XP vs VISTA

YOBREKCALS · December 26th, 2007, 02:46 PM

So I just built a new computer 4gbram, core 2 duo 3.0 ghz. I want to be able to play the newest games, but I here Vista has alot of problems. DoesXP play all the recent games? If not, how many are only on Vista?

In general, which is more worthwhile?

nemowolf · December 26th, 2007, 05:52 PM

XP = DX 9 ...
Vista = DX 10 ...

XP = not able to use all 4gigs of ram
Vista = able to use upto 16 gigs of ram.

Vista = Situational problems for the most part. Vanilla installs with minor tweaks shouldnt have to much of a problem ... If your not a real power user then consider this.
Xp = Highly configurable and Tweakable, if you know what you want to do and know XP can handle it ... Get this.

EDIT:
XP: 32 bit
Vista: Worthwhile to get the 64 bit, dont bother with the 32 bit really.

Just a few Pro's and Con's imho.

RamonGTP · December 26th, 2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nemowolf

XP = not able to use all 4gigs of ram
Vista = able to use upto 16 gigs of ram.

This isn't quite accurate. The 32bit versions of BOTH OS' are limited to a maximum of 4GB of addressable memory space. You can try using PAE (Physical Address Extention) to extend the addressable space to 36bits, but it doesn't always work and comes with a performance hit. Again, this applies to BOTH OS' If you're going to run 4 or more GB of ram, you'd want to go with the 64bit version.

nemowolf · December 26th, 2007, 09:19 PM

If your going with Vista, you might as well go with 64bit since its the only REQUIRED driver version for Vista compatibility as opposed to the optional 32 bit.

I will edit my original post to reflect this.

RamonGTP · December 26th, 2007, 09:29 PM

I'll disagree again. There are many reasons one would opt to go with the 32bit version of Vista. Primarily for compatibility. 64bit version of Vista, while MUCH better than the 64bit version of XP, still has more compatibility issues than the 32bit version of vista. Driver signing is but one hurdle, there are some apps that simply will not work in a 64bit environment. I'm running both versions and I have setup both versions for many clients, so I am speaking from personal expierence. My 64bit hurdles were fairly minor, the biggest one being the driver signing, but that is starting to get better and better. I've had a couple pieces of hardware that I needed to replace beucase they would not work in a 64bit OS. Not too big of a deal, just bought a new scanner and tuner card. However, sometimes the issues are not so minor, I had a client whom I built a computer for using 64bit becuase of the amount of memory he wanted, and eventually we decided that it just wouldn't work for him. He had tons of software that were critical to his business that simply wouldn't run or even install in many cases.

nemowolf · December 27th, 2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamonGTP

I'll disagree again. There are many reasons one would opt to go with the 32bit version of Vista. Primarily for compatibility. 64bit version of Vista, while MUCH better than the 64bit version of XP, still has more compatibility issues than the 32bit version of vista. Driver signing is but one hurdle, there are some apps that simply will not work in a 64bit environment. I'm running both versions and I have setup both versions for many clients, so I am speaking from personal expierence. My 64bit hurdles were fairly minor, the biggest one being the driver signing, but that is starting to get better and better. I've had a couple pieces of hardware that I needed to replace beucase they would not work in a 64bit OS. Not too big of a deal, just bought a new scanner and tuner card. However, sometimes the issues are not so minor, I had a client whom I built a computer for using 64bit becuase of the amount of memory he wanted, and eventually we decided that it just wouldn't work for him. He had tons of software that were critical to his business that simply wouldn't run or even install in many cases.

Excellent arguement for a business standpoint but in the original posts, he stated he wants to play games. (As an IT professional, I dread the day we move to Vista from XP because we have legacy apps still only able to run from a true DOS environment)

As Microsoft pushes the Games for Windows agenda down everyones throat, this means 64bit compatibility and optional 32 bit. I have been to a few events concerning Vista and reps have stated this is the last 32bit OS Microsoft will be releasing and frankly i agree whole-heartedly since we have had CPU's to handle it for years now.

Yes there may be issues, but as you have said, they are minor and equipment changes may need to take place for "Older" hardware that vendors are no longer supporting or do not want to support into Vista 64. That not really the case as a computer designed for gaming shouldn't need to worry about the scanner not working, thats for a workstation/design computer.

jamesb21222 · January 3rd, 2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nemowolf

XP = DX 9 ...
Vista = DX 10 ...

XP = not able to use all 4gigs of ram
Vista = able to use upto 16 gigs of ram.

Vista = Situational problems for the most part. Vanilla installs with minor tweaks shouldnt have to much of a problem ... If your not a real power user then consider this.
Xp = Highly configurable and Tweakable, if you know what you want to do and know XP can handle it ... Get this.

EDIT:
XP: 32 bit
Vista: Worthwhile to get the 64 bit, dont bother with the 32 bit really.

Just a few Pro's and Con's imho.

OMG? who could even think about using 14 gigs of ram?? its pretty much impossible to find a board that can use that much

osprey4 · January 3rd, 2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesb21222

who could even think about using 14 gigs of ram?? its pretty much impossible to find a board that can use that much

Everyone said the same thing about 4 gigs of ram a few years ago.

The problem with a 64-bit OS is that there are very few programs yet that can take advantage of it. So in addition to lack of driver support, you don't get much bang for your 64-bit buck.

nemowolf · January 3rd, 2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesb21222

OMG? who could even think about using 14 gigs of ram?? its pretty much impossible to find a board that can use that much

I said 16, not 14, LOL! And many boards are capable of handling 8 gigs now. Especially when you consider games that cripple the best hardware like Crisis and how much more crippling this years games could potentially be ... 8 gigs doesnt sound so bad to me.

Also, Servers have historicly used way more than 16 gigs of ram and for those of us who like to VM plenty of machines ... The extra RAM is always a nice thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by osprey4

The problem with a 64-bit OS is that there are very few programs yet that can take advantage of it. So in addition to lack of driver support, you don't get much bang for your 64-bit buck.

dr_roberts49 · January 5th, 2008, 01:11 PM

I had a customer bring in a computer for repair running Windows 95 and packing 16MB of memory. How soon we forget how far we've come.

Have you ever watched a movie from about 20 years back that takes place in the future? Most don't come close to showing what we have now. No cell phones, no world-wide-web. I don't include the Star Trek Universe, which did show many things we now have.

Robert