MS: Windows 7 to be "Great for Games"

The gaming performance gap between the three is pretty insignificant now that Vista drivers are optimized and Windows 7 uses Vista drivers natively. I can't really say it any clearer than that so if you need further help I can try to get a coloring book and some crayons for you while the adults chat.

If games looked significantly better under a new OS I'd probably upgrade. So far I'm not seeing anything that really makes me salivate for something I don't have. The side by side comparisons are a little like Blu-Ray vs HD Television. Yeah Blu-Ray's better but HD Television is fantastic on it's own. And it's WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY cheaper...so not a tough choice.




VGfive.com - Game Trading site (Steam codes too!) Kickstarter "Game Developer"!

113.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 26, 2009, 10:50

Dades

I think my point was pretty obvious if you took 30 seconds and actually read the post. The choice between Windows operating systems right now is pretty easy - use what you like and feel comfortable with from a feature and price perspective. The gaming performance gap between the three is pretty insignificant now that Vista drivers are optimized and Windows 7 uses Vista drivers natively. I can't really say it any clearer than that so if you need further help I can try to get a coloring book and some crayons for you while the adults chat.

112.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 26, 2009, 10:36

[VG]Reagle

Dades whats your point ? That OS choice doesn't really mean anything to us gamers ? Bull.




[VG]Reagle Beagle

111.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 26, 2009, 09:45

Dades

The performance gap between XP, Vista and Windows 7 is so narrow in games these days that the comparisons are pointless anyways, why even argue about it? Crysis isn't really new or even relevant anymore. Also using percentages instead of actual benchmark details is a bit of a misnomer. 34% could mean 8 fps for all we know. Either way, the performance delta is so narrow that it's largely meaningless. People should use whatever OS they are most comfortable with first and foremost. Windows 7 is miles ahead of both in usability but that's just my opinion from the beta so far.

110.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 25, 2009, 18:50

Vista is ahead for newer games that properly utilize it. Wow, talk about narrowing the field. You might as well have said "Vista is ahead for those few games that Vista happens to be ahead for". I mean, I can point to new games like CoD:World at War, where XP is ahead in 3 out of 4 of the tests, but you'll just goal-post move, and claim that Vista wasn't "properly utilized", I'm sure. where XP is ahead, XP's lead is far less substantial than Vista's lead whenever Vista ones. You're right, it's only 24% ahead for Crysis at 1680x1050, and 33% ahead at 1920x1080, that's barely anything! And, of course, the 40% it's ahead for Company of Heroes at 1680x1050 and 39% it's ahead at 1920x1080 is inconsequential too. And your example of Vista being widely ahead? The only one even close is World in Conflict with a 25% lead at 1680x1050, which quickly drops to 8% at 1920x1080. But hey, don't let those pesky "facts" get in the way of your misinformation. Vista doesn't "suck for games", and even when benchmarks show XP eeking it out by a couple FPS, it doesn't validate that false claim. With a little reading comprehension on your part, you'd note that I already pointed out that it doesn't outright "suck". But, in general, it's inferior to XP, which would certainly put the lie to any claims that Vista, at least, is "great for games". The jury is still out on Win7.

109.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 25, 2009, 18:43

I am not now nor was I ever saying that Vista's game performance is a reason to purchase the OS. I was only responding to the idiotic claim that Vista's game performance sucks. Similarly, Microsoft here is explicitely saying that Windows 7 is "Great for Games". Do they say that's a primary reason to upgrade? Do they necessarily say it will be better than Vista or XP? Do they give specific reasons why? No. Because they weren't trying to say that here. They were simply saying that it will be great for games, just as XP and Vista are currently great for games. Seems to me like they're telling those who are interested in upgrading for other reasons that they shouldn't avoid Windows 7 due to a possibility of a poor gaming experience. Not that they should upgrade to Windows 7 because of what Windows 7 brings to the game experience. Now, as for Vista being worth the money or not, I've been a user of Vista for the last year and a half and think it was well worth the upgrade. Just like most OS upgrades, for me it's all the little things whose sum is greater than the parts. Whether it's quick searching, GPU-powered UI meaning no freezing windows, visual tweaks, Explorer modifications, more stable driver handling, vastly better OS install and first-run experience, or hundreds of other things like it. After using Vista for so long, it's now a chore for me whenever I have to go back to using XP for all those reasons. The lack of all the little things affects it in a big way, just as it does in the opposite direction. Is it worth it for you? That's for you to decide. I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's opinion here. This comment was edited on Feb 25, 2009, 18:44.

108.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 25, 2009, 17:29

Vista doesn't "suck for games", and even when benchmarks show XP eeking it out by a couple FPS, it doesn't validate that false claim

But it costs money. It costs $100 at least and gives you almost nothing... And everyone has XP already so when a new game comes out it would be ridiculous to think that people would say, "I want a copy of Vista so this game will really shine!" It's expensive, and you get almost the same things XP gives you for free... (I'm assuming everyone has a copy of XP already so this would not be a cost incurred)

It feels like someone trying to sell me the Game of the Year edition of a game I already own. Call of Duty 4 Game of the Year is the newest version! You need this! But I already have call of duty 4...No you need this NEW one! But it's the same game I already have with a new box! Well look at this call of duty world at war!!!! (aka 5) You need this! Look how much better it is! It looks kind of like the game I already play but different graphics/weapons...

For a price like $50 or so I'd upgrade. That is about I'll i'm willing to spend on a new OS. And it's very possible i'll just shelf it and go back to XP if it gives me too many issues. (Kind of like PC games, I know when I buy them there is the distinct possibility that they will be piles of shit that will simply be tossed aside and forgotten)




VGfive.com - Game Trading site (Steam codes too!) Kickstarter "Game Developer"!

107.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 25, 2009, 16:41

Vista is ahead for newer games that properly utilize it. And for old games, where XP is ahead, XP's lead is far less substantial than Vista's lead whenever Vista ones. Besides, I never said "Vista is better than XP for games", I was responding to the false blanket claim that "Vista sucks for games". Vista doesn't "suck for games", and even when benchmarks show XP eeking it out by a couple FPS, it doesn't validate that false claim.

106.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 25, 2009, 15:12

You mean like how Vista sucks for games? http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming_performance/page12.asp If you actually look through all of the games, instead of cherry picking the one where Vista is actually a few points ahead, you'll note a trend - XP is ahead of Vista more often than Vista is ahead of XP. Now that doesn't mean that Vista "sucks" for games, but it's certainly not a glowing recommendation for Vista as a gaming platform.

105.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 25, 2009, 14:20

You mean like how Vista sucks for games?

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming_performance/page12.asp

It sounds like you're harassing him as if vista is clearly better...

Yet all those charts show vista with a WHOPPING 2-4% increase over XP

2-4%...why even fucking bother going to Vista for 2-4% increase?! Windows 7 seemed to be inconsistent, it did have better performance at 1680x1050 but at 1920x1080 it was below both xp and vista...weird. Windows 7 on a high end machine was almost a 20% increase, the xp and vista machines were running at over 100 fps already...so not a big incentive there... But the low end machine jumped by 8% from XP...still not a huge reason to go upgrade, but at least that is something...




VGfive.com - Game Trading site (Steam codes too!) Kickstarter "Game Developer"!

104.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 25, 2009, 12:07

Ya right Vista 2 will suck dick for games. You mean like how Vista sucks for games? http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming_performance/page12.asp

103.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 25, 2009, 01:44

Bluesfanboi

And another thing....I assume W7 won't have hardware audio support..for the X-fi and other products.

102.

Re: Win7

Feb 24, 2009, 22:48

Creston

Does your Soundblaster have a gameport? If so, that's probably what it is. It's not supported in Vista (although there is a workaround for the 32-bit versions of Vista), and it probably isn't in Win7 either. Hmmm, I'm not sure, I'll have to check that out. Thanks Ecthelion. Creston

101.

Re: Win7 & Games

Feb 24, 2009, 21:34

[VG]Reagle

"Windows 7 will be great for games, undoubtedly,"

Ya right Vista 2 will suck dick for games.




[VG]Reagle Beagle

100.

Re: Win7 "Great for Games"

Feb 24, 2009, 18:06

I tried Win 7, that beta they offered, I think it's still going? But I can't seem to find any good reasons to spend money on it. I can play my games, surf the web, load any software I want, all on XP.

Win 7 isn't bad, but it's worth about $50 to me because I already have something that works great. If they offered an upgrade edition for $50 or so dollars I'd probably drop a few bucks and pick it up.

Downloading drivers for Win 7 was worlds easier than XP. That is one thing I'm happy to see, installing it on 2 different systems was a breeze because it went out and pulled all the drivers it needed.

I think it had DVD authoring tools built into it as well? It would be nice to be using that OS but all the upgrades are barely more than minor conveniences.

I also tryed playing the Dawn of War 2 beta on Win 7 and XP and was shocked to find the program ran better on XP 32 bit than it did on Win 7 64 bit. (for me) Maybe this will improve in time but that basically sunk the idea of getting into win 7 for me.




VGfive.com - Game Trading site (Steam codes too!) Kickstarter "Game Developer"!

99.

Re: Win7

Feb 24, 2009, 17:40

I just did a quick buildup of two boxes at HP and Dell, as any uninformed consumer would, and both companies are "recommending" 4GB of RAM Sure. And 4GB with Vista is no more useful than 3GB in XP. You have to get >4GB to really see an advantage. And very few systems are selling with >4GB. However, don't say it's "good enough" when it clearly isn't and the market is quickly leaving it in the dust by offering machines with components that surpass what XP can utilize. Ok, when that happens to be the case, then I won't say it. However, it's not the case now, so, yes, "good enough" still qualifies.

98.

Re: Win7

Feb 24, 2009, 17:30

Burrito of Peace

...unless you have a valid requirement for 64bit. Like wanting to be able to address more than 3GB of memory? I did a walk through on the systems offered for sale at Wal-Mart the other day, because I use that to judge what a new "basic" computer is. Not a one of them had less than 2GB of memory. One model had a dual core proc and 2GB for $299. Let's say Joe Wal-Mart customer gets uppity and decides to drop a 512MB video card in and more memory one day because his fishing buddy told him during a commercial in the NASCAR race that doing so would make his "puter go faster"? You see no compelling reason to move beyond an 8 year old operating system that does not meet the needs of modern computing? I just did a quick buildup of two boxes at HP and Dell, as any uninformed consumer would, and both companies are "recommending" 4GB of RAM in the way of a "Free upgrade" and Windows Vista Home Premium 64 bit. I guess if you want to stick with an OS that can not actively use a new machine's full capabilities that is certainly your choice. However, don't say it's "good enough" when it clearly isn't and the market is quickly leaving it in the dust by offering machines with components that surpass what XP can utilize.

97.

Re: Win7

Feb 24, 2009, 16:53

Yet people continue to compare Vista at launch with XP today, and that is where he is pointing out the hypocrisy. No, I think you've missed the point. People compare Vista at launch with XP at Vista launch. Which is a completely valid comparison, because those were the options at that particular time. 8 years back, you'd be comparing XP at launch to Win98 at that time (or ME, if you wanted to be less generous - Win2k, while a good OS, wasn't aimed at the home market). And yes, it would have been totally fair to slag XP at the time for having significant issues compared to Win98. If you're going to say that Vista sucks because it had a not-so-great launch, then you should use the same logic with XP. Sure you should - but where are the people saying Vista sucks only because it had a bad launch? People are either saying Vista sucked (ie, past tense) because it had a bad launch, or it sucks for reasons that are still valid. Personally I think "sucks" is too strong, but it's certainly an inferior OS to XP in my opinion - unless you have a valid requirement for 64bit. Otherwise, the new "features" don't make up for the negatives that MS introduced.

96.

Re: Win7

Feb 24, 2009, 16:13