best/most stable OS for gaming?
- Thread starter baluba
- Start date
tlarkin
VIP Member
There have been many benchmarks of the same hardware with XP + DX9 VS Vista + DX10, and for the most part the games actually performed slower in Vista w/ DX10.
Of course this will all change once developers can properly code for Vista, but then again, why even bother since Windows 7 should be out in 2 years.
Google some articles about what I posted and you will find comparisons done by people who know what they are talking about.
Of course this will all change once developers can properly code for Vista, but then again, why even bother since Windows 7 should be out in 2 years.
Google some articles about what I posted and you will find comparisons done by people who know what they are talking about.
sg1
New Member
chibicitiberiu
New Member
My pick would be xp. Vista is crap, uses veeeeerry much RAM, annoying security (that "Allow" and "Deny" thing) and slow.
For gaming xp would be best, with latest drivers, updates and directx installed, it would be perfect.
You can read in some games' readme files like this:
Still, the DirectX 10 would be an advantage if you would choose vista, but xp is far better.
For gaming xp would be best, with latest drivers, updates and directx installed, it would be perfect.
You can read in some games' readme files like this:
(just an example)
Still, the DirectX 10 would be an advantage if you would choose vista, but xp is far better.
tlarkin
VIP Member
And how many years behind scedule was XP and VISTA ??
Windows 7 has a whole separate development team that has been working on it for years already. This is Microsoft we are talking about, they are HUGE. You should see their Apple development team, it is freaking huge and they only make like 4 products for OS X
They knew that Vista would be crap but they put it out anyway, to make money and to drive up hardware sales. Why do you think everything keeps getting dropped out of Vista? EFI support, ZFS support, the new Vista Media center service pack got screwed and all the media content features will not be available for Vista now, this is all because it is getting tossed into Windows 7.
sg1
New Member
I'm not calling you a liar or speculator or anything , but I would love to see the evidence behind your comment
tlarkin
VIP Member
I'm not calling you a liar or speculator or anything , but I would love to see the evidence behind your comment
Well the evidence of MS dropping ZFS, EFI, and screwing over the Windows Media Center content is self evident, no need to prove that. As for the release date of Windows version 7...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=592
jdbennet
New Member
XP was only released like 14 months after windows 2000 remember
until sp2, xp was basically just a patched windows 2000 with some themes and wizards
In fact, 2000 was only released because xp wasnt finished yet, which is why there was the farse named windows ME (lol)
Vista wasnt behind schedule
Xp was released in 2001
but sp2 came out in 2002/3, and SP2 was essentially a whole new OS , it changed so much.
So essentially there was only a 3 year wait until vista (2006), which is in line with microsofts release schedule of 2-4 years between releases
sg1
New Member
jdbennet
New Member
because windows 7 will handle graphics like vista does. And yeah, 2/3 years sounds about right.
if you read my post you would see that it only came out ~4 years after xp sp2, which was a release in itself. If you look back, youll see that windows versions come out every 3/4 years, and this was no change.