vista=lag?

[Prozak]

I played L4D and TF2 and i lagg like crazy so i think it's vista

[Daze]

I played L4D and TF2 and i lagg like crazy so i think it's vista

 

No, listen to the facts stated already.

[LVG]

I played L4D and TF2 and i lagg like crazy so i think it's vista

 

Probly because... there both harder to run than css and your computer isn't good at coping with them?

[PotshotPolka]

I played L4D and TF2 and i lagg like crazy so i think it's vista

 

First of all don't bump shit after it's been dead for weeks. Read before you post.

 

Secondly no, Vista doesn't lag anything, its POS PC's running Vista that lag.

 

I run Vista fine on my dual-core laptop and my quad-core desktop, and I have 150+ fps on both games on highest settings.

[Axel]

ya ya i know vista sucks for gaming

 

BULLSHIT

I use vista, I run fine...

My gfx card is the problem with my PC

laptops are shit for gaming... everyone knows that...

[GOD]

BULLSHIT

I use vista, I run fine...

My gfx card is the problem with my PC

laptops are shit for gaming... everyone knows that...

 

they have desktop replacments :-p there are laptops that would beat 90% of peoples desktops. anyway back to the topic, and i know its been dead for a while....

 

vista is slower overall. you can not argue that!

 

- vista has higher overhead and uses more resorces from the start. you can manage to run xp on under 128mb of ram, you cant for vista. vista uses almost 1gb of ram just from start up. this increased overhead is used for features like aero, user search, and other "nifty" but useless stuff.

 

- vista uses a better gui which increases overhead on the gpu causing lower fps overall. try to go to windows classic view, and you should notice a slight bump in fps.

 

- vista uses a brand new kernell, something completly different than xp, thus drivers (still!) arent as optimized as xp.

 

 

 

overall though, xp does have better performance, but the decrease in speed in vista shouldnt be more than 10% at all. plus if you actually have a decent rig the speed decrease from running vista ends up being negligible (i dont mind loosing 10 fps from my 240 )

[Zero001]

Efficiency does not equal the lowest RAM usage possible.

[GOD]

Efficiency does not equal the lowest RAM usage possible.

 

efficency is getting the most done with the least resources, and/or have better speed. windows xp is basically windows 2000 with a better gui (xp had little kernell improvments) and windows 2000 is much like nt. windows nt is still highly regarded as a good os, skipping windows 2000, xp is still more efficient than vista. vista has more "bells and whistles" but most of those are useless. i could get xp to use only 88mb of ram, vista has never dipped below 700. now if a person only has 1gb of ram all of those extra mb's vista uses means less for aps (though vista can, and will use a pagefile, it will still be slower, since by the very nature of a pagefile it will not beat the ras of ram, even if you do have a nice scsi array.). i didnt state vista is bad, its just that its overall slower. there can be no arguing its slower. having more features 99% of the time means slower. xp can run great with less ram usage, and is faster (look at data transfer times using hdbench on xp vs vista, or even vista's own file transfer timer, it takes much longer compared to xp).

 

i can go even more indepth, but i think this should suffice. basically vista is slower by nature, not worse, just slower. if you have a fast machine than the impact of vista will barely be felt and you will most likely not care about that few fps drops because vista has aero, and other usefull features. however not everyone can take that hit of fps.

[PotshotPolka]

efficency is getting the most done with the least resources, and/or have better speed. windows xp is basically windows 2000 with a better gui (xp had little kernell improvments) and windows 2000 is much like nt. windows nt is still highly regarded as a good os, skipping windows 2000, xp is still more efficient than vista. vista has more "bells and whistles" but most of those are useless. i could get xp to use only 88mb of ram, vista has never dipped below 700. now if a person only has 1gb of ram all of those extra mb's vista uses means less for aps (though vista can, and will use a pagefile, it will still be slower, since by the very nature of a pagefile it will not beat the ras of ram, even if you do have a nice scsi array.). i didnt state vista is bad, its just that its overall slower. there can be no arguing its slower. having more features 99% of the time means slower. xp can run great with less ram usage, and is faster (look at data transfer times using hdbench on xp vs vista, or even vista's own file transfer timer, it takes much longer compared to xp).

 

i can go even more indepth, but i think this should suffice. basically vista is slower by nature, not worse, just slower. if you have a fast machine than the impact of vista will barely be felt and you will most likely not care about that few fps drops because vista has aero, and other usefull features. however not everyone can take that hit of fps.

 

Another thing is that Vista was created in mind that desktops and PCs would soon be seeing a generation in which RAM is relatively cheap (which it inarguably is imo compared to five years ago) and that losing 1 gb to basic resources isn't a big deal. I run 32 bit vista and have 4 gb of RAM, and it runs smooth as can be, I'll probably upgrade to 64 bit and use the old cd key elsewhere so that I can use more RAM.

 

Personally I love Vista since it has enough preloaded resources that I don't have to spend an hour hunting down drivers for basic I/O and other hardware drivers, the only bone I have to pick with it is setting up a RAID, which isn't so bad once you know how.

[GOD]

Another thing is that Vista was created in mind that desktops and PCs would soon be seeing a generation in which RAM is relatively cheap (which it inarguably is imo compared to five years ago) and that losing 1 gb to basic resources isn't a big deal. I run 32 bit vista and have 4 gb of RAM, and it runs smooth as can be, I'll probably upgrade to 64 bit and use the old cd key elsewhere so that I can use more RAM.

 

Personally I love Vista since it has enough preloaded resources that I don't have to spend an hour hunting down drivers for basic I/O and other hardware drivers, the only bone I have to pick with it is setting up a RAID, which isn't so bad once you know how.

 

agreed.

 

btw polka, you dont need to buy a new cd key! as long as you use the same VERSION (ie, ultimate, home, home premium) you dont need a new cd key. your old one will work just fine for 64 bit! hopefully i just saved you 240 dollars.