NFS playing on Vista

Finalmaster2 · Post by **Finalmaster2** » 18 Feb 2007, 02:43

Hi all.

As some of you already know, I've won Windows Vista Ultimate with Bill Gates's siganature. Anyways, I've installed it now and I also kept my XP. This was after all a good (keeping XP I mean), because if you try to run example MW on Vista, it says, that you're missing one .dll file (you can download it from the Internet). After all, no-DVD/CD-cracks are not yet working on Vista, so you have to input your CD/DVD always on Vista. In XP we can run no-DVD/CD-cracks and keep playing without using those DVD's/CD's.

Anyways, what I ment was, that if you've gotten Vista or you're going to get it, just wait around Â½ year and then go buy it. Microsoft has mentioned, that not all programs run yet on Vista, but no problem. If you want to play MW or Carbon, do it on XP currently. Also, my printer didn't work on Vista, I have to reinstall it for XP (it's brand new, I bought it January 2007). Guess HP didn't notify Vista yet.

Anyways, keep using XP to play games. Hopefully this information wasn't carbage.

FM2

chapree · Post by **chapree** » 18 Feb 2007, 20:36

Is this mean that you have tried MW and Carbon on Vista? So, what's the result...apart from No-CD/DVD cracks not working?

Finalmaster2 · Post by **Finalmaster2** » 18 Feb 2007, 22:21

I retried and it seemed to be so, that I had wrong .exes. So MW & C do work on Vista currently without CD/DVD, but the quality really sucks. I guess this is so, because MW & C are meant to be played on DirectX9 system (XP) and Vista uses DirectX10.

Strangely, when using MW on Vista with class high on quality, MW runs really nicely. On the other hand, C with class high on quality, looks as poor as class low of quality. I still say, that this is because of DirectX10.

korge · Post by **korge** » 19 Feb 2007, 00:31

Interesting conlusion.

I still dont think all programs will become compatible in the near future. I have many sound programs that Im lucky run on Media Center. So Im not so sure about the switch just yet. Not to mention I also have several old win95 games installed.

SkeeteRX7 · Post by **SkeeteRX7** » 19 Feb 2007, 03:01

Check Wikipedia, I think they have something on it.....

lol, I added the part about the locked cars.

chapree · Post by **chapree** » 20 Feb 2007, 05:22

Finalmaster2 wrote:I retried and it seemed to be so, that I had wrong .exes. So MW & C do work on Vista currently without CD/DVD, but the quality really sucks. I guess this is so, because MW & C are meant to be played on DirectX9 system (XP) and Vista uses DirectX10.

Strangely, when using MW on Vista with class high on quality, MW runs really nicely. On the other hand, C with class high on quality, looks as poor as class low of quality. I still say, that this is because of DirectX10.

How about the speed of the game? Does it feel a little bit lagging compared to XP? That's the main concern of many gamers about making the switch.

fasttasf · Post by **fasttasf** » 21 Feb 2007, 03:05

directX10 is the reason you need vista. I never tried playing carbon or mw on my vista (ultimate), but I saw tips elsewhere saying you can run the programme under win98 compatible mode. Anyways, I do play battlefield 2 on vista, and it runs like a charm, no problem at all, and in fact, I have noticable performance gain comparing with XP profession sp2. No graphics glitches anymore, frame rate is much higher. I'm sure directx10 will make playing games on vista even better. Mind you, you probably do need more than 2GB RAM to fully unleash the power of the system. If you don't play game, the best thing you should expect is much faster reponse time for anything you do. I don't know if this is due to the fact that I now use the 64-bit version (I have amd 64 dual core cpu and 2 geforce 7 sli enabled, 4gb RAM, the rest are pretty much standard). Oh remember, before putting on vista, make sure your system drive (normally C) is bigger than 40 GB, that's the minimum that I'll consider, I install all applications on a different drive, but configuration and cache files still use up quite a lot of space on the system drive.

Finalmaster2 · Post by **Finalmaster2** » 21 Feb 2007, 11:17

I have both XP and Ultimate. In my XP Carbon runs way better even in low settings than in Vista. However, Carbon can work sort-of-smoothly on Vista, if we turn graphics to high and do that to all other things too, like anti-aliaising.

Also, it might be that Vista U takes 500 Mt of my RAM and Carbon uses a lot too, so from my 1 Gt RAM there isn't much to be used. I'm now confused about that what is doing my Carbon in Vista U to look horrible, but I still say that it is that DirectX10.

2fast4all · Post by **2fast4all** » 24 Feb 2007, 09:11

carbon and mw run 10-15% slower in vista for me with the same settings in xp

spectre01 · Post by **spectre01** » 25 Feb 2007, 06:26

lol, the thing that got my attention is that how you won a Bill Gates' signed Vista...

geese howard · Post by **geese howard** » 27 Feb 2007, 00:43

Finalmaster2 wrote:I have both XP and Ultimate. In my XP Carbon runs way better even in low settings than in Vista. However, Carbon can work sort-of-smoothly on Vista, if we turn graphics to high and do that to all other things too, like anti-aliaising...

It happens with Most Wanted too...