windows Xp or Vista

N

Nvidia101

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
1,194
Im debating on which 1 for my gaming pc:

Intel Q6600 - QUAD CORE CPU with a 8800GT


Which OS would be wise to get?
 
If you already have XP keep it, if you really need to buy a new OS get Vista :D
 
I would recommend XP untill we see if SP1 brings any improvements to Vista.

It's mainly a PITA at the moment.
 
If you never plan on using 4 GB or more of memory, get 32-bit.

If you ever want the option to use 4 GB or more of memory, get 64-bit.
 
Go with Vista 64 all the way. I am running duel quad xeons and my usage during games is between 16 to 21 percent. Lots of head room. Graphics are the biggest problem right now. Someone needs to come out with a fast and 1900 x 1440 up res for games. That is the bottle neck right now.
 
crewzen said:
Go with Vista 64 all the way. I am running duel quad xeons and my usage during games is between 16 to 21 percent. Lots of head room. Graphics are the biggest problem right now. Someone needs to come out with a fast and 1900 x 1440 up res for games. That is the bottle neck right now.
Click to expand...

Heh you mean that since the majority of games are single threaded you use only 25% of your available CPU power when gaming..
 
When you buy Home prem., you get the 32 bit disc. you can order the 64 from MS for S&H.
I would recommend the 64-bit. I'm running 64 bit ultimate, and have been very happy.
 
I have a AMD 64 dual core 4200+ I wish I had known most feel its better to get 64bit, I thought it was the other way around, get the 32 for stability, but my logic is based off of XP since thats what I had until a week ago . Will new egg take return OEM OS if I spend more to get 64bit OEM OS.
 
Nvidia101 said:
is the 32-bit good enough with 2 gigs of ram for gaming? games like crysis?
Click to expand...
Wait for more answers, but at some point, I remember reading that there may have been a problem with systems meeting those conditions and a PCI-Express graphics card running out of memory. It may have been fixed though. Still, with 2 GB of RAM, I'd just go the x64 route.
 
I went with 64 and its awesome. I definitely recommend it seeing as eventually everything is going to end up there.
 
I'll make it simple:

If you're building a new PC, with a quad core CPU, then Vista x64 is the choice.

If you're building a new PC, with anything else, then XP is still a valid choice.

For either platform, anything less than 2GB of RAM nowadays is ridiculous considering that you can buy 2GB of RAM today for around $50 from many places, online and even in stores.

'Nuff typed.

Every piece of software, every piece of hardware, everything in the PC universe that comes with a "Made for Windows Vista" label or sticker or logo on it is fully supported with Vista 32 bit or 64 bit OSes - this is a requirement of getting the logo certification from Microsoft, period.

So there are no issues of "support" anymore for 64 bit. If it's new hardware, and it has a Vista logo on it, it is supported with 32 bit and 64 bit drivers, period.
 
so your saying I wont take advantage of the quad with a 32-bit vista? I think It will. 64 is just useless right now and is memory hungry.

and as for Xp I would work fine with quad core as well.
 
Nvidia101 said:
64 is just useless right now and is memory hungry.
Click to expand...
I think this is where the frustration of others lie. If you are saying x64 is a memory hog, you really need to look into what Vista is about before making a decision. If you truly thing Vista is "hogging" that memory, you need to read some of the factual sites on Vista, and not just the anti-Vista bashing sites. It would be to your benefit to do this reading before arguing back with these people. I would hardly call x64 useless, but again, you'll figure that out in your readings. No one is saying you won't be able to take advantage of all 4 cores, but why not consider moving forward instead of treading water?
 
What I said was what I said, nothing more. I don't mix up my words, soooo...

As for being "memory hungry," what Frost just said is also accurate. It sounds like you (meaning Nvidia101, the thread starter) have a lot of research to do about Vista into the actual facts and not the FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND DOUBT (censorship sucks) and crap that probably more than half of most websites actually spew out (and a good deal of the people around here too). Seems "Vista bashing" was elevated to an artform here at some point in the past.

My recommendation for Vista x64 stands on two points:

1) You're paying for a 64 bit CPU, there's no sense not using a 64 bit OS, and 2) RAM is superultrahellafuckin' cheap these days. Just this morning I noticed Fry's is selling some Corsair 4-4-4-12 DDR2 800 2GB kits for $49.99 out the door, no stupid rebates required. If I had the money I'd have 4GB of that sitting here on my desk right now, but I don't.

Vista isn't "memory hungry;" Vista is efficient in that it puts the typically idle RAM you're paying so much for (even at today's prices) to good use and makes your system faster than it would be running an older version of Windows.

Aren't you looking for the best performance from the hardware you're building? Are you looking to know your box will run great and take care of itself?

If so, then Vista is the choice, and since you have a 64 bit CPU, Vista x64 is the even more accurate choice. No issues with memory limitations or caps like you can run into with Vista x86, better memory allocation and bandwidth with x64, among other benefits.

I'd explain more but I've been telling people this for nearly a year now and the forum has a search function. Do research into the facts and not the FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND DOUBT (censorship sucks) so easily tossed out and then make a decision.
 
If you have the cash, grab at least Vista Home Premium. Order the official x64 disk (~$20 S&H rush DHL).

Do NOT let this memory bullshit detour you from using Vista x64.

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1

Support is no longer an issue. The Source engine has proven that there is performance to be gained in x64, Quake4 has proven dual core gaming has performance to be gained, DX10 is beginning to shine in certain applications (Crysis, UT3, etc), and if there isnt a 64 bit application for your need, the OS does great w/ 32bit as well.

But if i hear the 4GB memory argument one more damn time on some hardware forum, i pity the fool...
 
Im still convinced 32-bit will be more stable,less of a hassle, compatible, provide same speed and have better drivers then 64-bit now. It will take advantage of the quad core quite well too....
 
Well then, after doing research and learning more, perhaps your ignorance won't be the primary factor in your final decision. :)
 
Nvidia101 said:
Im still convinced 32-bit will be more stable,less of a hassle, compatible, provide same speed and have better drivers then 64-bit now. It will take advantage of the quad core quite well too....
Click to expand...

so, wait, you start a thread asking a question, then start giving your own opinion, about a topic you started, then make a whimsical remark like this?

Dude, 64 bit has all the support any end user might need. Its as stable as 32bit, and unless you need drivers for your grandpa's scanner from 1996, whats the deal here? Drivers are just out of the baby stages, and i haven't had one hiccup yet.

IIRC all NT based OS's beyond Win2k have multi CPU support, so the 32/64 debate is moot on that point.

Where did the convincing come from about 32 bit over 64 bit in your decision? I hope it didn't come out of this thread, because not one negative word was said about Vista 64 bit. Vista bashing / 64 bit bashing has become such a pass time, it makes me sick. IT WORKS. sure, it uses 5%-15% more memory per program cannot be changed, because thats just how things work in 64 bit computing, read what i posted above, it will explain it.
 
I made the thread debating weather I should Go with Xp or Vista if you have not noticed... But I decided to Go Vista 32-bit on the safe side.....basically in my situation that quad core and 2 gigs I have a budget for will run better then an 64-bit which will require a bit more and I don't see the 32-bit going anywhere soon for awhile.
 
XP is faster for games. It really makes no sense to install something that will be slower even though many techies do so just as they install everything Microsoft. There are apparently ways you can buy the Vista license and use it to license XP. That would be your best way to go.
 
general said:
XP is faster for games. It really makes no sense to install something that will be slower even though many techies do so just as they install everything Microsoft. There are apparently ways you can buy the Vista license and use it to license XP. That would be your best way to go.
Click to expand...

What a sec, 1-5FPS is reason enough to sit still with XP? I have no idea what the fuck you've been smoking but when does 5FPS qualify to shun Vista and stick XP?
 
I am getting Vista Home Premium (32-bit and 64-bit) with my Intel Retail Edge Bundle but I will not be installing Vista until I really need to (DX10 game or vast performance increase). I will be reinstalling XP Pro because I know how to fix and tweak things in XP and have very little experience with Vista. I could care less about the visuals on Vista as I still use classic mode with all the visuals turned of in XP. I would install 64-bit XP but I am not sure that it is a wise decision at this time as I only have 2GB of ram and I have heard that there aren't many 64-bit XP drivers out there. Also I like to take the stand that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am not bashing Vista, it is just that I have no reason to switch to Vista.
 
Nvidia101 said:
will run better then an 64-bit
Click to expand...
As we tried saying in your thread, if you really think this is true, you have a lot of reading to do on Vista. I can tell you honestly, if anything, x64 runs better on the same hardware.
 
If you're not an early adopter, don't listen to the early adopters. They're willing to pay extra cash and walk the extra mile to be able to use the latest technology.

For a user who wants a reliable, compatible and safe system XP32 is the only choice.
 
CptFalcon said:
What a sec, 1-5FPS is reason enough to sit still with XP? I have no idea what the fuck you've been smoking but when does 5FPS qualify to shun Vista and stick XP?
Click to expand...

It does for me actually. I'm a performancewhore :p
 
Well, if we're talking about games that reach into the 60+ fps range, 1-5 fps is nothing at all, really. It's nothing that could be or should be used as an indicator of "OH THIS OS FUCKING SUCKS MY DICK 'CAUSE IT'S TOO SLOW" primarily because 1-5 fps is a nominal baseline for differences between benchmark runs.

Run a benchmark one time, get 71 fps. Run it again immediately and get 68, then again and get 73, then again and get 70, etc. It fluctuates, always. And if we're talking about framerates above the 100 fps mark, oh for Pete's sake you whining crying babies, 1-5 fps isn't even something to consider.

Now, in a situation with a game like the life-draining wh0re known as Crysis and a system that can barely muster 800x600 at 30 fps, that 1-5 fps can actually make a very noticeable difference.

Even so, bitching about Vista is pretty much the baseline around these parts. Given time, Vista will outperform XP for the most part on the same hardware in day-to-day operation of the computer - that is simply a fact that all too many people just don't want to live with or grasp. After a clean install, XP might and probably will outperform Vista right then and there, but use both machines roughly the same amount daily over a month-long period of time, and Vista will pull ahead in all the ways that matter.

Bleh. The OP wants to build a Core 2 Quad box with an 8800GT. Putting XP on it for 1-5 fps is utter madness across the board. Brand new top of the line hardware strapped to a 6 year old OS... I just don't get it.
 
[21CW]killerofall;1031687579 said:
I will not be installing Vista until I really need to
Click to expand...

That would be.... a couple weeks ago for Bioshock, Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3, and I don't think I need to go on. DX10 games are here. If you have a nice DX10 card, and you're running XP, you're really missing out.

As for 32 vs 64, anything with a Vista cert is required to have drivers and full compatibility with the 32-bit and 64-bit editions. Otherwise, it doesn't get the cert from MS. This includes the Games for Windows certification. This has been posted a million times, but people still don't listen. It is not like XP32 vs XP64 where support for 32-bit did not mean support for 64-bit.
 
MrMike said:
That would be.... a couple weeks ago for Bioshock, Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3, and I don't think I need to go on. DX10 games are here. If you have a nice DX10 card, and you're running XP, you're really missing out.

As for 32 vs 64, anything with a Vista cert is required to have drivers and full compatibility with the 32-bit and 64-bit editions. Otherwise, it doesn't get the cert from MS. This includes the Games for Windows certification. This has been posted a million times, but people still don't listen. It is not like XP32 vs XP64 where support for 32-bit did not mean support for 64-bit.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Couldn't have said it better myself, and I have, a few hundred times. :)
 
Gigamo said:
It does for me actually. I'm a performancewhore :p
Click to expand...

If you were a performance whore you would be using Vista x64. You're more like a gaming whore. :D

Also one would argue that enabling DX10 in games is way more worth than having 5fps which the eye can't even tell the difference between for the most part.
 
"What a sec, 1-5FPS is reason enough to sit still with XP? I have no idea what the fuck you've been smoking but when does 5FPS qualify to shun Vista and stick XP?"

Apparently the same thing that you've been smoking. Slower is slower, period. It can certainly make the difference when you're say, spending a shitload of money so much so that you're making a post on a hardware website to figure out what OS to run. Perhaps you like going out and spending a few grand only to run it on a slower OS. I would suggest that you take another avenue however. 1-5 FPS (or more depending upon the game) can be quite a lot when you're running higher resolutions with plenty of options turned on.

It qualifies to shun Vista because it is slower. Should I take it from your emotional reaction that you have spend $$$ on Vista, are an early adopter and now feel compelled to justify your own decision to others (and perhaps yourself)?
 
^But Vista is not slower. It's actually more efficient and if you run 64 bit, it blows XP away even with all the fancy stuff. Gaming will take a small hit, but what do you expect when you have DX10 enabled? Equal performance?
 
general said:
"What a sec, 1-5FPS is reason enough to sit still with XP? I have no idea what the fuck you've been smoking but when does 5FPS qualify to shun Vista and stick XP?"

Apparently the same thing that you've been smoking. Slower is slower, period. It can certainly make the difference when you're say, spending a shitload of money so much so that you're making a post on a hardware website to figure out what OS to run. Perhaps you like going out and spending a few grand only to run it on a slower OS. I would suggest that you take another avenue however. 1-5 FPS (or more depending upon the game) can be quite a lot when you're running higher resolutions with plenty of options turned on.

It qualifies to shun Vista because it is slower. Should I take it from your emotional reaction that you have spend $$$ on Vista, are an early adopter and now feel compelled to justify your own decision to others (and perhaps yourself)?
Click to expand...

Actually I got Vista from my relative who works for Mcaffe (the morons who make Norton.)

Edit: I forgot to add that I have been watching 'My Cousin Vinnie' and I cannot stop swearing, not meant to be emotional but whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top