# Vista64 or XP64?



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 13, 2007)

Guys I'm coming here first because I know you'll know best.  

Ok so I love gaming, but I'm also getting into photography pretty heavy and want to upgrade my current box to an 8Gig Photoshop chomping monster.

I am thinking of going with the following:

8gigs of Gskill F2-8000CL5D-4GBPQ
Abit IP35 Pro
and a Quad 6600.

...I would like to OC this setup to around 3.0 if it'll go.

So my question is:

1. are there any comments about my choice in equipment? (quad or duo?)
2. what would you guys load: XP64 or Vista64?

Thanks for any and all help.
Happy Thanksgiving!


BigE.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2007)

Well.. If you must use a 64-bit O/S, use XP.  I don't see any reason for you to use Vista, unless you need to use DX10 apps.  Vista has more problems than XP esspecially with the 64-bit versions.  I would actually recommend 32bit XP but with 8gigs of memory go with XP 64bit.


----------



## Darknova (Nov 13, 2007)

erocker said:


> Well.. If you must use a 64-bit O/S, use XP.  I don't see any reason for you to use Vista, unless you need to use DX10 apps.  Vista has more problems than XP esspecially with the 64-bit versions.  I would actually recommend 32bit XP but with 8gigs of memory go with XP 64bit.



I've used both, and as he said, unless you need DX10 Vista is a no no.

And I can no longer recommend 32-bit XP after using 64-bit XP. It's miles better. I've had NO BSOD's. No instabilities, nothing. The only problem I have is my webcam doesn't have 64-bit drivers. Except for that 32-bit just isn't worth using, and Vista doesn't bring anything new to the table except for DX10, and unless you need it it's pointless.

XP x64 FTW!


----------



## devguy (Nov 13, 2007)

Darknova said:


> I've used both, and as he said, unless you need DX10 Vista is a no no.
> 
> And I can no longer recommend 32-bit XP after using 64-bit XP. It's miles better. I've had NO BSOD's. No instabilities, nothing. The only problem I have is my webcam doesn't have 64-bit drivers. Except for that 32-bit just isn't worth using, and Vista doesn't bring anything new to the table except for DX10, and unless you need it it's pointless.
> 
> XP x64 FTW!



Seconded.  If you need to use a 32bit OS, use Ubuntu 7.10/Server 2003/Vista.  IMHO, xp x86 is something I can no longer recommend either.


----------



## mas0n (Nov 13, 2007)

I've been using Vista 64 for over 10 months now and have had NO problems. If you know how to tweak your OS, Vista is a great one. My only complaints would be that video drivers are obviously not quite as mature as they are for XP, but we're only talking about a 5-7% performance hit in my experience.


----------



## Aguiar (Nov 13, 2007)

*W XP 64 bits*

Hi Dudes...Man i´ve trying to get a 90 days copy of XP64bits and till now , nothing , no copy no answer from M$.Is there another way to get it ? Evaluation copy or else...Just wanna teste it before buying.THX.


----------



## Disparia (Nov 13, 2007)

I can't say anything bad about XP64, it ran beautifully for me, but I did end up going with Vista 64 - that's where MS and devs are focusing their efforts.

Probably won't have a problem either way.


----------



## Snipe343 (Nov 13, 2007)

Vista is great for me i donno whats all the talk about programs not working i've had no problems whatsoever exept for Kazaa, so i would recommend vista if you love to play games.


----------



## iDash (Nov 15, 2007)

Vista for games period, why waste money on an inferior product, Total of 4GB Ram, with the only problem so far for me is AdWare SE not Vista 64 yet!


----------



## Darknova (Nov 15, 2007)

iDash said:


> Vista for games period, why waste money on an inferior product, Total of 4GB Ram, with the only problem so far for me is AdWare SE not Vista 64 yet!



Me thinks you need to do some research.

XP 64bit is NOT XP 32-bit with 64-bit support. It uses the Server 2k3 kernel (which Vista was based on), it is NOT limited to 4Gb like XP 32-bit is.

I've used both XP x64 and Vista Ultimate and Business x64, and out of both IMO XP x64 is the best.


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 15, 2007)

Thanks Dark 

I'm going with the XP64. 

I've already got a copy of it.  I got it for free as a promo back when it was brand new and have never used it. It's hard to beat free.  And if it's as mature and familiar as XP with the stability of 64 I think it'll do me just fine.

I suspected as much anyway but it's nice to hear from someone who has used both.

Cheers!

BigE

PS by the way Dark...your system settings say Windows XP64 custom...no crap.   Exactly what does that mean?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 16, 2007)

XP64 is garbage. i used it for 6 months and i had to reinstall 4 times. it's not stable at all. I've tried it on several different computers and the same problems occurred. vista home premium 64bit is cheaper than xp64... unless your using a hacked version on xp64 which i don't recommend.


----------



## devguy (Nov 16, 2007)

fitseries3 said:


> XP64 is garbage. i used it for 6 months and i had to reinstall 4 times. it's not stable at all. I've tried it on several different computers and the same problems occurred. vista home premium 64bit is cheaper than xp64... unless your using a hacked version on xp64 which i don't recommend.


 When did you try it?  If it was any time before SP2 was released, it may interest you to try it again now, unless you are using a PC with specs like these:

Early Athlon64 S754
Unknown motherboard with single channel ddr2100 and SiS integrated video
really old pci tv tuner
really old sound card by some never heard of brand
XP x64 RTM

If you have something similar to that, any Windows x64 might not be right for you.

If you tried it recently using the PC in your specs, well then I don't know what to tell you.  I guess just use w/e works best, although I would find it hard to believe.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 16, 2007)

devguy said:


> When did you try it?  If it was any time before SP2 was released, it may interest you to try it again now, unless you are using a PC with specs like these:
> 
> Early Athlon64 S754
> Unknown motherboard with single channel ddr2100 and SiS integrated video
> ...



i had a amd x2 5200 at the time on a asus m2n32-sli with 2 7900gt's in sli. also, i started using xp64 about 5 months before vista came out.

my vista 64 has had absolutely no problems at all.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Nov 16, 2007)

Vista 64 will have better support going into the future. If you dont have any driver issues with it right now, there is no reason to use XP 64. If you dont like Aero, turn it off. Dont like the high memory usage? Turn off superfetch. After that you pretty much have XP 64/Server2k3 with better consumer-level support.

There is one big issue with Vista 64 though. You cant run unsigned drivers without pressing F8 and selecting unsigned driver mode at every boot. If you leave your PC on all the time, it isn't a problem.


----------



## AddSub (Nov 16, 2007)

Like wazzledoozle said, if you don't have any driver issues with it, then go for Vista 64bit. Myself, I've never heard of anyone who had an easy time with Vista 64bit, driver-wise. Aggravating experiences all around, at best. 64bit computing is not, definitely NOT, upon us. Well, yet anyways.


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 16, 2007)

fitseries3 said:


> i had a amd x2 5200 at the time on a asus m2n32-sli with 2 7900gt's in sli. also, i started using xp64 about 5 months before vista came out.
> 
> my vista 64 has had absolutely no problems at all.



No problems at all with _any_ games, _any_ drivers, _any_ programs you normally use?


----------



## VulkanBros (Nov 16, 2007)

I can absolutly recommend Vista 64-Bit....rock solid...until now...installed it yesterday

All my gear is Vista 64-bit driver supported (See system specs.)

my app. list that runs perfect under Vista 64-Bit :

-Office 2003 Professional
-FireFox 2.0.0.9
-Safari 3.0.4
-Steam ( CS:Source, HL2, TF2 and so on )
-Comrade ( Warmonger - UT3 - QW:ET )
-WinRAR
-Kaspersky AntiVirus 7.0
und so weiter.......

The only appl. that don´t work is : ATITool 0.27b2.....


----------



## Ripper3 (Nov 16, 2007)

I dunno about 64-bit Vista, but 32-bit Vista is pissing me off, I'm going back to XP x64.
Never had any trouble setting it up, no driver problems, ran well, only slight incompatibility (GTR, was the only game I ever had problems installing under x64, but then again, it uses SecuROM, or something else similarly shite, and incompatible with 64-bit XP. Apart from that, Battlefield 2 just warns it was tested only on XP SP2 32-bit, but still works fine), and all of my main 32-bit applications run like clockwork.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 16, 2007)

Darknova said:


> Me thinks you need to do some research.
> 
> XP 64bit is NOT XP 32-bit with 64-bit support. It uses the Server 2k3 kernel (which Vista was based on), it is NOT limited to 4Gb like XP 32-bit is.
> 
> I've used both XP x64 and Vista Ultimate and Business x64, and out of both IMO XP x64 is the best.



Vista is less like 2k3 than 2k3 is like XP. The whole 4GB issue has nothing to do with XP either, it's just the limit of ANY 32 bit OS.

Personally I'd recommend Vista64 over XP64 simply due to support. Compatibility issues with older programs exist on both, so that's not the issue.


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 16, 2007)

HOT DAMN! I just checked UPS and my goodies are officially here!
 woo hoo!

Now, debate aside...one way or the other...at some point this weekend whatever has invaded the jungles of North Korea in Crysis is in deep doo-doo.    Like Jimi said "Here I come baby.  Comin' to gitchoo!"

Because you guys have been so helpful I'll give you first dibs on any of my old stuff if anyone should want it.  I'll be posting pix, and listing the stuff officially under the "for sale" forum later this weekend once I get it all out of my old box and some pix made.

But just so you know..this is what will be listed (provided no one wants any of it before hand)

Abit AN8 32X motherboard.  
AMD 64x2 4400 (939 pin) processor
2 gigs of Corsair XMS DDR-400
Sapphire X1900XTX (modded with Arctic Cooling fan)
Soundblaster Audigy 2ZS
1 real laser etched store bought copy of Windows XP Pro SP2.

For most of this stuff I still have the original boxes (I keep the stuff in case something dies in warranty) the board, the video card, the processor (I think)

Anyway...pix and prices will be listed later this weekend.  If anyone is interested in any or all of this stuff give me a shout we'll work a deal.

Thanks again guys...

BigE.


----------



## B1gg3stN00b (Nov 16, 2007)

AddSub said:


> Like wazzledoozle said, if you don't have any driver issues with it, then go for Vista 64bit. Myself, I've never heard of anyone who had an easy time with Vista 64bit, driver-wise. Aggravating experiences all around, at best. 64bit computing is not, definitely NOT, upon us. Well, yet anyways.



I love 64 bit Vista, didn't have a bit of trouble at all getting it up and running on my custom build!


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 16, 2007)

B1gg3stN00b said:


> I love 64 bit Vista, didn't have a bit of trouble at all getting it up and running on my custom build!



What sort of games might you be playing, BiggieNoob?  How about things like...your iPod? your cellphone? digital cameras? or maybe apps not everyone would use...like Perfect Disk, or Nero?


----------



## B1gg3stN00b (Nov 16, 2007)

Nero runs fine, my cellphone, Ipod, and Digital Camera hook up great.
I play CS:S, Starcraft BW, World in Conflict, Supreme Commander, the Battlefield Series, etc.

Only thing that doesn't work is my webcam, but that's probably because it came out around the same time as Windows 95.


----------



## Spunky (Nov 18, 2007)

If you find yourself drooling for no apparent reason, or occasionally wake up and can't figure out where you are, you might want to stay away from Vista x64. Otherwise, it's a great OS and you won't regret using it.


----------



## Exceededgoku (Nov 18, 2007)

Lol at the responses on here.. heavy photography doesn't rely on a good memory subsystem at all 
Using XP you might as well go back to 98SE, from my experience XP64 was unstable and driver support was shocking. I cannot say the same about Vista64, at all!


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 18, 2007)

*What I finally wound up doing...*

Well I tried XP64.  Because I already had a copy and didn't have to spend any more money I really really really wanted it to work.  But too many things wouldn't or didn't and so...with heavy heart and soon after lighter wallet...I went to Sam's Club and bought a copy of Vista.

I kept my receipt...because I just KNEW this wasn’t going to work…but I figured what the hey I’ll give it a shot.
Taking some advice I had googled earlier in the week…during the install I only used 2gigs of RAM.  Once Vista64 was installed, AND PATCHED (that’s important)…then I put in the other 6 gigs in for a total of 8.

So far…and at this point everything is installed, games, apps, yadda yadda…I have had almost no problems what so ever.  In fact the only program that seems to be argumentative is iTunes (it says I can’t burn disks and to reinstall the program)…I strongly suspect updating the bios of my DVD burner might fix this.

All in all…I’m very pleasantly surprised.  The IP35 Pro board I used is WONDERFUL! (3.9 out of 4 stars) The easiest motherboard to set-up I have ever used.  My Q6600 OC’d to 3.0 with just two adjustments.  The only reason I wouldn’t give it 4 out of 4 stars would be the odd way the sata controllers sit on the board.  Because of the way it sits, if you go with a IP35…make sure to have a full and not a mid tower case.  I’ll be getting a new case soon…my Antec Sonata Piano is just getting too cramped.

Anyway…so far I’m doing ok and liking Vista64 very much.  I can tell no difference between it at the 32-bit version--with the exception that there is a X86 program files folder for 32-bit programs.  Operations-wise it works great.  Everything starts and runs like it's amped up on Red Bull and constantly drinking Starbucks.  Vista is still way too expensive, and it really does love RAM, but right now RAM is cheap and like many have said…Vista-like it or not-is the future.

Thanks to all who commented for their help.
BigE


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 18, 2007)

Exceededgoku said:


> Lol at the responses on here.. heavy photography doesn't rely on a good memory subsystem at all
> Using XP you might as well go back to 98SE, from my experience XP64 was unstable and driver support was shocking. I cannot say the same about Vista64, at all!



Start batch editing dozens of large format pictures, an SD card full at time, and you might change your mind.


----------



## Darknova (Nov 18, 2007)

Exceededgoku said:


> Lol at the responses on here.. heavy photography doesn't rely on a good memory subsystem at all
> Using XP you might as well go back to 98SE, from my experience XP64 was unstable and driver support was shocking. I cannot say the same about Vista64, at all!



I really wish people would stop saying XP64 is unstable. It isn't anymore! SP2 fixed everything, and it uses the same drivers (the only difference is the inf file) as Vista, so driver support is as bad as Vista 64.


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 18, 2007)

bigenuffumbrella said:


> ... iTunes (it says I can’t burn disks and to reinstall the program)…I strongly suspect updating the bios of my DVD burner might fix this...BigE



I got the exact same problem with iTunes on Vista x64... let me know if u fix it


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 18, 2007)

phanbuey said:


> I got the exact same problem with iTunes on Vista x64... let me know if u fix it



I'll post it in here if I find it.


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 18, 2007)

Darknova said:


> I really wish people would stop saying XP64 is unstable. It isn't anymore! SP2 fixed everything, and it uses the same drivers (the only difference is the inf file) as Vista, so driver support is as bad as Vista 64.



Dark, it's not that XP64 is unstable.  With SP2, you're right...it's rock solid.  But, and I can now say this from experience, the driver support is _not_ as through as Vista's.  

I know.  It pains me (and my wallet) to say it, but it's true.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 18, 2007)

X64 had no problems for the 18+ months i have used it.  All though i don't use scanners or printers which is were a lot of people seem to have issue's.

Sure there's been issues but nothing not fixable thats for sure for me.


----------



## wiak (Nov 18, 2007)

fitseries3 said:


> XP64 is garbage. i used it for 6 months and i had to reinstall 4 times. it's not stable at all. I've tried it on several different computers and the same problems occurred. vista home premium 64bit is cheaper than xp64... unless your using a hacked version on xp64 which i don't recommend.



its not xp x64 that is unstable its your system, xp64 has exacly the same kernel as windows server 2003 x75 and its the most stable one 

Vista x64 has little problems
now that SP1 comes soon it will be updated to better handle memory
64-bit is a MUST for more memory than 2GB anyway
i hope you system likes 8GB memory, not all system runs stable with that amount


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 18, 2007)

AsRock said:


> X64 had no problems for the 18+ months i have used it.  All though i don't use scanners or printers which is were a lot of people seem to have issue's.
> 
> Sure there's been issues but nothing not fixable thats for sure for me.



My Dell 1710n laser works great.  My Epson R280 is the same.  Both of them had XP and Vista 64 drivers.  So for me, printers were never an issue.


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 18, 2007)

wiak said:


> its not xp x64 that is unstable its your system, xp64 has exacly the same kernel as windows server 2003 x75 and its the most stable one
> 
> Vista x64 has little problems
> now that SP1 comes soon it will be updated to better handle memory
> ...



Thank you wiak.  It seems to LOVE IT!  This Gskill memory (see my profile for the exact model number) absolutely rocks!  I've read where people say during operation it's actually cool enough to touch...I'm not brave/dumb enough to try that. ;-)

For the amout of RAM you get the price and performance are just fantastic.  I got mine at NewEgg if anyone is interested.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820231145


----------



## wiak (Nov 18, 2007)

wazzledoozle said:


> Vista 64 will have better support going into the future. If you dont have any driver issues with it right now, there is no reason to use XP 64. If you dont like Aero, turn it off. Dont like the high memory usage? Turn off superfetch. After that you pretty much have XP 64/Server2k3 with better consumer-level support.
> 
> There is one big issue with Vista 64 though. You cant run unsigned drivers without pressing F8 and selecting unsigned driver mode at every boot. If you leave your PC on all the time, it isn't a problem.


+1


----------



## wiak (Nov 18, 2007)

bigenuffumbrella said:


> Thank you wiak.  It seems to LOVE IT!  This Gskill memory (see my profile for the exact model number) absolutely rocks!  I've read where people say during operation it's actually cool enough to touch...I'm not brave/dumb enough to try that. ;-)
> 
> For the amout of RAM you get the price and performance are just fantastic.  I got mine at NewEgg if anyone is interested.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820231145


to bad am not in us ^^


----------



## bigenuffumbrella (Nov 18, 2007)

wiak said:


> +1



Yeah that is too bad man.


----------



## aarathi (Nov 21, 2007)

Using XP you might as well go back to 98SE, from my experience XP64 was unstable and driver support was shocking. I cannot say the same about Vista64


----------



## wazzledoozle (Nov 21, 2007)

The itunes issue stems from itunes not including a 64 bit driver for burning cd's. 

Explained here.
64-bit driver here. (get Driver_Installer_AMD64_EM64T.exe)


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 21, 2007)

*Thanks!*

yeah... it works!!!  thanks!


----------

