# What OS Are You Using Right Now



## FooArm (Oct 9, 2008)

Vista
XP
Linux
Mac(lame)


----------



## Wile E (Oct 9, 2008)

Os X


----------



## FatForester (Oct 9, 2008)

Vista!


----------



## FooArm (Oct 9, 2008)

just came back here and i saw

"western , pa" - sort of courious were is western,pa cause i am located there to


----------



## acperience7 (Oct 9, 2008)

Xp


----------



## FooArm (Oct 9, 2008)

windows xp is nice but i use vista though have xp has dual boot on a pc and on my celeron (server)


----------



## Mussels (Oct 9, 2008)

vista.

your list is a little lame to be honest, no 32/64 bit differentiation.


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 9, 2008)

Vista Ultimate x86! Best OS I have ever had the pleasure of using! Ultra fast and compatible.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 9, 2008)

FooArm said:


> just came back here and i saw
> 
> "western , pa" - sort of courious were is western,pa cause i am located there to



Beaver County, about 20mi NW of Pittsburgh.


----------



## FooArm (Oct 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> vista.
> 
> your list is a little lame to be honest, no 32/64 bit differentiation.



i didn't want to make it complicated ... just over all gesture 



ShadowFold said:


> Vista Ultimate x86! Best OS I have ever had the pleasure of using! Ultra fast and compatible.



x86 wtf explain 

----------------
Now playing: Bowling For Soup - Life After Lisa
via FoxyTunes


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 9, 2008)

I dont like x64.. just a thing I have.


----------



## Tau (Oct 9, 2008)

Linux.


----------



## FooArm (Oct 9, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Beaver County, about 20mi NW of Pittsburgh.




ahh i am in erie



----------------
Now playing: Allister - You Lied
via FoxyTunes


----------



## farlex85 (Oct 9, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I dont like x64.. just a thing I have.



You don't like using 4gb of ram? That seems odd for an enthusiast.......


----------



## Wile E (Oct 9, 2008)

FooArm said:


> x86 wtf explain



It means 32bit. x86 is the name of the architecture used in the chip. It dates back to the original PC cpu, the 8086, then came the 286, 386, etc. They are all improvements of the original, so they just started calling them x86 as a whole.


----------



## Triprift (Oct 9, 2008)

Vista Ultimate 64bit


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 9, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> You don't like using 4gb of ram? That seems odd for an enthusiast.......



I only have 3gb and when 4gb is cheap and the norm I will use x64 but for now 32 is good enough for me 

And sorry I thought you were freaked out at 32bit Vista cause I seem to be one of the few gamers that has it lol


----------



## FooArm (Oct 9, 2008)

thank you will - e that is better ... for a moment there i thought they released vista 86 bit

----------------
Now playing: Disturbed - Conflict
via FoxyTunes


----------



## Wile E (Oct 9, 2008)

Just switched over to the XP machine.


----------



## farlex85 (Oct 9, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I only have 3gb and when 4gb is cheap and the norm I will use x64 but for now 32 is good enough for me
> l



Fair enough 



Wile E said:


> Just switched over to the XP machine.



Uh-oh, about to do some benchin?


----------



## Kursah (Oct 9, 2008)

Vista x64 SP1 FTW! Solid, fast, great for gaming in my experience!


----------



## Psychoholic (Oct 9, 2008)

Vista 64 for my main machine/Gamer

64bit ubuntu w/ windows xp running in virtualbox on my other machine.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 9, 2008)

does iPhone firmware count as mac


----------



## Triprift (Oct 9, 2008)

I only got sp1 on the 20th of last month lol


----------



## farlex85 (Oct 9, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> does iPhone firmware count as mac



Doesn't that run on some variation of osx?


----------



## Wile E (Oct 9, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Fair enough
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh, about to do some benchin?


lol. no. Was just checking on my torrents on my Mac and getting a web interface up and running for my torrent client. Mac is pretty much used for torrenting, light browsing, and as a file server. It's too slow for me to want to run constantly. (G5 1.6GHz lol) I've been far too spoiled by my quad core. lol.


----------



## panchoman (Oct 9, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> does iPhone firmware count as mac



3g or the old one? 

im on xp unfortunantly.. wish i was on a mac though..


----------



## freaksavior (Oct 9, 2008)

what i am using now is xp
but primary is vista ultimate 64
dads is vista ultimate 64 and bros is vista ultimate 32 soon to be upgraded to 64


----------



## Wile E (Oct 9, 2008)

All of my OSes are

XP (Main rig, 2nd rig, Intel iMac)
Vista Home premium X64(Main Rig)
Vista Home Premium x86(Laptop)
Fedora 9 (Main rig)
OS X.5 (Powermac G5, Intel iMac)


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 9, 2008)

3g bout 3 hours old and my rig wont boot


----------



## revin (Oct 24, 2008)

XP Home SP1 Retail, and just added Vortex SP, it's now supurb!!!

Havent been this stable ever!!

 Dont really use the Vista side[Vortex user], dont care for the layout.


----------



## tzitzibp (Oct 24, 2008)

vista 64 ult. (main rig)

vista 64 ult. (media centre rig)

XP 32 SP2 (Secondary rig)


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 24, 2008)

I have Vista Ultimate x86 on my main, Vista Basic x86 on my HTPC, XP Home on my moms rig and XP Pro x64 on my server.


----------



## Urbklr (Oct 24, 2008)

Windows XP SP3 right now, works better with my Tascam, Integrated and Sonar 7. I tried to dual-boot OS X with XP, but my ICH10R isn't yet fully supported I don't think.


----------



## Grimskull (Oct 24, 2008)

XP Pro SP2 on main rig

New rig will be XP Pro SP2 (32bit) and Vista Ultimate (32bit) on dual boot.


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 24, 2008)

Unless you are getting Ultimate for free its not worth it. Just get Basic.. Home Premium if you like the aero crap but I have ultimate and never use the aero.


----------



## beyond_amusia (Oct 24, 2008)

Vista Ultimate x64! ^_^ I will say that on a PC made this side of 2004 should support x64 just fine, assuming the CPU is x64, and people should just take the leap. It's really quite painless (minus some printers and stuff) unless you MUST use 16 bit programs, but that's what Virtual PC is for, isn't it?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 24, 2008)

can i get another option? 

Windows 7 MS3 here.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Oct 24, 2008)

I'm using Vista x64 Ultimate w/ SP1.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 24, 2008)

Vista x86 home premium here.

Does aero use *that* much resources? i think it makes vista look better.


----------



## Wozzer (Oct 24, 2008)

XP - All the way


----------



## Mussels (Oct 25, 2008)

tigger said:


> Vista x86 home premium here.
> 
> Does aero use *that* much resources? i think it makes vista look better.



next to nothing. Most of my low end systems actually ran better with aero on, than off (the OS was more responsive when dragging windows around, as the video card did it not the CPU)


----------



## Urbklr (Oct 25, 2008)

There, so far I've got Tiger and XP dual-booted, Leopard soon.


----------



## zithe (Oct 25, 2008)

Linux.


----------



## DonInKansas (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista Ultimate 64 ftmfw.


----------



## 95Viper (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista Home prem x86 sp2 build 6002 (downstairs) and XP pro sp3 (upstairs)


----------



## v-zero (Oct 25, 2008)

Right now? OS X on an MBP.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2008)

Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition
XP Professional x64 Edition
XP Professional
Vista Home Premium x86


By the way, x64 is abbreviated for x86-64.  IA-64 is the closest to true x64 architecture by Intel.


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 25, 2008)

_Right now_ it's Vista x64 because I'm on the lappie.

On desktop I have XP x86.

Oh... and I got one of my junkie computers working... on Win98...


----------



## kyle2020 (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista 64 bit - downloaded MacOSX but it wouldnt install


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista x64 home basic


----------



## oily_17 (Oct 25, 2008)

Main PC -Dual boot -Vista Ultimate x86 and XP Pro x86
Old PC -XP Pro x86
Older PC -Ubuntu
New build will be running Vista x64


----------



## Dark_Webster (Oct 25, 2008)

Desktop - Windows XP Professional SP2
Laptop - Windows Vista x86 HomePremium SP1


----------



## evil bill (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista 64bit Home Premium SP1 - been absolutley solid, the only thing thats has upset it has been over ambitious OCing attempts and the buggy hell that is Stalker:Clear Sky.


----------



## Polarman (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista Home Premium 32 bit with SP1.

(Some older games will not run with 64bit Vista)


----------



## Grings (Oct 25, 2008)

right now im booted into xp pro, i have vista, but only really use it for dx10 games since the 'ooh' factor wore off


----------



## Guru Janitor (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista Business x86 (really wish i had x64) :shadedshu
Vista Home Premium on a desktop.
Ubuntu 8.04 on a server.


----------



## ckoons1 (Oct 25, 2008)

xp pro 32bit sp3


----------



## MRCL (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista HP 64 on main rig, Win2k on Laptop as its not strong enough to run XP, and openSUSE 11 for checking it out on another rig


----------



## Kreij (Oct 25, 2008)

Just recently upgraded from Vista Ultimate x86 to Vista Ultimate x64 (@ SP1).
32 bit was rock solid for me. Updated to utilize more RAM.

I have to say the doubling the amount of RAM and going to 64 bit has made my rig much more responsive when I have a lot of apps open simultaneously.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 25, 2008)

Xp X64 mainly,  i use 2 copys of Vista Ultimate but thats becouse they were free other wise i be waiting for Win 7 and how that  turns out.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 25, 2008)

Wile E said:


> It means 32bit. x86 is the name of the architecture used in the chip. It dates back to the original PC cpu, the 8086, then came the 286, 386, etc. They are all improvements of the original, so they just started calling them x86 as a whole.



Actually 64 bit is still x86. Though commonly people refer to 64 bit as x64 and 32 bit as x86. 


I use Server 2008 64 bit on most systems. XP Pro 32 bit on my laptop. New server will be running ESXi.

There are plenty more options though, I used to have a BeOS machine for example. Never really got into Zeta. Once Ecomstation supports more modern hardware I might be using that again as well.


----------



## FilipM (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista Ultimate 32, my wireless doesn't work in 64. I also have XP 32 installed.


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 25, 2008)

Needs to be multiple choice. I dual boot XP and Vista Ultimate x86 on my Laptop, and I run XP on my desktop

I am in the boat with ShadowFold about not liking the x64.


----------



## kyle2020 (Oct 25, 2008)

File_1993 said:


> Vista Ultimate 32, my wireless doesn't work in 64. I also have XP 32 installed.



My Zoom wireless adapter doesnt work with 64 bit either. Upon asking them [zoom] why, i was sent a product link to their latest model -.-


----------



## Fastmix (Oct 25, 2008)

Vista ultimate 32.


----------



## Atnevon (Oct 25, 2008)

Hmm. Server editions were not a choice. Bummer. Running Server 2008 as primary, but XP on stand-by an other HD.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 25, 2008)

It seems that the wireless issues with Vx64 are related to drivers and not to the OS.



> My Zoom wireless adapter doesnt work with 64 bit either. Upon asking them [zoom] why, i was sent a product link to their latest model -.-



That's really pretty poor on their part. They could have at least given you a reason why they could not make specific models compatible with Vx64. Sounds to me like they are just not willinig to update the drivers for the older models.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Oct 25, 2008)

using Vista because that is what i had installed on the LOL rig and am too lazy to dual boot with XP


----------



## CarolinaKSU (Oct 25, 2008)

XP SP2 on the gaming rig
Vista 32 Home Premium
Yellow Dog Linux on the PS3


----------



## kyle2020 (Oct 25, 2008)

Kreij said:


> It seems that the wireless issues with Vx64 are related to drivers and not to the OS.
> 
> 
> 
> That's really pretty poor on their part. They could have at least given you a reason why they could not make specific models compatible with Vx64. Sounds to me like they are just not willinig to update the drivers for the older models.



Exactly. Why make new drivers when they can make another adapter to milk their customers even more? :shadedshu


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Oct 26, 2008)

Desktop - XP x64
Laptop - XP 32-bit


----------



## Pinchy (Oct 26, 2008)

Main Desktop (mine) is Vista ult x64 and Fedora 9
Matx rig is Vista ult x64 
First laptop is Vista Home prem x64
Second laptop is XP SP3 Media Center
Server is XP Pro SP2
Bench rig is XP Pro SP3
HTPC hopefully will be Vista Ult x32, depending on what I can get through my Uni 


Oh and laptop at work is XP Sp2


----------



## Wile E (Oct 26, 2008)

Urbklr said:


> Windows XP SP3 right now, works better with my Tascam, Integrated and Sonar 7. I tried to dual-boot OS X with XP, but my ICH10R isn't yet fully supported I don't think.



It's your mobo that's holding you back from OS X. OXx86 just doesn't like Asus boards for some reason. To get it to run on mine, I actually had to pass a kernel argument to OS X to run on only 1 core. It just won't work with more than that. And once I did get it up and running, it just wasn't stable, with random freezing.

If a Hackiontosh is something you want to get serious about, pick up a Gigabyte P35(or newer) board. they work the best. I'm actually trying to find someone to swap my Maximus for an X38 DQ6.


----------



## freakshow (Oct 26, 2008)

Main: Windows Vista Home Premium
Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy


----------



## DOM (Oct 26, 2008)

Windows XP PRO 32bit SP3 / Vista Ultimate 64bit SP1


----------



## blueskynis (Oct 26, 2008)

Ubuntu only. I have no money for any windows, I am a student!


----------



## DOM (Oct 26, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> Ubuntu only. I have no money for any windows, I am a student!


who said you need money


----------



## jpierce55 (Oct 26, 2008)

Vista 64 Ultimate that I got from MS for free .


----------



## Triprift (Oct 26, 2008)

U lucky bugger that was nice of ms


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 26, 2008)

xp and vista , but i depend on xp


----------



## Scheich (Oct 26, 2008)

Vista 64, without prefetcher. Using 2 soundcards is a bit annoying as opposing to xp.


----------



## FilipM (Oct 27, 2008)

kyle2020 said:


> My Zoom wireless adapter doesnt work with 64 bit either. Upon asking them [zoom] why, i was sent a product link to their latest model -.-




I have a DLink Xtreme N PCI one, when I was in XP, I built the pc, and had to change 5 wireless cards to get it working, at least it works in Vista somehow. I would like it to work in 64 though.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 27, 2008)

File_1993 said:


> I have a DLink Xtreme N PCI one, when I was in XP, I built the pc, and had to change 5 wireless cards to get it working, at least it works in Vista somehow. I would like it to work in 64 though.



try finding the chipset in the card, and google for drivers that way. sometimes you find other brands have made a card with the same hardware, and their drivers are compatible. I've done it several times for Dlink hardware already, they're so F'ing lazy - one of my friends has a card that they claim is "unsupported" yet an indentical seeming "vista capable" model... its drivers work on the older card! arrgh!


----------



## FilipM (Oct 27, 2008)

I tried everything, the chip on it is Atheros something, cannot be bothered to look for it again. DLink says Vista compatible...if you kill yourself trying to sort it out, yes, then it will be.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 27, 2008)

Since im a gamer, XP SP2 since you get better FPS then Heavy vista =/

Vista = Crash different lol 

If i wasn't a gamer id use Linux (Ubuntu) 

Next OS, what ever is fast and uses less resources, wish Linux had better support for games


----------



## FilipM (Oct 27, 2008)

Well to be honest, Vista looks smoother in games to me and that's what i do all the time...


----------



## Melvis (Oct 27, 2008)

Dx10?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 27, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Dx10?



i play in 9, and its smoother than XP. i've never had any performance issues with games in vista... it was true in the early days, but the playing field is certainly level after SP1.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 27, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Since im a gamer, XP SP2 since you get better FPS then Heavy vista =/
> 
> Vista = Crash different lol
> 
> ...



Use DOS, it doesn't use your resources. 

You should be happy that Vista and Linux do use your resources, why else would you have them?


----------



## Melvis (Oct 27, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Use DOS, it doesn't use your resources.
> 
> You should be happy that Vista and Linux do use your resources, why else would you have them?



LOL yea but i like a guwi interface, ive gotten away from the 80's 

LOL what the? Ummm so i have them for games, thats why lol


----------



## farlex85 (Oct 27, 2008)

Melvis said:


> LOL yea but i like a guwi interface, ive gotten away from the 80's
> 
> LOL what the? Ummm so i have them for games, thats why lol



GUI uses resources, I believe that was his point. As the OS becomes progressively more powerful and does more and adds more to the GUI, it uses more resources. Ever notice your games today use a lot more than the ones from 5 years ago?


----------



## _jM (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm using XPHome.. until i get my new build in and I'll be using Vista Home Premium (64 bit)


----------



## zithe (Oct 27, 2008)

The amount of windows/linux users to mac users = 107:1?


...LOL.


----------



## JC316 (Oct 27, 2008)

Vista Home Premium X64 FTW!


----------



## spearman914 (Oct 27, 2008)

I use all of the above except Mac but I mainly use vista


----------



## Skywalker12345 (Oct 27, 2008)

Vista business edition 32-bit sp1


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 27, 2008)

Currently on Windows XP 32-bit haven't tried Vista yet but I might skip Vista build a new rig till' a new OS will come


----------



## iamajunky (Oct 27, 2008)

Vista Ultimate x64 loves my computer


----------



## Duxx (Oct 27, 2008)

Vista 64/ XP x86  

where is the dual boot option? 8)


----------



## spearman914 (Oct 27, 2008)

RadeonX2 said:


> Currently on Windows XP 32-bit haven't tried Vista yet but I might skip Vista build a new rig till' a new OS will come



Try VISTA BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.....

 Lol


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 27, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> Try VISTA BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.....
> 
> Lol



how good is Vista 32-bit compared to XP 32-bit? well when I upgrade to 4GB then I'll try Vista... is Vista on 2GB would be fine for gaming? Crysis and Crysis Warhead was giving me a mild stutter on XP


----------



## spearman914 (Oct 27, 2008)

RadeonX2 said:


> how good is Vista 32-bit compared to XP 32-bit? well when I upgrade to 4GB then I'll try Vista... is Vista on 2GB would be fine for gaming? Crysis and Crysis Warhead was giving me a mild stutter on XP



2 GB on vista w/ crysis is horrible. Benifits from vista 32-bit is DX10, superfetch, and much more fatures (thats about it). And one thing go with vista 64-bit for 4 GB's instead.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 27, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> 2 GB on vista w/ crysis is horrible. Benifits from vista 32-bit is DX10, superfetch, and much more fatures (thats about it). And one thing go with vista 64-bit for 4 GB's instead.



I should stick on XP then
well I have superfetch on XP aka eboostr


----------



## Melvis (Oct 28, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i play in 9, and its smoother than XP. i've never had any performance issues with games in vista... it was true in the early days, but the playing field is certainly level after SP1.



Ahh ok fair enough.

Hmm interesting, i have a m8 running Vista Ultimate 64 and from what ive seen he gets lower FPS in some games then i do, and with his system that shouldn't happen at all (E8400, 4GB 1066 RAM, SLI 9600GT's OC) and ive seen a few benchtests with vista and also seen it get up to 30FPS less in the same game when compared to XP, i was shocked it's such a big drop.

Also his RAM been used wile at idle after he boots up is 1.7GB we thought it must be just vista reading it wrong? or is this a true reading? i find that an insane amount at idle, compared to what i use around 200-300MB.

This is just what i have seen, and thats why i stay away from Vista.


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 28, 2008)

Mac for everything but gaming.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 28, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Ahh ok fair enough.
> 
> Hmm interesting, i have a m8 running Vista Ultimate 64 and from what ive seen he gets lower FPS in some games then i do, and with his system that shouldn't happen at all (E8400, 4GB 1066 RAM, SLI 9600GT's OC) and ive seen a few benchtests with vista and also seen it get up to 30FPS less in the same game when compared to XP, i was shocked it's such a big drop.
> 
> ...



what would you prefer - an OS that uses no ram, and loads things slowly as your HDD chugs away, or an OS that uses your ram and is responsive and fast.

Like all programs, it can simply drop them out of ram if you start a game... just because it uses it at idle, doesnt mean it uses it at the expense of other programs.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 28, 2008)

Mussels said:


> what would you prefer - an OS that uses no ram, and loads things slowly as your HDD chugs away, or an OS that uses your ram and is responsive and fast.
> 
> Like all programs, it can simply drop them out of ram if you start a game... just because it uses it at idle, doesnt mean it uses it at the expense of other programs.



Well it doesn't really matter, because once you open a app, it remembers and stores it in ram anyway, so there for making it alot quicker to open the next time around etc, until you reboot the system. So unless you are saying that Vista stores every app you have on your PC in RAM when you load up ready to be opened fast? i cant see that been the case.

Yea that is true, im just saying that most PC uses now if they wanted to update to Vista, and run games on there PC, they will need at least 3GB of RAM or more just to do so. And most people still have a older system that wont even support this amount of RAM and or it is very expensive to buy and update the RAM in there PC. It makes the transaction to Vista a expensive upgrade for the normal PC users. And you might need a updated Video Card as well.

So does your system use that amount of RAM just after you boot it up at idle? I was just wondering really. When Microsoft recommend 1GB for Vista.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 28, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Well it doesn't really matter, because once you open a app, it remembers and stores it in ram anyway, so there for making it alot quicker to open the next time around etc, until you reboot the system. So unless you are saying that Vista stores every app you have on your PC in RAM when you load up ready to be opened fast? i cant see that been the case.
> 
> Yea that is true, im just saying that most PC uses now if they wanted to update to Vista, and run games on there PC, they will need at least 3GB of RAM or more just to do so. And most people still have a older system that wont even support this amount of RAM and or it is very expensive to buy and update the RAM in there PC. It makes the transaction to Vista a expensive upgrade for the normal PC users. And you might need a updated Video Card as well.
> 
> So does your system use that amount of RAM just after you boot it up at idle? I was just wondering really. When Microsoft recommend 1GB for Vista.



vista loads itself into ram. It then releases that ram if needed.
Superfetch loads non windows apps into ram, to spread the love - that too i released if needed.

you can get 2GB of DDR2 ram for <$40 AU, so it better be damned cheap in the USA and other countries. if someone is trying to run vista on a system thats so old it cant take 4GB of ram... they really should upgrade. XP is 7 years old, and if they think a 7 year old system can run a brand new OS... yeah, they're gunna have problems.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 28, 2008)

Mussels said:


> vista loads itself into ram. It then releases that ram if needed.
> Superfetch loads non windows apps into ram, to spread the love - that too i released if needed.
> 
> you can get 2GB of DDR2 ram for <$40 AU, so it better be damned cheap in the USA and other countries. if someone is trying to run vista on a system thats so old it cant take 4GB of ram... they really should upgrade. XP is 7 years old, and if they think a 7 year old system can run a brand new OS... yeah, they're gunna have problems.



Hmm ok fair enough, interesting.

lol o yea i know DDR2 is real cheap RAM, even for us in Australia its cheap.
Yea i agree that should upgrade there PC if there running such a old machine that it cant even handle 2GB or more of RAM, and building a PC these days is SOOOO cheap compared to back then. Only thing is most peoples computers that come in that i have to work on are still using DDR1, and 90% are P4's there everywere, and we all know that the older RAM is more expensive, and that most of these machines have like a MMX 440 in them, so when they say i want to upgrade to Vista i say well umm you will need to get this and this to do so, then they say, O =/ ill pass then.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 28, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Ahh ok fair enough.
> 
> Hmm interesting, i have a m8 running Vista Ultimate 64 and from what ive seen he gets lower FPS in some games then i do, and with his system that shouldn't happen at all (E8400, 4GB 1066 RAM, SLI 9600GT's OC) and ive seen a few benchtests with vista and also seen it get up to 30FPS less in the same game when compared to XP, i was shocked it's such a big drop.
> 
> ...


As Mussels pointed out, that ram is put to good use in Vista, and the OS frees up that memory if a program needs it.

And there is no performance loss in gaming. The early problems were attributed to drivers. The newer drivers perform the same on both XP and Vista. I do not have to change a single graphical setting in my games in Vista to get the same playability. The settings for both XP and Vista are exactly the same for me, and I ride the borderline of playability with my gfx card at my resolution.


----------



## johnspack (Oct 28, 2008)

I can't vote because I don't consider xp32 to be a viable os.  My os usage is as follows,  XP64/XP64 on my raid array,  Vista64/XP32 on my separate samsung f1 hd on my main computer.  XP32 currently on my server,  will replace soon with XP64 or Server200864.  I only experiment with and bench with vista64,  it sucks like 20% performance out of my system compared to xp64  Although much of that has to do with dx10,  and especially aa.  xp32 is much slower than either os,  so I don't bother with it much.


----------



## freaksavior (Oct 28, 2008)

I mainly use mac os x 10.5 for surfing and typing ps ect.

gaming i use my pc wich is vista ultimate 64


----------



## spearman914 (Oct 28, 2008)

Mussels said:


> what would you prefer - an OS that uses no ram, and loads things slowly as your HDD chugs away, or an OS that uses your ram and is responsive and fast.
> 
> Like all programs, it can simply drop them out of ram if you start a game... just because it uses it at idle, doesnt mean it uses it at the expense of other programs.



I rather be fast. Since RAM being used up does not mean slow (this is what people argue about) and like Wile E said if a application needs RAM windows will automatically free up cached files.


----------

