Printable View
I need to decide on an OS for my new system. I was thinking of choosing between Windows XP Professional and Windows Vista Home Premium. I am completely undecided, as certain people support one side and certain the other, but I haven't seen anyone compare the two side-by-side. Also, if I do choose Vista, should I upgrade from 2GB to 4GB of RAM?
Thanks in advance,
EMFM
Go for XP, i would say, but Microsoft is discontinuing support for it I think.......which means it depends on whether you are technologically proficient or not
It pains me to say it, but you might be better off getting used to Vista on your new rig.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft's 32-bit applications (such as XP and Vista Home Premium) cannot really address 4 gigs. Here's a more detailed discussion of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
What about a 64 bit version? What's the difference between 64 bit and 32 bit, in simple terms?
Also, what are the major pros and cons of each? The only reason I'm really considering Vista is because:
A) I hear it's becoming much more stable then it was.
B) DX10
EDIT: 64 bit lacks backwards compatibility? On what, exactly?
EDIT2: Ah, on practically everything. That's a no-go then.
XP, easier to use.
2GB of RAM is already more then enough, but 4GB of RAM, thats insane.
Until SP1 is released for Vista, stick with XP.
I've been using Vista for quite a while now with no complaints. I don't find it any less user friendly than XP and your 2Gigs is ample. Sooner or later there won't be a choice and sometime in the future, Vista will be superceded as well
......Orda
1. I use 64bit Business and it runs most applications just fine, mostly drivers and applications that work close to drivers etc may not be compatible, depends on whether the company that makes the application/driver creates a 64 bit version. I have 64bit drivers for my graphicscard and printer, the rest was already in Vista and works fine, except for TV cards where you should check the manufacturer's website.
2. It's always been stable for me, can't really see where they could improve when it never crashes but I can see others are more prone to messing their system up, but that works in XP just as well. ~;)
3. 4GB of RAM should be nice, considered that myself but can't afford it.
The system runs fine with 2GB.
4. You decide, all the info I can give you is from my personal experience, my dad got a 32 bit Home Premium now and it ran fine on his slightly less powerful system but then I just installed it yesterday. ~D
Wait, he had this weird graphics error in the logon screen after I installed the NVidia forceware, it wasn't there with the default MS driver and I don't get it anyway, I think it's because he has a 7600GT and I have a 7950GT, highend cards are usually better supported,he had some graphicserrors in Stalker under XP as well so I guess that's the driver.:sweatdrop:
5. You still decide, if you have lots of old stuff that has no available Vista drivers, go for XP. If you want to move on and accept that the computer world always moves on, go for Vista. IMO the systems are quite similar, Vista has a few small, nice additions and looks better, XP is more compatible to older hardware.
Sorry, mate, but I'm going to have to call bs on both those comments :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadKill
Vista is far easier to use, for someone who's not stuck in the motions of XP-orientated thinking, with intuitive searching, useful bundled programs and a help feature that actually works.
Likewise, 2GB is currently not enough ram (for a new gaming system) and I'd recommend 64bit/4GB for anyone building a system with that in mind, despite the 64 bit teething problems.
For a general use machine, though, 2GB will just cut it (I do stress just, though, as I'm sitting on 60% ram usage idle, out of 2gb, on vista)
It sure knows how to bring my laptop to it's knees, can't say I am very pleased with it. Games run fine mind you, but the windows interface has a very annoying delay, and I have to reboot every hour because it seems to drain memory.
Are you kidding?Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
I have around 41% usage on system start and after playing a game I'm usually down to 31% or lower, I also play quite a few new games and they all run fine, no matter the RAM usage. Maybe that will change with games like Crysis but even there 2GB should be enough for a nice gaming experience.
However, Supremem Commander profits from 4 GB and a Quad Core IIRC but then that game has some insane system requirements anyway.
And Frag, what are your laptop specs?
2 usb ports and a dvd writer and I got a mouse that looks like a car, don't ask me such difficult questions ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You can find your system specs in the "welcome center" for example, that's the thing which pops up at the first start, you can find it in the start menu under programs -> accessories.
Can I have 4GB of RAM on a Vista Business 32-Bit?
You can, but it may only be able to use around 3 or so, though I thought that limitation was XP only. I don't know how exactly this works and why exactly it is this way, maybe someone else can expand on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
It has to do with addressing. 32-bit can address about 4GB (2^32=4294967296), but not all that can be used to address RAM since hardware devices need addresses too. Realistically, in a 32-bit OS, it's going to recognize about 3GB worth of memory, give or take. On the other hand, under a 64-bit OS (2^64=18446744073709551616) that limit is clearly not a concern. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
FWIW, I run 2GB of memory under XP and the OS only takes up about 15% of that while idle at the desktop. Point XP. ~;p
So what I'm getting out of this is that Windows XP Pro is better, as it uses less RAM, etc.
Since I'm not going to consider 64 bit Vista yet, is XP the best choice?
Yeah, for networking stability, general OS maturity, compatibility and system slimness, XP Pro is the way to go. I retract my Vista recommendation from earlier in the thread. Call it a moment of weakness.
I sill maintain that it's just plain stupidity to buy an out-of-date OS on a new system ~:)
Nope. Just reading off statistics from now:Quote:
Are you kidding?
- firefox 220mb (absolutely packed with extensions, this one's my fault)
- svchost 66
- jkdefrag 35 (running a scheduled defrag atm)
- sidebar 32
- explorer 30
- searchindexer 20
- svchost(2) 20
- desktop window manager (whatever the hell that is, it's a win component) 20
- audiodg (don't ask, I don't know :grin2:) 16
- msn 12
- xfire 10
- wmp 10
- objectdock 10
- squid 10
...it all ads up, quickly :laugh4:
Again, see my dislike of buying into the past.Quote:
I have around 41% usage on system start and after playing a game I'm usually down to 31% or lower, I also play quite a few new games and they all run fine, no matter the RAM usage. Maybe that will change with games like Crysis but even there 2GB should be enough for a nice gaming experience.
However, Supremem Commander profits from 4 GB and a Quad Core IIRC but then that game has some insane system requirements anyway.
There are games out there that can use more than 2gb; and that's not going to change. For a gaming system, I'd be avoiding that bottleneck wherever possible (and that's by buying a sufficient amount of ram)
Well, you have some programs running, that's not fair. ~;)
I'm usually running Miranda Opera and WMP in the background and neither Mount&Blade nor Kingdoms seem to be affectd in any way by that. For Gothic 3 I'd close everything in the background but then it's the only game I have that is as RAM dependant as it is, Supreme Commander lags anyway once there are enough units shooting at one another. :laugh4:
I'm not seeing any big issues, the CoD4 demo didn't lag either, I'd like to have 4GB, yes, but then I'd also like to have a quad core and an 8800Ultra but as it is I'm quite happy with 2GB of RAM and so are my games.
I could even play games on Vista with 1GB back in the day of the beta.
What advantages does Home Premium 32-bit, specifically, have over Windows XP Pro on a gaming system? The main drawback for me now is that it takes up more system space, and the main pro is DX10.
To the best of my knowledge, DX10 is the only advantage of Vista over XP when it comes to gaming. Hmm, also there's the fact that Microsoft has released a couple of DX9 games for Vista only, but that's not a very compelling reason. The games are not that spectacular, and fans have written workarounds that allow you to play them on XP systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
XP is stable and mature right now. Vista will issue Service Pack 1 sometime in the beginning of '08, and Service Pack 2 roughly a year after that. The advantage of getting Vista now is that you don't have to fret about when to migrate to Vista.
I'll probably get Vista when SP2 comes out then, or at least a while after SP1. The few DX9 games aren't a very good reason for me to get Vista, and I'm used to XP.
XP Pro SP2 it is, I guess. Thanks for all the input. ~:)
That sounds prudent. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
One hates to recommend an older technology, but as Lemur has said- it's stable mature and predictable. Vista still has some growing up to do, and frankly, it doesn't offer much you'd want outside of DX10 and even the numbers of good DX10, Vista exclusive games is very small.
I hate to keep harping on about this, but Vista SP1/2 will not be anything like XP SP2; there are no major changes (certainly not ones that have not already been released through regular updates) and using them as the target for an OS purchase is just procrastination :grin2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That's something I happen to be very good at. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
I suspect I am, but I never get around to finding out :grin2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
So, even if I have 2x2GB sticks on my laptop with a VISTA 32 Bit, I won't use the full capacity?
I agree wholeheartedly with Sapi, why put an old OS on a new system? I've been impressed with Vista stability and I don't have the RAM stacks that people are quoting here
.....Orda
No, but you should get close. Around 3GB and change. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval