# Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 VS XP x86 Pro SP2



## SausageNinja (Feb 7, 2009)

Hi guys,

im not sure if its the right place to post my question ..

My dilema is whether to instal vista ultimate x64 SP1 or XP pro x86 SP2.

my specs are:
q6600 3.2GHZ
GTX260 216 CORES (EVGA FTW/XFX BLACK speeds)
wd 500bg GP AACS
EP43-DS3L
4GB

how'd vista affect my system? will it make it slower/heavier?
my friend's father told me that vista is very unstable and should not be installed on any pc.
And that most programs dont support this OS 
^ Is that true?  ^
Is directx10 worth installing vista over xp?


Is that true? 

please answer all my questions, thnx in advance


----------



## Homeless (Feb 7, 2009)

Is there a reason you're not considering XP SP3?  Anyway, I would go for vista x64 if you have 4 gigs of ram


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 7, 2009)

Vista. XP sucks in comparison these days.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Feb 7, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Vista. XP sucks in comparison these days.



w0w 

well it's better off getting Vista x64 your specs can handle it


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 7, 2009)

What  Have you tried using XP after using Vista.. XP feels slow and outdated.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Feb 7, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> What  Have you tried using XP after using Vista.. XP feels slow and outdated.



currently using XP when 7 arrives I'll switch to it

@topic

seriously, get Vista. If we have the same specs then I'd really go for Vista X64. Since I only got 2gb of ram + slow gfx card I'll stick to XP and maybe skip Vista till' 7 arrives


----------



## xu^ (Feb 7, 2009)

if your freinds father said that about vista then obviously he doesnt have a clue what he`s talking about tbh.

ive been using Vista x64 SP1 for over 6 mnths and i love it ,way better than XP in all respects really ,the only slight downside for me is that benchmark results tend to be lower than they are on XP ,apart from that tho its great ,games run as well on Vista as they ever did on XP now,and its way more stable (ive not had a single blue screen or unrecoverable crash yet)


----------



## SausageNinja (Feb 7, 2009)

WOW, youre guys are so fast.
hmm, you all say that "if i had your system id go with vista" - it means that vista is heavier and needs better hardware , doesnt it?

btw,
how's my english? ive been studying it for a year 
great language!


----------



## oli_ramsay (Feb 7, 2009)

Your friend's father sounds cretinous, Vista is just as, if not more stable than XP and 99.9% of games and apps that worked on XP will work on Vista.  You should definately go for it, it looks a lot nicer than XP, newer and it's 64 bit so you can use all 4GB of your RAM.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Feb 7, 2009)

Your english is better than mine, that's a fact 

Vista got DX10, which is nice on your GTX260
Vista 64-bit will use all of your 4GB that's also nice

get it...
-Vista x64-


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 7, 2009)

Just means Vista is better. But it does have heavier requirements. A single core and 512mb ram will not do in Vista. 4gb of Ram, a quad core and a high end video card is more than enough


----------



## Triprift (Feb 7, 2009)

Vistas fine with my 2 gig its sweet with your specs it would be cruising.


----------



## Kursah (Feb 7, 2009)

RadeonX2 said:


> currently using XP when 7 arrives I'll switch to it
> 
> @topic
> 
> seriously, get Vista. If we have the same specs then I'd really go for Vista X64. Since I only got 2gb of ram + slow gfx card I'll stick to XP and maybe skip Vista till' 7 arrives



I ran a quad with 2gb of ram and a 9600GT quite well on Vista x64 and gamed a ton with it for a couple of months, adding 2 more GB did help out with multitasking and a few other things. Plus with 2x2GB kits so cheap lately and have been for months, there's no reason NOT to have 4GB of Ram, I scrounged up about $45 incl shipping for my 2x2gb kit of G.Skill DDR1066. Double that a year ago for the 2x2gb g.skill 1000 kit in my G/F's rig though... Vista will use up your ram for good reasons, so don't worry about running out. Hell my g/f's rig is still running that 9600GT though now it's vmodded, has larger cooling and is pretty heavily OC'd.

Plus I have found X64 to be a little snappier and at least for me a smoother os than x86.


----------



## qubit (Feb 7, 2009)

SausageNinja said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> im not sure if its the right place to post my question ..
> 
> ...



Get Vista 64, as the others have said. It's now a no-brainer. Vista _was_ crap and unstable when it came out, but now it's fast, slick and actually more reliable than XP. To achieve this though, it's crucial that you put on SP1 and all the critical updates from Microsoft Update.
You're system spec is more than enough to run it very well indeed.

I've been running Vista since last November and it still runs sweet. It doesn't seem to suffer from the slowdowns that affect XP, either.

I'm curious why you were thinking of 32-bit XP with only SP2. SP3 has been out for some time and gives zero problems, plus the 32-bit version can't see all of your RAM if you put in 4GB.

Whatever Windows you use, it's crucial to patch it with Microsoft Update and to keep scanning until no more critical or important updates are found.


----------



## SausageNinja (Feb 7, 2009)

2 last questions:

- is directx10 worth installing over dx9? (results in lower fps)

- will using vista result in lower fps? (in comparison to xp)

thanks!


----------



## RadeonX2 (Feb 7, 2009)

SausageNinja said:


> 2 last questions:
> 
> - is directx10 worth installing over dx9? (results in lower fps)
> 
> ...



- YES, GTX260 can handle most games with max graphic settings

-NO


----------



## FilipM (Feb 7, 2009)

I did a comparisson my self between Vista 32 Ultimate SP1, and XP 32 SP3. Vista is just better in games, they play better (some of them up to 15%) and smoother. There are a few exceptions but those are a bit older games. Get Vista, you will not find it any worse than XP.


----------



## qubit (Feb 7, 2009)

SausageNinja said:


> btw,
> how's my english? ive been studying it for a year
> great language!



Honestly? It could do with a fair bit of improvement. At the risk of sounding big-headed, look at the quality of my English to get an idea of how it should read. But then English is my native language and I have always been good at it, so please don't take this the wrong way. I do appreciate that it's not your native language and it's quite a difficult and awkward language to master. There's lots of vague bits in it and I don't claim to get everything right, either.

I'm curious what your native language is?

Keep up your studies and you'll get much better at it, I promise you.  I suggest paying particular attention to capitals and punctuation.

To help you, here's your original post corrected:



SausageNinja said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm not sure if this is the right place to post my question.
> 
> ...


----------



## SausageNinja (Feb 7, 2009)

Oh thanks ^

I do usually pay attention to capitals and punctuation but this time i did not. 

My native language is hebrew/russian  - i speak both .


----------



## FilipM (Feb 7, 2009)

Actually, for just a year of studying it thats very good.


----------



## Marineborn (Feb 7, 2009)

+1 For Vista In The House!!!


----------



## RadeonX2 (Feb 7, 2009)

File_1993 said:


> Actually, for just a year of studying it thats very good.



very true I have an English subject since elementary now I'm on college boy my English still sucks 

well Niko Bellic on GTA IV and his cousin Roman both speak fluent English...... LOOOOOL


----------



## qubit (Feb 7, 2009)

SausageNinja said:


> Oh thanks ^
> 
> I do usually pay attention to capitals and punctuation but this time i did not.
> 
> My native language is hebrew/russian  - i speak both .



You speak 3 languages? Cool. 

I speeks just da 1 lol


----------



## crtecha (Feb 7, 2009)

After I upgraded to Vista 64bit and applying a few tweaks I have been running smooth with no issues.  Vista ftw.


----------



## SausageNinja (Feb 7, 2009)

qubit said:


> You speak 3 languages? Cool.
> 
> I speeks just da 1 lol



je m'apple gabby.
that's 4 now. Im kidding


----------



## vega22 (Feb 7, 2009)

most of the bad press for gaming on vista was down to crappy drivers but over the last year they have been spot on.

vista is the way to go if your specs are upto it (and yours is ) if not go 2000 server


----------



## DonInKansas (Feb 7, 2009)

Vista if you must upgrade now.


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 7, 2009)

SausageNinja said:


> Oh thanks ^
> 
> I do usually pay attention to capitals and punctuation but this time i did not.
> 
> My native language is hebrew/russian  - i speak both .



Nice about the language , kind of like a one of thoughs AMD 3 cores! HURRAY for the Hebrew language  you can speak!

Back to topic ,Vista has been a big improvement since the release of SP1....It has matured and so have the software companies that write apps for Vista....XP is good but Vista is better for the retailer...Xp doesn't need as much muscle as Vista but you have the muscle and it wont even be an issue with your rig...Ram and your videocard and your CPU are screaming VISTA PLEASE!


----------



## raptori (Feb 7, 2009)

vista will make 95% of all games run slower ..... no need for speed on the desktop or while moving from "my computer" to "driver D" as vista do and maybe the things that i found them worth running on vista are FARCRY2 DX10 & stalker CS and the good search improvement .... and if you want my advice install both of them ... just like me.


----------



## Lordbollo (Feb 8, 2009)

raptori said:


> vista will make 95% of all games run slower



You should not make statements like that dude, because most people will think oh my god the games will not be playable anymore. 
The difference in games is only maybe 1 to 2% difference. So if you have a gtx260 (like you) and game on an lcd screen (like you) then you should know that the max possible fps that you screen can display is 60fps (or 75 as some lcd's do do 75hz), therfore if you are getting 100+fps in games and lets face it a gtx260 @  1280x1024 will get that, a 2% drop will give you maybe 2 fps drop which means instead of 40 fps going to waste you have 38, big whoopsy.
I wish people would put more thought into their posts on forums where people come and ask for advice. This noobish scare mongering behaviour does nothing to enhance your reputation on a forum, just your post count.
Sorry bout the hijacking off the thread a bit but stupid posts like that piss me off. 
Anyway to answer the op's question, with out a doubt you should go vista 64bit as you have the hardware to run it, and only with a 64bit will you get full usage out of you ram. Vista has improved to the point where it is a viable alternative to xp, (and if people remember xp had teething problems till sp1 came out as well), it is safe, fast, and reliable, so I would say go for it.


----------



## kenkickr (Feb 8, 2009)

You have a nice system and I think you should go with Vista x64.  I play all my games on Vista and I've never once had an issue with any game on Vista.  I even play MVP05, yes still, on Vista with no issues at all.


----------



## crosshairs (Feb 8, 2009)

I also have a quad and a 260GTX 

I came from XP to Vista 64 about 2 months ago.....you could not pay me enough to go back.

It games just fine, is stable as hell, and is all around a huge improvement over XP.....get it, you wont be sorry...and you will never go back..


----------



## sweeper (Feb 8, 2009)

With your specs Vista is fine. Now I was running Vista Ultimate (not 64) on my rig (see specs) and once I formatted it and installed XP PRO SP3 my system runs alot smoother but it is also a much older system. Yeah it has the HD3850 but that's about it. With XP Pro my benchmarks jumped dramatically and gaming improved alot but no DX10 SUCKS!!! just DX9c and it gets the job done but my video card is a DX10 card and my system is a DX9 performer. LOL. But I never had problems with Vista crashing or running poorly or lack of drivers. I just have an older system that utilizes XP PRO much more efficiently.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2009)

sweeper said:


> With XP Pro my benchmarks jumped dramatically and gaming improved alot



How long ago did you try this? Vista gaming performance has improved dramatically and is now very similar to XP, sometimes outperforming it, too.


----------



## raptori (Feb 8, 2009)

Lordbollo said:


> You should not make statements like that dude, because most people will think oh my god the games will not be playable anymore.
> The difference in games is only maybe 1 to 2% difference. So if you have a gtx260 (like you) and game on an lcd screen (like you) then you should know that the max possible fps that you screen can display is 60fps (or 75 as some lcd's do do 75hz), therfore if you are getting 100+fps in games and lets face it a gtx260 @  1280x1024 will get that, a 2% drop will give you maybe 2 fps drop which means instead of 40 fps going to waste you have 38, big whoopsy.
> I wish people would put more thought into their posts on forums where people come and ask for advice. This noobish scare mongering behaviour does nothing to enhance your reputation on a forum, just your post count.
> Sorry bout the hijacking off the thread a bit but stupid posts like that piss me off.
> Anyway to answer the op's question, with out a doubt you should go vista 64bit as you have the hardware to run it, and only with a 64bit will you get full usage out of you ram. Vista has improved to the point where it is a viable alternative to xp, (and if people remember xp had teething problems till sp1 came out as well), it is safe, fast, and reliable, so I would say go for it.



Watch your words boy ..... i said games run slower not games run slower by 95% and if a game run 2fps less than XP then it considered slower .... moreover there are about 5fps difference in games like crysis warhead and GTAIV and it considered as good increase in performance if there is no decline in IQ .................. if you want to be a good TPU member leave fighting for streets.


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 8, 2009)

raptori said:


> Watch your words boy ..... i said games run slower not games run slower by 95% and if a game run 2fps less than XP then it considered slower .... moreover there are about 5fps difference in games like crysis warhead and GTAIV and it considered as good increase in performance if there is no decline in IQ .................. if you want to be a good TPU member leave fighting for streets.



You're still incorrect. Vista is faster than XP in most cases. After SP1 and with updated drivers Vista blows XP outta the water.


----------



## raptori (Feb 8, 2009)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1390&page=2
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1390&page=3


----------



## psyko12 (Feb 8, 2009)

Vista runs perfectly for me... And also it games the same as XP now! Used it for quite sometime now and I haven't looked back to XP.. Now I get lost where to find things on XP 

@rap
The 1st link was quite dated.. And to compare x64 version of vista is the better one. Think they used the 32-bit...

Edit: Vista just had a bad start coz of ppl bad mouthing it... But actually it's better than XP.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2009)

psyko12 said:


> Vista runs perfectly for me... And also it games the same as XP now! Used it for quite sometime now and I haven't looked back to XP.. Now I get lost where to find things on XP
> 
> @rap
> The 1st link was quite dated.. And to compare x64 version of vista is the better one. Think they used the 32-bit...
> ...



You know how it is, Vista got a bad rap at the start, because it _was_ rubbish. But now, no matter how much Microsoft improves it, the collective stupidity still can't see this and lamely continues with XP=GOOD, VISTA=CRAP! 

Vista is now better than XP, end of story.


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 8, 2009)

raptori said:


> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html
> 
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1390&page=2
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1390&page=3



Both are old as hell.. Look at the test bed for the tomshardware one lol X1900's are long dead and the other one has a Phenom 9700, a TLB chip and only 2gb of ram. I saw a pretty big improvement in Vista moving from 2gb to 4gb.


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 8, 2009)

Vista nowadays destroys XP but what you might want to do is dual boot and see which one you prefer.


----------



## psyko12 (Feb 8, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Vista nowadays destroys XP but what you might want to do is dual boot and see which one you prefer.



@op you should try what he said, it all goes down to user preference


----------



## sweeper (Feb 8, 2009)

qubit said:


> How long ago did you try this? Vista gaming performance has improved dramatically and is now very similar to XP, sometimes outperforming it, too.



A few days ago I swapped from Vista Ultimate to XP Pro SP3 and Gaming is less jerky and benchmarks are jumping almost twice the scores in Vista Ultimate.


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 8, 2009)

sweeper said:


> A few days ago I swapped from Vista Ultimate to XP Pro SP3 and Gaming is less jerky and benchmarks are jumping almost twice the scores in Vista Ultimate.



Your running 2gb of ddr. Decent DDR2 in vista would handle it very well. Also you have a single core and vista is heavier but the reason u saw such a jump is because your hardware can't handle vista as well as xp.


----------



## sweeper (Feb 8, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Your running 2gb of ddr. Decent DDR2 in vista would handle it very well. Also you have a single core and vista is heavier but the reason u saw such a jump is because your hardware can't handle vista as well as xp.



Yeah, that's why I kept it on my laptop (vista) it has a dual core CPU and 4GB ram. This desktop is old BUT runs good enough for what I need it for. Most of my Gaming is on the XBOX 360 more than this PC anyway.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2009)

sweeper said:


> A few days ago I swapped from Vista Ultimate to XP Pro SP3 and Gaming is less jerky and benchmarks are jumping almost twice the scores in Vista Ultimate.



What games where you running and was Vista fully patched with SP1, all critical updates and the latest chipset and video drivers?


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 8, 2009)

Windows XP has really come a long way and with all the updates (mainly the service packs) and it is really stable and the only reason i see in switching to Vista is the nice grafical user interface and DX10.. the 4Gb of ram are recognized as 3,2Gb-3,5Gb of ram under XP so it doesnt really make any difference compared to the 4Gb under a x64 OS.. Also driver support for x64 OSes sucks..


----------



## Kursah (Feb 8, 2009)

Laurijan said:


> Also driver support for x64 OSes sucks..



I've yet to have an issue on over 10 builds with vista x64 and drivers, some setups that had printers, game controllers, etc. That statement is not necessarily true of all builds, basic video, sound, ethernet and chipset drivers for anything made in the last few years from a reputable company that has it's head out of it's ass will have drivers for Vx64 at least in my experience that is how it is at this moment. There is plenty of driver support for Vista x64. To top that off it is nice to acutally be able to utilize all 4GB of ram instaed of 3.2-3.5, which can come in handy while multitasking, encoding and gaming, while not as noticable of a difference as say 2GB to 4GB, there is still a noticable difference on my rig and what I do so having that 4GB of ram actually being used is critical.

XP has come a long way, in what 8 years, 3 service packs, more updates than many can count, tons of drivers, and it's true if you don't want to have the new GUI or DX10 then there's no big reason to go to Vista. But in less time than it took for XP, Vista is just as stable, has MORE support, and at least x64 vs x64 works out better in my experience on multiple rigs. Doesn't mean I'll get rid of my copies of XP 86 or 64, same with Vista when I decide to purchase 7. Vista is a damn good OS, if you have modern hardware (let's say circa 2005+) you should be fine, of course like anything performance related, the newer the better in many cases, that goes for XP and gaming too. At the end of the day it comes down to one being content with what they have, or are curious enough to try something new out, if they like it, buy it, if not ditch it and go back to the known. I think MS has done a great job getting Vista up to par, I've used it for the last year and have no complaints, I game a ton, I've used a variety of vid cards from an x1950pro to a GTX260 all performed great and on-par with their XP results for gaming. Each situation will be different, each experience may differ, at the end of the day it comes down to preference and priorty of each user.


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 8, 2009)

Laurijan said:


> Windows XP has really come a long way and with all the updates (mainly the service packs) and it is really stable and the only reason i see in switching to Vista is the nice grafical user interface and DX10.. the 4Gb of ram are recognized as 3,2Gb-3,5Gb of ram under XP so it doesnt really make any difference compared to the 4Gb under a x64 OS.. Also driver support for x64 OSes sucks..



Never had driver problems with x64.


----------



## sweeper (Feb 8, 2009)

qubit said:


> What games where you running and was Vista fully patched with SP1, all critical updates and the latest chipset and video drivers?



Yeah, I had all the updates and it was patched with SP1 etc. Gaming was mostly what my son had on here. Alot of them were first person shooter games. Call of Duty, etc. Played well with Vista but had alot of problems with the games being Jerky.... So far XP hasn't done that yet. 'Knock on wood'. 

Heck I might switch back... we'll see.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 8, 2009)

SausageNinja said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> im not sure if its the right place to post my question ..
> 
> ...



No offense or anything but your friends father is an idiot. Vista is more stable that XP ever thought of being. And for the comment about nothing supporting it is a crock of shit too. 

You have a very good PC there so you might as well take advantage of Vista. Not many games of DX10 btw. Actually kinda sad. 

TBH as well, Windows 7 is basically right around the corner (supposed to be released in July/August of this year) and it is a lot better than Vista. Win7 is actually what Vista should have been. There is a public BETA out right now but since its a beta it does have bugs and about 98% of companies dont even support it yet. Win7 will also introduce DX11 which if I remember right, is supposed to be better than DX10 performance wise.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2009)

sweeper said:


> Yeah, I had all the updates and it was patched with SP1 etc. Gaming was mostly what my son had on here. Alot of them were first person shooter games. Call of Duty, etc. Played well with Vista but had alot of problems with the games being Jerky.... So far XP hasn't done that yet. 'Knock on wood'.
> 
> Heck I might switch back... we'll see.



Hmmm, that's odd. I'm thinking that the problem might be your graphics card there:

1. It's not especially powerful
2. I've noticed that ATI seems to take more of a performance hit on Vista than nvidia, even now

Hence, any loss of performance could result in what you're seeing there. Do you have an nvidia card you could try out - not a low end one?

Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, make sure that you're comparing like with like in terms of screen resolution and IQ settings; you might just be getting caught out by different defaults on the two operating systems.


----------



## sweeper (Feb 8, 2009)

eh... didn't change anything in the bios... kept it all the same. Everything is the same except the OS. I just put it on here so I don't have much on the HDD so I might start over with a clean install of Vista and see what happens. I do like Vista's interface much better than XP. But, I use XP at work and Vista on my Laptop. Dang it .... now you have me wondering if I should switch it back to Vista.................


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2009)

sweeper said:


> eh... didn't change anything in the bios... kept it all the same.



I wasn't talking about the BIOS, but about video driver settings.

Well, Vista is getting incresingly better supported than XP and it does work more smoothly and reliably, so I'd go for that. But then again, if you can't get good gaming performance, that might be a dealbreaker for you.


----------



## sweeper (Feb 8, 2009)

qubit said:


> I wasn't talking about the BIOS, but about video driver settings.
> 
> Well, Vista is getting incresingly better supported than XP and it does work more smoothly and reliably, so I'd go for that. But then again, if you can't get good gaming performance, that might be a dealbreaker for you.



Video driver settings are the same except I used the XP drivers not the Vista.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2009)

sweeper said:


> Video driver settings are the same except I used the XP drivers not the Vista.



That's good. Do you have reasonably powerful nvidia card to try between the two operating systems? You might find that the problem disappears.


----------



## sweeper (Feb 8, 2009)

no... I went with this card because I was told this was the fastest card out there right now for AGP. ???


----------



## Lordbollo (Feb 8, 2009)

raptori said:


> Watch your words boy



Hey dude I never said that you said games would run slower by 95%. Funny how you made that assumption from your post and my reply. All I said was that you should not make statements like that. And yes I do agree with you that if a game runs 2fps slower that it is considered to be running slower, but when as I said if a monitor and by you specs you have an lcd screen so I am guessing a refresh rate of 60hz like 99% of lcd's and you are getting 100fps with your gtx260 in a game the maximum your monitor can display is not 100fps it is 60fps, so does it matter if you are rendering a game at 100fps or 98fps, the answer is no. 
I was not trying to pick a fight when I replyed, but was trying to explain how people will make an assumption based on the way a post is worded. They way I read your post is the way that "fanboi's" (be they xp or vista. nvidia or ati/amd, intel or amd, ford or gm, you get my drift) write stuff to scare people into thinking their way, for example from the op's original post "my friend's father told me that vista is very unstable and should not be installed on any pc".  But that is my opinion and you like everybody else are free to disagree with me, but I think that when laying out an argument as to wether a is better than b, then all the facts should be laid out not just the one that suits which ever side you are on.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2009)

sweeper said:


> no... I went with this card because I was told this was the fastest card out there right now for AGP. ???



Sorry sweeper, I hadn't seen that you've got an AGP system. Yes, that is the most powerful card for that, so you don't have any options for an nvidia equivalent, unfortunately.

I tell you, if you eBay that old motherboard, CPU, RAM and graphics card and replace those with a C2D or C2Q system, you'll be blown away by the performance improvement, regardless of any losses on Vista!  I'm working on replacing my old Athlon system (see specs) in this way... except the old bits will live on in a spare machine to hack about with.


----------



## spearman914 (Feb 8, 2009)

I'll agree with crashburnxp. I've yet to see any apps/games that doesn't support vista. Hmm.. about the unstableness, he probably never had experience with it so he's just trying to throw u off and get xp. lol


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 8, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> I'll agree with crashburnxp. I've yet to see any apps/games that doesn't support vista. Hmm.. about the unstableness, he probably never had experience with it so he's just trying to throw u off and get xp. lol



Either that or he used it when Vista was first released and has made judgment on it ever since.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 9, 2009)

Vista x64 is leagues better than XP 32bit.


----------

