Winxp or Vista ?

[[GSV]Trig]

Yes, must of been my pre release copy runninfg on my inferiour system that was causing the random slowdowns, ~30fps loss in CS:S and weird network performance...

[Paranoid2000]

New system, 32bit vista, and do all the recommended updates from Microsoft and you will be pleasantly surprised.

Given Vista's memory requirements plus those of current games and 32-bit is really the last version anyone should consider. People are already hitting the 2GB limit with the likes of Supreme Commander on Vista so anyone wanting to avoid an OS reinstall a year or so down the road really needs to consider 64-bit now. Which in Vista's case has additional complications.

As for a new system - if an OS requires it, isn't that really a statement on how wasteful it is of computer resources? At the very least, if an OS requires double the resources of its predecessor, it should offer double the functionality - and very few posters have opined this of Vista, let alone backed such a view up with hard data.

[charleski]

JoyOfTech

[Rishi]

Not posted much but recently installed Vista Business 64bit...

My advice, dual boot both XP and Vista; I've not really had any problems with Vista but I always know that if I do I have XP to play with, research the problem etc...slowly migrate over to Vista and use the system restore function!

I plan to have a full Vista install with all my apps etc...and have a small basic XP install, even if its just internet and essential stuff installed on it.

[nichomach]

I've junked Vista at least temporarily off my home machine; I was getting BSODs, which I didn't with XP, and performance (especially in games) was downright shoddy.

[Splash]

Given Vista's memory requirements plus those of current games and 32-bit is really the last version anyone should consider. People are already hitting the 2GB limit with the likes of Supreme Commander on Vista so anyone wanting to avoid an OS reinstall a year or so down the road really needs to consider 64-bit now. Which in Vista's case has additional complications.

As for a new system - if an OS requires it, isn't that really a statement on how wasteful it is of computer resources? At the very least, if an OS requires double the resources of its predecessor, it should offer double the functionality - and very few posters have opined this of Vista, let alone backed such a view up with hard data.

Damn, I'd better move back to Windows 3.1 in that case, it was much less resource hungry.

[[GSV]Trig]

My issue is that there arent enough features and additions to warrant that increase of resources..
Programmers find it a lot easier to say stick some more ram in a machine or faster CPU than actually optimising there software..

[Koolpc]

Be nice if we could have a poll on XP v Vista

[[GSV]Trig]

Depends what u use it for tho, I have 32bit Vista Business on my work machine and its fine other than the weird network performance.
Yet I tried to like it at home (Ultimate64) but the reduction in gaming performace was a bit too much to swallow..

[Rishi]

Pretty much spot on; for someone wanting to send emails, surf the web, IM, type stuff up Vista is as good as XP for them.

It just when you start to play about with new hardware, games, hardcore apps you get problems, but I remember when XP came out and everyone said the same thing about the OS and lack of support etc...

These things take time unfortunatly

[[GSV]Trig]

Agree'd, Vista over time will be better than XP, the core is there its the rest of it that needs stabalising and work.

[this_is_gav]

My issue is that there arent enough features and additions to warrant that increase of resources..
Programmers find it a lot easier to say stick some more ram in a machine or faster CPU than actually optimising there software..

I just don't find it more resource hungry. I played around with Vista x86 on one of our laptops with 512mb RAM and some random Sempron in it, dumping all our normal software on it to see what was compatible, and it was just as fast (or slow) as XP was, though much faster to start up. It's good that is uses a lot of RAM. RAM is utterly pointless if it's unused. Where Vista is a massive improvement is that it's intelligent in actually releasing RAM to the programs or processes that need it, rather than XP, which just seems to randomly go 'oooh, go on then'.

x64 would be a different story though, but then the x64 XP version is too.

[[GSV]Trig]

I had someone give me a laptop with 512Mb in it and Vista Home Basic, it was taking near on 4 minutes to get into windows and be useable, un XP its taking half that time.
Needless to say its going back to the user with XP on it.

[usxhe190]

depends on your computer. If you are getting a top of the range computer, go for vista - since although not good now, you can get SPs later on.

if you are getting a mid-range or low end computer, vista is going to slow down your system a lot as it is a resource hog. in a few years, your computer will be slow with Vista with all its SPs

[[GSV]Trig]

So my rigs not good enough for Vista then eh?
Slower gaming performance, random network performance.
I think that in time Vista will be better than it is now, for someone thats not going to be doing any gaming then Vista as it is now is ok, if you want to do games tho XP's the way to go.

<--- My system's over thar..

[Dorza]

Microsoft offering XP downgrade - I know what I would go for my self.