Vista and Computer Gaming?

A7X

I apologise if this isn't in the right forum, please move if it isn't.

Ok so I've heard alot about Vista not being good with gaming and I'm not to fond of vista myself, but we need to buy a new PC and it looks like it will be Vista.

So basically I''m just wondering if it really is as bad as I've heard or is there not much to worry about?

Also if there are major problems could they be specified please?

Thanks.

pwd

It might be incompatible with some older games. There's issues with Quake 4, for example.
One thing I do which makes a noticeable difference is I use a script to turn off unnecessary services before I run a game. There are a lot of services running in vista generally and they add up. You need to run the scipt as an administrator.

the syntax for the script is:

NET STOP "[service name goes here]"

If you want a script to restart any of the services:

NET START "[same thing]"

pwd

you need vista 64bit to be able to use more than 3.5 GB of RAM. So vista might be faster for games than xp, if you have a lot of RAM.

Sephiroth_dude

Im using vista 32bit and the only game I've had a problem with is medal of honour airbourne.64bit is meant to better though.

pwd

i don't think it makes a difference unless you're using more than 3GB of RAM.

Sephiroth_dude

ah I see,I think its a lot more stable than what it was anyway.

quarryman

I've found Vista to be a lot more stable than XP for gaming. No more BSOD anyway!

pablomakaveli

I had problems with Civilization 4 and Command and Conquer: The first decade. I had to download a couple of patches for them to work.

Hitman Actual

quarryman wrote: »

I've found Vista to be a lot more stable than XP for gaming. No more BSOD anyway!

Agreed, I'm finding Vista to be absolutely rock-solid for gaming. I think it's something to do with the new driver model where graphics drivers don't need to access the OS kernel, or something like that. Also, GPU resources are much better utilised in Vista. And things like Alt-Tabbing back to the Desktop work seamlessly.

Some tips with installing/playing games would be to always right-click the app and "Run as Administrator". This should get by any issues with starting games, and with any weird issues like disappearing save-games, etc (which happens due to UAC). Another thing to do if you have problems is to "Run in XP Compatibilty Mode".

One thing to be aware of is that sound management is handled differently in Vista, and I don't think EAX works, although OpenAL will. I'm not sure of the exact situation; someone else should be able to help, or maybe just google it.

Ardscoil Ris

pwd wrote: »

i don't think it makes a difference unless you're using more than 3GB of RAM.

That's wrong, but half right.

Vista 64 will run games faster than Vista 32. Crysis is recommended to be used in Vista 64. Most games on the market can't take advantage of Vista 64 at the moment though.

Basically, you need 64 bit to take advantage of games that are optimized to take advantage of multiple core processors.

ShiverinEskimo

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

That's wrong, but half right.

Vista 64 will run games faster than Vista 32. Crysis is recommended to be used in Vista 64. Most games on the market can't take advantage of Vista 64 at the moment though.

Basically, you need 64 bit to take advantage of games that are optimized to take advantage of multiple core processors.

You sure? A 32bit OS can take advantage of multiple cores just as much as a 64bit version - the extra width is for memory addressing only afaik.

Ardscoil Ris

In the Windows XP era, you only have to make a choice between home edition and professional edition. Now, when it comes to Vista, in addition to the various edition, you have to make a choice between the 32 bits or 64 bits version. Having a headache?
If you are one of those who are confused over the 32 and 64-bit edition, or have completely no idea what is a 32 bit and 64 bit system, here is the answer:

What are 32-bit and 64-bit system?

In simple term, a ‘bit’ is referring to the amount of data that the CPU can process at any time. A 32-bit system usually means that the CPU can process 32-bit of data at a time. Similarly, a 64-bit CPU will be able to process 64-bit of data, which is double that of a 32-bit system. Since the 64-bit CPU can handle more data at any time, it can theoretically allow you to load larger programs, bigger files, run applications faster and increase the performance of your computer. The latest CPU in the market now are mostly 64-bit, and can handle both 32-bit and 64-bit instructions.

Even if you have a 64-bit system, you will need a Operating System that can utilize it. Most of the older operating system (such as Windows 98, first generation of Windows XP) are only capable of handling 32-bit data. While you can still install them in your 64-bit system, you won’t be able to utilize and experience the gain in performance. The 64-bit Windows Vista (and Windows XP) are designed to do that. If you are using Mac Leopard, it is already 64-bit capable.

Differences between 32-bit and 64-bit

Other than the amount of data that the it can process, the amount of maximum RAM supported is also different for a 32-bit and 64 bit system. A 32-bit processors can only access a maximum of 4 gigabytes (GB) of RAM memory while a 64-bit system can support up to 1 terabytes (1000GB) of memory. Even if your motherboard supports up to 8GB RAM, your 32-bit OS can only recognize up to 4GB, which means that the remaining 4GB are useless.

Depending on the edition of Windows Vista you are using, the 64-bit version can support from 1GB of RAM up to a maximum of 128GB of RAM.

Is 64 bits better?

Theoretically, yes. But in reality, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

your computer is not only made up of your CPU, motherboard and OS alone. You still have other components such as the graphics card, sound card, hard drive etc. For your 64-bit operating system to work, you need to get the rest of the hardware to work in 64-bit mode as well. The problem is, most device drivers are designed for 32-bit system only and your 64-bit OS won’t recognize any 32-bit driver at all. While some of the reputable hardware manufacturers have released 64-bit drivers for their products, there are still a majority of them that haven’t do so. To get your 64-bit OS to work, you have to change the computer part to one that is 64-bit capable, or live with a malfunction device in your computer. Both are not ideal.

Most of the applications (especially games) are not designed to work in a 64-bit environment. Until the point where all applications are 64-bit capable, you are seriously under-utilizing your system. There is absolutely no difference in running a 32-bit application in a 32-bit system and a 64-bit system, and you can forget having an increase in your computer performance.

If you are using your computer for only playing games, surfing the Web, check email and type document, chances are, you won’t be utilizing your 32-bit capability, let alone 64-bit. To fully utilize 64-bit system and its support for bigger memory, you need to carry out memory intensive tasks such as video editing and image processing. Only then will you experience the full power of a 64-bit performance over a 32-bit.

Having said that Crysis is the only game that takes advantage of a 64 bit OS. IE7 also has a 64 bit version.

MooseJam

I'm using vista 64, never had any issues , have played many games - best to have at least 4 gigs ram though as vista is a bit of a resource hog, anyway windows 7 will be coming out shortly so it doesn't really matter

quarryman

MooseJam wrote: »

anyway windows 7 will be coming out shortly so it doesn't really matter

why? Does Windows 7 a much better performer than Vista?

PogMoThoin

Crysis ran alot faster for me in 64bit mode than 32bit. When Warhead Came out it was 32bit only and it didn't run as well, those who ran 32bit Vista and Xp said it ran better, but not for me.

Definitely go for 4Gb ram and 64bit Vista, can't understand why M$ are even bothering with 32bit Windows 7 to be honest, the day of 32bit is gone.

Hitman Actual

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

Other than the amount of data that the it can process, the amount of maximum RAM supported is also different for a 32-bit and 64 bit system. A 32-bit processors can only access a maximum of 4 gigabytes (GB) of RAM memory while a 64-bit system can support up to 1 terabytes (1000GB) of memory. Even if your motherboard supports up to 8GB RAM, your 32-bit OS can only recognize up to 4GB, which means that the remaining 4GB are useless.

And to be even more pedantic about it, a 32-bit OS maps devices in the space above 3GB, usually taking up about 500MB or so. You have to enable Physical Address Extension for apps/games to be able to use the space above 3.5GB (or where the devices are mapped), giving 3.5GB available, otherwise you will be stuck with 3GB available of your 4GB memory.

Edit to add: I don't think I'm right in what I'm saying about PAE there. It does increase address space above 4GB in 32-bit systems, but using the extra space is complicated. The 3GB limit is a standard problem though.

ColonelCarnage

Games I have had problems with running on 64bit Vista:

GTA san andreas - would not run at all
Dark messiah of might and magic - would not run at all
Far cry - would barely work

however the trade of is better performance on the likes of crysis and such!

Stephen

PAE was removed from XP in SP1 anyway. I used Vista x64 for games for ages and had 0 problems. I'm running Windows 7 x64 now and its still fine.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

It's hilarious the amount of crap people post, it is misleading and pure tripe.

A7X wrote: »

I apologise if this isn't in the right forum, please move if it isn't.

Ok so I've heard alot about Vista not being good with gaming and I'm not to fond of vista myself, but we need to buy a new PC and it looks like it will be Vista.

So basically I''m just wondering if it really is as bad as I've heard or is there not much to worry about?

Also if there are major problems could they be specified please?

Thanks.

Vista is fine. Make sure you have SP1 though.

quarryman wrote: »

I've found Vista to be a lot more stable than XP for gaming. No more BSOD anyway!

Not true, getting vista doesn't make you immune from BSOD... rubbish logic there.

ColonelCarnage wrote: »

Games I have had problems with running on 64bit Vista:

GTA san andreas - would not run at all
Dark messiah of might and magic - would not run at all
Far cry - would barely work

however the trade of is better performance on the likes of crysis and such!

More rubbish, this has nothing to do with what OS you are using but everything else. The games work for me fine. Get a new PC imo.

People are blaming Vista or XP for games not working, it's rubbish. While vista may not be compatible with older games, it will work all new games. People with problems may have to look at other parts of their PC. Their Processor, graphics card, ram, etc etc. I have had XP 32 and 64 bit, the origionals and the sp1. While SP1 does run a lot better (for me anyway) I could still play all my old games on both vistas. As I have a DX10 card I rather vista for the graphics. I had to manually set up my PC to function with multi cores. Some has it done already but a lot do not. While you might think you have multi core it may only be using one core, limiting the speed. I forget how I done this though, sorry.

*EDIT*

I forgot to mention that I only have 2gigs of DDR2 ram (I forget the clock speed). So saying you need at least 3-4 gigs is rubbish, it is better but not essential. I have played all the latest games with this too...

ColonelCarnage

do yourself a favour before you start declaring bullsh*t on other people posts and have the dignity to know wtf you are on about.

Now go and type into google either "list of 64 bit vista compatible games" or "GTA san andreas vista 64 bit problems" and see what you find. For starters rockstar themselves say gta san andreas wont run in 64 bit vista at all on their forums and the amount of problems people are having with the rest of the games are simply ridiculous so go and get you facts right.

THE MAJORITY OF PROBLEMS ARE FROM VISTA OR THE GAMES THEMSELVES, NOT THE RIGS!

quarryman

Charlie Few Rye wrote: »

Not true, getting vista doesn't make you immune from BSOD... rubbish logic there.

Who said it makes you immune? I said I don't get BSOD's anymore. BSODs have not been replaced with any other sort of fatal crash. Hence for me, Vista is more stable.

Take your internet-warrior attitude elsewhere.

L31mr0d

Using Vista x64 & x32 SP1 myself. No major problems with any games. When I do encounter problems its usually down to something other than the OS. 9 times out of 10 most game problems I've had have been fixed by doing a graphics card driver update or getting a patch for the game.

PogMoThoin

ColonelCarnage wrote: »

do yourself a favour before you start declaring bullsh*t on other people posts and have the dignity to know wtf you are on about.

Now go and type into google either "list of 64 bit vista compatible games" or "GTA san andreas vista 64 bit problems" and see what you find. For starters rockstar themselves say gta san andreas wont run in 64 bit vista at all on their forums and the amount of problems people are having with the rest of the games are simply ridiculous so go and get you facts right.

THE MAJORITY OF PROBLEMS ARE FROM VISTA!

Its down to Rockstar not making the game support a 64bit OS, but then again look at their track record, they're not renowned for patching their games, once they got the money they just forget about patching. I'm still waiting for them to make GTA 4 playable.

I'm running 64bit Vista here for over a yr with absolutely no gaming issues.