Vista or XP

Windows, Linux, Mac -- hardware and software discussion.

Moderator: CM Moderator

Vista or XP

Postby Coolone on Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:34 am

I plan to by some new hardware soon but I’m not sure if I also should go for Vista.

What would you thing would be the best Vista or XP, and why?

Thanks Coolone
User avatar
Coolone
Centurion Officer
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:48 pm

Postby ID on Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:40 am

That depends. If you're gaming and want DX10 go with Vista, otherwise avoid it like the plague, because it really is crap.
User avatar
ID
Cooler than Cooler Master!
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Ontario

Postby merovingian on Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:28 am

Crap is the future, embrace it! It really depends on when you plan to reinstall. If you are comfortable reinstalling in a year than XP might be a good choice for the mean time as it is more polished and better for playing todays games. In a year there should be little reason not to adopt vista, IMO.
A8N-SLI Deluxe l Athlon64 Venice 3200@2735 l Corsair TCCD 2-2-2-5@363 l 2x BFG 6800GT's@Ultra l 74GB Raptor l 2x Samsung 213T/214T 21"LCD l Audigy 4 l Klipsch Pro Media 5.1 l Stacker STC-TO1
User avatar
merovingian
CosMod
 
Posts: 2529
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Vista or XP

Postby -=Draven=- on Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:58 am

Coolone wrote:What would you thing would be the best Vista or XP and why?

This is actually a question that I'm asking myself.

I am willing to make the jump to vista, but some people say that it's better to wait until Vista's ServicePack1 releases.
Heh-heh alllriiight.
User avatar
-=Draven=-
Stacker Hacker
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Where the people speaks french

Postby Maxession on Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:17 pm

I'd say wait:

1 Not much better then XP
2 Drivers for vista are rare
3 Vista requires much more RAM
4 Games are faster on XP
5 ...

I'm waiting 1 more year before I'll change, and I'm studying ICT, >90% of my class still uses XP.
The persons with their new laptops that came with Vista preinstalled, have all changed back to XP on their.

TIP: If you just want the aero interface, there's also a program that gives the same to XP, don't know the name anymore thow.
User avatar
Maxession
CM Moderator
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:12 am
Location: Antwerp

Postby knud on Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:43 pm

You can use Crystal XP to create a vista look.
I did use the vista inspirat for that.
CM Parts shop
QX6850 @ 3.2 Ghz | Abit IP35pro | OCZ DDR2-800 4gb Reaper | Leadtek 8800GTX | WD Raptor 74GB | ATCS 840 | CM Real Power M700 | 1x CM Aerogate 3 | Z600 Black
User avatar
knud
Cooler than Cooler Master!
 
Posts: 3356
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:48 am
Location: Europe

Postby Maxession on Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:30 am

I found another program, it's TopDesk, there just appeared a review of it on PCApex :wink:
User avatar
Maxession
CM Moderator
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:12 am
Location: Antwerp

Postby ID on Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:59 am

merovingian wrote:Crap is the future, embrace it!

Bah, if thats the case I choose to rebel!

Maxession wrote:The persons with their new laptops that came with Vista preinstalled, have all changed back to XP on their.

That's the situation that I'm in right now. When I have some time off from school I plan to wipe Vista and roll back to XP.
User avatar
ID
Cooler than Cooler Master!
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Ontario

Postby Viper on Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:06 am

If you don't have old hardware i d say go with vista. I definitely don't regret it... and personally i don't give a damn about how it looks... below the surface vista s simply superior over xp. the lack of good drivers can hardly be blamed on the os, same thing when xp was introduced. so unless you got old stuff you want to keep using no reason not to. the performance differences are negligible imo...

The persons with their new laptops that came with Vista preinstalled, have all changed back to XP on their.

other way around here... had xp, dumped it in favor of vista 64bit.

but then again i do must of my work under debian (dualboot) so only need windows for windows-only stuff like VS
Viper
LED Head
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:17 am

Postby -=Draven=- on Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:24 pm

If I were to buy Windows Vista and knowing that I have a Core 2 Duo processor, should I go for the 32-bits or the 64-bits version?
Also, I've heard that the 64-bits Vista has a few problems, does anybody if that is true?

And for those who prefers XP over Vista, what's wrong with Vista, except for drivers issues?
Heh-heh alllriiight.
User avatar
-=Draven=-
Stacker Hacker
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Where the people speaks french

Postby Wacft on Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:15 pm

id wait till SP1 before doing Vista if possible, most the bugs are ironed out though. it is a memory hog, i wouldnt run vista without a gig of ram and it can only utilize 3 gigs so xp would be more efficient ramwise. 64bit only gonna help if the progs you use supports it. vista really only shoulda came out in 64bit to force everyone to switch, no reason to keep embracing the past when we should be fixing the future before its the past.
Image
User avatar
Wacft
CosMod
 
Posts: 2603
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: My Mom's House *sniff*

Postby Viper on Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:16 am

vista 64bit doesn't have any major problems as far as i know...

if you are getting 4 gigs ram or more you need a 64bit OS since a 32bit OS can only address about 3.2 gig.

main disadvantages to using vista 64bits are
- no support for old 16 bit windows programs
- no registry and file redirection to attempt to keep old programs from breaking on vista. so some programs that work on 32bit wouldn't work on 64bit.
- the driver shortage... on 64bit a bit worse since the drivers need to be designed for vista, and 64bit. but when building a new system with new hardware, i would expect to see proper drivers...

As for the drivers, vista 64bit only takes signed drivers that have been certified by Microsoft. Personally, i don't see this as a disadvantage because in most cases when a PC crashes a faulty driver is the cause..

When all you want to do is games, there s no reason to go to vista atm, unless you need the DX10 capabilities... 64bit is not faster then 32bit either, but it can address more resources.
As for the advantage over xp, imo it s negligible, but i don't care that much either about a few fps more..

There s also a reason to choose the 64bit version though... the new safety net that supposed to protect the kernel from intrusions is only available on the 64bit versions.

imho, if you decide you do want to go to vista, there s no reason to not go 64bit.


i still want to comment on the memory hog part though...
yes it uses more ram then XP, but which pc ships with less then a gig these days? which is what you need to run it smoothly.
and yes, if you have more - and even with only 1 gig for that matter - vista will use more then it really needs. who ever said that is a bad thing?
RAM is not a resource. you should think of RAM as nothing more than a cache. and an empty cache, is just a waste of resources. vista will use any ram not needed by other programs to pre-cache parts of often used programs and libraries to lower access times when they are required. if a program needs more ram, the os simply dumps a part of the pre-cache.


and for the record, i am not some vista fanboy, i m a just .net programmer.
Viper
LED Head
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:17 am

Postby Wacft on Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:07 am

Viper wrote:i still want to comment on the memory hog part though...
yes it uses more ram then XP, but which pc ships with less then a gig these days? which is what you need to run it smoothly.
and yes, if you have more - and even with only 1 gig for that matter - vista will use more then it really needs. who ever said that is a bad thing?
RAM is not a resource. you should think of RAM as nothing more than a cache. and an empty cache, is just a waste of resources. vista will use any ram not needed by other programs to pre-cache parts of often used programs and libraries to lower access times when they are required. if a program needs more ram, the os simply dumps a part of the pre-cache.


and for the record, i am not some vista fanboy, i m a just .net programmer.


check any store that sells computers and you will see vista systems with 512mb of ram and they run slow as crap. and vista is still a memory hog no matter how you put it.
Image
User avatar
Wacft
CosMod
 
Posts: 2603
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: My Mom's House *sniff*

Postby ID on Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:51 am

Viper wrote:When all you want to do is games, there s no reason to go to vista atm, unless you need the DX10 capabilities...

I don't think many would agree with you on that. If all you do is game, than this list of DX10 games is pretty convincing:

Games that have DX10 support:
Crysis
Shadowrun
World in Conflict
Alan Wake
Flight Simulator X: Adrenaline
Unreal Tournament 3
Hellgate: London
Age of Conan
Company of Heroes, Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts
Bioshock
Eve Online
Call of Juarez (with patch)
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition

Games that will likely support DX10:
Starcraft 2
Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway
Gears of War
Universe at War: Earth Assault
Warhound
Chrome 2
Guild Wars 2

There's a lot of big titles there, many of which will be coming out in the next couple of months.
User avatar
ID
Cooler than Cooler Master!
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Ontario

Postby CoolZone on Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:16 am

go with vista only after the sp1 final appears,and this only if you do not have any issues with creative cards that time
CoolZone
Vortex Dreamer
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:40 am

Next

Return to PC Knowledge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests