PDA

View Full Version : vista=lag?



Longwave
12 Nov 2008, 11:23am
xp and vista differences...

i play css on my hp laptop with vista, amd duel core, a high powered gfx card and 4gigs of ram. my pal reborn plays with xp, 1 gig of ram and a slightly slower cpu. ya ya i know vista sucks for gaming but it sucks that bad? we play the same room and i lag like crazy but he dont get a hint of lag. could it be that vista just sucks ass or is it somethig else that could be causing this. i like vista and dont want to have to downgrade to xp just so i can game.

Daze
12 Nov 2008, 12:06pm
spec wise, you should be having a better gaming experience than him.

to my own personal knowledge of XP / Vista, I haven't had a difference with lagging in-game or out and you have more RAM than me, your looking at Vista as if it's the Operating Systems fault, which it isn't. It could be down to overheating, virus's and or spyware.

Itch
12 Nov 2008, 01:12pm
I am currently running vista at home and don't experience any lag from running it vs. running xp.. I think something else is going on.. could be driver related.

mNote
12 Nov 2008, 01:20pm
I have a Vista laptop and it runs okay...

I wouldn't recommend using your laptop for hardcore gaming because it can heat up pretty fast trying to generate all that god damn graphics.

My laptop gets hot while I watch videos on YouTube.

Zero001
12 Nov 2008, 01:31pm
Be more specific in your specs. High powered gfx card seems fishy to me. Since you're on a laptop odds are you're running on board video or a media card not meant for gaming. It has an AMD cpu so it's probably the case, since most if not all higher end laptops are using Intel.

Open Steam, click help then system information. Come back and post it's content.

Red
12 Nov 2008, 01:50pm
lol vista

Axel
12 Nov 2008, 01:55pm
I run vista
it works perfectly fine -_'
your laptop must suck!

andre1028
12 Nov 2008, 02:05pm
Vista = Fatass.

Enough said.

I still haven't got the heart to go back to good ol' XP for some reason. It's tearing my insides.

LVG
12 Nov 2008, 02:16pm
Wrong, Certain things on vista cause games to run slowly for example UAC turning it off will help. There are chances that the desktop clock thing can have an effect on it not for m but my friend did.

I have vista no problems and would rather have it.

Jose
12 Nov 2008, 02:40pm
well if this dude wants, i can create a batch file to stop alot of things vista.
cause when i stop everything in vista a get 10 fps+ then xp on games with my 7600gs

p.s. with my own experience, vista can draw farther than xp BUT vista MAY perform slower with anti-alising on wit 7900 graphics cards and below , but with the 8 + series that shouldnt be a problem
o pm me if you want a batch file

Henrik
12 Nov 2008, 03:04pm
No, Vista = shit.

i agree with 100%

Zero001
12 Nov 2008, 03:26pm
Tons of misinformation in this thread. The point is the OS isn't affecting his gaming performance, his hardware is.

Axel
12 Nov 2008, 04:12pm
Tons of misinformation in this thread. The point is the OS isn't affecting his gaming performance, his hardware is.

kinda what i said xD
i said his laptop sucks
maybe because its a laptop...
laptops aren't the best for gaming!
towers ftw!

andre1028
12 Nov 2008, 06:33pm
Wrong, Certain things on vista cause games to run slowly for example UAC turning it off will help. There are chances that the desktop clock thing can have an effect on it not for m but my friend did.

I have vista no problems and would rather have it.

Agreed, turning off hibernation mode manually can save you some memory too.

Longwave
12 Nov 2008, 08:31pm
the card i am using is a nivida gfx card and it is 2x better then my old xp laptop and that ran great with no lag. i think i tjust might be vista.... dam.

Zero001
12 Nov 2008, 09:17pm
the card i am using is a nivida gfx card and it is 2x better then my old xp laptop and that ran great with no lag. i think i tjust might be vista.... dam.

A lot of laptops use integrated NVIDIA chips or low end NVIDIA media cards. Just because it's an NVIDIA doesn't mean it's meant for gaming. Post your specs. I can almost guarantee your laptop has IG.

tinkerbell
12 Nov 2008, 10:31pm
Be more specific in your specs. High powered gfx card seems fishy to me. Since you're on a laptop odds are you're running on board video or a media card not meant for gaming. It has an AMD cpu so it's probably the case, since most if not all higher end laptops are using Intel.

Open Steam, click help then system information. Come back and post it's content.

right, vista does take up alot more resources than xp, but not that much more, and FYI laptop graphics are always shite, AMD doesnt have the the best mobile cpu around. EDIT: AMD have no good CPU's atm

vista needs more ram to function. so it a ball-park what your problems are, post specs please

in run, type dxdiag and give us the info, then we might be able to help

Daze
13 Nov 2008, 09:24am
AMD doesnt have the the best mobile cpu around. EDIT: AMD have no good CPU's atm



The AMD Quad Core Phenom 9950 got a higher benchmark rating than the Intel Quad Core 9450...

Wrathek
13 Nov 2008, 11:58am
vista is fine. i agree with everything zero is saying seems to be one of the few other technologically-informed people here.

Itch
13 Nov 2008, 12:07pm
the card i am using is a nivida gfx card and it is 2x better then my old xp laptop and that ran great with no lag. i think i tjust might be vista.... dam.

It's very easy to be quick to blame Vista especially if this is your first experience with it. However..


A lot of laptops use integrated NVIDIA chips or low end NVIDIA media cards. Just because it's an NVIDIA doesn't mean it's meant for gaming. Post your specs. I can almost guarantee your laptop has IG.

I think Zero001 nailed it here.. It is most likely a hardware of driver problem. Not an OS issue. A Geforce 8800 will easily outperform a Geforce 9500 so just saying it's newer or has more video RAM doesn't really say much. Also you are probably using an integrated version of whatever nvidia card you have (which is a huge performance decrease). Lag can be caused by tons of things.. most likely not your video card.

To really troubleshoot your problem you'd need to post all of your specs as well as a list of what you currently have running (process list) And that's just to get started.

Prozak
8 Dec 2008, 02:28pm
I played L4D and TF2 and i lagg like crazy so i think it's vista

Daze
8 Dec 2008, 02:58pm
I played L4D and TF2 and i lagg like crazy so i think it's vista

No, listen to the facts stated already.

LVG
8 Dec 2008, 03:57pm
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
8 Dec 2008, 04:39pm
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
8 Dec 2008, 05:35pm
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
8 Dec 2008, 07:19pm
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 :p )

Zero001
8 Dec 2008, 07:47pm
Efficiency does not equal the lowest RAM usage possible.

GOD
8 Dec 2008, 07:55pm
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
8 Dec 2008, 09:19pm
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
8 Dec 2008, 09:43pm
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.

Zero001
8 Dec 2008, 10:09pm
....

You don't see less than 700mb because you have features such as Aero and SuperFetch enabled. At it's bare minimum Vista is just slightly over double the size of XP. SuperFetch alone gives it a speed advantage over XP, even if looks like it's costing you more RAM. If your apps need the RAM Vista will dump the cached memory so the statement you made about there being less RAM for apps is false. Like I said, efficiency does not equal the lowest RAM usage possible.

Your speed argument is valid if we're talking about low end and older PC's, but we're not. As far as performance goes, Vista x64 is the PC OS to beat.

PotshotPolka
9 Dec 2008, 06:21am
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.

Really? So I can just go and buy a recovery disk or dl it online and transfer over? I figured they wouldn't be so reasonable.

GOD
9 Dec 2008, 09:54am
You don't see less than 700mb because you have features such as Aero and SuperFetch enabled. At it's bare minimum Vista is just slightly over double the size of XP. SuperFetch alone gives it a speed advantage over XP, even if looks like it's costing you more RAM. If your apps need the RAM Vista will dump the cached memory so the statement you made about there being less RAM for apps is false. Like I said, efficiency does not equal the lowest RAM usage possible.

Your speed argument is valid if we're talking about low end and older PC's, but we're not. As far as performance goes, Vista x64 is the PC OS to beat.

i said vista has loads of advantages over xp, just that in the lower spec computer cases vista should be avoided.

speed advantages in terms of what? vista has some speed boosts over xp, but it has more (that i know of) cases of being slower. i agree vista x64 is good.

also, there generally is less ram which you also agree, and which was my point. if a person has 1gb or 512mb of ram. the extra ram vista uses make some programs run slower. if you a person like me with 4gb or more of ram then ram isnt an issue. i stated before that vista should be used on higher end pc's.

also polska, yes its basically that simple. however
1- i recomend you do a clean install.
2- i would suggest just downloading a torrent. microsoft charges for you to download or mail the discs of vista. (since, im assuming you own a legal copy of vista, downloading a torrent is not illegal.)

PotshotPolka
9 Dec 2008, 01:16pm
i said vista has loads of advantages over xp, just that in the lower spec computer cases vista should be avoided.

speed advantages in terms of what? vista has some speed boosts over xp, but it has more (that i know of) cases of being slower. i agree vista x64 is good.

also, there generally is less ram which you also agree, and which was my point. if a person has 1gb or 512mb of ram. the extra ram vista uses make some programs run slower. if you a person like me with 4gb or more of ram then ram isnt an issue. i stated before that vista should be used on higher end pc's.

also polska, yes its basically that simple. however
1- i recomend you do a clean install.
2- i would suggest just downloading a torrent. microsoft charges for you to download or mail the discs of vista. (since, im assuming you own a legal copy of vista, downloading a torrent is not illegal.)

I figured as much, but it actually takes a bit of effort to make sure you pick a torrent that isn't cracked or containing a trojan for the lulz.