w/s s better XP or Vista?

[Chipmunk888]

---

the date on those benchmarks are of jauary 2007, a year old and vista has come quite a way in a year with updates and better configs and stuff. maybe you should have your drivers checked. with 8800gt you should be able to play cod4 at a nice framerate. high 40s with fps and med to high graphics.

+ those games are old too. wouldnt be fair to next gen gaming and dx10 to use benchmarks for older games.

im sure newer games would be better benchmarks.

is there a more present version of the comparisons between xp and vista with gaming? coz im sure it does much better.. if there is a difference its probably very small so gaming isnt much of a problem with Vista UNLESS people who say havent actually played on vista

give us a proof on a 'present' benchmark that tells vista is faster than xp on gaming. lets see if your "im sure" shall be true.

and even a 1% difference, still its a difference.

[acronis]

vista is better if you a good rig.... pero kung daan-daan na imo pc okay raman gyapon ang XP =)

[lokster]

what hardware are you using in your games? and what resolution are you playing them at?

i use two laptops one is on IGP ati x1270 and dedicated 8400m gt and desktop 8800gtx. im really not much of a gamer but when i play graphics are on medium to high at either 800x600 or widescreen 1280x800 or 1024x768 on d desktop. im not super graphics high but just enough for it to be pretty.. AA is usually off, all 3 are on vista home premium. minimum 2gb on laptops and 3gb on the desktop

Vista is a good operating system ( security, multimedia ). Ang problem is it really needs a pimp PC/Notebook. Get those quad core Pentiums, 4 gigabyte RAM, NVidia 8800 GTS, 10000 RPM Hard Disk... Then you will feel the power of Vista. Pero pinoy man ta, so di lang ta mag Vista Vista kay di ta ka afford.... XP Rules!

awesome

give us a proof on a 'present' benchmark that tells vista is faster than xp on gaming. lets see if your "im sure" shall be true.

and even a 1% difference, still its a difference.

apperantly i dont have present benchmarks and can only tell of personal experience from me and my friends who play using vista., does 1% really matter that much to you? lol you would pay an extra 5000php for an extra 200-300mhz in speed or power? do you even know if you use your computer that much?

based on a year old benchmarks that was pointed out earlier. there is a less than 10% difference.

has anyone even complaining about vista ever used vista? -.- oh btw im on the old xp laptop

seriously ive got nothing against XP lovers, its just that people who bash vista usually dont know or havent experienced what they talk about

[cold_fusion]

Vista is slower because of overhead.
It even needs a high-end hardware to run.
Maybe it is a conspiracy between Micro$oft and the hardware makers .
So we need to buy new hardware for new OS.

[Chipmunk888]

@ lokster

apperantly i dont have present benchmarks and can only tell of personal experience from me and my friends who play using vista., does 1% really matter that much to you? lol you would pay an extra 5000php for an extra 200-300mhz in speed or power? do you even know if you use your computer that much?

see? you cant even present benchmarks of it yet so dont "im sure"^^ and tell us that its faster already. cos we know, vista is still young. and we're talking about the term "difference", not that cost of damage just to have the difference of performance, that is not the focus.

based on a year old benchmarks that was pointed out earlier. there is a less than 10% difference.

again, its still a "difference" (the plot of our discussion is the difference, not the money that one shall shell out, its another story^^)

has anyone even complaining about vista ever used vista? -.- oh btw im on the old xp laptop

not only complained but even payed me just convert his vista ready core2duo platform into xp pro. my uncle's workmate(he) was very disappointed about having a vista. he even claimed it as an unripe yet, lol^^

seriously ive got nothing against XP lovers, its just that people who bash vista usually dont know or havent experienced what they talk about

oh are you serious now? ^^^ so if you are, then post some benchmarks here to prove your "im sure" performance claim on vista over xp...come on, post some...come on.

so if your claiming that people who "bash" about vista "usually dont know or havent experienced what they talk about", and that includes the authors of these reviews below: LOL^^

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_...rmance_update/

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==


And this;

http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outsh...3-6220201.html


Now you may tell them also that they're bashing without experiencing yet.LOL^^^



and see: Crysis

[img width=500 height=481]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/Saiyukimot/xpvsvistacrysisbenchmark.jpg[/img]

large view: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...sbenchmark.jpg

[lokster]

@ lokster

see? you cant even present benchmarks of it yet so dont "im sure"^^ and tell us that its faster already. cos we know, vista is still young. and we're talking about the term "difference", not that cost of damage just to have the difference of performance, that is not the focus.

again, its still a "difference" (the plot of our discussion is the difference, not the money that one shall shell out, its another story^^)

not only complained but even payed me just convert his vista ready core2duo platform into xp pro. my uncle's workmate(he) was very disappointed about having a vista. he even claimed it as an unripe yet, lol^^

oh are you serious now? ^^^ so if you are, then post some benchmarks here to prove your "im sure" performance claim on vista over xp...come on, post some...come on.

so if your claiming that people who "bash" about vista "usually dont know or havent experienced what they talk about", and that includes the authors of these reviews below: LOL^^

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_...rmance_update/

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==


And this;

http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outsh...3-6220201.html


Now you may tell them also that they're bashing without experiencing yet.LOL^^^



and see: Crysis

[img width=500 height=481]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/Saiyukimot/xpvsvistacrysisbenchmark.jpg[/img]

large view: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...sbenchmark.jpg

lol i donot claim that i have benchmarks and only base what i know from MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

+ i only reply to people who bash Vista in forums not big news or people from reputable sites since they do know what they talk about PLEASe dont put words into my mouth. and btw SP1 for vista is still RC, i recall SP1 wasnt so great on XP till Sp 2 and SP 3.

i dont hate XP as i use it alot as much as Vista right now. ^^

again all what i say is based on what ive experienced i really dont have the time to really go around proving people wrong and vista forever blah2x. just posting my opinion about vista and that it doesnt suck at gaming.

convert to XP if u want but later the move to vista will be eventual

i dont whine that XP sucks and Vista sucks or what. both are fine its just that Gaming doesnt suck on the Vista based on my experience. and less than 10% is negligible. if u really find that to be a fault lol

btw about high end stuff, tech moves forward, never understood why people complain about it when its progress..

[fish]

i use two laptops one is on IGP ati x1270 and dedicated 8400m gt and desktop 8800gtx. im really not much of a gamer but when i play graphics are on medium to high at either 800x600 or widescreen 1280x800 or 1024x768 on d desktop. im not super graphics high but just enough for it to be pretty.. AA is usually off, all 3 are on vista home premium. minimum 2gb on laptops and 3gb on the desktop

this why you haven't had problems with games on vista... you have a GTX and play 1024x768 on vista? ngano nipalit pa man kag ingon ana kamahal nga videocard... a 320mb GTS can very well handle that kind of setting.

i don't hate vista, i don't dislike it, its just that, its not yet mature enough... thats all. when it comes to full maturity, and xp is about to retire, then vista will be my next OS.

[Chipmunk888]

lol i donot claim that i have benchmarks and only base what i know from MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

and did i say that you claimed to have benchmarks?^^. to prove your so called "personal experience" that vista is over xp in terms of gaming performance, then you can do some benchmarks and post them here.

+ i only reply to people who bash Vista in forums not big news or people from reputable sites since they do know what they talk about PLEASe dont put words into my mouth. and btw SP1 for vista is still RC, i recall SP1 wasnt so great on XP till Sp 2 and SP 3.

and these reputable sites are my proofs FYI why i claimed that vista hasnt overun xp in terms of gaming performance, and as you can see. LOL^^ you?! where is your proof?! a big NONE. so thats why dont tell us your "im sure" again without proofs. because we all know that vista shall still take time to be a game performer just like xp.

i dont hate XP as i use it alot as much as Vista right now. ^^

you may now mourn your xp due to you seem to have loved vista already^^

again all what i say is based on what ive experienced i really dont have the time to really go around proving people wrong and vista forever blah2x. just posting my opinion about vista and that it doesnt suck at gaming.

and if you can't still prove your experience due to as you said that you dont have time^^, people here still know/believe that xp is more performer than vista in terms of gaming at the moment.

convert to XP if u want but later the move to vista will be eventual

thats already an old line since windows 98.^^

i dont whine that XP sucks and Vista sucks or what. both are fine its just that Gaming doesnt suck on the Vista based on my experience. and less than 10% is negligible. if u really find that to be a fault lol

hell no i shall believe in your "based on experience" if no visible technical proof/s. and yes its still a fault even if that little, were talking technicalities and figures here in relation to the technologies(just like the reputable sites), not broad observation or experience.

btw about high end stuff, tech moves forward, never understood why people complain about it when its progress..

because some people taste unripe high end stuff. and even some people eats high end stuff even though its unripe yet. and by the way, would you tell us who is complaining here?^^

[Lord_Ac]

I'm a Vista user and it may be slower than XP when it comes to gaming but that hasn't bothered me really. XP is GREAT.. but I just love the new feel Vista is offering. Vista ain't that bad. I used to think it was until I tried it. It's more of a personal preference. No reason to make a fuss about it.

[jiro81]

[quote=EarlZ ]
Vista will NEVER be faster as XP in terms of gaming ( DX9 ).

huh? u sure?