Hi, i have been playing stalker on Vista64 with a few details turned down,
thought i would install xp on a spare hard drive and try stalker on that!!!,
wow what a difference runs silky smooth, Is this down to the nvidia drivers
for vista being bad? or vista 64 bot capable of running 32bit games?

In article <6EBEA8FD-32A7-48FF-979D-51A1224BB902@microsoft.com>,
sibrecat says...
> Hi, i have been playing stalker on Vista64 with a few details turned down,
> thought i would install xp on a spare hard drive and try stalker on that!!!,
> wow what a difference runs silky smooth, Is this down to the nvidia drivers
> for vista being bad? or vista 64 bot capable of running 32bit games?
>
>
Immature drivers plus Vista uses a few more resources.
--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

Could be a couple of things. Drivers to start with. I don't think Stalker is
very well optimized. Before the last patch, Someone had made a demo to run
to get benchmarks and I ran them under XP, Vista32 and Vista64. Both vista32
and Vista64 ran the demo about 20 fps slower than XP did. Which at the high
settings took the average from 74 to 54. I found watching the demos that
Vista had alot more stutters and hangs than XP

I have an ATI card and with the 7.2s and 7.3s ATI is getting pretty darn
close to the same performance in some games. FEAR being the closest, with
only about a 5fps difference. Doom3 (an OPenGL game) the worst, with about a
15-20 fps difference. The 3dMark06 scores are less than100 points different.

Funny enough, I think the head bobbing is worse under XP, then Vista. So
while Vista stutters more, I don't get as dizzy playing it.

But the Short answer to your question, is that, Most games play just as good
under Vista64, as they do under Vista32. Stalker is just a bad game on Vista
at the moment, they are suppose to be release a Vista patch, which hopefully
they will clean up the code a little. Maybe ATI and Nvidia need to tweak
their drivers more for Stalker


"sibrecat" <sibrecat@sky.com> wrote in message
news:6EBEA8FD-32A7-48FF-979D-51A1224BB902@microsoft.com...
> Hi, i have been playing stalker on Vista64 with a few details turned down,
> thought i would install xp on a spare hard drive and try stalker on
> that!!!, wow what a difference runs silky smooth, Is this down to the
> nvidia drivers for vista being bad? or vista 64 bot capable of running
> 32bit games?

well i hope they dont release another"you cannot play your saved games after
updating patch" that really stinks
"Dale White" <dale.white@NOinsightbb.NOcom> wrote in message
news:ujbMYmReHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Could be a couple of things. Drivers to start with. I don't think Stalker
> is very well optimized. Before the last patch, Someone had made a demo to
> run to get benchmarks and I ran them under XP, Vista32 and Vista64. Both
> vista32 and Vista64 ran the demo about 20 fps slower than XP did. Which at
> the high settings took the average from 74 to 54. I found watching the
> demos that Vista had alot more stutters and hangs than XP
>
> I have an ATI card and with the 7.2s and 7.3s ATI is getting pretty darn
> close to the same performance in some games. FEAR being the closest, with
> only about a 5fps difference. Doom3 (an OPenGL game) the worst, with about
> a 15-20 fps difference. The 3dMark06 scores are less than100 points
> different.
>
> Funny enough, I think the head bobbing is worse under XP, then Vista. So
> while Vista stutters more, I don't get as dizzy playing it.
>
> But the Short answer to your question, is that, Most games play just as
> good under Vista64, as they do under Vista32. Stalker is just a bad game
> on Vista at the moment, they are suppose to be release a Vista patch,
> which hopefully they will clean up the code a little. Maybe ATI and Nvidia
> need to tweak their drivers more for Stalker
>
>
> "sibrecat" <sibrecat@sky.com> wrote in message
> news:6EBEA8FD-32A7-48FF-979D-51A1224BB902@microsoft.com...
>> Hi, i have been playing stalker on Vista64 with a few details turned
>> down, thought i would install xp on a spare hard drive and try stalker on
>> that!!!, wow what a difference runs silky smooth, Is this down to the
>> nvidia drivers for vista being bad? or vista 64 bot capable of running
>> 32bit games?
>
>

I hear you on that one. Though I had only just started playing, so for me,
it wasn't too painful


"sibrecat" <sibrecat@sky.com> wrote in message
news:CB9BA883-FCBC-47A9-90E6-C1BBDEA35259@microsoft.com...
> well i hope they dont release another"you cannot play your saved games
> after
> updating patch" that really stinks
> "Dale White" <dale.white@NOinsightbb.NOcom> wrote in message
> news:ujbMYmReHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Could be a couple of things. Drivers to start with. I don't think Stalker
>> is very well optimized. Before the last patch, Someone had made a demo to
>> run to get benchmarks and I ran them under XP, Vista32 and Vista64. Both
>> vista32 and Vista64 ran the demo about 20 fps slower than XP did. Which
>> at the high settings took the average from 74 to 54. I found watching the
>> demos that Vista had alot more stutters and hangs than XP
>>
>> I have an ATI card and with the 7.2s and 7.3s ATI is getting pretty darn
>> close to the same performance in some games. FEAR being the closest, with
>> only about a 5fps difference. Doom3 (an OPenGL game) the worst, with
>> about a 15-20 fps difference. The 3dMark06 scores are less than100 points
>> different.
>>
>> Funny enough, I think the head bobbing is worse under XP, then Vista. So
>> while Vista stutters more, I don't get as dizzy playing it.
>>
>> But the Short answer to your question, is that, Most games play just as
>> good under Vista64, as they do under Vista32. Stalker is just a bad game
>> on Vista at the moment, they are suppose to be release a Vista patch,
>> which hopefully they will clean up the code a little. Maybe ATI and
>> Nvidia need to tweak their drivers more for Stalker
>>
>>
>> "sibrecat" <sibrecat@sky.com> wrote in message
>> news:6EBEA8FD-32A7-48FF-979D-51A1224BB902@microsoft.com...
>>> Hi, i have been playing stalker on Vista64 with a few details turned
>>> down, thought i would install xp on a spare hard drive and try stalker
>>> on that!!!, wow what a difference runs silky smooth, Is this down to the
>>> nvidia drivers for vista being bad? or vista 64 bot capable of running
>>> 32bit games?
>>
>>
>

"sibrecat" wrote:

> well i hope they dont release another"you cannot play your saved games after
> updating patch" that really stinks
> "Dale White" <dale.white@NOinsightbb.NOcom> wrote in message
> news:ujbMYmReHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Could be a couple of things. Drivers to start with. I don't think Stalker
> > is very well optimized. Before the last patch, Someone had made a demo to
> > run to get benchmarks and I ran them under XP, Vista32 and Vista64. Both
> > vista32 and Vista64 ran the demo about 20 fps slower than XP did. Which at
> > the high settings took the average from 74 to 54. I found watching the
> > demos that Vista had alot more stutters and hangs than XP
> >
> > I have an ATI card and with the 7.2s and 7.3s ATI is getting pretty darn
> > close to the same performance in some games. FEAR being the closest, with
> > only about a 5fps difference. Doom3 (an OPenGL game) the worst, with about
> > a 15-20 fps difference. The 3dMark06 scores are less than100 points
> > different.
> >
> > Funny enough, I think the head bobbing is worse under XP, then Vista. So
> > while Vista stutters more, I don't get as dizzy playing it.
> >
> > But the Short answer to your question, is that, Most games play just as
> > good under Vista64, as they do under Vista32. Stalker is just a bad game
> > on Vista at the moment, they are suppose to be release a Vista patch,
> > which hopefully they will clean up the code a little. Maybe ATI and Nvidia
> > need to tweak their drivers more for Stalker
> >
> >
> > "sibrecat" <sibrecat@sky.com> wrote in message
> > news:6EBEA8FD-32A7-48FF-979D-51A1224BB902@microsoft.com...
> >> Hi, i have been playing stalker on Vista64 with a few details turned
> >> down, thought i would install xp on a spare hard drive and try stalker on
> >> that!!!, wow what a difference runs silky smooth, Is this down to the
> >> nvidia drivers for vista being bad? or vista 64 bot capable of running
> >> 32bit games?
> >
> >
> The next patch v.2 will not corrupt saved games according to the Devs....

whens the next patch coming out?
"AKWolf" <AKWolf@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:94DF85EE-16C1-4790-86DB-B92E35DB5BEE@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "sibrecat" wrote:
>
>> well i hope they dont release another"you cannot play your saved games
>> after
>> updating patch" that really stinks
>> "Dale White" <dale.white@NOinsightbb.NOcom> wrote in message
>> news:ujbMYmReHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > Could be a couple of things. Drivers to start with. I don't think
>> > Stalker
>> > is very well optimized. Before the last patch, Someone had made a demo
>> > to
>> > run to get benchmarks and I ran them under XP, Vista32 and Vista64.
>> > Both
>> > vista32 and Vista64 ran the demo about 20 fps slower than XP did. Which
>> > at
>> > the high settings took the average from 74 to 54. I found watching the
>> > demos that Vista had alot more stutters and hangs than XP
>> >
>> > I have an ATI card and with the 7.2s and 7.3s ATI is getting pretty
>> > darn
>> > close to the same performance in some games. FEAR being the closest,
>> > with
>> > only about a 5fps difference. Doom3 (an OPenGL game) the worst, with
>> > about
>> > a 15-20 fps difference. The 3dMark06 scores are less than100 points
>> > different.
>> >
>> > Funny enough, I think the head bobbing is worse under XP, then Vista.
>> > So
>> > while Vista stutters more, I don't get as dizzy playing it.
>> >
>> > But the Short answer to your question, is that, Most games play just as
>> > good under Vista64, as they do under Vista32. Stalker is just a bad
>> > game
>> > on Vista at the moment, they are suppose to be release a Vista patch,
>> > which hopefully they will clean up the code a little. Maybe ATI and
>> > Nvidia
>> > need to tweak their drivers more for Stalker
>> >
>> >
>> > "sibrecat" <sibrecat@sky.com> wrote in message
>> > news:6EBEA8FD-32A7-48FF-979D-51A1224BB902@microsoft.com...
>> >> Hi, i have been playing stalker on Vista64 with a few details turned
>> >> down, thought i would install xp on a spare hard drive and try stalker
>> >> on
>> >> that!!!, wow what a difference runs silky smooth, Is this down to the
>> >> nvidia drivers for vista being bad? or vista 64 bot capable of running
>> >> 32bit games?
>> >
>> >
>> The next patch v.2 will not corrupt saved games according to the Devs....