OT: Which OS do you use for gaming?

[Roge]

Im really happy to read of possible Linux support in the coming engine (A10... Apache..?). I would buy Windows 7 for better multicore support (Im on XP home) but if there is comparable performance under Linux that would be fantastic, and we would have one more Linux convert :D

[FlashPan]

I'm having no trouble at all with Vista. After reading the forums here, I almost got XP, but after some further research, I got Vista. I haven't had a single issue--and haven't had to do anything "special" to get games to run. I currently have installed: Silent Hunter IV, Lockon Flaming Cliffs, and World In Conflict. I really like the new look.

 

I read an article online--I think it was Tom's Hardware, that benchmarked XP vs. Vista with a number of games. If I recall, it was pretty much a wash--perhaps with Vista doing a little better.

 

However, time will tell. I've only had it for a month or so.

 

I'm not sure what's going on with Tom's hardware, but I had Vista 32bit Premiun until very recently and the difference between game FPS on Vista vs XP was huge! Large enough that on XP I could max out settings and still get better performance than Vista.

 

I know of at least two other people that have had the same experience.

 

All my drivers were up to date and I have a pretty standard system: Intel DUO 6400, 4Gb RAM, nVidia 8800 GTX 768Mb Ram and Creative Xi-Fi Fatality Pro sound card.

 

It's these personal experiences that have made me view these 'hardware review sites' with great cynicism. To have them reporting 'similiar' results, whilst me and my friends are getting very large differences seems to indicate a problem.

 

That said I do know of someone that has the 64bit version of Vista and swears by it, though he has never tested his machine with Xp...

 

At the end of the day if you play Black Shark, you should stick with XP as many of the Campaign missions recomend XP over Vista due to Vista's memory management problems.

 

RobP

[FlashPan]

Microsoft has been forcing people to switch to vista for some time now. For example, exclusive games such as Halo 2 for Vista only, but I can play that on XP too with MUCH better framerates. The same case with dx10. What's even more sad is that Microsoft FSX used images to paint misleading pictures to help promote dx10. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/26/flight-simulator-developer

 

Those images are famous now. What I like about FSX is that it says on the front of my box 'Works great on Windows XP - Works even better on the upcoming Windows Vista'

 

I suspect I could sue Microsoft and win here.

 

On my system the difference in performance between XP and Vista is the difference between night and day - in XP's favour!

 

Vista is a dud. My worry is that Windows 7 might follow the same route too....

 

RobP

[brewber19]

I could agree with most of your post but I strongly disagree with your last paragraph.

 

At the end of the day if you play Black Shark, you should stick with XP as many of the Campaign missions recomend XP over Vista due to Vista's memory management problems.

 

RobP

 

I believed all the negativity about Vista but having seen on this forum how much extra FPS Vista users get on BS I thought "what the hell" and bought Vista x64.

 

My experience of Vista is excellent so far, my only niggle is audio which seems a bit "tinny" compared to XP and needs some further investigation from me. I think people dislike Vista because they dont have the time, effort or skills to investigate and resolve a problem. XP was no different in its immaturity, nor was Win 98 (Win ME was a complete joke though!)

 

I have E6600 (oclocked to 3Ghz), 8800GTX, 4Gb ram and X-fi Fatality, so very similar to you..and I am getting 40-70fps in BS at 1920*1200 res (no AA, 16AF) with textures high, vis range medium, scenes high, water medium.

 

Sure, on other games XP might outperform Vista (if I'm honest I haven't checked) but to get a 25% increase in FPS in BS just by changing OS and adding a bit of ram....sign me up! Too many people have shifted to Vista and made use of the multicore thing for your last paragraph to be a reasonable recommendaton...I would recommend completely the opposite if they spend a significant amount of time playing BS.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what's going on with Tom's hardware, but I had Vista 32bit Premiun until very recently and the difference between game FPS on Vista vs XP was huge! Large enough that on XP I could max out settings and still get better performance than Vista.

 

I know of at least two other people that have had the same experience.

 

All my drivers were up to date and I have a pretty standard system: Intel DUO 6400, 4Gb RAM, nVidia 8800 GTX 768Mb Ram and Creative Xi-Fi Fatality Pro sound card.

 

It's these personal experiences that have made me view these 'hardware review sites' with great cynicism. To have them reporting 'similiar' results, whilst me and my friends are getting very large differences seems to indicate a problem.

 

That said I do know of someone that has the 64bit version of Vista and swears by it, though he has never tested his machine with Xp...

 

At the end of the day if you play Black Shark, you should stick with XP as many of the Campaign missions recomend XP over Vista due to Vista's memory management problems.

 

RobP

Edited January 17, 2009 by brewber19

[ZaltysZ]

Windows Server 2003 x64 SP2

[Mugatu]

OS X

[diveplane]

xp home here 32bit , cant go wrong with xp home or pro version. only a matter of time before ms irons out the bugs in vista, for me i wont bother with it the now. happy with xp for another few years. long as ms keeps updating xp as well.

Edited January 18, 2009 by diveplane

[Rastus]

I am several months away from a new build & considering which OS. I will probably go XP but watching with interest several threads about the new Windows 7. Even though it’s still in beta, sounds like it might be a better system than Vista. Whether it’s better than XP has yet to be seen, though I do understand Vista & Win 7 make better use of memory & multicore management which is a major plus.

 

My choice of OS will be determined by results in BS (Vista / Win7 wins), FC, FSX & Arma 2.

How does Vista / Win 7 affect FC?

 

Cheers

[Maverick-GER-]

Some people seem to forget that Vista never was planned as a fully working and bug free OS =) It was just a kinda big beta test for windows 7, that's why i never went for vista in the first place.

So it should be either XP (home or prof) or windows 7!

(So far Windows 7 has better fps as xp or vista and overall its a lot quicker and that already in the first beta, without using a crazy amount of RAM like vista does)

[ruprecht]

So from what I've read:

 

Vista: alleged performance hit, multi-monitor support not as good as XP, memory issues with some BS missions

 

XP: better performance, better multi-monitor support, SLI support, no issues with missions

 

So it seems pretty clear that a "downgrade" to XP might be in order. Any reasons not to do so? Can you still use all 4 cores on a Q6600 with XP?

[Icarus2]

So from what I've read:

 

Vista: alleged performance hit, multi-monitor support not as good as XP, memory issues with some BS missions

 

XP: better performance, better multi-monitor support, SLI support, no issues with missions

 

So it seems pretty clear that a "downgrade" to XP might be in order. Any reasons not to do so? Can you still use all 4 cores on a Q6600 with XP?

 

Firstly, I am no M$ fanboy, just so you know. But I have none of these problems and Vista runs very nicely.

 

I don't understand what the problem is. I have no issues whatsoever. No performance issues, I run every game and sim with excellant FPS with everything on. I also run 3 monitors, and a DLP projector with no issues, nor do I have any memory issues eventhough I have a cap on my memory with Vista 32. I also use DX10 with DX9 installed as well.

 

When Vista first came out I had a few issues, most of which were me not understanding the difference between Vista and XP and installing XP drivers on Vista. Also Vista has a very different filing system that takes some time to figure out where it keeps your files, but once you know it is easy. Once I sorted that out and SP1 came out, I reformatted and did a clean install and its been clear sailing ever since (one spontaneous reboot since SP1 only).

 

I should also say I am no computer techy, so I have no technical reasoning behind what I say. I am just telling my experience, which is obviously different from some. I was not trouble free on XP, it is not perfect, although it was quite stable. But looking at the poll on the Forum, most Vista owners love it, despite most BS forum goers are still using XP.

 

Is it fear fear of change to something different? Or do some peoples equiptment just not integrate with Vista very well? I am interested.

 

 

 

Its -28 here, great OC weather:cold:

[Maverick-GER-]

So from what I've read:

 

Vista: alleged performance hit, multi-monitor support not as good as XP, memory issues with some BS missions

 

XP: better performance, better multi-monitor support, SLI support, no issues with missions

 

So it seems pretty clear that a "downgrade" to XP might be in order. Any reasons not to do so? Can you still use all 4 cores on a Q6600 with XP?

 

As far as i know Vista doesnt even support quad cores (might be wrong on that one) , but i think i have heard a lot of times that only windows 7 will be able to use all 4 cores right...

 

 

@Icarus2

 

Vista seems to be running quite ok now, but it is far from perfect... and probably wont get any better anymore since vista was/is just a test for windows 7.

And windows 7 will hit the marked this year as far as i read...

 

Ok now the first thing that I didnt like about windows vista is the excessive amount of ram used just for the OS!

Still hearing about a lot of driver issues with windows vista (if that game dont work use driver x.xx and for the other game use driver y.yy) and so on.

For me Vista was just never completely done (and the reason for it, is what i stated above, that it is just testing for windows 7)

 

Sure there are people who like their vista and if they want it they can have it =)

And I am not affraid of a change (already looking forward to windows 7 release).

But if someone asks me what i recommend, i can only recommend xp or windows 7 beta ( even that beta version is better already than vista ever was in my eyes)

Edited January 18, 2009 by Maverick-GER-

[Icarus2]

As far as i know Vista doesnt even support quad cores (might be wrong on that one) , but i think i have heard a lot of times that only windows 7 will be able to use all 4 cores right...

 

 

@Icarus2

 

Vista seems to be running quite ok now, but it is far from perfect... and probably wont get any better anymore since vista was/is just a test for windows 7.

And windows 7 will hit the marked this year as far as i read...

 

Ok now the first thing that I didnt like about windows vista is the excessive amount of ram used just for the OS!

Still hearing about a lot of driver issues with windows vista (if that game dont work use driver x.xx and for the other game use driver y.yy) and so on.

For me Vista was just never completely done (and the reason for it, is what i stated above, that it is just testing for windows 7)

 

Sure there are people who like their vista and if they want it they can have it =)

And I am not affraid of a change (already looking forward to windows 7 release).

But if someone asks me what i recommend, i can only recommend xp or windows 7 beta ( even that beta version is better already than vista ever was in my eyes)

 

I understand now. I don't love Vista, I find it hard to love any OS, 'cause its just an OS. If it works ok thats all I ask of it.

 

I have a quadcore and it all four cores get used by Vista if the software allows it. For BS, the affinity trick really works. I don't know if that qualifies to say Vista supports quadcore or not. If Vista needs to force quad support on all programs to qualify, then no it does not, but it does allow their use.

 

I suppose if you have below 2.5Gb ram then Vista is not for you. I have never had a game or sim use more than 2 GB ever on my computer including Crysis and BS. Perhaps the SLI cards clear out the graphics to allow the Ram to only be used for AI, I don't know. On my computer, I can run Falcon, F4Glass all my apps on three monitors all on the same computer. I don't know anyone without a quad that can do that. Most have to run F4Glass on a seperate computer and network it to the other monitor.

 

I believe what will make or break W7 is how user friendly it is. Vista not so good in that department. That said, I too am looking forward to Windows 7, which is only an upgrade of Vista anyway, M$ has admitted. Afterall, they are ultimately all upgrades of MSDOS! :D

[Groove]

Vista Ultimate 64bit

[crazysundog]

Vista 64 bit, like it a lot.

 

cant wait for windows7

[Francous]

Best OS for Windows I'm running Server 2003 and Server 2008 64 bit.

Both alleged better performance than XP , multi-monitor support MUCH better than XP, much better memory management than XP and any Vista version.

 

XP is dead and happy...

Edited January 19, 2009 by Francous

[prj941]

I voted for Other.

I'm use Linux with Wine.

[mikoyan]

vista 32, don't like it at all, lots off drivers isues. I like Mac Os X better; still GAMES SUCK FOR MAC!

[PoleCat]

I am currently triple booting my system XP-Pro 32, Vista 32 Ultimate and Windows 7 to assess them.

 

From what I have seen so far Windows 7 is not much different from Vista. Those who dislike Vista are IMHO unlikely to embrace something that from all outward appearances is a Vista service pack branded as a new OS. OTOH Part of the reason why W7 may be better liked is because the hardware drivers for this OS are very similar to Vista and will be in a much more ready state at launch then the driver nightmare that was Vista’s portent of doom….

One of the main reasons Vista was poorly received at its launch was due to poor or even nonexistent driver support for critical hardware devices, even for the most popular graphics and sound cards. It was literally months after launch before hardware device manufacturers had released proper drivers for their products under this OS.

 

Most of my simming time is still spent under XP for obvious reasons. Lack of good multiple monitor support (Horizontal Span) under Vista. I do not like the need to use Creative Alchemy to emulate missing API’s etc. Lock On FC and DCS is all I really care to run optimally. I believe XP is the best choice for that so far.

 

Although I am intrigued by both testing server OS’s and 64 bit OS’s I am a bit skeptical based on my past experiences with lack of driver support with them as well.

I would like to hear more from people using these platforms as to the specifics of the various advantages and caveats of them.

Win 2003/2008 Server. Vista 64 bit XP Pro 64bit.

 

What is the state of driver support, multiple monitor (horizontal spanning), and gaming under these OS’s?

 

Out

Edited January 19, 2009 by PoleCat

[Vekkinho]

IMO Windows 2K Pro/Server was the best OS I used, at least most stable one but I voted XP pro as I currently use it!

[Glowing_Amraam]

I''m now using Vista Ultimate 64 bit..

But i got all sorts of problems, like it took forever to install the latest Nvidia drivers, and Crysis doesnt even work!

 

My question is:

 

I now have a quad cpu (i7 series), and 6 gig ram..

If i would go back to using Windows XP Pro 64 bit, can i still take advantage of Quad and 6 gig ram?

[brewber19]

What's your struggle GA?

 

I recently went from XP Pro x86 to Vista x64 without issue...except for tinny sounds which I think I have almost solved.

 

In terms of hardware I have...

 

Intel E6600 o/c from 2.4Ghx to 3.0Ghz

4Gb of PC8500 RAM (DDR2)

X-Fi Fatality sound card

BFG GeForce 8800GTX (stock...although BFGs are 'overclocked')

 

I use a BFG 680i motherboard, 2x74Gb Raptors in RAID0 + couple of other normal HDs.

 

I don'r know how that compares to yours but the install of gfx drivers was no problem whatsoever...and BS runs at 40fps+ versus 20-30 in XP.

 

Let me know what other hardware you got (mobo, sound etc), perhaps theres a conflict somewhere? Happy to help if I can.

 

 

I''m now using Vista Ultimate 64 bit..

But i got all sorts of problems, like it took forever to install the latest Nvidia drivers, and Crysis doesnt even work!

 

My question is:

 

I now have a quad cpu (i7 series), and 6 gig ram..

If i would go back to using Windows XP Pro 64 bit, can i still take advantage of Quad and 6 gig ram?

Edited January 19, 2009 by brewber19
added emphasis on h/ware other than CPU

[PoleCat]

For me tinny sounds would be a huge deal. This is exactly what I was referring to in my original post. More fps but you have to sacrifice good sound to get it. I would want Graphics and Sound drivers to be in as good or better shape than XP for these sims before I would switch. Sounds like you are trading one thing for another rather than getting improvement across the board.

 

The big advantages to 64bit computing seem far more applicable to apps then sims or games at this time. I am aware of the mem usage benefits but I am not sure that the ends justify the means for gaming. For Video/sound production I would think so but for gaming or simming? At least I cannot notice it much yet.

 

Please elaborate....And more opinions please?

 

Out

Edited January 19, 2009 by PoleCat

[Mustang]

Windows XP Pro SP3 here, no choice really though, since nForce3 250gb motherboard's AGP GART driver isn't supported by Vista or above :(

[Glowing_Amraam]

What's your struggle GA?

 

I recently went from XP Pro x86 to Vista x64 without issue...except for tinny sounds which I think I have almost solved.

 

In terms of hardware I have...

 

Intel E6600 o/c from 2.4Ghx to 3.0Ghz

4Gb of PC8500 RAM (DDR2)

X-Fi Fatality sound card

BFG GeForce 8800GTX (stock...although BFGs are 'overclocked')

 

I use a BFG 680i motherboard, 2x74Gb Raptors in RAID0 + couple of other normal HDs.

 

I don'r know how that compares to yours but the install of gfx drivers was no problem whatsoever...and BS runs at 40fps+ versus 20-30 in XP.

 

Let me know what other hardware you got (mobo, sound etc), perhaps theres a conflict somewhere? Happy to help if I can.

 

Graphics:

XFX GeForce GTX 295 576M 1792MB PhysX

PCI-Express 2.0, 2xDVI, HDCP, HDMI, Core 240x2, Gr

 

Mobo:

Asus P6T Deluxe+OC Palm,X58, Socket-1366

DDR3, ATX, SLI&CrossFireX, Firewire, 2xGbLAN, 3xPC

 

CPU:

Intel Core i7 Quad Processor i7-920

4,8GT/sec, 8MB, Boxed

 

RAM:

OCZ Platinum XTC DDR3 1600MHz 6GB KIT

3x Platinum Z3 XTC 2GB, CL7-7-7-24, 1.65 Volts, 24

 

PSU:

Corsair Powersupply 1000W Black

ATX/EPS, 140mm fan, SLI

 

And all this using Vista Ultimate, which is 64 bit (right?).

Anyway, i had problems installing the nvidia drivers, had to install them like 15 times before they magically worked after a final reboot.

And the game "Crysis" doesnt even work with vista 64. Cant get the game to start at all.

 

Some other quirks also with vista, such as programs taking an extremely long time to install at points. Im trying to work it all out though..

 

All i want to know is, would it be unwize to go back to XP 64 bit, or should i just stick to Vista 64? Or maybe even go for the beta of Windows 7?

 

Any help is appreciated, my pc is sorta "newborn" again, and so am i concerning Vista. :P

 

And also, i see 1,51 GB of memory is in constant use in windows, and no idea what gives.