Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
XP or VISTA On New MBP To Play Game Only?
- Thread starter ibanana
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
XP 32 bit (home or pro) is good enough that there's no reason to hassle yourself with Vista, and by the time XP is no longer good enough, and you need Vista, Windows 7 will be out, and I would recommend that in it's beta form over Vista.
Hugs are great, I get them in the form of coffee when my spouse isn't home.
I took offense at your post, because it's obvious you had not read any of the previous posts. You made a general statement about XP64 users being MS basher while spreading more FUD, which had absolutely no relevance to anything that was being discussed in this thread. What would Jesus do? He would have read the previous posts...
You're assuming lots of things I noticed.
FYI, my current PC is a Quad 9450 with the typical PC 4 gigs of ram. I've used Vista 64 on a leveno, a Q6600, a slower than dirt P4 D with one of the 32-bit versions. It's on one of the work PCs at my friend's business for testing -- I'm not sure what's inside.
Anyways, why am I defending my stance on Vista? I made a comment about it being slower for games, which overall is still the case. There are counterpoints on this in favor of Vista SP1. Why aren't we discussing this instead? It's relevant to my earlier comments about Vista's gaming performance. It's even relevant to the thread when it comes to gaming.
If you want to be an advocate of Vista, that's OK, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Right now I don't really care about it beyond how its effects the games I play and the programs I rely on. I'm no more avoiding it than I have any other new OS. Besides OS X Tiger, I've never moved to any new OS before they've made major fixes. I avoided XP until SP2. Heck, I'm not even on Leopard yet, but I'm thinking about making the plunge. If and when Vista offers some real advantage over XP64 for my 3D apps, that's when I'll probably move to it.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
So, can we stop with the assertion that Vista is significantly worse for games? Please?
So, can we stop with the assertion that Vista is significantly worse for games? Please?
You've tried a Windows 7 beta? Or are you just hoping?
Hope you know Windows 7 will be based on Vista...
Because, from my real world experience of having Vista and XP on the same iMac - XP performed much better. So much that to achieve the same FPS I had to turn off HDR and Bloom in Source games.
Personally, until I can afford a much more powerful computer I'll be sticking with XP. I see no reason at all to stick with Vista. All IMO of course.
Which Works?
i would think that gaming on windows xp is best because using vista is much too slow and is a very annoying operating system, i wouldn't get 32 bit simply because the new macs can do 64-bit and 64-bit will recognize all 4gbs of memory, 32-bit will only recognize 3-3.5GB Ram! IN Apple's DEFENSE i think we should all contribute to gaming in mac Os X, sure macs may not be the best for gaming but they a much more decent job on keeping the game open, windows will just shut it down when i feels like it! I'm glad to see that apple has in the past year or two started taking more action towards mac gaming! By adding more memory and a dedicated GPU on the new macbooks, was a giant leap and also partnering with other gaming corps to better work on games with the mac!=
i would think that gaming on windows xp is best because using vista is much too slow and is a very annoying operating system, i wouldn't get 32 bit simply because the new macs can do 64-bit and 64-bit will recognize all 4gbs of memory, 32-bit will only recognize 3-3.5GB Ram! IN Apple's DEFENSE i think we should all contribute to gaming in mac Os X, sure macs may not be the best for gaming but they a much more decent job on keeping the game open, windows will just shut it down when i feels like it! I'm glad to see that apple has in the past year or two started taking more action towards mac gaming! By adding more memory and a dedicated GPU on the new macbooks, was a giant leap and also partnering with other gaming corps to better work on games with the mac!
=This week i will install a windows version on my Macbook Pro. When iam using Vista, is it possible that the operating system and the games will run a little slower because Vista uses more "power" of the Macbook..??
And is it possible to choose between 32 and 64 bit?
And is it possible to choose between 32 and 64 bit?
My real world experience, and that of the majority of people at hardware enthusiast forms like Futuremark, reflects that of the article.
On the nvidia side of things, with updated drivers and SP1, Vista is no less than equal to XP in terms of performance. I've run both XP SP3 and Vista SP1 with the most recent drivers at that time and there was absolutely no difference in performance between the two OSes.
Unfortunately its a well known fact that ATI's drivers have never been good (and my experience as recently as last year with ATI still proved thats true) so it may very well be true that XP is faster than Vista with an ATI card. But when it comes to the nvidia GPUs that power the MacBook and MacBook Pro... Vista will be just as fast. No reason to go with XP at all, especially seeing as how you can get Vista Home Premium 64-bit OEM for $100 these days.
If performance is the same why are game publishers now separating the performance requirements for XP and Vista?*
Oh right. There's no performance difference for Vista...
*taken from the only 2 games I've looked at purchasing in the last few days.
Oh right. There's no performance difference for Vista...
*taken from the only 2 games I've looked at purchasing in the last few days.
So its unusual for games that take full advantage of Vista's more advanced features, which require more powerful hardware themselves, to have higher system requirements to run in Vista?
I would absolutely love to see Crysis: Warhead running on that 5 year old Pentium 4 2.8GHz, 1GB of RAM, and that 5 year old Radeon 9800 Pro! hah!
Anyway, the benchmarks are out there. A link was already provided. When games are using the same settings under XP and Vista and running on nvidia hardware, the performance is practically the same. You might have an extra frame or two on either side of the isle. This reflects my real world experience and that of thousands of others at futuremark and every other hardware enthusiast site.
Keep saying what you're saying
it's of my opinion and experience that I lose between 5-15fps (depending on game, but then again you said the same thing so I'm not sure what you're arguing) when under Vista than XP. And it's apparently the same for the many people who still use XP over Vista for the same reason, and those who upgrade back to XP.Keep saying what you're saying
Uh.. I didn't say the same thing.
I said that you'll have a frame or two difference on either side of the isle. If you go read any of the hundreds of benchmarks out there that compare XP SP3 to Vista SP1 with nvidia hardware you'll see that in one test XP might get 63fps while Vista gets 62. Likewise you might see another game get 62 in XP and 63 in Vista.
Your profile says you have an iMac. That means you're sporting an ATI GPU unless you've got that ridiculously expensive model. In all my experience with ATI, and from what I read now, ATI's drivers have never been good. So I wouldn't find it hard to believe that ATI's Vista performance is still behind.
But with nvidia, that is simply not the case. Their drivers are now equal for all supported hardware, not just the latest and greatest like ATI, so theres no reason for an nvidia owner to stay in the past with XP. Vista is better in every way and people need to finally realize that and stop believing the negative hype.
By the way, when was the last time you actually tried Vista?
I use Vista every day, I have 2 identical spec iMacs. One with XP and one with Vista, games are stored on an external drive and occasionally (after updates) I give Vista a whirl to see if it copes as good as XP.
I'm using ATi with the Omega Drivers, which are enhanced from the originals. A friend who boots between XP and Vista (for DX10 support only) has a 4870x2 with the same Omega Drivers and swears by it.
I'm using ATi with the Omega Drivers, which are enhanced from the originals. A friend who boots between XP and Vista (for DX10 support only) has a 4870x2 with the same Omega Drivers and swears by it.
