Vista and SINS

Runs great on my rig - Vista 64 bit ultimate
Runs good on my buddies as well - Vista 32 bit Ultimate

I would seriously suggest a fresh load for it, not just an upgrade.

Yep, Vista (both 32 bit and 64 bit) are fully supported by the game - part of the Games for Windows label requirement

Couple other things - how much RAM do you have, and how fast are your harddrives? Hard drive speed really has a dramatic effect on how well Vista runs. Just some things to keep in mind. RAM and Processor are important as well (that goes without saying), but the hard drive speed really does impact that OS dramatically due to all the writes/reads that go on as it loads and runs.

2GB Minimum as far as RAM goes.

Vista works fine. Only problem i've had is a bad NVIDIA 7 series Driver causing lock ups and crashes and an occasional DUMP bug crash. I'm told some beta drivers will fix the problem; however, I've just switched to window's mode to avoid that particular driver problem and the game runs fine.

Yeah unfortunately you will be dealing with the (at least) 10% drop in performance in vista over XP on the same hardware. So make sure you have a pretty fast rig if you want to play reasonably high settings at 1680x1050 or higher res. This game is a bit of a pig for what its doing visually, supreme commander runs almost as fast and it has a LOT more going on visually most of the time (and I still wouldnt consider SC to be an efficient game). The devs have promised improvements, but its probably always going to be a little sluggish.

Personally however, I've had graphical lock ups and worse frame rates in vista than XP. I know because I also just went through the XP to vista upgrade very recently (post 1.03). I did the full install, not upgrade from XP, so without any change in hardware, these have been my experiences. Honestly, vista isnt for games yet unless you have a top of the line rig.

Perhaps my problem is that I dont have a FULLY vista compatible vid card (7900 GTX - so no dx10). I couldnt say if my aging hardware (18 months old -oh noes!!) is the issue or not.

EDIT: looks like the guy above me answered some of the issues I have, 7x drivers are not so good.

The hard drive read/write thing is an important factor yes, my rigs has the following hardware:

2.13ghz core 2 duo
2 gigs 800 DDR2 ram
2x 7200 320GB hd's in RAID 0
7900 GTX vid card

It runs crysis on medium settings acceptably, so really, sins should be a breeze, but it isnt. Stardock are new to real time 3d, I don't blame them for some growing pains.

Sins on my system (Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM) runs awesome in Vista Home Premium 64 bit.

I highly recommend against Vista unless you have at least 2GB of RAM. Its a bit of a memory pig. But if you have a system that can handle it, Sins will play just fine.

(One thing: In Vista, Sins appears in the "Games Explorer", rather then in the "all programs" area of the Start Menu. I find its actually easier this way because all your games are together in there, but it can be confusing for a new user.)

Ironclad, and no, they're not new - you said yourself you have an older card that's not fully Vista compatible, and yet you're faulting the developer for the game not running as smooth as you assume it should, based purely on your perception of how it should run compared to Crysis

I usually don't nitpick, but try to be a bit objective? A lot of it also depends on map size and the number of units in play, something that's not much of an issue in Crysis, for example

Ok ok fanboy, hold your horses, yes my mistake, Ironclad, yes I have an older card. But Im sorry, poor performance for something that arguably looks no better than homeworld 1 should NOT be the case. The comparison to Crysis was a bad one, they have vastly different environments to deal with. However, I think the comparison to Supreme commander holds up, the first game runs very smoothly on my machine. Why does one game with a higher visual quality (yes IMO but what other guage is there for these things?) run smoother than another game that has to deal with comparable issues?

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument over this, its just a little disappointing that pc games in general don't come with that locked down solid feel any more. Patches are the norm and bugs for 25% of the user base are acceptable upon release.

This is where your posting changed from mildly reasonable to utter nonsense

SO who's running Vista 64? Running any other games besides SINs?

WoW, Lord of the Rings Online, Portal, Audiosurf. All of them run well. The single biggest problem Vista had (aside from being a memory pig) was shoddy drivers (Nvidia accounted for 28% of ALL Vista crashes in 2007), but thats largely solved now for newer hardware.

Honestly I'd never use Vista 32 for anything. If you want 32 bit, stick with XP. If you want 64 bit (because you have 4GB of RAM and want to use it all), go with Vista. I also wouldn't upgrade to it. If you get a new machine that has Vista, cool. If your existing machine is already working fine with XP, you don't gain much by upgrading except the hassle of upgrading.

COD works flawlessly, Hellgate London (when I had it installed) ran great. WoW, the rest of the guy that Tridus has...

I have only hit one game that it didn't like, Heroes of might and magic 5.

Other than that it seems good to go, though I have a dual boot with XP 64 just in case.

Thanks for the reply Napalm, I think I'll got VIsta 64 since I'm taking the plunge any way..

Setting up a dual boot is ez mode, just install XP first and Vista sets up the dual boot flawlessly.

Good luck, you will be pleased. Most haters talk trash about Vista, personally I have no problems with it and find it to be a great operating system overall that I use at home and at work with equally good results.

Oh yeah, and if you want to get it pretty cheap new - go to www.newegg.com and get the OEM system builder edition. I got Vista 64 Ultimate for 170ish instead of 400 that way. It's totally legit and registered, just doesn't come with any goofy manual. (like who needs that anyway)

No Problem in my Windows Vista ultimate 32 Bit.  

No one with Vista running has posted any machine specs. Neither has the Original Poster. Its all pretty useless unless we know what hardware is being used.

It's very simple; New hardware = Vista running to its maximum potential, older (last gen) hardware = Vista running like a pig most of the time compared to XP. Those who say Vista runs well are probably just not aware that XP runs their games better.

But having said that, gamers are always early adopters, so you guys go justify the MS technology / marketing push and be merry!

Haha, yeah if you haven't figured it out already I'm given to exaggeration, but I have to say when I first saw screen shots of SINS I really thought, oh sweet its homeworld 3! But why are the graphics worse than 2? Then I read that it wasn't really a space rts and I forgave them. However, the fact remains that this game doesn't measure up to a game thats almost 5 years old visually. Sure, sins has anti aliasing and more glow effects (all of which produce horrible fps issues in larger battles) but those dont make a game look better in my opinion. Those are the glitter that is added afterwards. What makes a game like sins look and feel great is the ship design, the scale they adhere to (much more convincing in all aspects in homeworld - a large ship looks HUGE as it should) and the way the end result is presented (homeworld has far better lighting than sins, you can barely see ships in sins half the time, just try playing in cinematic mode for 2 minutes, you'll see what I mean). Also, random backgrounds and the way they make half your units and structures nearly invisible if you get the wrong icon color/background color combination is kinda awkward at best.

Anyway, sorry about the off topic rant, I just had to make my previous point a little clearer.