1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Is there truly any reason to upgrade from Vista Ultimate 64 to Windows 7 64 bit?

Discussion in 'General Software' started by trt740, Feb 9, 2011.

  1. Red_Machine

    Red_Machine

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,763 (1.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    389
    Location:
    Marlow, ENGLAND
    I'm thinking what must be happening is stuff is getting jostled around a bit in RAM and virtual memory. Windows moves what it doesn't need right this second into virtual memory and runs the game in RAM. I think you will notice a significant performance boost upgrading to Vista or 7.
     
    trt740 says thanks.
  2. NdMk2o1o

    NdMk2o1o

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,449 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    922
    Location:
    Redditch, Worcestershire, England
    You run Crysis and Metro2033 high at 1920x1080 with 2gb ram and a 4850? I think not, unless you like 15-25 fps constant
     
  3. robal

    robal

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    485 (0.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    111
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Used both a lot.
    I must say that Win7 is noticeably faster a has lighter interface.
    If money is non-issue here, I'd go Win7.

    Switching from Vista to 7 is a small 'upgrade'.
    But hey.. it's the OS you use all the time. I think it's important to have the better one.

    The jump is nowhere comparable to (positive) drama of switching from XP.

    Cheers,
     
  4. KyleReese New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    48 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    My point is, I had win 7 installed on my machine and I didn't notice any "performance increase" of any kind...they say that memory usage and optimization is handled better in Seven but I didn't see any difference...nor did I see any difference in my CPU in 64-bit mode...maybe it's because most of my games are DX9...maybe with "pure" DX11 games it's a different story...
    Yes, I do run many games including the two I mentioned on high, and the FPS are satisfactory for gameplay (for me. :)) I didn't say on highest settings, I said high. And if that's not enough for some games I lower the AA level or turn it off and maybe I 'll decrease the shadows a bit (they look ugly and artificial in some games anyway :)) All other settings are at max. In Crysis I get 25-28 in average with those settings, never below 20, except in the final boss sequence. For me, 28FPS in Crysis is okay. Oddly enough, the game I really get low frames isn't Crysis or even Metro 2033 (!), it's Lost Planet ! :rolleyes: The frames in that game sometimes drop in the late teens...:p
     
  5. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,938 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,531
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Oh yes, it is indeedy. :D

    7 is noticeably faster and inherently uses much less memory, because they've tweaked DirectX. The more windows open, the more the difference.

    There's hundreds of other refinements too and it's inherently better supported because it's the current OS.

    EDIT: There's one area in which I prefer Vista though: the interface looks better. It was engineered to look really good and have that wow factor and it still does. 7 is much more pastal and the icons have been redesigned to look flat, which doesn't look as good.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
    trt740 says thanks.
  6. KyleReese New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    48 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    I absolutely agree with that, in the PC world whatever is newer is almost always better supported...plus it's much less of a memory resource hog than Vista...I have Win 7 installed on a laptop with a Celeron M at 1,6GHz and 1GB of Ram and it runs great!
     
  7. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,938 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,531
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Exactly. Vista continued the forced upgrade of your hardware to run the latest OS. A cozy relationship that Microsoft and Intel have had for years.

    Then the sheep finally voted with their wallets and Microsoft were forced into submission, releasing Windows 7, which ran on the existing hardware just fine and thus proved the lie.
     
  8. KyleReese New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    48 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    OK this is like a fantasy of mine: :D an OS specifically made for gamers only, that was also...freeware! :) or at least very cheap...a little more expensive than a PC retail game for example! Stripped of whatever isn't needed for a PC game to run, and taking full advantage of today's tech... multi-core, multi threading , 64-bit, GPU tesseletion etc....the difference with win7 being that it would get SO popular because it would be absolutely bug-free light and cheap or even free (and wouldn't need service packs etc).... EVERYONE who wants to play games on PC would switch to that OS, so games developers would design games EXCLUSIVELY for that OS , and not for 3 different versions of Windows....and if Microsoft got to do it, it could be called something like...hmm... "Microsoft GameHouse" or something...hey, I know it's a ridiculous name...but is "facebook" any better? and look how that turned out...:laugh:
     
  9. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,915 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,435
    I had Vista on a similiar speced computer and it ran great!
     
  10. KyleReese New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    48 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Yeah? You're lucky! I tried Vista on an Athlon64 3700+ with 2GB of ram and it ran terribly...don't remember if it was with the service pack or not though...
     
    trt740 says thanks.
  11. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,915 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,435
    With a clean setup it would run really smooth on that system. Do clean installs of 7 and Vista and I doubt there is a whole lot difference between them.

    Hmm.. Maybe I should try this someday?
     
    trt740 says thanks.
  12. KyleReese New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    48 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Well, I did do a clean setup...I formatted the HDD from the Vista bootup install setup...the first few weeks the system was fine but I remember that after a while, things like bootup etc look longer and longer than usual....it wasn't a virus, I 'd checked...and I didn't do a lot with that PC..just mild internet use...the same thing hasn't happened with the laptop I have Win 7 on...It's been going great for more than a year straight!
     
  13. erixx

    erixx

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,491 (2.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    500
    If there were no security threads and broadband 24h internet, W98SE would be the best :)

    If if if
     
    trt740 says thanks.
  14. fullinfusion

    fullinfusion 1.21 Gigawatts

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    8,473 (3.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,211
    W7 is nice but Vista gives less headache's with certian programs. Maybe W7 SP1 will fix alot of problems. Id rather be using Vista but using a SSD isn't an option atm :shadedshu
     
    trt740 says thanks.
  15. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,938 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,531
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    I'm really curious to know which programs these are?
     
    trt740 says thanks.
  16. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,453 (1.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    598
    Location:
    AZ
    w7 sounds cooler than win vista. otherwise no.
     
    trt740 says thanks.
  17. THRiLL KiLL

    THRiLL KiLL

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    711 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Location:
    Seattle
    on older hardware you will see a big difference if you upgrade to win 7, on newer hardware then it would all be personal preference.

    Most of the gui features from windows7 can be put on vista/xp via 3rd party apps
     
    trt740 says thanks.
  18. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    IMO, the difference are at best subtle but enough to make a meaningful difference when all the differences are looked as a whole. Below is a partial list:

    Win7 uses WDDM 1.1 while Vista uses WDDM 1.0. WDDM 1.1 offers the return of 2D GUI hardware acceleration and Direct2D/DirectWrite.
    Multi-touch in Win 7: For monitors that support this feature
    Aero Peek: Which allows you to obtain a peak at pinned tasks before you fully open them
    Areo Shake: You can shake your current window and cause all other windows to minimize on the task bar.
    Improved Taskbar: All icons are stored in a folder like list instead of all on the toolbar and allows you to pin programs/folders to it
    Comes with Media Center: located on the taskbar of the desktop
    Improved UAC: You can (to some degree) turn UAC off
    Improved windows recovery environment
    Better integration of peripherals (at time of release)
    Action Center: Houses all issues that can be addressed in one section
    Improved boot performance
     
    trt740 says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page