64-bit Os - Should I Do It?

[Waco]

14GB 64bit Ultimate install is not bloated? XP Pro was only a few GB

The install size has nothing to do with whether it's bloated or not.

 

XP was a few GB, you could fit Win98 on a couple hundred megs.

 

As has been pointed out here [and probably thousands of other places], Vista requires 2gb mem just to provide basic functions.

This is so wrong it's laughable.

[CanadaGUY]

XP was a few GB, you could fit Win98 on a couple hundred megs.

 

Mhmmm, what do people want to do go from XP back to Win98, 250gb harddrives cost what 80gb harddrives did like a year ago. (I was shocked when i decided to build my new comp, and saw the prices of all this stuff)

 

Vista does use alot of memory, but XP used alot more then Win98 did?S?S

 

I guess you'd like games to stay stationary with the recommended system requirements too (not saying i wouldn't either so i would never have to upgrade my computer and the world would have less computers going to the land fill), but that ain't happening anytime soon

 

P.S No hard feelings, its just the sad price of having the new shiny toy.

[Silverfox]

The install size has nothing to do with whether it's bloated or not.

 

XP was a few GB, you could fit Win98 on a couple hundred megs.

 

You can modify most operating systems to occupy very little. I have a version of XP kicking about that was slipstreamed to a fraction of its regular size and worked well.

 

Install size DOES in my opinion count towards being 'bloated'. Otherwise, it's like saying a proper fat person isn't considered bloated for being 250KG, but is deemed bloated because the person isn't very efficient at eating hotdogs.

 

Memory inefficiency does count towards bloated-ness too, but as I mentioned above, Win 98 used 39% of available RAM compared to the prettier Vista's at 47%. It's still not that bad considering the advances of technology.

 

Personally, occupying 1GB RAM is fine with me - I don't know why people get so anal about resources. I understand about pointless stuff, but some people are super overkill. Your RAM is there to be used ... so use it ... lol ...

 

128MB cost me

[Waco]

Mhmmm, what do people want to do go from XP back to Win98, 250gb harddrives cost what 80gb harddrives did like a year ago. (I was shocked when i decided to build my new comp, and saw the prices of all this stuff)

 

Vista does use alot of memory, but XP used alot more then Win98 did?S?S

 

I guess you'd like games to stay stationary with the recommended system requirements too (not saying i wouldn't either so i would never have to upgrade my computer and the world would have less computers going to the land fill), but that ain't happening anytime soon

Uh...you realize you're reinforcing my point, right?

[Waco]

Memory inefficiency does count towards bloated-ness too, but as I mentioned above, Win 98 used 39% of available RAM compared to the prettier Vista's at 47%. It's still not that bad considering the advances of technology.

Vista isn't inefficient though - it just caches a hell of a lot more stuff than XP does. I like that, since my ram is being totally wasted if it sits around idle all the time.

 

 

EDIT: Sorry for the dp, I thought I would catch the time limit.

[ClayMeow]

Incorrect. It's both.

Lol, you're either extremely naive or...sorry, I can't continue this sentence because flaming is not allowed here.

 

You seem so intent that Vista 64-bit is unstable and bloated, yet have you actually used it? Unless you're on ancient parts, Vista is perfectly stable, and memory efficiency is fine. It may seemingly use more memory in an idle state, but Vista handles memory differently, and will gladly fork it over when programs require it...something XP has a hard time doing. Who cares what Vista does with your memory when you're not using it? People just don't make sense sometimes. In addition, you can turn off all Aero features, disk indexing, etc., which decreases memory usage, resources used and disk activity.

 

If you want 64-bit, Vista is the clear choice, IMO.

[jack_of_java]

I have both xp64 and vista 64 ultimate. XP 64 has been more stable for me, in terms of overclocking and running programs. However, this was before SP1 came out for vista. I have yet to reinstall vista and update to SP1. I have fairly new hardware, so it is a tossup for me.

 

Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz

EVGA 680i SLI

2x 8800 GTS 640mb in SLI (both overclocked)

Audigy Fatality Edition

Edited April 10, 2008 by jack_of_java

[Waco]

XP 64 has been more stable for me, in terms of overclocking and running programs.

When you're pushing the limits of your hardware XP will run longer before crashing...but that's not the same thing as it being more stable.

[troy5061]

I just switched from XP Pro 32 to XP pro 64 and couldnt be happier. Most of the gripes with 64 bit os's were back a few years ago when xp 64 came out and there wasnt much driver support. My system is fairly new and I found drivers for everything I have with ease. Its pretty much the same as xp pro 32, theres not really much difference. I belive that navigating through windows seems much quicker but that could just be in my head. Plus its cool to see all 4GBs of my ram. Benchmarks and games theres really not much difference that ive seen.

Xp 64 is built off of server 2003 so its rock solid stable. If you have old hardware its probably not a good idea, just make sure you get your drivers first. I would say its worth it if you can get one cheap enough, I got mine off ebay for 75 dollars, or if you dont already have a copy of windows.

[Silverfox]

Vista isn't inefficient though - it just caches a hell of a lot more stuff than XP does. I like that, since my ram is being totally wasted if it sits around idle all the time.

 

I know it's not - if you look at the end of my post, I mentioned about comparing like-for-like in terms of RAM that equivalent money could buy ... making Vista appear actually quite efficient, all things considered. I even said that, 'what use is RAM if you don't use it?' ... so ...

 

Uh...you realize you're reinforcing my point, right?

 

Back at you

[RimX]

It isn't a matter of understanding how it works. It is bloated. As has been pointed out here [and probably thousands of other places], Vista requires 2gb mem just to provide basic functions. That meets my definition of bloated.

Well yes it is a matter of understanding how it works. If you took the time to research Vista and not just listening to idiots(a.k.a. Linux geeks(sorry Linux)) on the internet then maybe you would know something about Vista. And saying that you have to have 2gb of ram to provide basic functions is total bull. I ran it on my laptop like I said in the 3rd post in this thread which only has 1gb of ram...and everything ran fine. I also previously ran Vista RC2 on that same laptop back when I only had 512MB RAM in it and even then it ran OK. That includes the Aero Theme.

Plus like I said if you had even bothered to read about vista then you would know about SuperFetch Vista's brand new memory manager. You look it up unless you're to lazy.

And if you are complaining about Vista's use of memory at idle then do some reading about SuperFetch, it preloads apps that you use commonly to make them load faster also it works proportionately to the amount of memory you have.

[jack_of_java]

When you're pushing the limits of your hardware XP will run longer before crashing...but that's not the same thing as it being more stable.

 

As I said, "XP 64 has been more stable for me, in terms of overclocking and running programs." I play games and do a few other things. I am not a 3dmark ScoreWh***. I get a lot more BSOD's and locks ups with the same OC on vista with what I do (COD4, etc).