Computer Upgrade and Backup Question

[djt]

XP-64 support is fine and dandy

It is, take a look here -


http://www.simforums.com/forums/nvidia-26063-drivers-and-gtx-480-xp-64bit-fsx_topic36533.html


http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?219416-gtx460-FSX-XP-has-anyone-gotton-this-to-work



How about the new ATI 10.9a hotfix drivers just like the hotfix drivers before it see any mention of XP 32-bit or 64-bit support?


http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/ATICatalyst109Hotfix.aspx



Better yet how about asking about XP driver support in the future for new hardware in a real hardware forum, while your at it ask if it's a good idea to spend money on XP or Windows 7 for a new build -


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/index.php




http://forums.anandtech.com/




http://hardforum.com/

 

[RRSignal]

You do? Not in my experience with 5 different machines some with not so hot specs. As a matter of fact I just installed Windows 7 (32-bit) on a relatives machine that only has 2GB of system RAM, a Pentium 4 (3.4GHz) and a ATI X800XTX video card. Amazing enough the thing runs just as good under Windows 7 as it did under XP/SP3 Pro.

The minimum requirements for Win7 is 1Gb for 32-bit and 2Gb for 64. And computers don't do very well as minimum spec for memory, but, rather, several times that. Historically, you need 4-8x the minimum memory on Windows systems to get decent performance with memory-intensive applications.

Support from who? Microsoft will continue to support it but don't expect AMD/ATI or Nvidia to spend much time on developing drivers for it.

Maybe, maybe not. Seeing as they're fiercely competitive, it would be idiotic to self-exclude themselves from a large marketplace. XP still controls the majority of the OS market as of August 2010 and it will for many years to come. And, if ATI won't make drivers for XP, they've just handed their competitor a gigantic market.

(Side note: Wikipedia has a listing of various sources stating XP makes up from 46.3% to 60.9% of the OS market as of August.)

When it comes to driver refinement there is a difference and there is lot to gain. As far as the “hot hardware” goes that's how it is with gaming on the PC, you've got to pay to play. Not everyone can afford “hot hardware” but gaming isn't a necessity it's entertainment so those who only create word documents and surf the web can get by with Windows XP.

Well Trainz runs pretty well for me on XP; indeed, I find Vista and W7 better suited to email and web surfing. Maximum PC's tests generally confirm this.

 

[djt]

The minimum requirements for Win7 is 1Gb for 32-bit and 2Gb for 64.

Hence the reason why I didn't experience any performance issues with running 32-bit Windows 7 on that Pentium 4/2GB machine.

Historically, you need 4-8x the minimum memory on Windows systems to get decent performance with memory-intensive applications.

Out of the 15 or so sims/games I run on the three gaming setups I mentioned earlier with 4 and 6GB of system RAM none has ever been starved for RAM when running Windows 7, some of which are demanding DirectX 11 titles. Windows 7 manages and utilities RAM a lot better (which started with Vista) than XP ever did




Could you tell us about your experiences with running various hardware on Windows 7? Be sure to mention the hardware specs and the various sims/games you've run on your Windows 7 machines.

Maybe, maybe not. Seeing as they're fiercely competitive, it would be idiotic to self-exclude themselves from a large marketplace. XP still controls the majority of the OS market as of August 2010 and it will for many years to come. And, if ATI won't make drivers for XP, they've just handed their competitor a gigantic market.

Lol it's not a maybe, maybe not, the links I proved above prove this. Again Windows XP driver development has taken a back seat to Windows Vista/7 a long time ago.


What's the majority of the OS market running their operating systems on, certainly not gaming setups. The majority of the market are low end office machines with on-board graphics that spend their days surfing the net and running office applications, nothing in common with what's required to run PC games.


How about the fact that all the latest GPU's from AMD/ATI and Nvidia are DirectX 11 capable? You're not going to get any DirectX 10/11 benefits while running on Windows XP. Just another example of XP's issues with supporting new hardware.

Well Trainz runs pretty well for me on XP

But how would you know any better? Have you ever run Trainz on a machine with high end specs under Windows 7?

I find Vista and W7 better suited to email and web surfing.

For a game (Trainz) that uses an engine that hasn't changed much since 2001, yeah you can get by with Windows XP (depending on system specs) but I don't know too many people out there that would put money into new high end hardware just to look at something that is out dated as Trainz.

 

[RRSignal]

Hence the reason why I didn't experience any performance issues with running 32-bit Windows 7 on that Pentium 4/2GB machine.

Likewise, I've never experience performance issues on an XP machine running 512Mb or 1Gb. Up until not that long ago, my TS2010 machine was 1Gb.

Out of the 15 or so sims/games I run on the three gaming setups I mentioned earlier with 4 and 6GB of system RAM none has ever been starved for RAM when running Windows 7, some of which are demanding DirectX 11 titles. Windows 7 manages and utilities RAM a lot better (which started with Vista) than XP ever did

I can really only speak for TS2010 and FS2004, but neither were starved on my 1Gb machine and FS2004 did pretty well with my old P4 with 512Mb.

Could you tell us about your experiences with running various hardware on Windows 7? Be sure to mention the hardware specs and the various sims/games you've run on your Windows 7 machines.

I have a multi-boot setup with Vista and Win7 32-bit running on a E8400, Biostar T-945 motherboard, 4Gb. I forget what video card I have in there, probably an nVidia 7800. I've only run FS2004 on Vista and got about the same performance as I got out of my XP 1Gb machine. I never tried Trainz on either though I want to when I get some free time.

Lol it's not a maybe, maybe not, the links I proved above prove this. Again Windows XP driver development has taken a back seat to Windows Vista/7 a long time ago.

That is a concern, but the motherboard manufacturers seem to be going strong with XP. I am concerned that ATI seems to be phasing out XP support, but then again, I was always an nVidia guy anyway!

What's the majority of the OS market running their operating systems on, certainly not gaming setups. The majority of the market are low end office machines with on-board graphics that spend their days surfing the net and running office applications, nothing in common with what's required to run PC games.

True, but it's a market that manufacturers would be foolish to give up. The working world has a need for CAD terminals and graphic design workstations, etc.[/quote]

How about the fact that all the latest GPU's from AMD/ATI and Nvidia are DirectX 11 capable? You're not going to get any DirectX 10/11 benefits while running on Windows XP. Just another example of XP's issues with supporting new hardware.

I don't like Microsoft's boneheaded decision not to bring Directx 11 support to XP, because they are trying to kill off the old OS and sell you a new one. But a lot of the games out there don't benefit from Directx 10/11 anyway, so there isn't much to miss. I remember Gamespot did a comparison of Crysis on DX 10 on Vista versus DX 9 on XP and the XP machine beat Vista on performance with few if any differences in graphics and at the same graphics settings. Dunno how DX 11 would stack up in and apples-to-apples comparison, but I don't own any games that use DX 11 anyway.

Although I haven't tried it yet, I've seen a hacked DX 10 driver set for XP. Do you have any experience with it?

But how would you know any better? Have you ever run Trainz on a machine with high end specs under Windows 7?

I know from running regular applications, including web browsers, security tools and apps, stuff like that. I don't get a performance gain from W7. I don't necessarily think I get worse performance, but not better. I am up for installing TS2010 sometime when I get a little free time. However, I think a better test would be FSX.

 

[djt]

That is a concern, but the motherboard manufacturers seem to be going strong with XP. I am concerned that ATI seems to be phasing out XP support, but then again, I was always an nVidia guy anyway!

Motherboard manufactures aren't really a problem since they are only taking a chipset from say Intel or AMD and putting it on a PCB board. If Intel or AMD stopped supporting Windows XP (that isn't going to happen anytime soon) then that's a different story.


I also never said that ATI was dropping support for Windows XP. Their official Catalyst releases have all so far provided XP support it's the “hotfix” drivers in between that are the issue.

Nvidia has also showed signs of showing a lot less focus on XP with their latest drivers a trend that many say is going to continue. With the new GTX 400 series GPU situation and XP I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia isn't the first to stop new Windows XP driver development.

I don't like Microsoft's boneheaded decision not to bring Directx 11 support to XP, because they are trying to kill off the old OS and sell you a new one.

I've read that it's more than just MS trying to kill off a old OS for that decision.

I remember Gamespot did a comparison of Crysis on DX 10 on Vista versus DX 9 on XP and the XP machine beat Vista on performance with few if any differences in graphics and at the same graphics settings.

That was along time ago and things have changed a lot since then, Vista SP1/SP2 had a lot to do with it. I don't know how much faith I'd put into a “Gamespot” comparison anyway.

Dunno how DX 11 would stack up in and apples-to-apples comparison, but I don't own any games that use DX 11 anyway.

I'm running three, one FPS, Dirt 2 and the newly released F1 2010, both use the same DirectX 11 game engine and are amazing as far as graphics/performance are concerned -


http://www.racesimcentral.com/news/tag/f1-2010/




The rain effect in F1 2010 is very good.

However, I think a better test would be FSX.

I've been running FSX on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 for a while now, here are some screens with add-ons that use 4096x4096 resolution textures -