Vista Ultimate 64b or Windows 7 Ultimate 64b for gaming?


Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
OH dear god Please get Windows 7. Vista is HORRIBLE, especially for gaming...

Actually, Windows Vista is no worse than Windows 7 for gaming per se (in case some of us have forgotten, both are based largely on server code; Windows Server 2003 in Vista's case, and Server 2008 in 7's case) and therefore are a ton more stable than the XP desktop code core (gamers are some of the biggest multitaskers and multithreaders in all of computing; however, most don't realize it).

The biggest minus the 64-bit versiions of Vista (and 7 as well) have as far as gaming goes has to do with really old games with 16-bit installers; however, few of these games require DirectX, either, which makes them also ideal for running in a virtual machine. (The only game I own that falls into the 16-bit installer category is Microsoft's Fury3, which is so old that it is playable in *Windows for Workgroups", not to mention Windows 9x, or even NT.)

Actually, Windows Vista is no worse than Windows 7 for gaming per se (in case some of us have forgotten, both are based largely on server code; Windows Server 2003 in Vista's case, and Server 2008 in 7's case) and therefore are a ton more stable than the XP desktop code core (gamers are some of the biggest multitaskers and multithreaders in all of computing; however, most don't realize it).

btw Vista has the same codebase as Server 2008 since SP1

I actually had no problems with Vista, in fact it was the most stable 2+ years of computing Ive ever had, not 1 freeze, crash or random reboot. That said, throw away your Vista and never look back as 7 64-bit blows it away.

7.

Hands down.

Vista is a horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible OS.

Vista is horrible overall, just horrible for gaming.

January 2007 called. And said you two would fit right in with it and the rest of the people who obviously havent touched vista since then.

Has anybody tried Crysis on Windows 7 64bit? Playing it a bit last night and it seemed so much more fluid and smoother compared to Vista. All settings at max except for textures (medium) and runs like a dream.

My specs are Intel Q6600, Geforce 8800GTS 320MB and 2GB ram. A better graphic card with more memory and I'm sure I could max the textures as well. Have 4GB ram coming soon which should improve things even more.

7 Owns Vista hands down but for some vista may be slightly better, Vista die 7 Owns Vista.

While 7 Ultimate beats Vista Ultimate (which I have pointed out), Vista Ultimate whacks XP Professional (or Media Center 2005, which is based on Professional) in terms of stability of the operating system and multitasking/multithreading support, both of which are just as critical for gamers as frame rates (especially when it comes to multiplayer gaming).

How many people actually unload *everything* they may have running in the background just to play a game, even in XP? (I certainly didn't in XP, so no way would i do so in Vista or 7.) If you are going to benchmark, make it as close to how you actually use your computer (and this is especially true for gamers and the supposedly-game-focussed benchmarks, such as the 3DMark series). Otherwise, you're deliberately skewing the numbers, and fooling nobody (except maybe yourself).

OH dear god Please get Windows 7. Vista is HORRIBLE, especially for gaming...

that's absolutely not true. please cite some sources or legitimate examples.

Has anybody tried Crysis on Windows 7 64bit? Playing it a bit last night and it seemed so much more fluid and smoother compared to Vista. All settings at max except for textures (medium) and runs like a dream.

My specs are Intel Q6600, Geforce 8800GTS 320MB and 2GB ram. A better graphic card with more memory and I'm sure I could max the textures as well. Have 4GB ram coming soon which should improve things even more.

yeah i've played crysis on 7 64-bit. just as smooth, no faster than Vista 64-bit.

interestingly though, i used to have the same 8800GTS as you. when upgraded to my 8800GTS 512MB, my Crysis benchmark scores more than doubled... one benchmark increased 66%. weird huh?

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Blast from the past.
    • Hello, Were you using a product or service from one of the companies affected by the Klue data breach?  See https://klue.com/blog/an-update-on-recent-klue-security-incident for the company's public statement.  That blog post does not list affected customer. From looking around at reports, I created this list: Gong HackerOne Huntress Insurity Jamf LastPass OneTrust Recorded Future ReliaQuest Salesforce Snyk Sprout Social Tanium It is likely there are other companies affected as well. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • SpaceX reportedly plans a Starlink mobile service for U.S. consumers by Karthik Mudaliar SpaceX reportedly wants to sell mobile phone plans directly to consumers in the United States as part of a wider expansion of Starlink. According to a report from the Financial Times, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell discussed the plan with investors during the company’s recent IPO roadshow. The company is also said to be considering building a terrestrial mobile network to complement Starlink’s satellite coverage. The plan is quite different from how Starlink currently operates in the U.S. mobile market. SpaceX already provides satellite connectivity for T-Mobile’s T-Satellite service, but T-Mobile remains responsible for the subscription, billing, and customer support. A Starlink-branded mobile service would give SpaceX control of the customer relationship instead. It could also turn the company from a partner of traditional mobile operators into a direct competitor. T-Mobile also began testing its Starlink-powered satellite service in early 2025. The beta was initially limited to text messaging and was also available to some AT&T and Verizon customers. The service has since expanded to support limited data access through selected apps, including WhatsApp, Google Maps, AccuWeather, and AllTrails. It is designed to provide a connection in areas where normal cell towers are unavailable, rather than replace a conventional mobile network. However, if SpaceX actually has a plan to serve nationwide, it needs to do more than just satellite networks and actually support on-ground operations. It can also partner up with existing carriers and become a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). With that said, SpaceX has already spent heavily to support its mobile ambitions. Just last year, the company agreed to acquire wireless spectrum licences from EchoStar in deals worth a combined $19.6 billion. EchoStar's spectrum includes AWS-4, H-Block, and AWS-3 frequencies that could be used for both satellite and terrestrial communications. According to a SpaceX securities filing, the Federal Communications Commission approved the transaction in May 2026, although it is not expected to close until late 2027. There's no official statement by SpaceX for now. Pricing, availability, and other details remain unknown. Source: Financial Times
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      400
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      127
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!