# Xp 64 Vs Vista 64



## RevengE (Feb 9, 2009)

I am Debating on which OS to get, which do you think I should get and why?


----------



## Deleted member 38767 (Feb 9, 2009)

For the system in your specs - Vista. XP was never meant to be 64bit OS.


----------



## RevengE (Feb 9, 2009)

Why do you say that? expand your thoughts


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 9, 2009)

Vista x64. There really is no reason to stay with XP these days. Vista is more stable and more reliable in all reality, and it has great support in x64 compared to that of XP x64. Not to mention that you have a rig more than capable to run it.


----------



## RevengE (Feb 9, 2009)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Vista x64. There really is no reason to stay with XP these days. Vista is more stable and more reliable in all reality, and it has great support in x64 compared to that of XP x64. Not to mention that you have a rig more than capable to run it.



Okay. Can you dual boot xp with vista? I would Hope my system can run it LOL I have expensive stuff in her.And another debate should I get Vista ultimate or just home really what is the difference other than the huge price difference?


----------



## Triprift (Feb 9, 2009)

Yeah you can duel boot your system can more than handle anything atm by the looks of it.


----------



## RevengE (Feb 9, 2009)

Triprift said:


> Yeah you can duel boot your system can more than handle anything atm by the looks of it.



That would keep me from having to reformat as well im guessing? I have alot of stuff on XP pro that I do not want to lose.


----------



## Deleted member 38767 (Feb 9, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> Why do you say that? expand your thoughts



When XP was coded there were no need and no hardware to run 64bit OS so they made it 32bit. Later on when the hardware and the need emerged MS just took good old 32bit code and retrofit it to 64bit. On other hand Vista was meant to have 64bit version so it was properly coded to be a 64bit OS as well as 32bit.


----------



## RevengE (Feb 9, 2009)

Grasshopper said:


> When XP was coded there were no need and no hardware to run 64bit OS so they made it 32bit. Later on when the hardware and the need emerged MS just took good old 32bit code and retrofit it to 64bit. On other hand Vista was meant to have 64bit version so it was properly coded to be a 64bit OS as well as 32bit.



Hmm intresting, good input. I was leaning towards Vista 64bit anywise I want DX10  So what is the difference between this:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116493 And this:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116478 And last but not least:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116483


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 9, 2009)

Grasshopper said:


> XP was never meant to be 64bit OS.



Considering Windows ran on 64 bit hardware since Windows 2000 I disagree with that statement.


----------



## Deleted member 38767 (Feb 9, 2009)

Home basic is... well the basic. You'll be better of with Home Premium. I've used Ultimate and Business and I didn't notice any difference. What Home Premium don't have are the advanced Back Up utilities. IMO Ultimate is overkill in most cases.



DanTheBanjoman said:


> Considering Windows ran on 64 bit hardware since Windows 2000 I disagree with that statement.



How many 64bit capable Desktop System were there in 2000? There were no actual need for 64bit software util AMD released their 64bit CPUs.


----------



## RevengE (Feb 9, 2009)

Grasshopper said:


> Home basic is... well the basic. You'll be better of with Home Premium. I've used Ultimate and Business and I didn't notice any difference. What Home Premium don't have are the advanced Back Up utilities. IMO Ultimate is overkill in most cases.



Okay so really if i picked up Business it would really have no disadvantages Vs Ultimate?


----------



## Deleted member 38767 (Feb 9, 2009)

IMO - no.


----------



## RevengE (Feb 9, 2009)

Grasshopper said:


> IMO - no.



Okay. As for Dual booting what is the best way to do this?


----------



## Perra (Feb 9, 2009)

IMO its an easy choice... i really don't see why anyone would choose vista over xp, vista is just bloat. What exactly makes vista better than xp? The only thing i could think of when i pondered about installing xp or vista the other day when i got fed up with windows 7 was Directx 10 and not even that makes it worth it.

I would actually have gone with debian if ati's linux-drivers were better and worked ok with wine but as it is right now, im sticking with xp.


----------



## orionbg (Feb 9, 2009)

By some really odd reason Vista Business is slower than Ultimate?!?! I have tested them both! Mayde because of some services or something else but I prefer Ultimete over Business! If you don't need Ultimete extras get Home Premium! It has everything you need for a home/gamer system


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 9, 2009)

Each version of Vista has something that the "dumber version" we'll call it doesnt have. For example, Basic doesnt have media center but Home Premium does. Business on the other hand does not have media center but it has remote desktop support where as HP does not have remote desktop. Ultimate has everything. Basic also does not have Aero i don think. 



Perra said:


> IMO its an easy choice... i really don't see why anyone would choose vista over xp, vista is just bloat. What exactly makes vista better than xp? The only thing i could think of when i pondered about installing xp or vista the other day when i got fed up with windows 7 was Directx 10 and not even that makes it worth it.
> 
> I would actually have gone with debian if ati's linux-drivers were better and worked ok with wine but as it is right now, im sticking with xp.



And your the one that probably tried it the year it came out and hasn't touched it since. Vista has gotten a LOT better since its release and many people here will agree with me on that. I have been using Vista since RC2 and ive loved it. Never had issues with it. If you got the hardware to run it, then run it. Its simple. He has the hardware to run it. XP is old news. It is time for it to die. 

Linux is shit when it comes to gaming anyway. Most of the people here game and really dont use Linux as a primary OS. If they do its for their servers or they dual boot. 

Linux isnt worth my time and effort honestly. 

@xRevengEx

The best way to do it IMO is probably have two hard drives. One dedicated for XP and the other for Vista if you wanna dual boot. Other wise, you will need to find a partitioning program so you can partition your XP drive from within windows and split it up so you can have both OS's on the same drive. 

Whichever you decide to do, you will need to boot with the Vista DVD in the drive and make sure you install Vista on the non-XP drive (or partition). What i usually do so i dont fuck things up is i go into My Computer and label my hard drives for their intended purpose. (I have a Vista x64 drive, Win7 x64 drive, movies drive, and games drive all labeled as such)


----------



## Haytch (Feb 9, 2009)

Perra has a point about Vista being bloated. But XP doesnt support DirectX 10.
If you want my advice, ditch them both and go with Windows 7 when released.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 9, 2009)

Perra said:


> IMO its an easy choice... i really don't see why anyone would choose vista over xp, vista is just bloat.* What exactly makes vista better than xp?* The only thing i could think of when i pondered about installing xp or vista the other day when i got fed up with windows 7 was Directx 10 and not even that makes it worth it.
> 
> I would actually have gone with debian if ati's linux-drivers were better and worked ok with wine but as it is right now, im sticking with xp.


Vista x64 is more stable, more compatible, and more secure than XP x64. So much so, that I actually dumped XP x64 in favor of Vista x64 Home Premium. It's an all around better OS.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 9, 2009)

Grasshopper said:


> How many 64bit capable Desktop System were there in 2000? There were no actual need for 64bit software util AMD released their 64bit CPUs.



Desktop, probably not many. Workstations, plenty. Though many got thrown away due to being ancient in 2000. Alpha has been 64 bit for ages (though Windows only supported 32 bit on it), Sparc same same story, POWER has been 64 bit for ages as well. Yet as far as I know the first 64 bit CPU supported by Windows was the Itanium. 
The world is a lot bigger than just Intel and AMD and their x86 CPU's. Surely they're what everyone has at home, but the need for 64 bit software existed long before that in several markets.

Anyway, the point is that Windows has a place the workstation and server market as well. And in these markets 64 bit CPU's are(and were) more common. Hence I find it an odd statement that Windows XP was not meant to be 64 bit. Since NT4 ran on many platforms I'm sure they even had that in 64 flavor internally somewhere. At least it shows that the NT kernel is quite portable between platforms.

Besides, it's not that there suddenly was a need for 64 bit software on desktops when AMD released their Athlon64, in fact, there still is little need for it in most cases. Apart from it being nice that your OS can address more than 4GB without PAE most programs can't address that much.



As to the XP64/Vista64 question, I'd go with Vista, better driver support.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 9, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Desktop, probably not many. Workstations, plenty. Though many got thrown away due to being ancient in 2000. Alpha has been 64 bit for ages (though Windows only supported 32 bit on it), Sparc same same story, POWER has been 64 bit for ages as well. Yet as far as I know the first 64 bit CPU supported by Windows was the Itanium.
> The world is a lot bigger than just Intel and AMD and their x86 CPU's. Surely they're what everyone has at home, but the need for 64 bit software existed long before that in several markets.
> 
> Anyway, the point is that Windows has a place the workstation and server market as well. And in these markets 64 bit CPU's are(and were) more common. Hence I find it an odd statement that Windows XP was not meant to be 64 bit. Since NT4 ran on many platforms I'm sure they even had that in 64 flavor internally somewhere. At least it shows that the NT kernel is quite portable between platforms.
> ...


NT4 even had PowerPC versions.

At any rate, you are 100% correct about driver support between XP x64 and Vista x64.


----------



## Perra (Feb 9, 2009)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> And your the one that probably tried it the year it came out and hasn't touched it since. Vista has gotten a LOT better since its release and many people here will agree with me on that. I have been using Vista since RC2 and ive loved it. Never had issues with it. If you got the hardware to run it, then run it. Its simple. He has the hardware to run it. XP is old news. It is time for it to die.
> 
> Linux is shit when it comes to gaming anyway. Most of the people here game and really dont use Linux as a primary OS. If they do its for their servers or they dual boot.
> 
> Linux isnt worth my time and effort honestly.



I had vista installed up until a month ago, when i tried out windows 7, i liked 7, but it didnt like my hardware, everything crashed, all the bloody time. So i thought about going back to vista but decided to go back to xp instead and i can't say i'm missing anything from vista. Seriously, whats the big improvement that you need to have in vista that is'nt there in xp?

Now, when it comes to windows 7 though, that is a wonderful OS. That's what vista should have been from the beginning. I would still run the beta if the drivers for my hardware wasn't so prone to crashing.


Oh and the foremost point of me not using either vista or 7 right now is the dreaded "Display driver has stopped responding and has recovered"-message you get about 6 or 7 times before the whole thing BSODs on you... but not everyone gets that, so pray you don't if you get vista


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 9, 2009)

Perra said:


> IMO its an easy choice... i really don't see why anyone would choose vista over xp, vista is just bloat. What exactly makes vista better than xp? The only thing i could think of when i pondered about installing xp or vista the other day when i got fed up with windows 7 was Directx 10 and not even that makes it worth it.
> 
> I would actually have gone with debian if ati's linux-drivers were better and worked ok with wine but as it is right now, im sticking with xp.



Vista is faster and more secure than XP in almost every way. Also vista automatically has drivers in it for most hardware so that you don't need to install ethernet drivers for it. I'd say got for x64 vista since in my experience it is much more stable than XP x64.



Perra said:


> I had vista installed up until a month ago, when i tried out windows 7, i liked 7, but it didnt like my hardware, everything crashed, all the bloody time. So i thought about going back to vista but decided to go back to xp instead and i can't say i'm missing anything from vista. Seriously, whats the big improvement that you need to have in vista that is'nt there in xp?
> 
> Now, when it comes to windows 7 though, that is a wonderful OS. That's what vista should have been from the beginning. I would still run the beta if the drivers for my hardware wasn't so prone to crashing.



Windows 7 is a beta so it is to be expected that it will crash and win7 is almost the same as vista is atm anyway.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 9, 2009)

Perra said:


> I had vista installed up until a month ago, when i tried out windows 7, i liked 7, but it didnt like my hardware, everything crashed, all the bloody time. So i thought about going back to vista but decided to go back to xp instead and i can't say i'm missing anything from vista. Seriously, whats the big improvement that you need to have in vista that is'nt there in xp?
> 
> Now, when it comes to windows 7 though, that is a wonderful OS. That's what vista should have been from the beginning. I would still run the beta if the drivers for my hardware wasn't so prone to crashing.



What version of Vista and XP? We are talking 64bit for both. The comparison is worlds different than 32bit XP and Vista.


----------



## Perra (Feb 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> What version of Vista and XP? We are talking 64bit for both. The comparison is worlds different than 32bit XP and Vista.



Ofcourse i am talking about 64-bit. havent used 32-bit in years.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 9, 2009)

Regardless, Vista is still more stable, compatible, and secure than XP x64.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2009)

well i've never had my vista x64 systems crash, while all around me XP systems do.

vista is a far more stable OS - due to fires and windstorms here we had a lot of power outages, my vista machines had no troubles even if they were in sleep mode at the time, while i've had to fix a few XP machines that corrupted their boot drives, or simply refused to wake from their sleep states.


----------



## Perra (Feb 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Regardless, Vista is still more stable, compatible, and secure than XP x64.



True, although stability isn't much of a factor when running either xp or vista now with the latest drivers and updates, not that i have noticed anyway.

I will even go as far as to retract my previous statement that I would choose xp64 over vista64. I would choose vista64 IF and only if i was certain i wouldn't be plagued by the "Display driver has stopped responding and has recovered"-message and accompanying BSOD. That's really where all my hate comes from regarding Vista


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 9, 2009)

Perra said:


> True, although stability isn't much of a factor when running either xp or vista now with the latest drivers and updates, not that i have noticed anyway.
> 
> I will even go as far as to retract my previous statement that I would choose xp64 over vista64. I would choose vista64 IF and only if i was certain i wouldn't be plagued by the "Display driver has stopped responding and has recovered"-message and accompanying BSOD. That's really where all my hate comes from regarding Vista



That only happens to me when my overclock on my gpu is unstable ?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2009)

the display driver error, always has a cause. most commonly its unstable system ram, or too high of an OC on the video card.

your system specs say you are OC'd, so how do you know its not related to that, and merely that XP isnt using a 3D interface to get crashes?

its not that vista is unstable for you, just thats its using a 3D interface, therefore its picking up on the problem.


----------



## Perra (Feb 9, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> That only happens to me when my overclock on my gpu is unstable ?



It has always happened to me on this rig, and i have changed everything in it twice now except the case itself... tried all the solutions that i could find with google. Vista just hates me 

And it happens even when i run stock too.

Oh and this has happened with 4 different video-cards. HD3850, HD3870, HD4850 and HD4870.


----------



## Homeless (Feb 9, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> That only happens to me when my overclock on my gpu is unstable ?



I actually get that on a daily basis with my stock clocked 4550 when running OpenGL apps.  Happens when underclocked as well with temps well in line


----------



## Wile E (Feb 9, 2009)

Homeless said:


> I actually get that on a daily basis with my stock clocked 4550 when running OpenGL apps.  Happens when underclocked as well with temps well in line



All this really proves is that ATI has really borked the last few driver releases. They've been buggy for me as well. I keep rolling back to 8.10, as it's the last stable driver for me.


----------



## Perra (Feb 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> All this really proves is that ATI has really borked the last few driver releases. They've been buggy for me as well. I keep rolling back to 8.10, as it's the last stable driver for me.



This is sadly not just an ATI-issue or i would have just gone with Nvidia. And this has been a long-standing issue with vista and now windows 7. As far as i can tell it can happen to anyone no matter what hardware they're running. Laptops and desktops alike.

Anyway, i knew i never should have made an account here and answered to this thread. Should have just kept on lurking cause now i'm gonna give vista another try...


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 9, 2009)

Interesting but notice it is mostly ati cards having an issue with win7. My 7300GS and GTX260 haven't had issues. I might stick my 3450 in and see what happens.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 9, 2009)

Perra said:


> This is sadly not just an ATI-issue or i would have just gone with Nvidia. And this has been a long-standing issue with vista and now windows 7. As far as i can tell it can happen to anyone no matter what hardware they're running. Laptops and desktops alike.
> 
> Anyway, i knew i never should have made an account here and answered to this thread. Should have just kept on lurking cause now i'm gonna give vista another try...



Neither of my nVidia machines do it at all. I have an 8800GT in my AMD X2 machine, and an 8600mGT in my lappy. No problems whatsoever. Although I heard stories of earlier nVidia drivers having issues.


----------



## mrhuggles (Feb 9, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Considering Windows ran on 64 bit hardware since Windows 2000 I disagree with that statement.



if you ran vista64 and xp64 you would know.

nuff said.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2009)

my radeon HD 3200 runs fine under vista and windows 7, its never had a driver crashout even when OC'd to 1Ghz core. (moster onboard, it still ran slow as hell at those clocks)

If you've had a PC that was unstable with 3 or 4 different ATI cards, i'd be looking at common things. if they all used the same drivers, try others. if they were all tested on the same PC, well, who's to say that PC is actually 100% stable? i had this problem with Nvidia once, it was just my ram being too tight (5-5-5-15 instead of 5-5-5-18)

Dan: i think you're talking about something else. windows 2000 will run happily on 64 bit hardware, but that doesnt mean theres a 64 bit version of windows 2000, that will run 64 bit applications. There may well have been an itanium version of it, but that hardly counts as the amount of people that used itanium systems (and that OS) are miniscule.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 9, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> if you ran vista64 and xp64 you would know.
> 
> nuff said.



I guess I haven't used either then. Can't really argue with your logic there.



Mussels said:


> i think you're talking about something else. windows 2000 will run happily on 64 bit hardware, but that doesnt mean theres a 64 bit version of windows 2000, that will run 64 bit applications. There may well have been an itanium version of it, but that hardly counts as the amount of people that used itanium systems (and that OS) are miniscule.



I'm not, and yes it's minuscule, that doesn't mean that "XP was not made for 64 bit". It clearly shows they had a fully working release of NT5 64 bit, and if NT 5 already runs reliable enough to run on extremely expensive servers I highly doubt NT 5.1 years later "is not made for 64 bit".


----------



## Darknova (Feb 9, 2009)

Perra said:


> I would choose vista64 IF and only if i was certain i wouldn't be plagued by the "Display driver has stopped responding and has recovered"-message and accompanying BSOD. That's really where all my hate comes from regarding Vista



Funnily enough I just managed to fix that problem. Cleaned every single trace of ATi drivers off my machine and installed the new 9.1s. No problems since. I had to RMA my last card because it was doing it, then this card did it. Now it's fixed 



Grasshopper said:


> When XP was coded there were no need and no hardware to run 64bit OS so they made it 32bit. Later on when the hardware and the need emerged MS just took good old 32bit code and retrofit it to 64bit.



Erm...no. XP x64 is based on the same code as Server 2003 64-bit.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I guess I haven't used either then. Can't really argue with your logic there.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not, and yes it's minuscule, that doesn't mean that "XP was not made for 64 bit". It clearly shows they had a fully working release of NT5 64 bit, and if NT 5 already runs reliable enough to run on extremely expensive servers I highly doubt NT 5.1 years later "is not made for 64 bit".



hey i wasnt arguing with you. i was merely trying to check if we were all talking about the same thing. XP64 was based off server 2003 core anyway, its not like they just slapped x64 compatibility on top.

damn, darknova beat me to that point anyway.


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 9, 2009)

Don't waste hard drive space with dual booting. Just install Vista x64 man! XP x64 was trash from my experiance.


----------



## RevengE (Feb 9, 2009)

LOL I see this turned into a heated debate when I was sleeping  really I still think XP is good but Im leaning more towards vista/7 Ultimate looks good to me I wonder if it will come down in price due to 7s arrival soon?


----------



## RadeonX2 (Feb 9, 2009)

I'm gonna wait for 7 64-bit and upgrade my ram to 4GB as soon as it arrives


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 9, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> LOL I see this turned into a heated debate when I was sleeping  really I still think XP is good but Im leaning more towards vista/7 Ultimate looks good to me I wonder if it will come down in price due to 7s arrival soon?



Probably not, xp is still priced pretty high, vista won't likely go low until they perhaps try to flush out remaining stock or something. Try both if you can, you'll most likely find you like vista more.



RadeonX2 said:


> I'm gonna wait for 7 64-bit and upgrade my ram to 4GB as soon as it arrives



Getting a microsoft OS immediately upon release is almost always a bad idea (see xp and vista). Overpriced and under performing on release (although one would hope it would work out better this time around). Let the other fools rush in and find out if it works well or not before forking over cash (I used RC2 for a bit after vista's release).


----------



## Triprift (Feb 10, 2009)

My guess would be that Windows 7 will be like the last couple of os wont come into its own until it gets its first sp.


----------



## hat (Feb 10, 2009)

Well, XP x64 is quirky no matter what banjodan says. I've used it myself. My microphone does not work in xp x64. The only problem I have with Vista is creative's drivers blow like a bag in the wind and I don't get true surround sound support for my 5.1 speakers, but that's creative's fault, nothing to do with Vista. It's all a marketing scam to get you to buy a x-fuck (x-fi)


----------



## MadClown (Feb 10, 2009)

Vista Home Premium 64-bit has perfected my system, i have gotten BSODs but it was video card related, ever since i got a 4870 there have been no more crashes.  Super Stable OS imho, but i wouldnt use it without *atleast* 3 gigs, 4 and higher will be good, as vista will eat out your ram like a fat guy at mcdonalds.


----------



## hat (Feb 10, 2009)

True, but that's just fatfetch (superfetch)
don't worry about it too much. fatfetch slims itself down when memory is actually needed. I think my 8GB is overkill, I almost want to sell 4GB of it


----------



## Mussels (Feb 10, 2009)

2GB ran fine on my systems, before i upgraded. Admittedly, i agree 3GB plus is the sweet spot. (that being said, dual channel makes that 4GB)


----------



## Steevo (Feb 10, 2009)

Windows 7 X64 FTW!!!


You can even force things to run on it with some creative rights assignments.


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 10, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Vista is faster and more secure than XP in almost every way



Definitly not true.. an example 3DMark06 scores are about 500pts lower in Vista and XP


----------



## johnspack (Feb 10, 2009)

Well,  I must be the only one then,  for me xp64 is the quickest,  most stable os I've ever run.  Zero driver issues so far.  Runs my games better than win32 or vista64.  But I suppose a very good working knowledge of xp64/server2003 64 probably helps.  I've dumped my vista64 install for win7 64.  My advice-  wait until win7 is released!


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 10, 2009)

Laurijan said:


> Definitly not true.. an example 3DMark06 scores are about 500pts lower in Vista and XP



Vista is much faster in term of how quickly applications open. I wasn't talking about 3dmark.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 10, 2009)

I'm still using XP x64 and have had serious thoughts about upgrading to probably Windows 7 x64 when it officially launched.  XP x64 is about 6 years old--time to move on.


----------



## Ahhzz (Feb 10, 2009)

hat said:


> Well, XP x64 is quirky no matter what banjodan says. I've used it myself. My microphone does not work in xp x64. The only problem I have with Vista is creative's drivers blow like a bag in the wind and I don't get true surround sound support for my 5.1 speakers, but that's creative's fault, nothing to do with Vista. It's all a marketing scam to get you to buy a x-fuck (x-fi)



Sounds like you've used one side of the argument to castrate XP64, and the other side of the argument to blame your problems on the manufacturer.... You ever think that maybe the mic problem is the manufacturer's fault as well? For not creating drivers that work properly with XP64?


----------



## Ahhzz (Feb 10, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Vista is much faster in term of how quickly applications open. I wasn't talking about 3dmark.



I don't care how quick it opens. It only opens at the beginning, for like 1 minute.... I want to know how well the computer runs while I'm actually using the program..like the next 3 hours...


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 10, 2009)

err,you dont need drivers for a microphone.Its down to the soundcard or onboard sound's drivers that its plugged into.


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 10, 2009)

Ahhzz said:


> I don't care how quick it opens. It only opens at the beginning, for like 1 minute.... I want to know how well the computer runs while I'm actually using the program..like the next 3 hours...



So even if win XP took 3 hours to open an application you wouldn't care as long as you got those 500 3dmarks you always wanted or extra 0.1 fps.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Feb 10, 2009)

I would say use Vista x64 due to better drivers and DirectX10.1. If you are going to dual boot it doesn't really matter which one you use I believe. I am running XP x64 and its mkay. But I've had it for like 3 years and don't really want to format it. However a lot more stuff has come out for XP x64 for drivers and what not within the last year year.5
But yes, I'd say go with Vista x64, doesn't really matter which one, they all are about the same anyway.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Feb 10, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Vista is much faster in term of how quickly applications open. I wasn't talking about 3dmark.



My applications open just as fast as Vista x64 and 7 x64


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Feb 10, 2009)

I find apps and web pages slower in vista x64. I had xp 32 bit so I can't compare for sure. Should only get vista if you want the directx 10 imo.


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 10, 2009)

A Cheese Danish said:


> My applications open just as fast as Vista x64 and 7 x64



I was comparing it to XP


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Feb 10, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I was comparing it to XP



XP x86 or x64? Cuz I'm running XP x64


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 10, 2009)

hat said:


> Well, XP x64 is quirky no matter what banjodan says. I've used it myself. My microphone does not work in xp x64. The only problem I have with Vista is creative's drivers blow like a bag in the wind and I don't get true surround sound support for my 5.1 speakers, but that's creative's fault, nothing to do with Vista. It's all a marketing scam to get you to buy a x-fuck (x-fi)



Well tha (haha I made fun of your name too!), care to explain how it's Windows fault that your soundcard has shitty drivers when speaking of XP64 but not when speaking of Vista?

No matter what I say indeed, you say it all for me.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 11, 2009)

hat said:


> Well, XP x64 is quirky no matter what banjodan says. I've used it myself. My microphone does not work in xp x64. The only problem I have with Vista is creative's drivers blow like a bag in the wind and I don't get true surround sound support for my 5.1 speakers, but that's creative's fault, nothing to do with Vista. It's all a marketing scam to get you to buy a x-fuck (x-fi)



Use the Daniel_K drivers



Mussels said:


> 2GB ran fine on my systems, before i upgraded. Admittedly, i agree 3GB plus is the sweet spot. (that being said, dual channel makes that 4GB)



Intel boards will still run dual channel with 3 sticks. 



Laurijan said:


> Definitly not true.. an example 3DMark06 scores are about 500pts lower in Vista and XP



Which doesn't equate to any perceivable difference in actual usage. All games will still run with the same settings in both OSes with the same playability, but Vista is more stable and secure doing it, not to mention has many more features.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Intel boards will still run dual channel with 3 sticks.


I know, i'm doing that already. i just tend to not mention it, as people get sad when they spend money and it doesnt work. and then they come yelling at me.



Wile E said:


> Which doesn't equate to any perceivable difference in actual usage. All games will still run with the same settings in both OSes with the same playability, but Vista is more stable and secure doing it, not to mention has many more features.



And thats my opinion too. Vista is a lot more virus resistant (UAC + windefender, let alone the better core OS), is far more stable (a simple power outage/BSOD doesnt leave you with a non-booting OS) and overall just doesnt need anywhere near as much maintenance.


----------



## RevengE (Feb 11, 2009)

It seems to me that half are XP and Half are Vista Lol. Really i'm going to give vista ultimate 64 bit a shot and see how I like it.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> It seems to me that half are XP and Half are Vista Lol. Really i'm going to give vista ultimate 64 bit a shot and see how I like it.



http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

see the OS section. windows vista is over 30%, if you count x86 and x64 together.


----------



## Sonido (Feb 11, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> Okay so really if i picked up Business it would really have no disadvantages Vs Ultimate?





Grasshopper said:


> IMO - no.



I'm afraid that's not true. Business edition has things that Home Premium does not and vice versa. Ultimate is a combo of both Business and Home Premium.


----------



## Triprift (Feb 11, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> Okay so really if i picked up Business it would really have no disadvantages Vs Ultimate?



This should give you an idea you get a few less features up to you how important they are.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx


----------



## Ahhzz (Feb 11, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> So even if win XP took 3 hours to open an application you wouldn't care as long as you got those 500 3dmarks you always wanted or extra 0.1 fps.



Yeah....cause that's realistic.......Thanks for adding to the discussion here.


----------



## Ahhzz (Feb 11, 2009)

tigger said:


> err,you dont need drivers for a microphone.Its down to the soundcard or onboard sound's drivers that its plugged into.



Not if it's usb


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 11, 2009)

Ahhzz said:


> Yeah....cause that's realistic.......Thanks for adding to the discussion here.



I love how I just made you completely contradict yourself there. So you do care how long it takes for it to start up and not that I was trying to be realistic or anything but to prove a point and the whole  <-- thing shows you were being a jackass.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 12, 2009)

try and keep arguments with some kind of backing. this thread isnt about which OS gets the highest 3dmarks, its an overall comparison.


----------

