XP or Vista?

[Lemur]

It pains me to say it, but you might be better off getting used to Vista on your new rig.

Also, if I do choose Vista, should I upgrade from 2GB to 4GB of RAM?

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.

[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.

[RoadKill]

XP, easier to use.

2GB of RAM is already more then enough, but 4GB of RAM, thats insane.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Until SP1 is released for Vista, stick with XP.

[Orda Khan]

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 Sooner or later there won't be a choice and sometime in the future, Vista will be superceded as well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

[Husar]

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.
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.

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.

[sapi]

XP, easier to use.

2GB of RAM is already more then enough, but 4GB of RAM, thats insane.

Sorry, mate, but I'm going to have to call bs on both those comments :)

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)

[Fragony]

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.

[Husar]

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)

Are you kidding?

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?

[Fragony]

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

[Husar]

2 usb ports and a dvd writer and I got a mouse that looks like a car, don't ask me such difficult questions

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.

[Xiahou]

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?

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.

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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?