Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by illtype, Jun 24, 2008.
why does everyone say xp is better for gaming? Does xp have direct x 10?
These aren't my words but:
"Vista is new and shiny, XP is tried and tested"
I heard those while surfing around on here.
IIRC there are hacks to get DX10 working on XP.
I prefer XP over Vista for gaming because game performance is better in XP (it doesn't use as many background resources) and it boots up much quicker too. XP also supports more games. I won't be going back to Vista until they sort out the performance issues. To attain the same FPS from Half Life 2 Episode 1 I had to remove HDR lighting (all other settings the same).
Vista or HDR. No contest
how do i hack my xp so i can get direct x 10?
You could have Googled it?
It's not, people just like to hate on things because they are new.
Vista has much better memory management options, is much snappier than XP, has built-in index searching, shadow copies, UAC (a blessing not a curse like some narrow minded people choose to see it) and much better security, I've been running Vista for almost 2 years now without an anti-virus (just Windows Defender) and I haven't had a single viral problem.
Vista also has DX10 support which XP doesn't and will never support (Alky only plays demos and as far as I know, it's not even being developed anymore) and while game performance is indeed a little lower, SP1 did improve performance and the difference is only noticeable with a low-end card.
Vista has a lot of great features, it also has a bit of issues (like incompatibility, etc) but since SP1 it's a pretty hassle free system, at least for me, my workflow is much smoother on Vista, I only keep XP for legacy purposes (some very old games like HoMM3 or even older like DOS games have difficulty running properly on Vista).
Or more accurately, a blessing AND a curse. The nuisances added to Vista that people hate ARE a problem (not just "different" but truly a problem). But at the same time, they are hand-in-hand with benefits, such as badly-needed security improvements. Security done the wrong way maybe ("cry wolf") but still better than XP.
I'm the type who likes something MORE because it's "new," and since I very rarely have to deal with Windows anyway, I'd probably choose Vista over XP.
Except for the one main problem with Vista: price. Unacceptable when XP can be had cheaper. Which I hope continues to be the case but I fear not.
And for games--older ones--software compatibility may also be in favor of XP.
Other issues emerge more for NON-gaming usage--like driver compatibility.
I was set on adding Vista to my Mac but it never happened... and in hindsight I'm not sorry.
If you think that having DirectX version 10 makes Vista better than Windows XP, then you are falling into a marketing trap.
DirectX 10 lets games developers create games with shiny new graphics that looks a little bit better. But in order to get that shiny new graphics, the graphics card needs to do three times more work. And because Windows Vista is so much more complicated than Windows XP, the same graphics card needs to do 20 percent more work to draw old DirectX Version 9 graphics.
So with the same graphics card, DirectX 9 games will run slower on Windows Vista than on Windows XP. But most of the new DirectX 10 features can be done with a DirectX 9 card as well, and they can be done faster.