Windows Vista or XP

[Borg 0]

Well, i think this is the place to ask this question.

I am getting this new computer, it uses Intel C2D.

I've heard that XP doesn't fully support multiple cores, but does VISTA do this ?

And when i install and play this game, should i use XP or Vista ? Which one will give best performance (don't forget I'm using multiple cores, so im wondering which OS that gives the best performance for this.)

Sorry if this question have been asked before.

Happy new year.

[jackass888 0]

cant answer your question but i would like to know if arma works on vista 64bit

[bangtail 0]

Well, i think this is the place to ask this question.

I am getting this new computer, it uses Intel C2D.

I've heard that XP doesn't fully support multiple cores, but does VISTA do this ?

And when i install and play this game, should i use XP or Vista ? Which one will give best performance (don't forget I'm using multiple cores, so im wondering which OS that gives the best performance for this.)

Sorry if this question have been asked before.

Happy new year.

I'd stay away from Vista for the moment. Give it some time to get proper, solid drivers etc.

As for XP64, again, I'd stay away. If you want relatively solid driver support and stability, Vanilla XP is the best way to go for the moment.

E

PS : Oh yeah, Gratz on your new Rig Borg, hope you enjoy it mate! Happy New Year!

[Jack-UK 0]

ArmA doesnt support dual core atm...

Whether or not Vista will improve performance generally for dual core i dont know, ive heard Vista has much better memory management but if you're looking for performance specific to ArmA then theres not much point getting Vista *yet* as ArmA doesnt support dual core

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

ArmA doesnt support dual core atm...

Thanks not exactly true, Its probably better to say "ArmA isnt written to take advantage of Dual Cores"

...there is another thread somewhere about this though.

As for Vista vs XP, Vista does seem to take better advantage of Dual Cores and is written to exploit them.  Its better than XP's use of Dual Core chips anyway. This should improve performance of stuff runnning on it but you also have to remeber that Vista takes up far more system resources than XP so may well require more powerful hardware.

BUT you should consider the other (alledged) issues around Vista... Security, driver support etc

Personally i'm sticking with XP for a while longer.

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to

provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data

from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs

considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical

support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not

only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the

protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever

come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for

example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document

analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral

damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.

link

If think I 'll stick to XP as long as possible

[Messiah 2]

same here - like XP, its going to take a service pack or two before vista is as good as XP and not full of holes (comparativly)

whilst arma doesnt utilise dual core itself, am I wrong in thinking that surely XP would still utlise the dual core in the background, allowing Arma to use one core, and then the rest of the idle system and background processes uses the other core? Thats got to be of some benefit, however little.

[S.O.S 0]

I've heard that XP doesn't fully support multiple cores, but does VISTA do this ?

Whoever said that talked totaly smash and has no real knowledge or background info about this matter.

You will gain the best performance with Windows XP, nothing else to be said.

[Totmacher 0]

Every NT based OS support multiple cores but not a single one is optimized for them. But Vista will improve performance generally for dual core. And yes Arma runs on Vista64RC2. But if your looking for best gaming performance try xp.

[madmossy 0]

Stick with windows XP atleast until Feb'07 as current driver support for nvidia and ati graphics cards is very poor under windows vista. Once vista is released at the end of january we should start to see better drivers that improve performance instead of hinder it as it is currently.

[Jack-UK 0]

ArmA doesnt support dual core atm...

Thanks not exactly true, Its probably better to say "ArmA isnt written to take advantage of Dual Cores"

...there is another thread somewhere about this though.

As for Vista vs XP, Vista does seem to take better advantage of Dual Cores and is written to exploit them.  Its better than XP's use of Dual Core chips anyway. This should improve performance of stuff runnning on it but you also have to remeber that Vista takes up far more system resources than XP so may well require more powerful hardware.

BUT you should consider the other (alledged) issues around Vista... Security, driver support etc

Personally i'm sticking with XP for a while longer.

Well yeah.. but thats what i meant you can run the game with dual core, it might give you better perfomance than a single core but its not written to actually use BOTH within the game, the dual core can only assist by sharing the background services and ArmA on seperate cores (some say switching ArmA to Core 2 increases performance, others say otherwise lol)

[spongbo 0]

Under Vista, just steer clear of non-Windows Update drivers.

Running here under x64 on a 6600GT - doesn't run spectacularly well, but it's at least generally playable when using the Windows Update set. Just steer clear of the Nvidia RC2s.

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki....sta_RTM