Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: windows vista system hog
  • Subject: windows vista system hog
Subject: windows vista system hog
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

After reading a couple of reviews and speaking to some people that have vista, they've all pretty much said that the system performance on vista decreases by around 20% compared to XP. Although it wont affect high end pc's as much; more of the low/med ranged pcs looks like they will be affected by performance loss. I guess its just speculation but what u all think?

  • 01.04.2007 7:22 PM PDT

* Pr: ĭnʹtərnĕts: "I hear there's rumors on the uh (pause), Internets...

You need a decent PC to run Vista at full anyway...

  • 01.04.2007 8:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

For those of us who can remember far enough back, that's exactly what people complained about back when XP was first released. All standard fare so far.

  • 01.04.2007 8:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Vista runs faster on my comp.

  • 01.04.2007 8:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

If you turn off all the graphical goodies like Aero and whatnot, then it will run fine.

  • 01.04.2007 10:58 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Download Halo Custom Edition for user created maps!
Link
http://hce.halomaps.org/index.cfm?pg=3&fid=410
The few, the proud, the leet.

what the hell are you talking about. As long as you meet recommended requirements, you get better preformance. RC2/RTM/Enterprise is standing proof of this.

  • 01.04.2007 11:32 PM PDT

Halo Custom Edition: p0lar_bear™
Favorite Server: Diesel PL 3rd Server - NY

My Maps:
BioHalo v1.1a Singleplayer Map for CE

BUNGIE HAS CUT CUSTOM SINGLE-PLAYER SUPPORT FROM HALO 2 VISTA. COPY, PASTE, AND BOLDFACE THIS INTO YOUR SIGNATURE IF YOU ARE AGAINST THIS CUT.

XP runs like crap on my 1.2GHz 256MB laptop if I turn on all of the graphical enhancements. Those specs were the norm for most PCs back when XP was released.

  • 01.04.2007 11:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The norm? HA! You are WRONG.

When XP was released, processors technology had just broken the 1 Ghz mark. They were not the norm. Back then the norm was 733 Mhz and up.

  • 01.05.2007 10:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

uh, no. I have a 1.2 ghz processor from the time of 98.

  • 01.05.2007 11:21 AM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

No you don't the first commercial 1+ GHz chips were released in 2000.

  • 01.05.2007 11:47 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

About the time XP was released. Which still means that 1 Ghz processors were not the norm, since they were rather expensive at the time.

  • 01.05.2007 12:03 PM PDT

Posted by: X Rampancy X
JESUS CHRIST I'M COVERED IN BEES
Theme song tiem.
Pezz = win.
Lazer kitty says: PEW PEW PEW!

Off topic, but my dad has an old dual processor board with an AMD and Intel processor on it, both processors run at 100mhz alone, but together they are a 1.0GHz equivalent. Go figure that one out.

Vista should run fine on dual core computers. The second core is really for the OS, anyway.

  • 01.05.2007 1:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I think you been smokin too much grass muchacho.

  • 01.05.2007 1:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

¿Fumo marihuana? ¡No tanto como usted tiene, puto!

  • 01.05.2007 1:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

You can't say I don't because I'm looking at it right now.

  • 01.05.2007 2:04 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

You must get your hardware at the same place as the guy who has the geforce 65000

  • 01.05.2007 2:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Good thing I just ordered an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core 5200+ 2.6GHz + 2GB DDR2 @ 800MHz + GeForce 8800GTS 640MB machine :P

/brag!

  • 01.05.2007 3:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: staticx576
You must get your hardware at the same place as the guy who has the geforce 65000


QFT!

  • 01.05.2007 3:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I didn't buy it. I don't know where we got it.

  • 01.05.2007 4:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Chewy Gumball
I didn't buy it. I don't know where we got it.


Your imagination? Sorry but you just left yourself open.

[Edited on 1/5/2007]

  • 01.05.2007 5:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Heyyo,

Posted by: RapieR_iPro
After reading a couple of reviews and speaking to some people that have vista, they've all pretty much said that the system performance on vista decreases by around 20% compared to XP. Although it wont affect high end pc's as much; more of the low/med ranged pcs looks like they will be affected by performance loss. I guess its just speculation but what u all think?

Vista doesn't run like crap dude.. it runs fine. Takes a little longer to boot than winxp is all really.

Posted by: TUI_Obi_Wan
If you turn off all the graphical goodies like Aero and whatnot, then it will run fine.

Aero doesn't even hog that many resources dude.

here's a benchmark with my system in Halo1PC in Vista x64
Date / Time: 22/11/2006 11:39:43 PM (636093ms)
1900MHz, 2032MB, 256M ATI Unknown (DeviceID=0x724b) Driver=7.14.10.449 Shader=3.0
F:\Games\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo (Version=1.0.7.614)
Frames=4700
Total Time=54.60s
Average frame rate=86.07fps
Below 5fps= 27% (time) 0% (frames) (14.899s spent in 10 frames)
Below 10fps= 27% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 29% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 29% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 25fps= 29% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 30fps= 29% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 40fps= 30% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 50fps= 31% (time) 1% (frames)
Below 60fps= 34% (time) 3% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= High
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= Medium
###Video Options###
Resolution= 1024 x 768
Refresh rate= 75 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High


... now same settings, Halo1PC in winxp home 32bit

Date / Time: 22/11/2006 11:58:54 PM (437640ms)
1900MHz, 2032MB, 512M ATI Unknown (DeviceID=0x724b) Driver=6.14.10.6648 Shader=3.0
D:\Games\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo (Version=1.0.7.613)
Frames=4700
Total Time=50.47s
Average frame rate=93.12fps
Below 5fps= 35% (time) 0% (frames) (17.967s spent in 8 frames)
Below 10fps= 36% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 36% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 36% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 25fps= 37% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 30fps= 37% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 40fps= 38% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 50fps= 38% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 60fps= 40% (time) 1% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= Yes
Sound Quality= High
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= Medium
###Video Options###
Resolution= 1024 x 768
Refresh rate= 75 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High


As you can see... 93.12fps - 86.07fps = 7.05fps difference. That's not even noticeable. Halo1PC isin't even x64 optimized or even dual core optimized. Any game that is x64 optimized and dual core optimized will run easily better in WinV than winxp 32bit dual core optimized (as long as optimized properly that is).

I also have WinV Ultimate, which means I have the auto-gaming-priority thing WinV Ultimate does, where it automatically sets priority levels of games higher than other programs like winv gui, thus an even smaller framerate drop.. so I probably get an extra 8F/S higher than non-ultimate users... oh pwned.... toaly.... yeah, not really, lmao. =P

But yes, if you don't have reccomended specs and just meet required specs then just turn off the enhanced gui effects and definately disable aero if you're using WinV Ultimate if you wanna gain those extra few F/S in games. Tbh, not massively noticeable framerate differences between WinXP and WinV caused by the gui's.

  • 01.06.2007 9:24 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I used to dual boot xp and vista.
Had halo installed in both :P
The operating system itself with vista, ran slower than xp. Halo had about a 5-10 fps drop too.
My pc is a average pc, probably one of the first to get the Windows Vista capable sticker on it.

  • 01.06.2007 7:26 PM PDT

What it is.

Posted by: Chewy Gumball
Vista runs faster on my comp.


same, but only slightly...but that's still good. Also, to The_Mard, on your Vista setup i noticed you didnt have Hardware Acceleration on for sound but in the XP one you did...not like it matters too much, but it couldve made a slight difference.

[Edited on 1/6/2007]

  • 01.06.2007 10:31 PM PDT