# which will slow down my computer?



## HiddenStupid (Apr 14, 2008)

which will slow down my computer?

XP 64bit?
 or
Vista 32bit?


----------



## tzitzibp (Apr 14, 2008)

I believe the answer is... both!

but, XP 64bit will take better advantage of the cpu and possibly the memory.... However there will be incombatibilities....


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 14, 2008)

tzitzibp said:


> I believe the answer is... both!
> 
> but, XP 64bit will take better advantage of the cpu and possibly the memory.... However there will be incombatibilities....



How exactly is that? Last time I checked Vista was the one actually utilizing RAM. XP doesn't do much with it.


----------



## Black Panther (Apr 14, 2008)

I've never compared the two OS's myself but I've always heard that Vista is much more of a resources hog than any version of XP.

The definite advantage of _any _64 bit OS is that you can put more than 3GB ram. 32bit will only read 3GB or 3.5GB.


----------



## tzitzibp (Apr 14, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> How exactly is that? Last time I checked Vista was the one actually utilizing RAM. XP doesn't do much with it.



man read before you write.... I never said  that XP 64 utilizes ram.... I clearly said that it takes better advantage of it....check this http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878002.aspx

as for vista 32... well it consumes a lot more than any xp system i have ever seen...


----------



## Snake05 (Apr 14, 2008)

I say it is more of a toss up.  XP x64 will allow over 3.25Gb of ram to be utualized, and Vista is known to be a resource hog at times.  If you are trying to figure out which one to use, my vote would be for Vista, then tweak it to improve some performance use this.  I am a fan of x64 all the way, but the driver issues (or mainly just lack of drivers) for x64 XP is what is a big turn off for me.


----------



## Kursah (Apr 14, 2008)

Get Vista x64...runs great on my rig, sure it uses a hefty share of memory, but I got 4GB and it runs nice n' quick....running SP1, found no issues, incompatabilities yet! If you have an older scanner or printer, you may be SoL in x64 in the first place, but to me Vista x64 is better than x86! That's just my opinion though, so take it with a grain of salt!


----------



## Triprift (Apr 14, 2008)

Definitly Vista 64bit and if ya worried about the resource hog thing just use vlite.


----------



## das müffin mann (Apr 14, 2008)

vista 64 will be a little slower than 32 but at the same time it can utilize more ram and what not


----------



## 7mm (Apr 14, 2008)

Vista Without a Doubt. Though With More Than 1GB Of RAM Installed & With Some Visual EyeCandy Disabled, It Shouldn't Be a Problem. I'd Personally Preffer 2GB Min. For Vista To Run The Way It Should. While WinXP In Both The (32 / 64 Bit) Flavours, Will Run Smooth Well In Control With Your Current Setup.


----------



## asb2106 (Apr 14, 2008)

I think with your 1.5GBs of ram that you should stick with XP, and you may as well stick with 32bit.  64bit wont give you any real advantage.  

That being said, if you plan to upgrade to 4 gig then I would say go with Vista x64.  It may be a resource hog, but it wont slow down your machine.  It uses those resources to gain a speed advantage.


----------



## CrackerJack (Apr 14, 2008)

HiddenStupid said:


> which will slow down my computer?
> 
> XP 64bit?
> or
> Vista 32bit?



i run both, on two different computers. and the vista x86 starts-up a whole faster, mine is xp x64. and seems like it takes it about min for mine to load. my wifes computer is the one using vista and it's up and running in 30 or less


----------



## AsRock (Apr 14, 2008)

Xp 64 for sure... BUT checl out all your hardware that it has drivers for either OS's.

Vista 32bit  don't bother go at least 64bit.  I got Vista 64 bit free of MS and still don't use it as XP x64 was better to me.


----------



## HiddenStupid (Apr 14, 2008)

spec:
- x2 4400+
- 3gig ram dual channel 2x 1gb stick - 2x 512gb stick
- x700 pro


----------



## Darknova (Apr 14, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> I think with your 1.5GBs of ram that you should stick with XP, and you may as well stick with 32bit.  64bit wont give you any real advantage.



Xp x64 is Server 2k3 with all the desktop services and features added back in. There is a huge advantage over the fact that it's more stable, faster, and doesn't rot like XP x86 does (get's slower the longer you use it, eventually forcing a reinstall).

Also, as to people's incompatibility statements, I'm assuming you've never used it, so far the only issues I've had is with my webcam, scanner and printer, which is the same with Vista x64, as x64 drivers are being released very very slowly for all of those.

I will however concede that boot-up times are longer than XP x86, but pfft, is an extra 10-20 seconds really that long considering the benefits of XP x64 over x86?


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 14, 2008)

*cracks fingers* 


Ok , to start xp x64 is NOT XP, its server 2003 x64 in PRO mode, thus many of us from "the scene" (not that scene, the windows geek scene) call it x64pro .

Incompat issues are RARE these days, drivers are as good or better then the 32bit xp drivers, and far better then vista drivers.

Let me start by saing x64pro will allow you to access as much ram as your sysem can hold but will run FAR better on lower ram ammounts then any version of vista would, your very unlikely to find modern hardware u cant get x64pro drivers for, i have 1 item out of all the STACKS of hardware i own that dosnt got a driver an OLD webcam that came with my x800xt pe from asus way back b4 x64 os's where avalable.

I have found maby 4 apps that wouldnt work by default, all of them where easy fixes, one was doom3, it was just an MSI file that needed edited because Id fucked up and didnt add any os to the file other then XP, but if you know about doom3 u know u dont need the installer, just copy the files off the dvd to your hdd and its playable


----------



## AsRock (Apr 14, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> *cracks fingers*
> 
> 
> Ok , to start xp x64 is NOT XP, its server 2003 x64 in PRO mode, thus many of us from "the scene" (not that scene, the windows geek scene) call it x64pro .
> ...



Calling it XP x64 makes life more simple.


Yeah thats about the worsed issue i have had my self installers did not have the issue with doom 3 though.  One app i remember was Area51 but as you say don't take much to correct as MS's Orca will solve that issue.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 14, 2008)

any app u cant get to install u just gotta ask for help on neowin or msfn or the like somebody will help, or google it, most cases theres already a work around, its been years since i had to edit any installer other then the at&t true voice installer that at&t refuses to fix(lazy fucks) i payed for the voiced then have to edit the msi to get them installed on anything above 2k


----------



## AsRock (Apr 15, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> any app u cant get to install u just gotta ask for help on neowin or msfn or the like somebody will help, or google it, most cases theres already a work around, its been years since i had to edit any installer other then the at&t true voice installer that at&t refuses to fix(lazy fucks) i payed for the voiced then have to edit the msi to get them installed on anything above 2k



Just prefure to do it my self used this OS over 2 years now and still enjoy using it.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 15, 2008)

tzitzibp said:


> man read before you write.... I never said  that XP 64 utilizes ram.... I clearly said that it takes better advantage of it....check this http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878002.aspx
> 
> as for vista 32... well it consumes a lot more than any xp system i have ever seen...



You said XP64 takes better advantage of the memory than Vista32. I just said it was vice versa, now how don't I read? The article you linked to is from 2005, so I won't bother reading it as it does not apply to Vista today as Vista wasn't even released back then.
Anyway, I believe this all comes down to my bad English, I for one don't see a difference between utilizing and taking advantage of. Same goes with consume in this case actually.
The reason Vista "consumes" so much RAM is that it caches things, once you require the RAM for something else it releases it. This is a good thing. XP simply doesn't use the RAM for anything. Therefor Vista utilizes the RAM better (or takes better advantage of it, whatever)



Also a bit of advice: Change your tone.


----------



## kingrollo2007 (Apr 15, 2008)

It is proven that if you have too much RAM it slows your computer down.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 15, 2008)

kingrollo2007 said:


> It is proven that if you have too much RAM it slows your computer down.



Mind giving a source for that? 

It is a fact that win98 uses to crash at 512MB or more. And going past 4GB on 32bit via means of PAE slows down. But I don't know of any reason why having more RAM matters on a 64bit system. Not with the limits we have now anyway.


----------



## tzitzibp (Apr 15, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Also a bit of advice: Change your tone.



what tone? 





DanTheBanjoman said:


> How exactly is that? Last time I checked Vista was the one actually utilizing RAM. XP doesn't do much with it.


  

please tell me that there is not a hint of sarcasm in that......


----------



## kingrollo2007 (Apr 15, 2008)

lol haha a source.... makes the CPU work harder.

Also on a 64 bit system the limit is with your mobo and amount of power you have feeding it not the OS. Stressing your power causes unstability in all parts of your box. Vista with 3Gb RAM is enough for any person to use unless you creating 3d models on six different screens where i suggest you go look at Powermac with 16Gb RAM.

Windows 98 stops working after 2.0GHz CPU speed due to windows protection error, its coding does not support high powered machines. You have to pay for the fixes now GRR

heres the link:- http://www.freewarefiles.com/news/showarticle.php?articleID=10    read it


----------



## GSG-9 (Apr 15, 2008)

Edit:"Windows XP x64 is currently limited to 128 GB of physical memory "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition
 I used it (xp64) for 3 years or so as the trial version, I only had 1.5gigs at the time.

If I were you, I would buy the 32, and borrow someones ultamate disk, then during install with the ultamate disk dont enter a cd key and select Vista (Version You bought here) 64bit. The same key will work if you select the same version in 64. I did this with my laptop (Ultamate 64 on my desktop Home Premium 64 on my laptop) from HP and used the key they gave me to upgrade to 64bit for free.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 15, 2008)

Add another vote for XP x64. I'm posting from it now. Even my Cannon Printer has drivers. About the only things that don't have drivers are really old hardware, and some wireless cards. You just have to research that stuff to make sure it's compatible. And there are a small amount of oddball apps that don't run in x64. Those are usually apps that require a low level driver of some sort.

It's way more stable and secure than either Vista or XP x86. My favorite Win OS to date.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 15, 2008)

tzitzibp said:


> what tone?


Forget it, if you don't see it it's pointless.



tzitzibp said:


> please tell me that there is not a hint of sarcasm in that......



So first you tell me to read and now you simply deny my argument. Seems like you're incapable of a decent discussion. As you have not yet given any facts or backed up opinions and yet tried to make me look like a fool twice.


Let me make it simpler, using rough numbers here:

XP (either 32 or 64)
2GB RAM, memory in use 512MB. 

Vista
2GB RAM, nearly 2GB in use.


Are those numbers far from true or is Vista actually using the RAM? So which is taking more advantage of the available memory? Vista, since it caches stuff.
Now I'm guessing you'll be saying "but but it's eating all my resources!". That's exactly the point, you have fast hardware to use it. Once other programs require the resources Vista actually releases them to whatever process requests it.


Now you tell me why XP does better, without telling me to read and writing things 3 times as large and telling me I must be making some sarcastic remark.


----------



## GSG-9 (Apr 15, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Are those numbers far from true or is Vista actually using the RAM? So which is taking more advantage of the available memory? Vista, since it caches stuff.
> Now I'm guessing you'll be saying "but but it's eating all my resources!". That's exactly the point, you have fast hardware to use it. Once other programs require the resources Vista actually releases them to whatever process requests it.



I agree, I can understand what people mean, but I say buy more ram, things are advancing, 4gigs is the new 2 which was 1.


----------



## kingrollo2007 (Apr 15, 2008)

Your right about xp but semi-wrong about vista...

If vista was running 1GB RAM .... vista would eat the 1GB RAM and Blue screen of death everytime you load high end applications.... although, 3GB RAM (max) 32bit will allow the vista to have plenty of spare memory for allocating all that cache shit... I know this as my laptop has 2GB ram on ultimate (32 bit) and runs quite smooth.... Windows AutoCAD 2007 and WMP running it uses half the memory .... if you had 3GB it would take the pressure off....  but with minimal amounts of memory it could cause some major issues... especially for a 64 bit user as he needs it as stable as it gets.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 15, 2008)

I haven't experienced such crashes kingrollo, however the only system I have with 1GB of RAM runs server 2008 so it's most likely a completely different story. However, low end systems were besides my point, the point was the memory utilization being better in Vista.

And if people disagree there, answer this: which OS uses less RAM, Linux or Windows? (globally speaking)


----------



## GSG-9 (Apr 15, 2008)

kingrollo2007 said:


> .... if you had 3GB it would take the pressure off....  but with minimal amounts of memory it could cause some major issues... especially for a 64 bit user as he needs it as stable as it gets.



Thats like saying that crysis runs better with newer hardware. Newer software uses more resorces. Computers can use much more ram, thats how it works :/


----------



## kingrollo2007 (Apr 15, 2008)

He is my Laptop vista ultimate idling with 3/4 aplications open ...
59% used








LINUX ALL THE WAY MAN!! BEST SERVERS YOU'LL GET!!


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 15, 2008)

Well mr rollo, type "top" in the linux shell on various systems. Look at memory usage.


----------



## tzitzibp (Apr 15, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Forget it, if you don't see it it's pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



your point stands to the difference of xp with vista, while mine stands to the difference of 32 and 64 op. systems

so I quote:

Written By:
Professor Windows and Amit Marlov, Windows XP Regional Director, Microsoft Israel

Reviewed By:
Brian Marr, Senior Product Manager, Microsoft Corporation and Brian Shafer, Project Manager, Microsoft Corporation
Introduction

It is a known fact that software advances in the footsteps of hardware. As a variety of 64-bit (x64) hardware is getting more and more available, we're getting close to a new breed of Windows - The Windows x64 family.

64-bit Windows is aimed at technical computing, focusing at mathematical applications, medical applications, gamers and more. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition currently supports up to 32 GB of RAM, with the potential to support up to 16 terabytes of virtual memory as hardware capabilities and memory sizes grow. These amazing performance leaps are worth getting ready for x64 editions of Windows, today.

This article will focus primarily on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.
What's in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

64-bit means 64-bit CPU registers -- this makes quite a difference when implementing SIMD (Single instruction multiple data). In fact this means much greater performance with less utilization.

The following table outlines the memory space advantage of 64-bit Windows:




Memory Space Advantage of 64-bit Windows


piece of advice: when you argue with " last time I checked", be careful... this is usualy translated as sarcasm..... I have nothing against you, just the way you start your arguments. I also must apologize about my remark.... truly sorry!


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 15, 2008)

HiddenStupid said:


> which will slow down my computer?
> 
> XP 64bit?
> or
> Vista 32bit?






tzitzibp said:


> I believe the answer is... both!
> 
> but, XP 64bit will take better advantage of the cpu and possibly the memory.... However there will be incombatibilities....



So how exactly should anyone have known you were talking about XP32 compared to XP64? How am I reading it wrong? This is the first time you're saying Vista has nothing to do with your point.


"last time I checked" isn't sarcasm, it is a way of saying "as far as I know".


----------



## tzitzibp (Apr 15, 2008)

my bad...


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 15, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Mind giving a source for that?
> 
> It is a fact that win98 uses to crash at 512MB or more. And going past 4GB on 32bit via means of PAE slows down. But I don't know of any reason why having more RAM matters on a 64bit system. Not with the limits we have now anyway.



humm, server 2003 ent never gave me a slowdown when i went from 2-4gb ram....infact it got faster...........


as to vista vs x64pro/xp64/2003 x64(diffrent names same os) i find that x64pro manages ram very well, by default it dosnt use that much ram, i tend to keep it lean, but i can leave all my serices enabled and all my apps on auto load and it will use 768-1gb ram after startup, but i dont use those memory hogging apps all the time, so i dissable their auto load.

yes caching can be good but its a bit useless if you dont use the same apps every time windows loads


----------



## Darknova (Apr 15, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> yes caching can be good but its a bit useless if you dont use the same apps every time windows loads



Yeah, but let's be honest. How many times do you load up Windows and do something entirely different to what you did last time?

I certainly don't. Upon load up, Live Messenger, Live Mail and Winamp all get opened up. Then possibly my bittorrent client, and my browser depending on my mood. I'd be quite happy to have Windows cache the necessary files to make loading those up quicker.


----------



## asb2106 (Apr 15, 2008)

I have windows load utorrent, mp11, & TPU!!

Its real simple just to throw it in the startup folder, and I have not noticed it add even a second to the boot time


----------



## Wile E (Apr 15, 2008)

kingrollo2007 said:


> Your right about xp but semi-wrong about vista...
> 
> If vista was running 1GB RAM .... vista would eat the 1GB RAM and Blue screen of death everytime you load high end applications


No it doesn't. I've run Vista on 1GB, and loaded AutoCAD and Inventor (not at the same time, mind you) and it never once BSOD'd on me. You had a conflict of some sort. I'm guessing the pagefile was too small. With only 1GB of ram, any of the Autodesk apps are gonna punish the pagefile hardcore.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 16, 2008)

Darknova said:


> Yeah, but let's be honest. How many times do you load up Windows and do something entirely different to what you did last time?
> 
> I certainly don't. Upon load up, Live Messenger, Live Mail and Winamp all get opened up. Then possibly my bittorrent client, and my browser depending on my mood. I'd be quite happy to have Windows cache the necessary files to make loading those up quicker.



but xp/2003/x64 support that kinda catching, its stuff like it catching every app you ran last boot, i dont use the same apps all the time, infact each day i probbly load 20 apps or so........caching would just be silly in that case.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 16, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> but xp/2003/x64 support that kinda catching, its stuff like it catching every app you ran last boot, i dont use the same apps all the time, infact each day i probbly load 20 apps or so........caching would just be silly in that case.



Fortunately for you, that's not how it works. It caches based on frequency of use, not based on the last time you used the prog.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 16, 2008)

vista for me was cacheing every app i used over the last few days, why does it need to eat up 4gb ram on shit im not using? i know it can just dump it, but still, im SURE that takes at least 1-5 clock cycles, to dump the shit im not using so it can load the app i wana use.

vista sucks, sure its got some good ideas,but the emplimentation of those ideas sucks.


----------



## GSG-9 (Apr 16, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> vista for me was cacheing every app i used over the last few days, why does it need to eat up 4gb ram on shit im not using? i know it can just dump it, but still, im SURE that takes at least 1-5 clock cycles, to dump the shit im not using so it can load the app i wana use.
> 
> vista sucks, sure its got some good ideas,but the emplimentation of those ideas sucks.



I have no paging file, 3.5 gigs of ram, and load nothing at boot but Utorrent, ATI Suite/Hydravision, Rivatuner, FRAPS and TweakVI. My computer boots up fine, it normally uses 42%-46% ram or so. It has valid issues, but I don't have any of the ones listed by others above.


----------



## panchoman (Apr 16, 2008)

vista 32.. 

xp is more streamlined and less bloated and less full of resource eating crap and xp 64 will definently be faster


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 16, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> vista for me was cacheing every app i used over the last few days, why does it need to eat up 4gb ram on shit im not using? i know it can just dump it, but still, im SURE that takes at least 1-5 clock cycles, to dump the shit im not using so it can load the app i wana use.
> 
> vista sucks, sure its got some good ideas,but the emplimentation of those ideas sucks.



I think if your opinion is "it sucks" you should at least back it up, otherwise it's just flaming. What ideas are implemented badly for example?


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 17, 2008)

humm lets see, example Areo=poorly done, the same effects can be done with NO video hardware support and VERY little system load, check out enlitenment e17 and even older versions, i use to run it on vectorlinux soho, trans parncys, animated backgrounds infact in many ways it looks better then areo, yet i was able to run it on a 300mhz pentium with mmx(233@300) with 208mb ram and a 2mb s3 videocard that didnt even have real linux drivers(used the vesa drivers) 

just one example, i would list more but you clearly love vista and your a mod so argueing with or proving you wrong will just get me hit with the banstick


----------



## GSG-9 (Apr 17, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> humm lets see, example Areo=poorly done, the same effects can be done with NO video hardware support and VERY little system load, check out enlitenment e17 and even older versions, i use to run it on vectorlinux soho, trans parncys, animated backgrounds infact in many ways it looks better then areo, yet i was able to run it on a 300mhz pentium with mmx(233@300) with 208mb ram and a 2mb s3 videocard that didnt even have real linux drivers(used the vesa drivers)
> 
> just one example, i would list more but you clearly love vista and your a mod so argueing with or proving you wrong will just get me hit with the banstick



He did not say or act he loved it, he just wants something more relevant/debatable than general statements. I never used any of the above listed os/transparency programs so I don't know how they compare from never seeing them myself it sounds like comparing Unreal 1's lens flare and fov effects to Chronicles of Riddick. One is just better than the other, but as I never used any of the programs you listed I cant say something like that as more than a feeling.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 17, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> humm lets see, example Areo=poorly done, the same effects can be done with NO video hardware support and VERY little system load, check out enlitenment e17 and even older versions, i use to run it on vectorlinux soho, trans parncys, animated backgrounds infact in many ways it looks better then areo, yet i was able to run it on a 300mhz pentium with mmx(233@300) with 208mb ram and a 2mb s3 videocard that didnt even have real linux drivers(used the vesa drivers)
> 
> just one example, i would list more but you clearly love vista and your a mod so argueing with or proving you wrong will just get me hit with the banstick



So you shoot down an OS due to an extra graphical feature which isn't even available in the basic version. ie it's not a core part of the OS. It's like saying Windows sucks because you don't like notepad.
So now that we got half an argument from you, why is Vista basic bad?


Besides you seem to be quite a negative person, assuming you're getting banned for disagreeing with me.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 17, 2008)

You can always turn aero off too if it doesn't suit your fancy. All of the "bloat" of vista can be turned off if thats what you wanna do, and can also be altered in just about any way you see fit.


----------



## tzitzibp (Apr 17, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Fortunately for you, that's not how it works. It caches based on frequency of use, not based on the last time you used the prog.



hi Wile,

is there a way to change this from within windows?


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 17, 2008)

there are other options windows 2k/xp can use truetransparency to look like areo glass yet has effectivly no perf impact and dosnt requier any special hardware( i have used it on old windows 2k laptops whos video isnt even dx7 rated)

as to enlitenment, its a GUI for linux/unix/bsd, can run on hardware that gnome/kde run poorly on,


----------

