PC gamers shun Vista, sticking with XP

Sat May 10, 2008 12:46PM EDT

See Comments (64)

One of Windows Vista's biggest selling points was that it was the only way you could get DirectX 10, the software component that would be required to play the very latest video games in their full glory. Sure, you could still play games in DirectX 9, but the differences with DirectX 10, Microsoft promised, would be striking. (Check out this video showing the same scene under both systems and you'll see what Microsoft was talking about. You can find loads of similar comparisons online.)

Games like Crysis benefit clearly from the DX 10 upgrade, but that benefit hasn't been enough to push gamers into upgrading to Vista. Historically, those are the very first computer users, living on the bleeding edge, to upgrade to new hardware and operating systems. The statistics from Valve, whose Steam system lets gamers download titles from the web and which collects system information in return, shows that Vista still has less than a 15 percent market share among these users (17.5 percent if you include 64-bit Vista).

That's roughly in line with the total consumer market (14.57%), but it's a real surprise considering the advantages Vista's DirectX 10 offers gamers. There's no way to run DirectX 10 on XP, so the only way to get the very best PC gaming experience is to run Vista. They should theoretically be lining up to buy Vista in droves.

As well, if any computers are powerful enough to run Vista, it's gamers' rigs. Stocked with the latest CPUs, tons of RAM, and the latest video cards, few gamers would encounter the upgrade headaches that have frustrated the rest of the market due to not having the power to handle it.

Of course, that hasn't happened. The figures imply that gamers may simply feel the advantages of a modest graphics upgrade just don't outweigh the other headaches of Vista.

Will gamers eventually come to love Vista? Maybe it will take a truly killer game to finally get folks to upgrade. Of course, everyone thought that Crysis was going to be that title, so we'll have to wait and see.

POLL: What do you think? 

Comments on PC gamers shun Vista, sticking with XP

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse

    alexgannis- I couldnt agree with you more- another person who claims to have spent time doing "network administration" work- and probably doesnt know much more beyond simple cabling and how to configure an IP address.

  • 7 Posted by rogueist on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    You need to spend over $5k in order to get a good Vista game computer. in the meantime, you can put together a great XP game computer for under $400. Over a 10x difference in price for a performance mark LESS than what the XP machine will give you. I have switched over to a MAC now. The only game I really care about is WoW and I can play that on my MAC fine.

  • 8 Posted by alan_r_cam on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    It's not just games... I have an XP Media Centre PC. I don't use it to surf the net, or answer emails, or run Office, or even play Solitaire. It Just... Plays... Media. TV, with the occasional MP3. As such, even XP Media centre is overkill. Why would I want to replace that with an OS with even MORE unnecessary overhead? No perceivable gain, much documented pain.

  • 9 Posted by xlt3zz on Sun May 11, 2008 10:03AM EDT Report Abuse

    All of you who have commented talk about how you've gotten Vista to work fine and what kind of "easy" configuration you need for Vista gaming to work. The fact that as a consumer you NEED to worry about what computer configuration will allow you to successfully use Vista for gaming is the PROBLEM! I've taken the easy and intelligent route ------ I've switched to Mac. I don't need to worry about whether my computer configuration will work with the next OS upgrade ----- It JUST DOES! Of course I don't game. Most popular games have Mac versions but I know there's many that still don't. Other than that Macs are perfect for nearly any consumer. However, If I did game I'd purchase a dedicated console system. To alexgannis: *Christopher Null is seen using a Mac because he wants to use the most reliable operating system. Trust me.....NOBODY needs to down-talk Vista. It's proven itself unreliable, problematic, and an all-around hassle. The many PC users switching back to XP speaks for itself. The lucky people now using XP get to experience continuous reboots due to the new Service Pack 3. Either way, Microsoft's customers are running into many problems. It's an amazement to me why people use the same operating system time after time again even though it's constantly plagued by problems. If it's any other product such as a cell phone or car, people usually learn to make the switch to a different brand. But when it comes to computers, people think that their only option is to keep using Windows.

  • 10 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse

    MACs are designed for consumers- Consumers with big egos, burning wallets, and elitists of today's generation. What is the point of an operating system xlt3zz? TO RUN SOFTWARE. So what software do you run? Safari? Do you blog? Do you watch Youtube? How bout Linux? Doesnt cost anything and does the same thing. Not three thousand dollars. By the way Vista does not require any configuring to run games. It just does. The only reason these people are having problems- is because they always are working with bleeding edge technology. Something MAC users dont even have a chance to do since they cant upgrade their PCs due to the MAC hardware monopoly. YOU UPGRADE WHEN WE TELL YOU TO UPGRADE. So keeping talking- keep blogging, and playing with your MAC.

  • 11 Posted by alexgannis on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:50PM EDT Report Abuse

    Don't you love it when these mac user think they know what there talking about nothing but blahh blahh blahhh come out the truth is window 100 time better safer easyer to use.

  • 12 Posted by maori_yelir on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:05PM EDT Report Abuse

    To number 2, if you spent 30 minutes to learn the darn operating system you can turn off the UAC and most of the unneeded cosmetics and you will find that overall it actually is a much better operating system. The only thing that they did wrong was assume that everyone was clueless with computers or that everyone was paranoid of viruses/spyware so it treats you like a moron. But, prove you are not and learn to shut off the bloat and it actually is a very nice user interface and offers some nice new features. I have it on both my new desktop and new laptop and I have to say I am very happy with both machines. Going back to XP is like a huge step back for me now. Going into getting Vista I knew what I had to turn off and I knew what I was getting. Won't go back.

  • 13 Posted by maori_yelir on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:05PM EDT Report Abuse

    And also to number 7, I spent 1,600 on a new desktop for gaming and it runs just fine. You don't have to buy Voodoo to get a good PC, contrary to popular belief. Go beyond brand and design your own.

  • 15 Posted by dcsoccer25 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:39PM EDT Report Abuse

    I'm a pretty big gamer, and I haven't switched to Vista yet. Now, with that said, I'm planning on setting up my system in a dual-boot configuration so I can get DX10 goodies on certain games, but without the hassle because if I run into any trouble, I can always just boot to XP.

  • 16 Posted by cnull on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:27PM EDT Report Abuse

    alexgannis - That's a Gateway in my lap, but nice try. Sorry to break it to you, but I'm pretty much a PC guy.

  • 17 Posted by jd_1876 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:31PM EDT Report Abuse

    I don't mean to be rude, but... I am using a Mac right now and I couldn't be happier about the switch from XP. No need to wait three minutes for the computer to boot up, another three minutes that it takes the antivirus to let me use it, plus the other three minutes that it takes each app to load up... and the only Mac that will cost you three thousand dollars is the MacBook Air with the SSD, which is not really worth the money.

  • 18 Posted by alexgannis on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:50PM EDT Report Abuse

    Christopher null okay sorry about the bad comment I got a little carry away I don't think you hate window vista that if not at all.

  • 19 Posted by hokusai_eddy on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:19PM EDT Report Abuse

    "There's no way to run DirectX 10 on XP, so the only way to get the very best PC gaming experience is to run Vista. They should theoretically be lining up to buy Vista in droves." False. As your own example of crysis proved, many features were simply restricted in code for dx9 users. there's an easy hack to enable all dx10 features in winXP and it runs great. it was just a ploy by microsoft to force adoption of vista. they could easily release DX10 for XP but they'll never do it.

  • 20 Posted by gregor_eisenhorn2003 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:13PM EDT Report Abuse

    In my experiance vista doeisnt do me much good cause not becasue of the Childproof lid they put called the UAC it's more that No new games or apps for vista make me jump for joy. Also I I recently gutted my laptop and two others and made one that runs with a dual core 2.1 gig proc, 2 gigs of RAM and a 128 MB video card. I don;t claimn it is a gaming super machien but itp lays my games I like decently and XP Pro works fien ofr now. Also with word on Widnows 7 I seriously intend to wait and see if visita doeisnt go the way of XP 64.

  • 21 Posted by jt_fox411 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    The real problem is a not a "Direct X 9 vs Direct X 10" debate. True, Direct X 10 looks better, but Vista hogs resources to the point where a great XP gaming machine is only a mediocure Vista gaming machine. paul_soares' comment about how "But with Vista you'll want 4GB of RAM so don't skimp." really brings this home. If you want to match the performance of a game in XP under Vista, then you'll have to upgrade several components in your computer to make it worth while. Of course, running XP on this upgraded system would be better than Vista on the newly upgraded system, etc. The problem with Vista in my eyes is that it gives you few features worth upgrading for, and requires more system resources. Speaking as a person who uses Windows XP, Windows Vista, Ubuntu, and Mac OS X on a regular bases, I can safely say that Windows screwed up on this part. When I upgraded from Mac OS 10.4 to 10.5 (Tiger to Leopard) on a 6 year old PowerMac G4, the machine actually received a performance increase. The same thing happened with my 4 year old tablet PC going from Ubuntu 7.10 to 8.04. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a nice functioning install of XP on an 6 year old machine which would run Vista fine, or at all for that matter. Windows Vista simply needs a "Gaming Mode", in which it turns all the useless features off that aren't needed when in game.

  • 22 Posted by rodneygo on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:48PM EDT Report Abuse

    I have had 2 big gripes against vista concerning gaming, and they are still unresolved, even with sp1. 1. Wireless gaming. I get huge lag spikes during wireless gaming. Forums indicate that this is caused by windows wireless looking for access points every minute or so. This "feature" could be turned off in xp but for some reason they don't give you that option in vista. It makes online gaming really frustrating and unplayable. 2. Sound, for older games. Something about directsound and the code being moved from low level code in xp to a higher level in vista, but when you try to play certain games that use directsound, in my case metal gear solid 2 for pc, I get popup errors and the sound is really crappy. The only solution I have found so far is to buy a creative soundcard and use alchemy, but why should I have to do that? Otherwise I don't have any problems with resource management, etc and things run just fine.

  • 23 Posted by yertthedestroyer on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:56PM EDT Report Abuse

    @paulecornett: The thing is you don't even have to nuke UAC; you can just set up certain programs to avoid it. 4GB is not neccisary, just a decent system; less then $400 can bring you your own Vista box that runs fine, no slowdowns. All the Vista "headaches" are mainly Grade AAA FUD straight from the "MS-Bashing makes me look cool" crowd. The rest, the few who have had issues? Its mainly driver issues and some programs being poorly written and not working as a result.

  • 24 Posted by bobhadababyitsaboy321 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:10PM EDT Report Abuse

    I'm a gamer on 64bit Vista, have no problems with it. Running with an overclocked quad core (3.2GHz) and 8 gigs of memory though, so it's not like Vista could even dent my system's performance. Memory is CHEAP now, so just get 8 gigs. There really is no headaches. heck the darn thing finds drivers for you if you just tell it to then turn it back off. People not using it are simply afraid to change, "if it's not broken don't fix it".

  • 25 Posted by neo_420_83 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:35PM EDT Report Abuse

    Disable UAC. Educate your self about how to use compatibility mode for installations. Invest in a 200x 4Gb High Performance flash drive, enable ready boost. Quit whining about Vista.

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.