XP or VISTA On New MBP To Play Game Only?

[ibanana]

I have searched the Forum but can't found the answer that will decide me to install XP or Vista...
I have ordered a new MBP and will use it to play PC Games such as Far Cry 2, COD4 or GTAIV...

1/ I would like to know which OS is the best to play game only + Excel from time to time? Also 32 or 64?
2/ Is Direct X 10 a must have for recent games as FC2, GTAIV (both release v soon)


Thanks!

[mongrol]

1) XP 32bit
2) No.

[Zortrium]

1. If you go Vista, I'd go 64-bit; that'll let you use more memory and 64-bit Vista is just as solid as 32-bit. Don't touch XP 64-bit with a 10 foot pole.

2. I wouldn't worry too much about DX10 - it provides some nice visual touchups but nothing huge. That said, a new MBP is perfectly capable of showing off some of those nice effects, so my vote goes for Vista 64. Probably easier to get ahold of, too.

[JackAxe]

XP is faster for games, sometimes by 10 to 20 FPS faster.

DX10... Eh... My PC's GPU supports it. The visual improvements it offers aren't big enough to push me on to Vista. So my answer to your question would be no.

I recall Carmack talking about DX10 and saying that they won't support it for now, because the majority of users are still on DX9 and that there's really no new feature they're dying to adopt.

Valve also is skipping on it, since most of their users are DX9.

COD4 is DX9 BTW. ;)

Here's a list of DX10 games;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_10_support

I'm sticking with XP64 for a few more years. It's a fairly stable MS OS, which is a rarity. :] I'll eventually move to Vista, but probably when a friend hands me one of those mult-license installers they bought for their company. :o

[Zortrium]

XP is faster for games, sometimes by 10 to 20 FPS faster.

This was true for awhile, but not really any more and as drivers mature, the balance is only going to shift in Vista's favor.

[JackAxe]

Don't touch XP 64-bit with a 10 foot pole.

XP64 works great now days. All STEAM games, all modern games, even old games like Deus Ex run great under it.

XP64 had problems 5 years ago, when it was ne, but now days it's a great MS OS. 5 years is a long time. ;) The biggest issue with XP64 early on was driver support, but that's long gone.

Any app works under Vista(64), works flawlessly under XP64, but faster

[JackAxe]

This was true for awhile, but not really any more and as drivers mature, the balance is only going to shift in Vista's favor.

Eventually, when DX9 is no longer dominant and DX10 has taken its place.

[Infrared]

Any app works under Vista(64), works flawlessly under XP64, but faster

That's so completely untrue,
it's hard to know where to begin...

[ibanana]

Thanks for the replies guys, I think I will install XP then and see whether the graphics rocks on the new MBP !

[sangosimo]

if it you are going 32bit use xp and for 64bit use vista. pretty simple imo. xp64 is a waste of time; why would you get a 64bit os that doesn't actively cache ram.

[JackAxe]

That's so completely untrue,
it's hard to know where to begin...

I put XP64 on my newer PC and have had no problems running any game that's Vista happy. I'd be interested i'm knowing why your experience differs?

[Stridder44]

1. If you go Vista, I'd go 64-bit; that'll let you use more memory and 64-bit Vista is just as solid as 32-bit. Don't touch XP 64-bit with a 10 foot pole.

2. I wouldn't worry too much about DX10 - it provides some nice visual touchups but nothing huge. That said, a new MBP is perfectly capable of showing off some of those nice effects, so my vote goes for Vista 64. Probably easier to get ahold of, too.

x2. Vista 64 is awesome (especially with 4GB of RAM). XP 64 is a joke. XP is a joke period. There is a weird development on this Mac forum where Mac users (who typically bash "Micro$oft") get a hard-on for XP. Why? They claim it takes up less resources and space. Well, so does Windows 3.1 but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to run it. And space? Yeah, because 250 GB won't be enough. :rolleyes:

Honestly, XP was the best choice like 1 year ago. But a lot has changed. Vista SP1 has made things significantly better (and that was released in Feb.). The Vista-bashing that takes place here is no different than Windows bashing that Mac users do. It's no surprise us Mac users get a bad rep. But again, go for Vista 64. You'll be pleasantly surprised (in a good way). :)

[Aniki]

Vista 64 is best, completely takes use of all of your RAM, DirectX10, and lately a lot of games have been requiring vista, and with windows 7 coming out later next year, you'll be 3 operating systems behind. Go with vista for now.

[el.gringo]

Here is a thread with some more info on the issue that I started yesterday. I had the same exact question: bought a new MBP, want to get the best graphics performance. I think, given what I have seen, that I will go with XP 32-bit for now and see how it goes. The framerate gain is simply more compelling than DX10 at this point. Once (if) Vista evens out with XP in terms of framerate, then you can always upgrade if you want.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=584452

[JackAxe]

x2. Vista 64 is awesome (especially with 4GB of RAM). XP 64 is a joke. XP is a joke period. There is a weird development on this Mac forum where Mac users (who typically bash "Micro$oft") get a hard-on for XP. Why? They claim it takes up less resources and space. Well, so does Windows 3.1 but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to run it. And space? Yeah, because 250 GB won't be enough. :rolleyes:

Honestly, XP was the best choice like 1 year ago. But a lot has changed. Vista SP1 has made things significantly better (and that was released in Feb.). The Vista-bashing that takes place here is no different than Windows bashing that Mac users do. It's no surprise us Mac users get a bad rep. But again, go for Vista 64. You'll be pleasantly surprised (in a good way). :)

WOW! Nice generalized assumption. Good job. I take it you didn't read any previous posts? That would have been a bit too much to ask I suppose, but it's good to know that people will just step in on a conversation without knowing the roots and then add their own conjecture.

It's obvious your passive aggressive insults are towards me. So let me clear something up. NEVER did I recommend to use XP64 over Vista, or over XP. The only reason I made a further comment about XP64, besides the fact it's what I use on my newer PC, is that "Zortrium's" remark about not touching XP64 with a 10-foot pull is equally as ignorant as your comment referring to it as a joke.

XP64 is a joke... Really, and you speak from experience? I use this joke for Maxwell Render and Maya, and of course entertainment. It's not a joke for me. Unlike XP -- even on good hardware, XP64 has an excellent uptime. WOW, that certainly makes it a joke.

From what you and some others have written, it's apparent that some of you guys have a hard-on for Vista. It's also apparent that if a thread contains XP64 and Vista 64, people like you will automatically post just to take a dump on XP64 and with comments that are quite "superficial" at best. Honestly, before this thread, I didn't even know you guys were out there waging this "Vista crusade,"

You call "me" a MS basher, a guy that has been using PCs since the eighties. A decade longer than Macs. Any irritation I have with MS has nothing to do with Vista, but right now it has to do with some of its users, which are hypocritical MS bashers.

[nope7308]

WOW! Nice generalized assumption. Good job. I take it you didn't read any previous posts? That would have been a bit too much to ask I suppose, but it's good to know that people will just step in on a conversation without knowing the roots and then add their own conjecture.

It's obvious your passive aggressive insults are towards me. So let me clear something up. NEVER did I recommend to use XP64 over Vista, or over XP. The only reason I made a further comment about XP64, besides the fact it's what I use on my newer PC, is that "Zortrium's" remark about not touching XP64 with a 10-foot pull is equally as ignorant as your comment referring to it as a joke.

XP64 is a joke... Really, and you speak from experience? I use this joke for Maxwell Render and Maya, and of course entertainment. It's not a joke for me. Unlike XP -- even on good hardware, XP64 has an excellent uptime. WOW, that certainly makes it a joke.

From what you and some others have written, it's apparent that some of you guys have a hard-on for Vista. It's also apparent that if a thread contains XP64 and Vista 64, people like you will automatically post just to take a dump on XP64 and with comments that are quite "superficial" at best. Honestly, before this thread, I didn't even know you guys were out there waging this "Vista crusade,"

You call "me" a MS basher, a guy that has been using PCs since the eighties. A decade longer than Macs. Any irritation I have with MS has nothing to do with Vista, but right now it has to do with some of its users, which are hypocritical MS bashers.

Woah... it's an operating system, not your offspring, so calm down! Everyone is entitled to their opinion (even if it's a bad one), so I suggest you just sit back and enjoy your XP x64 :)

[JackAxe]

Woah... it's an operating system, not your offspring, so calm down! Everyone is entitled to their opinion (even if it's a bad one), so I suggest you just sit back and enjoy your XP x64 :)

Why don't you just perpetuate things further...

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinions. It would be great to hear more of your opinions, as you enlighten us with more of the obvious.

[nope7308]

Why don't you just perpetuate things further...

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinions. It would be great to hear more of your opinions, as you enlighten us with more of the obvious.

My Opinion: You clearly weren't loved as a child.

[JackAxe]

Wow, let's just go below the belt. Nice one! My opinion is that you're intentionally being a JERK. ;)

I'm drinking my daily 3 shots of expresso right now. So I'll be back to my usual perky self, so people like you can go on with their day. It's all GOOD! :)

[solaris7]

Ummm...could you tell me where you plan to purchase either operating system and for how much?

[nope7308]

Wow, let's just go below the belt. Nice one! My opinion is that you're intentionally being a JERK. ;)

I'm drinking my daily 3 shots of expresso right now. So I'll be back to my usual perky self, so people like you can go on with their day. It's all GOOD! :)

Not quite sure what that means, but sure! I don't know how you can drink 3 shots of those a day - I have one and I'm bouncing off the walls.

P.S. I was trying to be a JERK ;)

[JackAxe]

I know. We all have our moments. :)

I make my expresso with dark roast Kenya, so there's not as much caffeine as a a light roast. It helps to control my blood sugar, by spiking it. :o


solaris7,
Here's an average price of the different OS;
http://www2.pricewatch.com/software_oper_system/

Here are some direct links;
http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?coordinate_group=PI2B&product_type=

http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?coordinate_group=PB9N&product_type=

http://shop1.frys.com/search?cat=-43674&pType=pDisplay

[Stridder44]

WOW! Nice generalized assumption. Good job. I take it you didn't read any previous posts? That would have been a bit too much to ask I suppose, but it's good to know that people will just step in on a conversation without knowing the roots and then add their own conjecture.

It's obvious your passive aggressive insults are towards me. So let me clear something up. NEVER did I recommend to use XP64 over Vista, or over XP. The only reason I made a further comment about XP64, besides the fact it's what I use on my newer PC, is that "Zortrium's" remark about not touching XP64 with a 10-foot pull is equally as ignorant as your comment referring to it as a joke.

XP64 is a joke... Really, and you speak from experience? I use this joke for Maxwell Render and Maya, and of course entertainment. It's not a joke for me. Unlike XP -- even on good hardware, XP64 has an excellent uptime. WOW, that certainly makes it a joke.

From what you and some others have written, it's apparent that some of you guys have a hard-on for Vista. It's also apparent that if a thread contains XP64 and Vista 64, people like you will automatically post just to take a dump on XP64 and with comments that are quite "superficial" at best. Honestly, before this thread, I didn't even know you guys were out there waging this "Vista crusade,"

You call "me" a MS basher, a guy that has been using PCs since the eighties. A decade longer than Macs. Any irritation I have with MS has nothing to do with Vista, but right now it has to do with some of its users, which are hypocritical MS bashers.

Jesus dude, you need a hug? Calm down. And no my post wasn't direct towards you (unless you happen to fit the description I gave, which I'm assuming it did since you got so defensive).

So what kind of machine are you running XP on? Have you tried Vista recently on it for more than 5 minutes? What version? 32/64-bit?

The OP has a brand new MacBook Pro. Believe it or not, new software takes advantage of new hardware. You're a Mac fan so I'm assuming you already knew this (Apple loves dropping support of old hardware; PPC ring a bell?). It's called progress. Vista is a different beast than XP. XP was a different beast than 2000. XP got the same treatment as Vista is getting now. I find it funny how people seem to forget that. Vista was made to take advantage of new hardware. Snow Leopard is doing the same thing. New software that is meant to take advantage of new hardware. You can't have OS install footprints of less than 10 GB forever. You can't be upset at Microsoft because they aren't making an OS that revolves around some P4 with 256 GB of RAM.

[Huntn]

Based on what I've read- XP over Vista for performance.

[jbrenn]

x2. Vista 64 is awesome (especially with 4GB of RAM). XP 64 is a joke. XP is a joke period. There is a weird development on this Mac forum where Mac users (who typically bash "Micro$oft") get a hard-on for XP. Why? They claim it takes up less resources and space. Well, so does Windows 3.1 but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to run it. And space? Yeah, because 250 GB won't be enough. :rolleyes:

Honestly, XP was the best choice like 1 year ago. But a lot has changed. Vista SP1 has made things significantly better (and that was released in Feb.). The Vista-bashing that takes place here is no different than Windows bashing that Mac users do. It's no surprise us Mac users get a bad rep. But again, go for Vista 64. You'll be pleasantly surprised (in a good way). :)

vista 32 and 64 bit are not worth the dvd they are written on. even with sp1 vista is a resource hog. i would not run it on a stock mbp it is not fast enough or have enough ram to run vista for gaming purposes

[Stridder44]

vista 32 and 64 bit are not worth the dvd they are written on. even with sp1 vista is a resource hog. i would not run it on a stock mbp it is not fast enough or have enough ram to run vista for gaming purposes


Then continue riding on your horse of ignorance. XP 4 LYFE! :rolleyes:

[thejadedmonkey]

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.

[JackAxe]

Jesus dude, you need a hug? Calm down. And no my post wasn't direct towards you (unless you happen to fit the description I gave, which I'm assuming it did since you got so defensive).

So what kind of machine are you running XP on? Have you tried Vista recently on it for more than 5 minutes? What version? 32/64-bit?

The OP has a brand new MacBook Pro. Believe it or not, new software takes advantage of new hardware. You're a Mac fan so I'm assuming you already knew this (Apple loves dropping support of old hardware; PPC ring a bell?). It's called progress. Vista is a different beast than XP. XP was a different beast than 2000. XP got the same treatment as Vista is getting now. I find it funny how people seem to forget that. Vista was made to take advantage of new hardware. Snow Leopard is doing the same thing. New software that is meant to take advantage of new hardware. You can't have OS install footprints of less than 10 GB forever. You can't be upset at Microsoft because they aren't making an OS that revolves around some P4 with 256 GB of RAM.

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.

[Stridder44]

I made a comment about it being slower for games, which overall is still the case.

Wanna back that up with some actual facts/benchmarks?

[Cyberius]

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?

[Infrared]

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.

You've tried a Windows 7 beta? Or are you just hoping?

Hope you know Windows 7 will be based on Vista... :)

[Dagless]

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?

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.

[renodude91]

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! :)=:apple:

[n33d]

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?

[mosx]

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.

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.

[Dagless]

If performance is the same why are game publishers now separating (http://store.steampowered.com/app/17330/) the performance (http://store.steampowered.com/app/22300/) 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.

[mosx]

If performance is the same why are game publishers now separating (http://store.steampowered.com/app/17330/) the performance (http://store.steampowered.com/app/22300/) 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.

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? :rolleyes:

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.

[Dagless]

*snip*

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.

[mosx]

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.

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?

[Dagless]

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.

[roach]

Looks like Vista is equalling and surpassing XP in game tests.

LINK (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp)

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/20/0,1425,i=209758,00.jpg

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/20/0,1425,i=209756,00.jpg

I been using Vista for gaming for over a year and its just keeps getting better and better. I also use it to do intense 3D Maya work.