Vista gaming 10 to 15 percent slower then XP....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably since Vista is a resource hog. I am using it now at work and its taking 520mb of memory with Trend, Outlook 2003, and company application running. It idles at about 430mb. Uses alot of CPU on this 2.6ghz/533fsb cpu.
 
BETA. That is all i have got to say. So yes gaming is slower NOW. But what do you expect from a Beta OS. IT isnt perfect nor can you expect it to operate like a 5 year old OS.
I wish people wouldnt print articles like that. It is just dumb to compare a OS that isnt even Released to one that is out on the market for 5 years now. That is like saying todays Mustang is faster than the one they are making in 2010.
Vista right now is a bit of a hog. It uses a bit more resources than XP. But you also have to remember that it has more features than XP does right off the bat. Glass, Search Function, WDDM, DWM, and more. All those account for the higher usage. Put those in XP and it will use just as much.
Give M$ a chance to tone down Vista a bit. they are still trimming the fat off of it. That is why it is still in RC stages. When it hits RTM then we can start to worry.
 
maybe MS should consider a gaming version of there OS..aswell as PRO n HOME..which will stand IDLE at lower resources and not have the fancy GUI and stuff. maybe even call it "bare bones" or something so that people who generally would prefer a kinda ripped windows.
 
snypercore said:
maybe MS should consider a gaming version of there OS..aswell as PRO n HOME..which will stand IDLE at lower resources and not have the fancy GUI and stuff. maybe even call it "bare bones" or something so that people who generally would prefer a kinda ripped windows.


It called windows server
 
Makaveli213 said:
That is like saying todays Mustang is faster than the one they are making in 2010.

It is, at this moment in time.


But on-topic, have no fear...games are very gradually moving over to Linux, where you can customize everything to your heart's content--so indeed, why bother comparing anything with Vista. ;)
 
from what I've seen, Linux is a horrible gaming OS and difficult to use, it'd be great if it improves for home users though.

Crysis is supposed to run faster on Vista than XP, even with the exact same hardware. While gaming Vista is supposed to go into a DOS like mode with very, very little background resource usage going on, so all resources are dedicated to the game.

While not gaming, vista uses the approach 'free memory is wasted memory' and tries its hardest to make use of all available ram, using this theory idle memory usage means nothing. Whether this actually makes it faster for general use is debatable.

Main point here is that Vistas memory management is unlike any other OS, remains to be seen if its better.
 
Eventually most people will switch. Win98 was faster than XP. Gamers sticked to Win98 for some time, but then they switched.
 
TheMajor said:
Eventually most people will switch. Win98 was faster than XP. Gamers sticked to Win98 for some time, but then they switched.

Wasn't that because games no longer came out capeable or supporting Wind 98?

meh, either way, Vista does have a tremendously higher sys. requirements than Win XP did when it first came out. I say this because I can honestly say that Win XP would run on a P II. not to shabby, as long as no more than two windows were open. Still, and I could be mistaken, it seems that there is quite a jump in the system needed to run Vista over the system needed to run Win XP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom