's gonna start bashing Microsoft? Let the flame wars begin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 When I upgraded from Win98/ME to WinXP, there were several games that didn't make the transition. I think this is just the result from evolving technology and software. So, I kind of except this as beeing normal. It would be nice for game companies to update their files, so people can download a patch for the next software generation. Eventually, technology will allow gammers to return to Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 Two things I need for gaming: computer power and money. Vista costs money = less money for games Vista uses higher processing power and system resources = less for games Now true, you say, new games require greater computers than older games, but if I have the same computer running an older OS that uses less system power, that means more power for the games, and more money left over from not having purchased Vista to run them! Any M$ OS is not going to be worth getting early because you know service packs are coming and so forth, so over time it will be less painful to use. But I sympathize with the newbie computer users who are forced to get Vista with a new PC. I'm going to hold onto my copy of Win2kpro and linux as long as I can! M$ and so many other companies seem to be doing all they can to shoot PC gaming in the foot anymore... but then when they price their consoles so high and they have technical problems, you figure you might as well just go the extra mile and get a decent PC. At least you've got thousands of titles from the past to run... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 I don't have Vista and I don't plan on upgrading until I really have to. I run XP home and Linux and I'm happy with my setup. I'd probably have to upgrade my PC if I got Vista anyway so theres even more money for what many tell me is a crappy OS. Maybe when SP1 or 2 comes out I'll give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 Two things I need for gaming: computer power and money. Vista costs money = less money for games Vista uses higher processing power and system resources = less for games Now true, you say, new games require greater computers than older games, but if I have the same computer running an older OS that uses less system power, that means more power for the games, and more money left over from not having purchased Vista to run them! Any M$ OS is not going to be worth getting early because you know service packs are coming and so forth, so over time it will be less painful to use. But I sympathize with the newbie computer users who are forced to get Vista with a new PC. I'm going to hold onto my copy of Win2kpro and linux as long as I can! M$ and so many other companies seem to be doing all they can to shoot PC gaming in the foot anymore... but then when they price their consoles so high and they have technical problems, you figure you might as well just go the extra mile and get a decent PC. At least you've got thousands of titles from the past to run... Very nicely said. I think you won me over a little. Your logic is very truthful and wise. A few days ago, I walked into a Best Buy. I wanted to compare my latest PC with the latest technologies. Even though I bought my PC in March, the RAM limit was surprisingly low ended. What I found out was that the latest computers can go upto 8 Gig of RAM. Within a three months period of time, PC have evolved almost double their RAM rate. Since Vista uses a good Gig and a half to run, I think this was a great move by the PC companies. Now, there will be plenty of RAM for gamming. I kind of consider "Vista" as a "Millenium 2" release. I don't think it will be the definitive version, which everyone will purchase within the next few years. I think consumers will push Microsoft into releasing a "Windows XP 2". Hopefully, they will return to "XP"'s way of controlling RAM. More RAM for games, utilities, and software. Even though I bought a PC in Q1, I will buy a more Vista capable one in October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 There have been motherboards capable of 8Gb of RAM out there for longer than three months pal, XP doesn't "control" RAM any better, it just uses less, plain and simple... Just to line it out for some people out there, I'll use some specs to illustrate my point: - Vista Premium's minimum requirements AFAIK: *CPU: 1.0Ghz *Memory: 1Gb RAM *GPU: DirectX 9 capable GPU with Hardware Pixel Shader v2.0 and WDDM 1.0 driver support *Graphics memory: 128 MB RAM supports up to 2,756,000 total pixels (e.g. 1920 × 1200) or 512 MB+ for greater resolutions such as 2560x1600 *HDD: 40Gb min, with 15Gb free space *DVD-ROM essential - Windows XP's recommended requirements AFAIK: *CPU: 300Mhz *Memory: 128Mb RAM *GPU: Super VGA capable *HDD: 1.5 Gb free space *CD-ROM essential Now let me ask you this, who uses a dinosaur PC like that to run XP? My PC is about 3-4 years old and my CPU is 1.9Ghz, and I run 768Mb of RAM with an Nvidia GeForce 4 MX4k To get about the same comparison to run Vista, you should have a PC that does about this: *CPU: 6Ghz *Memory: 6Gb RAM *GPU: Probably an SLI 8800 GTX setup or something Anyways, catch my drift? The problem lies not with Vista as an OS, but in the hardware and drivers we all like to play on/with, don't blame MS, Vista is a beauty of an OS IMO, it just needs the hardware to back it up, and atm only a select few can afford that...The problem lies with people trying to run Vista on PCs they were running XP on and expect the same performance from it...Gee Sherlock, whaddaya know, Vista doesn't run as smoothly! Suppliers are being stupid ****s as well since they try to slap Vista on a PC that barely meets the minimum specs most of the time (the compromise is usually made in the GPU department, which is something Vista desperately needs to run Aero and such) So give Vista a break already, it kicks the **** out of XP with the necessary hardware, and I haven't even begun to speak about DX10 yet *waits for Astro to enter this thread* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 ^^^^ You make it sound like I have installed "Vista" on an old computer. Lol... I bought a computer with "Vista" on it. Your forum name really does reflect your attitude. Lol.. Just kidding man. Since I haven't been paying attenion pal, I didn't realize that computers were capable of 8 Gig for longer than three months. I think it was a necessary step, so people can utilize the latest programs in "Vista". Adobe Photoshop CS3 is a RAM guzzler, and I will need more than just 3 Gig. Overall, you do touch upon some good points. Its just a matter of time when outside technology and software companies catch on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 I honestly am waiting for SP1 just b/c that's what I did w/ XP (maybe even SP2), so I'm not gonna worry bout it for the time being...but no matter what...I was able to get Grim Fandango working on XP, so I'll be dual booting my comp w/ XP and Vista when I make my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I honestly am waiting for SP1 just b/c that's what I did w/ XP (maybe even SP2), so I'm not gonna worry bout it for the time being...but no matter what...I was able to get Grim Fandango working on XP, so I'll be dual booting my comp w/ XP and Vista when I make my own. I managed to get the following working: Adobe CS 2.0 KotOR I Tom Clancey (Rainbow Six: Raven Sheild & Athena's Arrow) Microsoft Office 2003 Ghost Recon II - Advanced Starfleet Command III Star Wars Battle Front Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish.Stapler Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Don't have it yet, honestly it looks like it's not really better or worse as long as you have the proper setup. Unfortunately, that's not easy to come by...now it's a waiting game for the hardware to be out long enough to become mainstream so that the public can afford it and thus use Vista...expect the OS to change a lot when that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 ^^^^ You make it sound like I have installed "Vista" on an old computer. Lol... I bought a computer with "Vista" on it. That was my point as well if you read my post carefully...Manufacturers are selling PCs with Vista on it while that system barely meets the minimum requirements in some fields (I've seen Vista Premium PCs being advertised with only 1Gb of RAM and onboard graphics for crying out loud!) My point is, the mid-end systems that are being sold nowadays make XP fly like a fighter jet, but to run Vista you'll be going in a steam train, especially if you want to run RAM or graphics intensive programs with a PC like I mentioned above...I would stick with XP to run Photoshop tbh, unless you can afford 4Gb or more RAM...(though Vista does claim to have that readyboost technology for flash sticks, but I don't know what it does performance wise, maybe someone can help me out here?) Just to lay it out flat, I made that comparison to show that what we run on XP now, is about 7 to 8 times the recommended amount of RAM (if you count 1Gb), if you wanted Vista to act the same, you would have to have about 8Gb RAM installed om your rig... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Anyways, catch my drift? The problem lies not with Vista as an OS, but in the hardware and drivers we all like to play on/with, don't blame MS, Vista is a beauty of an OS IMO, it just needs the hardware to back it up, and atm only a select few can afford that...The problem lies with people trying to run Vista on PCs they were running XP on and expect the same performance from it...Gee Sherlock, whaddaya know, Vista doesn't run as smoothly! Suppliers are being stupid ****s as well since they try to slap Vista on a PC that barely meets the minimum specs most of the time (the compromise is usually made in the GPU department, which is something Vista desperately needs to run Aero and such) So give Vista a break already, it kicks the **** out of XP with the necessary hardware, and I haven't even begun to speak about DX10 yet *waits for Astro to enter this thread* I did give Vista a chance and I did upgrade my PC to handle it, above and beyond the requirements. But when simple programs have different errors, thanks to so called updates and games that were only released last year, fail to work now as Vista throws its traditional fit, gives the impression that Vista clearly FAILS as a true gaming platform. Vista has too many issues still and needs that SP1 FAST! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Okay, so who's the Mac user who's gonna start bashing Microsoft? * raises hand, notices he's vastly outnumbered... slowly lowers hand * Don't have Vista yet, but I'm running XP Pro on my (yes) dual-boot Mac. Until a DirectX 10 game that I actually want gets released, there's no pressing reason for me to get it. It's sad to that I'm having to wait for a game for an OS release XP Pro does all the other stuff I need just fine... and if it doesn't, well OSX does (and probably did it 3 years before Windows ever did.. booya! hehehe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I did give Vista a chance and I did upgrade my PC to handle it, above and beyond the requirements. But when simple programs have different errors, thanks to so called updates and games that were only released last year, fail to work now as Vista throws its traditional fit, gives the impression that Vista clearly FAILS as a true gaming platform. Vista has too many issues still and needs that SP1 FAST! As was pointed out by one of our fellow board members in another thread, there is no way MS can make Vista compatible with everything that was released beforehand, it is the devs' responsibility to release drivers for Vista, not vice versa... I fail to see how it doesn't live up as a true gaming platform, it's the next-gen of PC gaming, and it stands about where the PS3 stands in the console market, it's a great achievement, but maybe a bit ahead of its time...You can't judge Vista as a DX9 gamers platform because that's not what it's designed for, just like the PS3 isn't designed to play PS2 games. And we have yet to see the first DX10 games rollout to let us see what Vista can really do with DX10 gaming and PC gaming of the future... Just out of curiosity, what version of Vista were you using and what specs did the PC have? (roughly, I don't need an in-depth analysis ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I fail to see how it doesn't live up as a true gaming platform, it's the next-gen of PC gaming Gaming is not just about the future or what just was released though, really great games can have a significant lifespan. Some older classic games are still worth re-playing every now and then more than a decade after they were released. Being able to do so is just as important as being able to play the latest and the greatest to me. Most of the companies that made these venerable games no longer exists, so the chances of any "Vista compatibility patches" being released are pretty much non-existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoM Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 I pick heaven. The poll needs less extreme options though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Gaming is not just about the future or what just was released though, really great games can have a significant lifespan. Some older classic games are still worth re-playing every now and then more than a decade after they were released. Being able to do so is just as important as being able to play the latest and the greatest to me. Most of the companies that made these venerable games no longer exists, so the chances of any "Vista compatibility patches" being released are pretty much non-existent. But isn't it the same for XP though? A lot of people have problems playing Win95/98 games (or older) on XP as well...Some techies have already begun to make an XP emulator for Vista, just as there are countless of emulators for different consoles and OSs for XP already, but they didn't sprout overnight did they? It's up to the community to take care of that, and I've no doubt whatsoever that it will all be done in due time. Besides, why should Vista play dinosaur games anyways? Isn't that a bit overkill? Just dust off your old Pentium II compy and roll it on that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralPloKoon Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I have Vista but not that many games, only a few problems that can be easily fixed. But I like it! Its really cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 well, i've been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit for over 3 months now, and i can honestly say that i've had relatively few problems running anything on this OS. for gaming, DX10 is finally here in the form of BioShock (which looks fantastic), and it runs very well. so, i think the upgrade to Vista was well worth it. the only problem i've had is driver related with Nvidia, but those problems are pretty minor. i think the biggest problem with Vista is that there is too many people out there that want to make assumptions and stick by those assumptions like it was the word of God. yes, there have been a lot of driver issues during the first couple months, but most of those have been resolved by now. most games work very well with Vista with a couple of exceptions. the problem is that people hear about the exceptions more than they hear about the successes. the truth of the matter is that too many people are listening to people that don't know any better and they aren't listening to the people that do know better. anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Yes, listen to stingerhs you must! I'm still jealous of you pal... Do you find that the 64-bit version is better (gaming and otherwise) than the 32-bit version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawathehutt Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I'm not getting vista until GFW is seriously changed or removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vader815 Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 i personally dont like it when people start dissin vista with gaming because they decided to upgrade the OS instead of doing a fresh install. even the most basic research (which i bet few people do) will tell you that if you are planning to use vista, or any OS, for gaming, not to upgrade from your old OS and do a clean install. next many people don't have vista premium systems to run vista. anyone, for starters, who uses less than 1gb of RAM should except problems from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 At this point in the game, I think its all about timming. Since I bought my PC at the beginning of "Vista's" release, I'm probally going to have to buy another computer soon. I have plans on buy a 8 Gig system. I think only having a 4 Gig system will hinder any type of progression. Since I use a lot of graphic design programs, I will need all the memory I can get while running Vista. "It is what it is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.