Who the hell uses a 64 bit Os with just 2 gig ram. U need 4 gig to Get more performance than xp on vista 64 bit. Xp vs vista 64bit same system with 4 gig ram will give u a bost of 20%. But with 2gig ram xp pwnz!!!!
You also needed twice the memory during the switch between windows 98 and XP, so I think you just don't have the PC to run games on Vista properly.
All those Vista-bashers out there are forgetting ONE important thing: new OS means higher settings and more memory. Also, from what I experience, the built-in firewall is also much better then the one in XP.
Fraps must be a Vista basher then, it dared to show Vista lagging where XP ran smoothly.
If you looked at my system settings at the time, I more than made up for the memory and CPU requirements in Vista. Unless you are actually suggesting it wants 4GB?
I don't know, I run with 3 GB and it runs every game fine. But I think another problem COULD be the fact that you'r running AMD. I'm not saying that that is the problem, but I happen to know a friend who also has problems with Vista on AMD.
It has nothing to do with the brand name of your hardware. Just because AM2 CPUs perform behind Conroes doesn't mean they are a bad CPU, this one handles Crysis just fine.
After much research I ended up at the same conclusion I started with, Vista is a resource hog. Vista performs on par with XP *only* when its additional work load is accommodated and there is enough performance left over to meet the games requirements, otherwise performance is lower compared to XP.
Does your Vista include Norton? That may be the source. Norton is also standard installed on my PC in Vista, but since I deleted it Vista runs just fine.
I built this rig myself so there is nothing on it I don't want.
Believe me it is not the fault of some app or hardware weakness; Vista just has higher demands than XP, so much that if a game is just playable under XP it will be unplayable under Vista.
Since I've upgraded Crysis has been the main game with performance issues under Vista.
Maybe I'm asking the obvious here, but did you also install the servicepack for Vista? I still find it strange that just a few people always seem to have problems with Vista, while I never saw any bugs, crashes, and BSOD's with anyone using Vista including myself. Thats why I still believe that the problem isn't in Vista itself. Perhaps your computer needs drivers that are not comfortable with Vista (yet).
Yes I have SP1 installed and every update, driver and start-up program sorted to not impact performance.
I realize you are nit picking for a excuse to direct blame away from Vista, the fact of the matter is Vista's higher system requirements has a degenerative impact on gaming performance if your system cannot accommodate them.
My system isn't low end, but it still isn't enough to keep Vista happy. So much that Crysis performs significantly better under my XP partition than Vista.
I just changed to vista ultimate 64 bit. Gave my crysis 30 more fps on highest settings
WoWNotNerd 2 years ago
Who the hell uses a 64 bit Os with just 2 gig ram. U need 4 gig to Get more performance than xp on vista 64 bit. Xp vs vista 64bit same system with 4 gig ram will give u a bost of 20%. But with 2gig ram xp pwnz!!!!
WoWNotNerd 2 years ago
XP IS BETTER FOR GAMES =))) LOVE XP VISTA SLOW the fps of game =(
EalGuerrero 2 years ago
You also needed twice the memory during the switch between windows 98 and XP, so I think you just don't have the PC to run games on Vista properly.
All those Vista-bashers out there are forgetting ONE important thing: new OS means higher settings and more memory. Also, from what I experience, the built-in firewall is also much better then the one in XP.
Agentbromsnor 3 years ago
Fraps must be a Vista basher then, it dared to show Vista lagging where XP ran smoothly.
If you looked at my system settings at the time, I more than made up for the memory and CPU requirements in Vista. Unless you are actually suggesting it wants 4GB?
AnnoyedDragon 3 years ago
I don't know, I run with 3 GB and it runs every game fine. But I think another problem COULD be the fact that you'r running AMD. I'm not saying that that is the problem, but I happen to know a friend who also has problems with Vista on AMD.
Agentbromsnor 3 years ago
It has nothing to do with the brand name of your hardware. Just because AM2 CPUs perform behind Conroes doesn't mean they are a bad CPU, this one handles Crysis just fine.
After much research I ended up at the same conclusion I started with, Vista is a resource hog. Vista performs on par with XP *only* when its additional work load is accommodated and there is enough performance left over to meet the games requirements, otherwise performance is lower compared to XP.
They need a gaming mode.
AnnoyedDragon 3 years ago
Does your Vista include Norton? That may be the source. Norton is also standard installed on my PC in Vista, but since I deleted it Vista runs just fine.
Agentbromsnor 3 years ago
I built this rig myself so there is nothing on it I don't want.
Believe me it is not the fault of some app or hardware weakness; Vista just has higher demands than XP, so much that if a game is just playable under XP it will be unplayable under Vista.
Since I've upgraded Crysis has been the main game with performance issues under Vista.
AnnoyedDragon 3 years ago
Maybe I'm asking the obvious here, but did you also install the servicepack for Vista? I still find it strange that just a few people always seem to have problems with Vista, while I never saw any bugs, crashes, and BSOD's with anyone using Vista including myself. Thats why I still believe that the problem isn't in Vista itself. Perhaps your computer needs drivers that are not comfortable with Vista (yet).
Agentbromsnor 3 years ago
Yes I have SP1 installed and every update, driver and start-up program sorted to not impact performance.
I realize you are nit picking for a excuse to direct blame away from Vista, the fact of the matter is Vista's higher system requirements has a degenerative impact on gaming performance if your system cannot accommodate them.
My system isn't low end, but it still isn't enough to keep Vista happy. So much that Crysis performs significantly better under my XP partition than Vista.
AnnoyedDragon 3 years ago
i want your rig!!!! dude ur pc is badass
Feder147 4 years ago
Ouch, that sucks!
Do you have the exact fps for the game in both OS?
Bojaxs 4 years ago
I've upgraded to an 8800GT since then, so the difference isn't as noticeable.
All I remember is Vista was the difference between playable and unplayable.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
vista sucks
emadkkk 4 years ago