vista or xp?

[[GSV]Trig]

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

What would you class my machine as?
Since I first tried Vista all I've changed is my gxf card from an x1950 to an HD3850, other than that its the same.

IMHO

Vista isn't quite right yet, yes I know XP wasn't either but we all know that you dont install an MS OS until at least service pack one right...?
I was on 2000WS for ages before I went XP but for now XP32 is the best all round option, its more mature, there aren't as many issues with it as there are with Vista, be it drivers, crap old hardware, people downloading dodgy versions or whatever, Vista IMHO just isnt as good in general as XP.

However, Vista will most certainly be better than XP, there are a lot of new features and "under the hood" improvements that when everythings ironed out (sp2 at the earliest it seems so far) Vista will be better than XP ever was but for now there's just that "air" of uncertanty attached too it, yeah great so there are people out there for whom it works brilliantly, but are there more happy Vista users than XP users, Not yet...

[306maxi]

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)

Well my hardware is all fairly recent and very standard as you can see in the my system section so I'm not too worried about drivers as that shouldn't be an issue. I'm more worried about the possibility of games not working.

If it's correct that the licence is valid for 32 and 64 bit then I think i might go for the 64 bit version as I've already got 32 bit media. Just checked my 32 bit key here -> Windows Vista Alternate Media and I can order 64 bit media so one would reasonably assume that the licence doesn't care whether it's x86 or x64 so I think I'll go for 64bit and fall back on 32 bit if need be.

Cheers for that!

P.S I'm being a bit naughty at the moment because I install Vista onto the other PC the other day with the media I paid for but didn't put in a key. Naughty naughty me!

[Splash]

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.

Gotta be honest... not a game I play, so not one I can comment on. In games I play I see a performance hit, but nothing that I would call significant. And I bounced into XP a little earlier just to double check that this was still the case.

[306maxi]

What would you class my machine as?
Since I first tried Vista all I've changed is my gxf card from an x1950 to an HD3850, other than that its the same.

IMHO

Vista isn't quite right yet, yes I know XP wasn't either but we all know that you dont install an MS OS until at least service pack one right...?
I was on 2000WS for ages before I went XP but for now XP32 is the best all round option, its more mature, there aren't as many issues with it as there are with Vista, be it drivers, crap old hardware, people downloading dodgy versions or whatever, Vista IMHO just isnt as good in general as XP.

However, Vista will most certainly be better than XP, there are a lot of new features and "under the hood" improvements that when everythings ironed out (sp2 at the earliest it seems so far) Vista will be better than XP ever was but for now there's just that "air" of uncertanty attached too it, yeah great so there are people out there for whom it works brilliantly, but are there more happy Vista users than XP users, Not yet...

I definitely won't disagree with most of that.

I have 2 fairly modern machines so for me drivers aren't an issue and I don't have any legacy programs that don't work with Vista so it's all good for me. I'm very much a Vista supporter but I do accept and support views like the ones you've just given. It's just that a lot of people aren't nearly as reasonable and a lot of innocent people get caught up in the FUD

[306maxi]

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

Only 2gb at the moment but I fully intend to get more RAM in the not too distant future which is why I asked about x64 Vista. When I build a nehalem machine next year or thereabouts 4gb of RAM will probably be about the minimum and I fully intend to carry this licence over (boohoo Microsoft my PC died and I want to build a new one. Please let me activate Vista on this one!) as this machine will then probably become a WHS.

[directhex]

What would you class my machine as?

slower than the wife's?

nah, seriously though, in your case, i'd have picked vista 64-bit. you've got 4 gig of ram, so your options are 1: use 32-bit vista, and throw a gig in the bin 2: use xp64 and find most of your apps won't run or install (it's far worse than vista for this) 3: use vista x64, and suffer a slight performance drop from theoretical max

i've been pretty impressed by vista on the wife's machine, and even though it's theoretically slowed down by vista, it still posts 3.5x more 3dmarks than this box.

[[GSV]Trig]

Or 4, use XP32 have 3.25Gb RAM and have no trouble with anything I run...

I've got 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista and it will most certainly be going on my main machine most likely sometime this year (maybe), just a few issues I need to know are sorted before I move over.

[directhex]

Or 4, use XP32 have 3.25Gb RAM and have no trouble with anything I run...

so option 1 from my list, then?

[bigbloke]

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

Incorrect I was stating my personal opinion based on my personal experience emphasised using the word personally. Sorry if the subtlety evaded you.

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. .

See above.


It is generally accepted that Vista is slower. Feel free to live in denial and mislead people who don’t have first hand experience, if it makes you feel good.

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

I actually find it highly amusing that you feel you’re in a position to condescend to me. When you have already proved that simple comprehension is beyond you.

You're basically stating an opinion as fact

Again you are guilty of what you wrongly accused me of doing. The issue has been fixed for you on your config, I can’t see how you decide that it has therefore done for most systems.

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 misread the majority of what I said, then used your lack of comprehension of basic English to insult me when there really was no need.

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.

Ever heard the expression “ in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king” well this surely applies to that statement. I’ll be happy to offer explanation if you need it. Your self righteous condescending ways know no limit, descend to my level?? I suggest you re read my original post and your response to it before spouting any more of this rubbish.

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.

Are you really dim or do you think you are funny? It is you that has obvious difficulties comprehending simple plain English not I. I clearly stated in my original post and my subsequent post what I had been directly referring to concerning patches. Yet you keep pushing this when xp was released line like it is relevent.

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

Why should I have to go to google to look up a term which in the real world isn’t in common usage. Normal people don’t use obscure acronyms as if they were common words in case you hadn’t been outside lately.


[QUOTE=Splash;1310661]I believe I covered both bases. Would you like me to quote myself, despite it being incredibly unfashionable? /QUOTE]

Again basic comprehension seems to have evaded you again, that response was to another poster that decided to tell someone what i had posted as if it wasn't clearly displayed on the page.

I posted an opinion based on my experiences just because your experiences have improved it 1. doesn't mean that the issues didn't / don't still exist for lots of users. 2. give you the right to accuse me of spreading misinformation. I suggest you learn to read and comprehend first before you start making unfounded attacks on people.

[Splash]

<snip>

Y'know what? I'm bored of this. You read what you like into it. You have clearly decided on your opinion and are not able to enter into a reasoned debate. As for misleading people who don't have first hand experience... I'm trying to give those who have asked for help in using my first hand experience as per the whole point of this thread. Enjoy your trolling.

EDIT - now, back on topic, eh?

[[GSV]Trig]

so option 1 from my list, then?

Option 1 from your list being Vista32 then yeah, not quite XP32 it it

[directhex]

Option 1 from your list being Vista32 then yeah, not quite XP32 it it

whoops, that's a typo!

[[GSV]Trig]

Aye, and rather shortsited according to another poster, guessing everyones got a 64 bit CPU these days so there was no need for MS to create yet alone release Vista32...

[directhex]

Aye, and rather shortsited according to another poster, guessing everyones got a 64 bit CPU these days so there was no need for MS to create yet alone release Vista32...

we need 16-bit vista, to run my old win3.1 games, that's what i say!

[[GSV]Trig]

Is that not what unix is for?

[306maxi]

Aye, and rather shortsited according to another poster, guessing everyones got a 64 bit CPU these days so there was no need for MS to create yet alone release Vista32...

Thing is if they hadn't done it in 32 bit there would have been even more cries that Microsoft are just trying to make you buy a whole new PC and how they're driving the hardware industry and so on. Bah! Microsoft is forcing me to buy a 64 bit processor and so on. There'd be people who have a decent P4 which is more than capable of running Vista but isn't 64 bit. I think it's right that Microsoft released both versions. 64 bit gives a performance hit so as well as taking a performance hit just for using Vista you also take one for using 64 bit and if you've got something which was marginal in the first place it's now going to crawl because of that.