A few "quick" questions

[bigfooty]

After 3+ years of sturdy service from my Scan 3XS system I'm looking to upgrade to a completely new machine. Ideally I would go with Scan again as this current box is the second I purchased from them and they've been good machines, but some cheaper alternatives that I've come across have left me wondering a few things:

1 - Vista or XP? Games are the main thing my PC is used for in terms of demanding performance yet I understand Vista currently has issues with some older and not so old titles?

2 - Core2 or Quad? I'm kinda looking at either a Core2 2.66 or a Quad 2.4 for my CPU. A review I came across on Hexus suggested that game performance difference is minute due to no games being designed to take advantage of Quad-core technology. If I estimate the shelf-life of this PC to be 2 years minimum would it be worth the extra money to get a Quad-core now?

3 - 2gb or 4gb? As I understand it if I want 4gb to work fully I have to get 64 bit Vista which is a minor added cost. Is this right?

4 - Graphics Card? I'm looking for a graphics card that will last me a couple of years though perhaps not as long as the rest of the PC, the graphics card in this machine is not the original one as I replaced it about 15 months ago. Is a 640MB card excessive if I'm not planning to run games at full detail?

Any help or comments would be appreciated.

[Blitzen]

1. Vista - Why go backwards. I run 64 Bit Vista and all my games run flawlessly. (BF2/Stalker/Oblivion/BF2142)

2. Barely anything supports Dual Core yet, let alone Quad core, especially gaming wise. Depends on how long you want the PC to last before upgrading. Personally, if the funds are available, i would say go Quad.

3. 4gb definitely. BF2 runs soooooo much better with 4 than 2. My PC has a new lease of life with 4 over 2 aswell.

4. If you aren't planning on using full detail/high resolutions then 320mb is plenty (8800GTS)

[bigfooty]

Thanks for that, helps me narrow it down a bit.

[Oobie-]

1- XP imo, vista has too many bug/driver issues from what I have heard, yea your games may work, but performance may suffer.

2- you can get a quad for fairly cheap http://www.scan.co.uk/products/produ...oductID=633215
But for now, it would be a 6420 or a 6600 I reckon.

3- 2gb is sufficient for everything, unless you do video editing or animation, just memory intense stuff.

4- As it stands and 8800 seems to be better than the letdown card that is the HD2900, but I'm not sure about the drivers from Nvidia - someone who owns a card could shed light on that.
512mb excessive if you aren't going to run games at full detail (BUT YOU SHOULD! ) So yea 640mb would be excessive, however I cant remember if performance on a card with the same clocks and stuff but 256mb vs. 512mb was any different (when using normal resolutions). I'm sure someone should be able to clarify.

[redlight]

Just get Vista as Blitzen says no point in going backwards.
As for incompatibility there is not a lot I need that does not work on Vista 64.
Even the fuzzy grey,black not to be talked about darkside works fine.

[Clunk]

If possible, try and have XP and vista. Ive recently installed Vista x64 and there are still plenty of annoyances, although this will depend on your hardware, but dont expect a smooth ride with any graphics drivers.

4GB makes absolutely no difference to everyday vista tasks on my system, cant speak for other systems, but I would have though that the difference is more of a perceptual one.

I would also say that for about 80% of tasks, even things like opening a restored session of Firefox with, say 6 or 7 windows, is much quicker on XP, at least for me anyway.

Quad core is great if you actually have something that will use all 4 cores.

If you plan on getting a quad core and overclocking, you will need good cooling, these things run hot when fed extra voltage. There is a new version out soon that has slightly less heat output, but it is still going to be fairly hot when extra voltage is added.

[Oobie-]

So blitzen, you dont have any program/driver issues?

[Spud1]

1) Vista for sure - XP is old now, and there are so few Vista compatability problems in reality as long as you have fairly new hardware - which you will have. Software wise I've still yet to find an application that I use daily that doesn't run. Also this rubbish about games running slower is just that - rubbish. You might lose 1 or 2 fps in the odd game, but this will probably be down to a driver somewhere on your system, and your not going to notice. People are just scared of Vista, like they were when XP first came out..just take the plunge, you'll love it I promise I must note that I am referring to the 32-bit version of Vista here, as I don't have a 64-bit CPU so can't comment on the 64-bit version

2) C2D - unless your running things that take advantage of 4 cores..which is unlikely. Remember that there are still precious few applications that take advantage of even 2 cores...

3) I would go with 2GB for now, unless your a fan of loading huge PSD files ..you can always upgrade to more later if you wish (assuming your mobo supports4 modules, which if its a good board it will do).

4) Havn't got a clue on gfx cards these days, read above for advice there

[badger]

Dual-boot Vista and XP, that's the best solution. XP for day to day use and boot into Vista when you have to play a Vista-exclusive game.

[Spud1]

Dual-boot Vista and XP, that's the best solution. XP for day to day use and boot into Vista when you have to play a Vista-exclusive game.

Sorry to almost hijack this thread - but what would be the point of that? Vista is a much nicer OS for day to day use, would make more sense to use Vista for day-to-day and then XP for the few things that are not compatable

[Blitzen]

So blitzen, you dont have any program/driver issues?

Nope.....not now.

I d/l it straight from MSDN on the first day and it was practically unusable for 5-6 weeks.
Nvidia was the biggest let down...closely followed by Creative.
All drivers seem to be sort now and i couldnt be happier.

Dual-boot Vista and XP, that's the best solution. XP for day to day use and boot into Vista when you have to play a Vista-exclusive game.

Sorry but i must disagree. Its a pointless solution .............. not the best solution.
The only real need for dual boot is if you have old programs that dont work on Vista.
I have played older games on it (RTCW/UT2K4) and its great.

4GB makes absolutely no difference to everyday vista tasks on my system, cant speak for other systems, but I would have though that the difference is more of a perceptual one.

I have to disagree there aswell.
After putting the extra 2gb in, my performance has definitely increased. Everyday stuff, as you point out, has received no real benefit....but gaming certainly has.

[Clunk]

If you could tell me exactly what tasks are faster in Vista with 4GB over 2GB, I'll give them a go, but I certainly havent found any so far.