Vista or XP

[fire_storm]

Not out yet, still in beta, not permanent, etc. There's no reason to install it as a main OS.

 

 

I'd have to agree although windows 7 is very stable and fast its still just a beta and meant for testing purposes only and there still are some bugs to work out of it plus its suppose to stop working in August so it would mean another long OS re-install and you would still have to buy another OS anyways.

[IVIYTH0S]

 

I'd have to agree although windows 7 is very stable and fast its still just a beta and meant for testing purposes only and there still are some bugs to work out of it plus its suppose to stop working in August so it would mean another long OS re-install and you would still have to buy another OS anyways.

I've got my OS reinstalling down to a science, haha give me 30 minutes and I can have my system up and running to where it was on the last OS. It really helps that I can install from a USB drive, plus August is pretty far away, I'm just saying try it out. I didn't intend to keep this on here but it's just so stable and fast, I see no reason to go back. All my games work, and all my apps work.

[Fogel]

That's what I was saying. It can address the full memory space, it can't address all of the memory.

 

 

Right but that is not neccesarily a bad thing. How often is someone going to cross over the 4GB threshold? I can see it for 3-D Animators and music/video editors. The typical gamer? ...not unless that game has a severe memory leak. Or if someone feels the need to play a game, listen to music, rip DVDs and multi-task other crap at the same.

 

Let's say for example whatever someone is doing they need more than 4GB on XP - say they need 4.3GB. Put those tasks on Vista, and they'll need additional memory - possibly closer to 5GB or more. I would say easily more since Vista uses more resources per task but let's stay optimistic. If your normal tasks are taking you up that high than it is foreseeable that you could peak out needing more than 5GB because whatever it is you're doing you are evidently running memory intensive programs. So then your goal should be 6GB or more. If it's music or code compiling than you probably want more RAM and don't really want to rely on the 1GB/2GB from a video card. So for these people I'd recommend 6GB in RAM and going Vista-64.

 

 

If your computing requirements aren't this extreme than 4GB of RAM is perfectly fine. So what if Windows ignores 1GB of it because they also have a 1GB video card, if they don't need that RAM to begin with? Hard to miss what you aren't using. I've run some really poorly written games with BAD memory leaks, and I have yet to hit 4GB usage or even over 3GB.

 

Then you have Windows 7 (retail release) around the corner (fall timeframe) so if someone already has XP install discs and have no immediate need for 5GB+ ram requirements, why spend $100 on Vista and then another $150 on W7 when that releases? Makes no sense, waste of money. If you have both operating systems for free at your disposal than it really depends on what you demand of your system.

 

Both O/Ses have their place. Just because someone wants 4GB of RAM in their system doesn't automatically exclude one of the choices. There is more than 1-way of skinning a cat.

 

With my video card I'd have less than 2 GB available in XP 32 or Vista 32.

And speaking of multiple ways of skinning a cat...

 

Someone with XP and a 4870X2, could (if they felt the need to) turn PAE on which would dedicate 2GB (but no more than 2GB) to the OS and the other 2GB to whatever services need it. Can only be used with Intel processors though. Not recommending this, but it is an option.

[Fogel]

 

I'd have to agree although windows 7 is very stable and fast its still just a beta and meant for testing purposes only and there still are some bugs to work out of it plus its suppose to stop working in August so it would mean another long OS re-install and you would still have to buy another OS anyways.

Not sure I'd call it a long process. Took me 10-15min to install XP-SP3 and the long poll in the tent was me stopping what I was doing to enter the time/date in and other options XP wanted to know.

 

Now if you want to do a long format on your HDDs, that could take awhile. Took me 1hr 45min for 1.3TB.

[fire_storm]

Not sure I'd call it a long process. Took me 10-15min to install XP-SP3 and the long poll in the tent was me stopping what I was doing to enter the time/date in and other options XP wanted to know.

 

Now if you want to do a long format on your HDDs, that could take awhile. Took me 1hr 45min for 1.3TB.

 

Installing XP doesn't take long its installing the windows updates, secondary programs, and there patches which take a longtime plus reconfiguring all the settings to your liking takes a while.

[Waco]

Right but that is not neccesarily a bad thing. How often is someone going to cross over the 4GB threshold? I can see it for 3-D Animators and music/video editors. The typical gamer? ...not unless that game has a severe memory leak. Or if someone feels the need to play a game, listen to music, rip DVDs and multi-task other crap at the same.

You're glossing over a very big problem with the excuse "you shouldn't do that."

 

That's not how I think I guess. There's no real reason to run XP these days if you have decent hardware. Not only are the drivers better for Vista x64 it's more stable as well.

[dling]

I'd say vista 64 bit based on your system specs.

 

What system specs are you seeing ?

[IVIYTH0S]

What system specs are you seeing ?

|

|

|

V

Msi p45 platinum

intel E8500 (3.33ghz)

PNY 9800GT (1gb ddr3)

2gb ddr2 ram

160gb hdd

 

 

(did you ever get win7 working btw?)

Edited March 27, 2009 by IVIYTH0S

[Fogel]

You're glossing over a very big problem with the excuse "you shouldn't do that."

What?

I think something was either lost in translation or you didn't really read my post.

 

That's not how I think I guess. There's no real reason to run XP these days if you have decent hardware. Not only are the drivers better for Vista x64 it's more stable as well.

You should put a warning sign on that "more stable" part.

 

Again, you miss the point... there is no real reason to buy Vista if you already have XP. Yes XP is clearly the leader of older hardware and Yes Vista gets a good boost with current hardware, but it becomes a tug-of-war match after that. In DX9, XP is the clear leader. In DX10, Vista gains a small lead on some games. Only game I personally care about XP lost on was L4D and that was only a 3-5fps difference.

 

Yes drivers have improved for Vista, but to say they are better than an 8yr old O/S is just flat out worthy of Shenanigans. Seriously dude, don't say that again. Vista should be more than mature enough to trounce XP on performance tests, especially when you are using DX10 video cards that can take advantage of the DX10 API in Windows Vista, a 1GB RAM advantage,.. and yet it either doesn't or barely passes XP with a pathetic 1-5fps increase. Yes, clearly the winner.

 

Then Microsoft rolls out Windows 7 that is already keeping up with XP and Vista ...as well as having better real world performance gains (faster boot up, more responsive UI, increase in USB transfer, etc.) ...and its only in Beta.

 

Forget XP for second (i know its hard to forget your biggest competition but try) and tell me a good reason for someone to spend money on Vista with Windows 7 right around the corner? If you can't answer this question, which I keep asking, than you really shouldn't be giving advice to people asking which O/S to use. Windows 7 is 4 months away, it's almost a reality. It's time to start factoring W7 into the equation. W7 will actually offer more than just prettier buttons.

 

What system specs are you seeing ?

 

Msi p45 platinum

intel E8500 (3.33ghz)

PNY 9800GT (1gb ddr3)

2gb ddr2 ram

160gb hdd

 

I'll use your post to say this... I still don't know how these specs scream Vista-64...

Edited March 27, 2009 by Fogel

[Great_Gig]

There's no real reason to run XP these days if you have decent hardware.

 

Now that's a very sweeping statement - it really depends on what applications you are running. The field I work in is I believe exclusively an XP World, certainly in the UK. The software commonly used is written by a US company and their in house training is still conducted on XP machines, which is brand new powerful hardware. Many of the practitioners have Mac Pro's with dual Quad Core CPU's and they run XP too. The corporate world is still pretty much an XP world, which is why if you buy hardware from the major manufacturers they still offer XP as an O/S to the buisness community. In the last month we have spent over $40,000 on new hardware, it's all running XP Pro and came with it pre-installed.

[TheConqueror]

Windows XP is almost 8 years old now. Not to mention how much BETTER vista looks. I never understood the whole vista sucks thing, it was probably just the shock that people with crappy computers couldnt run it. Also just look at how ugly XP is.. I switched backed to it from vista and regret it, even though vista is sluggish on my low-spec laptop. XP looks like it was designed by crayola, just look at the taskbar and tell me it isn't true

[My_Inner_Fred]

I'd go vista if you have good specs