jewishornet Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 For pure performance XP x86 by a long shot, dx10 is still worthless and Vista has less compatibility and worse benchmarks almost across the board just read some reviews don't take these peoples words for it just because they happen to like an os. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun N. Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Windows 7 64 bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazuyette Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) For pure performance XP x86 by a long shot, dx10 is still worthless and Vista has less compatibility and worse benchmarks almost across the board just read some reviews don't take these peoples words for it just because they happen to like an os. yeah .... lol ! XP is DEAD !!!!! And don't tell me to run XP on my quad core or even running a 32bits O.S. . You obviously don't know what you're talking about ... Edit : Everyone writing that the OP should use an x86 O.S. is just stupid because if the OP runs a 32 bits OS then he'll be wasting 2 gigs of RAM that can't be used due to inherents limitations of an x86 OS. Edited June 15, 2009 by kazuyette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 For pure performance XP x86 by a long shot, dx10 is still worthless and Vista has less compatibility and worse benchmarks almost across the board just read some reviews don't take these peoples words for it just because they happen to like an os. So your relying on 2 year old or more Reviews as your source of Proof . cause i Dare ya right NOW today Find me a review that is up-to date and proves your point...........Waiting ........... Oh well guess ya cant find one . so get your head out of 2005 through 7 and come back to reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane-UK Veteran Posted June 15, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 15, 2009 yeah .... lol !XP is DEAD !!!!! And don't tell me to run XP on my quad core or even running a 32bits O.S. . You obviously don't know what you're talking about ... If you're using <4GB of RAM, then there is no point in using a 64bit OS over a 32bit OS. In fact, as all of the binaries are larger than their 32bit counterparts, MORE resources are wasted on the 64bit OS than they would on the 32bit counterpart. And as XP can be optimised for multicore processors using the patch from Microsoft or your CPU vendor, the point about multicore CPU's is also moot. Do you know what you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazuyette Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 If you're using <4GB of RAM, then there is no point in using a 64bit OS over a 32bit OS. In fact, as all of the binaries are larger than their 32bit counterparts, MORE resources are wasted on the 64bit OS than they would on the 32bit counterpart.And as XP can be optimised for multicore processors using the patch from Microsoft or your CPU vendor, the point about multicore CPU's is also moot. Do you know what you're talking about? I, of course, agree about the <4GB . But since the OP got 6GB, he "must" go 64bits (Vista or 7 but not XP64 imo, since XP is near EOL ). When I bought my laptop, it came with a 32 bits Vista ( strange mistake from Packard Bell if you ask me ). Then I updated to 64 bits and I managed to gain more Fps because of the 64bits OS. And yes, I know what I'm talking aboot ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 If you're using <4GB of RAM, then there is no point in using a 64bit OS over a 32bit OS. In fact, as all of the binaries are larger than their 32bit counterparts, MORE resources are wasted on the 64bit OS than they would on the 32bit counterpart.And as XP can be optimised for multicore processors using the patch from Microsoft or your CPU vendor, the point about multicore CPU's is also moot. Do you know what you're talking about? now we have in Windows 7 that is running a new threading engine here all just post some videos from channel 9 Dave and team, working very closely with the Parallel Computing Platform People, have created a very compelling new user mode thread scheduling/management system in Windows 7. In a nutshell, the User Mode Scheduler provides a new model for high-performance applications to control the execution of threads by allowing applications to schedule, throttle and control the overhead due to blocking system calls. In other words, applications can switch user threads completely in user mode without going through the kernel level scheduler. This frees up the kernel thread scheduler from having to block unnecessarily, which is a very good thing as we move into the age of Many-Core... Speaking of Many-Core, remember the piece we did on the Concurrency Runtime (ConcRT)? ConcRT is built on top of UMS and is the best way to most effectively utilize this new user mode thread scheduling model in Windows 7. http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/...-Scheduler-UMS/ http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/...side-Windows-7/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sujmano Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Ancient Computer? Windows 2000 SP5With 6GB RAM? XP x64 (supports up to 128GB I believe?) With 4GB RAM? XP x32 Don't care about RAM? XP x32 because WoW slows down x32 apps just a tiny bit and also gives more overhead to XPx64. DX10? vLited Vista x64. Vista ain't bad as long as you remove the overhead BS. I am not recommending a BETA OS. Be patient, XP and Vista sucked when they were released. Whichever OS you choose, make sure it is up to date!! Why are you so gung-ho in suggesting "tweaked" versions of perfectly stable and working OSes? Run some real-world benchmarks and find out for yourself that 1) There is no noticeable performance loss in x64 from x86, in fact the availability of being able to run applications in 64bit far outweighs any down-side; 2) Littering a thread regarding a new build saying he needs "vLited" Vista is ridiculous to say the least. Install the Vista Service Packs and it will run perfectly well on his system. What is with so many people still sticking to old and outdated information regarding Vista. I feel like I'm back reading a thread when Vista just came out. And really? Have you even tried Windows 7? XP and Vista may have sucked when they were released but 7 does not. Again, please inform yourself before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhon Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Vista X64 SP2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 XP x86 USED to be the best for gaming. However, if you have a modern system (especially with 4GB or more RAM) then Vista x64 is the best. Numerous benchmarks and tests have proved this. Anyone who says otherwise is still living in 2005. Vista even has really good compatibility now, which is great too. I would advise staying away from Windows 7 for now. It IS great, but there are a few games (more specifically a few anti-cheat/piracy solutions) that don't work with Windows 7 yet. I haven't been able to play CoD4 since I moved to Win7 RC because the waste-of-bits that is Punkbuster doesn't work. I've tried all the workarounds found on the web but none worked. Hopefully they'll fix when Win7 goes official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane-UK Veteran Posted June 15, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 15, 2009 Cool - great info! Thanks for sharing :) now we have in Windows 7 that is running a new threading engine here all just post some videos from channel 9 Dave and team, working very closely with the Parallel Computing Platform People, have created a very compelling new user mode thread scheduling/management system in Windows 7. In a nutshell, the User Mode Scheduler provides a new model for high-performance applications to control the execution of threads by allowing applications to schedule, throttle and control the overhead due to blocking system calls. In other words, applications can switch user threads completely in user mode without going through the kernel level scheduler. This frees up the kernel thread scheduler from having to block unnecessarily, which is a very good thing as we move into the age of Many-Core... Speaking of Many-Core, remember the piece we did on the Concurrency Runtime (ConcRT)? ConcRT is built on top of UMS and is the best way to most effectively utilize this new user mode thread scheduling model in Windows 7. http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/...-Scheduler-UMS/ http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/...side-Windows-7/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDStriker Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 yeah .... lol !XP is DEAD !!!!! And don't tell me to run XP on my quad core or even running a 32bits O.S. . You obviously don't know what you're talking about ... Edit : Everyone writing that the OP should use an x86 O.S. is just stupid because if the OP runs a 32 bits OS then he'll be wasting 2 gigs of RAM that can't be used due to inherents limitations of an x86 OS. well...thats not entirely true there is software that can utilize anything over 3GB even on the 32bit architecture (you can have 3GB for your 32bit xp system and use the other 3GB as a ram disk :p) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazuyette Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 well...thats not entirely true there is software that can utilize anything over 3GB even on the 32bit architecture (you can have 3GB for your 32bit xp system and use the other 3GB as a ram disk :p) I don't think you're right and I need your source mate. How can you use more than 4GB of ram if the underlying O.S. architecture can't support more than 4GB ? This does not compute for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted June 15, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 15, 2009 It's possible, but fairly pointless unless you've got old hardware that doesn't have 64bit drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazuyette Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 If I remember correctly, SQL Server ( when you use the /PAE switch if I'm correct ) can do that kind of stunt but is there any other stuff that can do the same ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessicaD Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Phantom Helix, I agree with you -- a Windows platform would be great for any gaming experience. If one has the hardware, I would defintely recommend Windows 7 64-bit as it was designed to provide optimum results for all users. To learn more on how Windows 7 will benefit everyone and the great features it includes, check out Microsoft Springboard. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd361745.aspx Jessica Microsoft Windows Client Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalE Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winrez Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 If I remember correctly, SQL Server ( when you use the /PAE switch if I'm correct ) can do that kind of stunt but is there any other stuff that can do the same ? You are correct about that but the PAE switch is VERY buggy (I think there are some bio's that use PAE to hack 32-bit Windows to see more also) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.Taiga Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 this threads of which OS are everywhere xD i'll say XP 32Bits, i dont like too much the XP 64 Bits, and IMO Vista and Seven ( mostly Vista ) sux for games . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YounGMessiah Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I have Vista 64bit and it has been working superb for the following: Prototype The Sims 3 Fallout 3 Plants and Zombies Mass Effect(Even though it has tons of bugs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pupdawg21 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Definitely Vista x64 since you have the 6 GB of memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 this threads of which OS are everywhere xD i'll say XP 32Bits, i dont like too much the XP 64 Bits, and IMO Vista and Seven ( mostly Vista ) sux for games . the reason is it is your system that sucks not vista and at the same time maby if you bothered to update to the latest Service packs in vista and drivers your chances would be better then YOU running Default RTM witch i take it your running since you make the claim Vista Sux Now as for 7 it is even better then vista and i myself have been running it without issues so yea your claims are just that Claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesVault Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 of course is Vista. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stezo2k Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I would say XP 32 but with 6GBs of RAM you would need to go 64 bit ideally. I would recommend XP x64 or Windows 7 RC x64 myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts