Modern gaming - windows XP or windows 7?


Recommended Posts

If you were going to get a gaming machine for today and the future... which OS would you pick?

I've been someone out of PC gaming for a while now, preferring to play older games on a Netbook that has served me well. However, it just isn't powerful enough to play some of the games that I'd like to play, such as the sequals to the X franchise and so I'm looking at picking up a new PC in the future with gaming in mind. And not just older titles, I'd like it to be powerful enough to run any game today.

This is largely a hardware issue, granted, but the OS itself will come into it. Is windows XP still supported on new games releases? A quick web search on Dungeon Siege 3 shows that game supports it (I'm fond of the original Dungeon Siege and still have that). Or do other forum members swear by Windows 7?

If you were going to get a gaming machine for today and the future... which OS would you pick?

I've been someone out of PC gaming for a while now, preferring to play older games on a Netbook that has served me well. However, it just isn't powerful enough to play some of the games that I'd like to play, such as the sequals to the X franchise and so I'm looking at picking up a new PC in the future with gaming in mind. And not just older titles, I'd like it to be powerful enough to run any game today.

This is largely a hardware issue, granted, but the OS itself will come into it. Is windows XP still supported on new games releases? A quick web search on Dungeon Siege 3 shows that game supports it (I'm fond of the original Dungeon Siege and still have that). Or do other forum members swear by Windows 7?

Games will be supported by XP for quite a while i imagine

It's the direct x 11(?) that's the problem.

If you're building a system with the future in mind, installing a legacy OS that's 10 years old is just silly, especially when it's end of life is rapidly approaching. Windows 7, its a no brainer. Usually better performance and always better features. "Modern" and "XP" shouldn't even be in the same sentence.

Win 7!

XP is a decade old and is on life supprt? XP can't even utilize modern hardware as efficient as Vista for that matter?

Thanks for the replies, you're helping to push me towards Windows 7, which I know has a good reputation. I'm a fan of Windows XP - the third OS that Microsoft really got right in my experience (the other two being Windows 95* and Windows 2000) - and continue to run it to this day.

I really appreciate the advice from everyone here, so a big thanks.

*Messing about with config.sys and autoexec.bat and custom startup disks to get Moonstone - and others - working - excepted!

Windows XP is supriorlly faster then W7 (Anyone that tells you otherwise is an IDIOT as W7 has much more processing, more security etc.) but Windows XP has less security, less multi-thread/core compatibility, no DirectX 10 or 11 support, and drivers aren't designed to be optimised for XP anymore, plus it's old, go with W7 and dual boot XP if you need it for old games like dungeon keeper, etc.

Or you could be smart about it and buy WINDOWS 7 PRO which comes with XP MODE which essentially is a free copy of XP inside a virtual machine.

P.S: To the guy above, XP in no way shape or form is faster than 7 ive done the testing and its not even close.

Windows 7. I've not run into a game that doesn't run under it, and typically get a faster framerate than XP too. XP might clock in a hair faster than 7 in raw CPU performance on a synthetic benchmark just because 7 is doing more under the hood.. real world/gaming using XP is noticably slower. Even old stuff from the Windows 95 era runs, and for the really old stuff there's DOSBox. No dual booting required, zero need for XP. For the new features there's no point even considering XP anymore as it just won't run on XP.

Or you could be smart about it and buy WINDOWS 7 PRO which comes with XP MODE which essentially is a free copy of XP inside a virtual machine.

P.S: To the guy above, XP in no way shape or form is faster than 7 ive done the testing and its not even close.

You do understand how code is executed on a processor right, in that, more code to run = takes more time?

Now then, compare the code that's in windows 7 to windows XP, windows 7 has MUCH more features which comes at a cost of execution code space increasing.

CPUs have things like 256KB L2 cache's for storing 256KB of instructions at a time, now, if you agree with physics, common sense and what we've been relying on for the whole of humanity, you too will agree that less executable code will execute faster than larger executable code thus making windows XP faster and quicker to run itself than windows 7.

Many thanks.

Windows XP is supriorlly faster then W7 (Anyone that tells you otherwise is an IDIOT as W7 has much more processing, more security etc.) but Windows XP has less security, less multi-thread/core compatibility, no DirectX 10 or 11 support, and drivers aren't designed to be optimised for XP anymore, plus it's old, go with W7 and dual boot XP if you need it for old games like dungeon keeper, etc.

Even if it takes more memory and processing power to run Windows 7, Win7 gaming will be faster based off of what you just said. Processor support, DirectX support, Driver support, etc etc etc. For modern gaming, Windows 7 is a faster OS.

Windows XP is supriorlly faster then W7 (Anyone that tells you otherwise is an IDIOT as W7 has much more processing, more security etc.) but Windows XP has less security, less multi-thread/core compatibility, no DirectX 10 or 11 support, and drivers aren't designed to be optimised for XP anymore, plus it's old, go with W7 and dual boot XP if you need it for old games like dungeon keeper, etc.

Funny, you calling people idiots.

First you say that XP is "supriorlly" (whatever the **** that means) faster than Win7 then you go on to list how ****ty XP is compared to Win7 THEN you say go with Win7 because it's better.

WOW.

If you were going to get a gaming machine for today and the future... which OS would you pick?

Would you build a machine with less than 4GB of RAM?

Would you want to be limited to a 2TB HDD?

Would you want to miss DX10/11 feature thereby loosing alot of your graphics card potential?

I think Windows 7 is the better choice, you get the most out of your hardware, isn't that what a gamer wants?

Ok good argument but heres my reasoning, Windows 7 was optimized for the modern day multicore cpu, whereas XP barely did Hyperthreading and SMP, if you put windows 7 on a modern day quad core box and XP in the same box hands down XP gets smoked as the optimization in code alone would make the diffrence.

Would you build a machine with less than 4GB of RAM?

Would you want to be limited to a 2TB HDD?

Would you want to miss DX10/11 feature thereby loosing alot of your graphics card potential?

I think Windows 7 is the better choice, you get the most out of your hardware, isn't that what a gamer wants?

As you have asked me directly, here are the answers:

4GB of Ram is more than I currently have on my Netbook, which has 2GB of RAM. I'm not sure what program would require more than this, I don't currently run any that do. That said, I'm unfamiliar with the requirements for modern games, so they might have scaled to the point where anything less than 4GB is insufficient. I believe that about 8GB is not uncommon these days, but I don't know what it is being used for. Nothing that I have today needs anything like that much.

2TB of hard drive space is massive. I use a 40GB SSD (Mtron Mobi, very snappy hard drive) in my netbook and that limits me as things stand now with how many games I install.. and this is for older games. So less than 2TB would be fine be me, and anyway I'd pick SSD for quick access, which does limit storage space anyhow.

Not having DX10 or 11 could be killer though. This alone would push me towards Windows 7 and from what others have said here, it looks like the best choice for me.

As you have asked me directly, here are the answers:

In the opening post you stated you were looking towards building a new machine so i gave criteria which would help guide you. As far as your netbook is concerned its up to you but i would say Windows 7 as its optimized for SSD's.

In the opening post you stated you were looking towards building a new machine so i gave criteria which would help guide you. As far as your netbook is concerned its up to you but i would say Windows 7 as its optimized for SSD's.

Thank you for your help.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!