XP vs Vista for MMORPG Age of Conan

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by Robg54, Apr 26, 2008.

  1. Robg54 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    #1
    I have a 2.2 mbp w/ 4 g ram. (I run Tiger instead of Leopard as Leopard is not recognized by my school network)

    I am considering Age of Conan, and am trying to decide between XP and Vista. Price is an issue, so the cheaper the better. Sub $100 is what I'm realistically looking to spend.

    However, I would like my system to take advantage of direct x 10 if I can (and if it's worth it), I want it to recognize all 4 gigs of ram and I would prefer it to have a smaller partition, which is a point in favor of XP.

    What do you guys recommend. I don't really know ANYTHING about the new service pack or if XP 64bit is worth anything and the solution to my problems...

    Thanks for any help.
     
  2. djinn macrumors 68000

    djinn

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    #2
    With making the comment about taking advantage of DirectX 10 you will need to go with Vista. Take in consideration that there aren't many games that are taking advantage of DX10. Most gamers will tell you that XP is the gaming OS cause of speed and compatibility.

    If you want to take advantage of the 4gigs of RAM you will need the 64bit OS. XP 64bit has a lot of compatibility problems whereas Vista 64bit can run WOW (Windows on Windows) a little better, with better compatibility. However, you will run into some problems running a 64bit OS with some Applications.

    Vista SP1 is basically a bundle of Security updates with no performance increase. I have read some articles that people have seen a decrease in performance.

    SP3 for XP is another bundle of security updates but will have some new features like NAP built in (Network Access Protection) which is incorporated with Server 2008. It will also interface with SCOM (System Center Operations Manager 2007) for network management of users.

    Anyhow, I went a little overboard but I hope some of the comments I made helped you.

    If I were you, I would go with Windows XP 32bit, suffer the 500meg loss (3.5GB seen 32bit), and take advantage of the compatibility that is already there.
     
  3. Radio Monk33 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    #3
    You're not going to be able to really run Dx10 with the MBP videocard...I wouldn't even bother with Vista if thats what you were going to use it for. Go with XP, smaller install, less resource heavy for better gaming performance. Before one could argue it was cheaper as well but now Vista has had a price cut to try and sell it to the masses..
     
  4. Robg54 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    #4
    Thanks guys. I was leaning towards XP myself. My biggest question was whether DX10 and the extra ram would make vista the choice.

    I am, personally, glad it doesn't. I don't want TOOO huge a partition, as Age of Conan is pretty damn big. Roundabouts 30 gigs I believe....
     
  5. Block macrumors 6502a

    Block

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #5
    If you are a fan of nice lighting effects, than go Vista as the best lighting in AoC can only be gotten with DirectX 10.

    Otherwise, go XP, as the minor aesthetic improvements in DirectX 10 do not counteract the huge performance hit over using DirectX 9.

    Here is a review of how it could possibly look in AoC, though nobody is certain until the game is released.
    9: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/videogames/gfx/aoc-dx9.jpg
    10: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/videogames/gfx/aoc-dx10.jpg
     
  6. willcodejavafor macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    #6
    I am just about to leave work to go to the apple store to purchase a new iMac. I will most likely install XP on it for gaming (yes Age of Conan as well) since you get quite a boost on your FPS through DX9. I will be running a 32 bit as well but I have not decided if I am buying another 2GB yet. Probably will :)
     
  7. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #7
    Vista 64-bit. New games (2006 and beyond), especially graphic intensive ones like AoC, love RAM. 4GB of RAM is "good" for a game like that, but 8GB is perfect. And RAM is so cheap. You can get 8GB of RAM for under $200 now. Since SP1, Vista is very solid, don't listen to the FUD. XP is a dinosaur and 2001 technology. Leopard eats RAM just as much as Vista does. Saying XP is better than Vista is like saying OS 9 is better than OS X "because it runs faster".

    You'll get _slightly_ higher frame rates in XP, but it won't matter because you won't be able to tell the difference anyway. Instead of getting 160 fps in XP, you'll get 145 in Vista. And in cases where games had patches released for Vista, like Oblivion for example, the fps were much higher in Vista than in XP on the same machine. http://www.sharepointblogs.com/dontpanic/archive/2008/02/29/xp-sp2-vs-vista-rtm-and-vista-sp1-hmm-almost-equal-or-better-on-everything-goes-to-vista-i-d-like-to-see-this-on-a-quadcore-with-4gb-ram.aspx

    I'm so tired of the BS FUD about Vista.
     
  8. alleycat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    #8
    Another recommendation for Windows XP. If you want to play with both new and older games, it's the only way to go. Some older games do not respond well to the bloatware of Vista. :eek:
     
  9. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #9
    FACT: Vista runs some games slower than XP
    FACT: By "slower" it means 4-6 fps. Significant to the hardcore, but not this "25 fps on low detail" garbage
    FACT: Most people in this thread are running Vista on crap hardware
    FACT: With modern hardware and 2GB+ of ram, Vista provides superior performance to XP in almost all cases.

    And don't think for a second that SP3 for XP is some kind of magical performance booster.
     
  10. IdiotBasher macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    #10
  11. djinn macrumors 68000

    djinn

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    #11
    That is an old Benchmark let alone Toms isn't the most valuable website to get your facts from.

    I would agree that XP does have some speed over Vista, but with games nowadays coming out with DX10, I would want my HW to take advantage of that.

    I would want Toms to rerun that test with Vista SP1 with some newer hardware.
     
  12. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #12
    The first part of your user name suites you well.

    First off, that benchmark is taken from January 2007. Just an FYI, it's July 2008. Driver changes, SP1, etc. Secondly, Tom's hardware is not that great in the first place.

    The differences (if any) in fps between XP and Vista are 1-2 fps. There is absolutely no reason to hate on Vista anymore, unless you want to show the world your blind hate and ignorance (which you're succeeding at right now).

    And yes, I am a Mac user. I also use Vista 64, so I'm also a Windows user. So what does that make you? An XP user? Ubuntu? What's your point?

    At least learn how to troll properly if you're gonna do it.
     

Share This Page