vista or xp?

[306maxi]

what about it is better?

personally as it is significantly slower for gaming this is a reason for me not to use it.

when i trialed it networking and file transfers were significantly slower so i'm not sure about it being well developed. the amount of post release patches in such a short space of time would also refute that claim.

looks ugly? so style over substance wins again?

Thing is it's not "significantly" slower. It is a bit slower but since when has upgrading to a new OS come with decreased overheads?

The file transfers issue has been sorted in SP1 which will go live soon.

[Splash]

what about it is better?

personally as it is significantly slower for gaming this is a reason for me not to use it.

when i trialed it networking and file transfers were significantly slower so i'm not sure about it being well developed. the amount of post release patches in such a short space of time would also refute that claim.

looks ugly? so style over substance wins again?

You're basically stating an opinion as fact as a response to someone else stating an opinion as fact. You both lose.

File transfers _were_ slower on release, a patch has fixed this for most people (myself included). It's slower in gaming but I'd like to see figures to back up your use of the term "significantly", as I find it's not really a massive hit.

And yes, yes it is pretty. But it's also functional. More a case of style AND substance rather than style over substance.

As for the amount of post release patches... Would you like to check how many patches were released for XP in the first year post release? And why is this necessarily a bad thing?

Your FUD is boring, frankly.

[[GSV]Trig]

Thing is it's not "significantly" slower. It is a bit slower but since when has upgrading to a new OS come with decreased overheads?

The file transfers issue has been sorted in SP1 which will go live soon.

Yes it is significantly slower, try copying a file over the network, says its going to take several thousand hours, cancel it and try again and it takes as long as you would expect. So yes, I would call that significantly slower...
There are reports that sp1 RC doesnt fix this problem so looks like I'll be waiting for sp2 at this rate even tho I have a nice free copy of Vista Ultimate here...

[306maxi]

Yes it is significantly slower, try copying a file over the network, says its going to take several thousand hours, cancel it and try again and it takes as long as you would expect. So yes, I would call that significantly slower...
There are reports that sp1 RC doesnt fix this problem so looks like I'll be waiting for sp2 at this rate even tho I have a nice free copy of Vista Ultimate here...

He was talking about gaming....... in gaming it is NOT significantly slower.

[usxhe190]

get vista

[bigbloke]

You're basically stating an opinion as fact as a response to someone else stating an opinion as fact. You both lose.

File transfers _were_ slower on release, a patch has fixed this for most people (myself included). It's slower in gaming but I'd like to see figures to back up your use of the term "significantly", as I find it's not really a massive hit.

And yes, yes it is pretty. But it's also functional. More a case of style AND substance rather than style over substance.

As for the amount of post release patches... Would you like to check how many patches were released for XP in the first year post release? And why is this necessarily a bad thing?

Your FUD is boring, frankly.

vista is slower when transfering files over a network fact. there is enough information available proving this if you actually wanted to find out. it is even slower transfering files from hard drive to hard drive or from partition to partion within the same pc.

there are plenty of game comparison data available from reputable web sources if you are too lazy to look thats is your problem.

most people? don't make me laugh. i know several people who's file transfers have not been fixed at all, just because yours have doesn't mean the issue has been fixed at all.

i asked how it was better yet i see this was ignored.

You don't seem very bright, i clearly quoted someone so it was clear what i was addressing in my original post. He stated it was a very well developed. to me if it was then there would not have been the need for such a raft of patches. clear for you now?

Since i only speak plain english and not internet speak i have no idea what fud means. i can say i find your selective approach (ignoring questions asked and lack of comprehension) boring and your attitude rude and ignorant.

He was talking about gaming....... in gaming it is NOT significantly slower.

i was clearly talking about both.

[306maxi]

There's no need to be rude to another poster. It's a pity there's no ignore button on this forum

[bigbloke]

There's no need to be rude to another poster. It's a pity there's no ignore button on this forum

my response was in kind to how i was addressed sorry im not part of your clique.

[directhex]

There's no need to be rude to another poster. It's a pity there's no ignore button on this forum

User CP -> Edit Profile -> Buddy/Ignore Lists

and here's my take: if you want 64-bit, unquestionably get vista. xp64 is junk - you won't even be able to install most of your games without hacking the installers, and possibly installing cd cracks too

32-bit? depends on your kit. if your pc is middle-of-the-road, stick with xp, since by the time vista-only stuff is the norm you'll have a new pc. if it's high end, pick vista - the performance niggles are going to make a much lower impact on you, and you'll be equipped for running dx10 titles properly, and future vista-only stuff

[306maxi]

User CP -> Edit Profile -> Buddy/Ignore Lists

and here's my take: if you want 64-bit, unquestionably get vista. xp64 is junk - you won't even be able to install most of your games without hacking the installers, and possibly installing cd cracks too

32-bit? depends on your kit. if your pc is middle-of-the-road, stick with xp, since by the time vista-only stuff is the norm you'll have a new pc. if it's high end, pick vista - the performance niggles are going to make a much lower impact on you, and you'll be equipped for running dx10 titles properly, and future vista-only stuff

Cheers.

It's like every OS release before it. If you've got a PC that's a few years old (and you're not the sort of person to build your own) then don't bother upgrading as it'll be slow and you'll just end up getting another PC and probably paying again. But if you're buying a new PC now and it's decently specced (dual core, at least a gig of ram and has a dedicated graphics card) then buy it because you'll just end up wanting/needing it in a few years anyway.

One thing I can say about Vista is that unlike XP which took two SP's and a few years to get right, they've got Vista pretty much on the money now with SP1 RC

[Splash]

vista is slower when transfering files over a network fact. there is enough information available proving this if you actually wanted to find out. it is even slower transfering files from hard drive to hard drive or from partition to partion within the same pc.

based on my experience (across 3 machines I personally own with a variety of hardware and OSes) while it was slower in the first instance this is no longer the case. I'm aware that there are some people out there who are still having issues, which is why I used the word most in my post. Trig, I refer you to the same thing.

there are plenty of game comparison data available from reputable web sources if you are too lazy to look thats is your problem.

...and plenty of sources that state the opposite.

most people? don't make me laugh. i know several people who's file transfers have not been fixed at all, just because yours have doesn't mean the issue has been fixed at all.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the aforementioned use of the word most. I can provide a definition if required for clarification.

i asked how it was better yet i see this was ignored.

For this I can only apologise - I misread your quote and took it out of context, but if you want one thing that makes it better (in my eyes, I know a lot of people feel that they know better and that it's insulting, but... think how many zombie pcs there are out there) how about UAC and the generally improved security model?

You don't seem very bright,

Thanks. Not that it really counts for much, but I like to think that the number of thanks I have received in my time on this forum means that at least some people respect my opinion and the help I have happily provided in the past. You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else though. I'll avoid descending to your level however.

clearly quoted someone so it was clear what i was addressing in my original post. He stated it was a very well developed. to me if it was then there would not have been the need for such a raft of patches. clear for you now?

Again, for the purposes of clarification (as it seems I wasn't clear enough in the original post) pretty much all software gets patched post release. For the record I've been working in the IT sector for... a fair while now. I remember XP when it was initially released and it was terrible until SP1 - I find Vista a lot more usable out of the box at RTM. Hopefully this makes slightly more sense.

Since i only speak plain english and not internet speak i have no idea what fud means.

Google could have told you, but in the interests of learning a new thing every day (grabbed from Wikipedia, first hit on Google)

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric used in sales, marketing and public relations. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative (and vague) information. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.

The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.


You can have that definition for free.

i can say i find your selective approach (ignoring questions asked and lack of comprehension) boring and your attitude rude and ignorant.

Hopefully I've addressed all your issues here. If not please let me know and I'll see what I can rustle up for you.

i was clearly talking about both.

I believe I covered both bases. Would you like me to quote myself, despite it being incredibly unfashionable?



I believe Directhex has hit the nail pretty much on the head - if you're looking to the future then it seems silly to install XP on a new build. And if my responses don't fit in with your personal opinion then that's fine: I'm just a little tired of the same old rhetoric being rolled out time and time again in identical threads where people could easily enough use the search function. It's what it's there for, after all.

[306maxi]

Got a bit of a question for you.

I'm building a new PC and have everything bar the CPU and OS. Will be getting an E8400 so that's not the issue.

My issue is whether to go 32 or 64 bit vista. If I buy 64 bit vista and it goes pear shaped will I be able to use my 32 bit media and install it as 32 bit. A question for Microsoft I'm thinking but thought I'd ask.

[Splash]

If you're building a new machine from scratch I'd first check that signed x64 drivers are available for all hardware, and if so install x64.

If you're buying OEM you don't get both 32 and 64 bit media, and even if buying retail you only get both 32 and 64 bit media with Ultimate. All other versions you must send off for the alternate media for. As far as I'm aware (and has been stated elsewhere on these forums) your license is valid for either 32 or 64 bit flavours, though this is obviously an either/or situation (ie installing 32 bit on one machine and 64 bit on another would clearly be a license violation)

[[GSV]Trig]

He was talking about gaming....... in gaming it is NOT significantly slower.

CS:S was significantly slower on my system with VSYNC off, I play with vsync on so its not an issues but it is slower.

[directhex]

Got a bit of a question for you.

I'm building a new PC and have everything bar the CPU and OS. Will be getting an E8400 so that's not the issue.

My issue is whether to go 32 or 64 bit vista. If I buy 64 bit vista and it goes pear shaped will I be able to use my 32 bit media and install it as 32 bit. A question for Microsoft I'm thinking but thought I'd ask.

4 gig of ram or more? unquestionably 64-bit. less? flip a coin, and moan about having made the wrong choice

[306maxi]

CS:S was significantly slower on my system with VSYNC off, I play with vsync on so its not an issues but it is slower.

DoD:S was marginally slower too for me. TF2 is also marginally slower too. As I said there are always higher overheads with a new OS.