Curse

awmiscool · May 06, 2008, 12:34 AM // 00:34

So after reading the title, i have some basic questions. Mah pc is easily capable of running vista, but i was wondering the following:

1). What are the differences between all the different classes of Vista?
2). 32 bit vs. 64 bit?
3). Is it worth an upgrade from XP Pro just for DX10 and all the snazzy addons?

and if there is some super secret sale i am missing, post a link!

Brianna · May 06, 2008, 12:41 AM // 00:41

It's not really worth it, all you get is DX10 and some addons and flashy stuff.

In simple terms 32 bit can only see about 3.5 gigs of ram, 64 bit can see 4+, etc etc. Harder to get some drivers for 64 bit, etc.

It's not really worth it to upgrade to, I heard the new windows is already coming out by 2009-2010, meh.

eggrolls · May 06, 2008, 12:44 AM // 00:44

Versions compared:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ns/choose.mspx

64-bit can address more than 4GB of memory. Useful if you have (or plan to upgrade to) 4GB of memory. If you buy the 32-bit version, you can have Microsoft send you the 64-bit DVD for $10. Only Ultimate comes with both 32-bit and 64-bit DVDs in the box.

If you want to play games using DX10 features, then yes. I'm dual booting XP and Vista, but frankly I don't see much appeal in the visual effects. I turn off the sidebar gadgets anyways cuz they seem to clutter my desktop.

awmiscool · May 06, 2008, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Oh, and one more thing. Somehow, my youtube is loading in http://nl.youtube.com/ or whatever, the netherlands? Im in america dammit!! any idea what is goin on

Brianna · May 06, 2008, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Up in the top right hand corner you will see an icon that says "Site" just hit that and select the language.

hurdlebeast · May 06, 2008, 01:09 AM // 01:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

It's not really worth it, all you get is DX10 and some addons and flashy stuff.

In simple terms 32 bit can only see about 3.5 gigs of ram, 64 bit can see 4+, etc etc. Harder to get some drivers for 64 bit, etc.

It's not really worth it to upgrade to, I heard the new windows is already coming out by 2009-2010, meh.

yep, new windows coming out around 2010ish. I, personally, would wait the few years. it's bound to be 64 bit, DX10, etc. besides, DX10 will have a lot more games/graphics cards capable of handling it in a few years, so you can do a nice little overhaul of your system if you wanted to.

Hott Bill · May 06, 2008, 01:38 AM // 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

It's not really worth it, all you get is DX10 and some addons and flashy stuff.

In simple terms 32 bit can only see about 3.5 gigs of ram, 64 bit can see 4+, etc etc. Harder to get some drivers for 64 bit, etc.

It's not really worth it to upgrade to, I heard the new windows is already coming out by 2009-2010, meh.

64 Bit can run 128gb of ram actually, industrial size obviously.

And do not get Vista, many games are incompatible and playing online shooters will kick you. You're better off with windows 98. (98 ftw)

Ctb · May 06, 2008, 01:51 AM // 01:51

I'm going to come down in the "don't bother" camp, as well. We've been evaluating it at work and I took the liberty of playing with it for fun, as well (I swear I was just doing stress testing!

). It defines the phrase "lack of polish" and, frankly, I think the feature set cannot possibly justify the price of even just an upgrade (and upgrade-only has never worked quite right for Windows). Furthermore, there are simply too many driver issues even with common components. The only other system I've seen with patchier driver support from non-Microsoft vendors was XP64 Pro (which I'm running quite happily now) and that was actually a whole new architecture, arguably.

I also have serious reservations about the current capabilities of DX10 applications. Ignoring the expense of snagging a decent DX10-capable card, it doesn't appear that most developers have yet scratched the surface of what DX10 has to offer (or, maybe it just doesn't have anything to offer, but my money is on developers still getting a handle on it).

Skip Vista and stick with Pro 64. The only thing I could see making Vista "worthwhile" is if you're twitchy about losing support for the OS within the next few years. My opinion? Vista is the new Windows ME. It's a placeholder piece of garbage for OEMs to toss on machines until a "real" new Windows comes out and, in the long run, it's going to be remembered as little more than a bad joke.

Brianna · May 06, 2008, 02:00 AM // 02:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

I'm going to come down in the "don't bother" camp, as well. We've been evaluating it at work and I took the liberty of playing with it for fun, as well (I swear I was just doing stress testing!

). It defines the phrase "lack of polish" and, frankly, I think the feature set cannot possibly justify the price of even just an upgrade (and upgrade-only has never worked quite right for Windows). Furthermore, there are simply too many driver issues even with common components. The only other system I've seen with patchier driver support from non-Microsoft vendors was XP64 Pro (which I'm running quite happily now) and that was actually a whole new architecture, arguably.

I also have serious reservations about the current capabilities of DX10 applications. Ignoring the expense of snagging a decent DX10-capable card, it doesn't appear that most developers have yet scratched the surface of what DX10 has to offer (or, maybe it just doesn't have anything to offer, but my money is on developers still getting a handle on it).

Skip Vista and stick with Pro 64. The only thing I could see making Vista "worthwhile" is if you're twitchy about losing support for the OS within the next few years. My opinion? Vista is the new Windows ME. It's a placeholder piece of garbage for OEMs to toss on machines until a "real" new Windows comes out and, in the long run, it's going to be remembered as little more than a bad joke.

Sad, but very true.

I threw my money away on it, but oh well. It was all just a very stupid move for them, especially jumping from DX10 to DX10.1, I just have bad predictions of the future for Microsoft, they are being retards right now. I don't think I plan to buy anything else based off of ''future predictions'' as far as windows goes.

Coloneh · May 06, 2008, 03:07 AM // 03:07

dont waste your money, you will have to re-install XP anyways once you realize nothing works. if your just looking for a change try ubuntu or something

zamial · May 06, 2008, 05:11 PM // 17:11

I disagree with all the negativity about vista. If your going to upgrade Get the ultimate 64 vista or don't bother an MAKE SURE YOUR SYSTEM IS ABLE TO HANDLE IT.

I absolutely love my vista and using xp is like stepping backwards in time. The ability to do EVERYTHING, except game, with voice recognition is cool. Yes the OS has a big footprint and it uses resources BUT you know this ahead of time so make sure your setup can handle it. Vista is more secure than xp as well.

It is also true that Windows7 is coming. I suspect that it will have even greater voice recognition features than vista (possibly talk back instead of using text), but you don't need to be the 1st person on the block with windows7, all brand new OS's are buggy. I also predict those of us that have learned how to use vista will have an easier time adjusting to Windows7.

The down side to vista is that if you like to pirat...make personal back-up copies of dvds and cds vista will not let you. I keep xp around for this reason alone, dual booting will be the way of the walk.

Odd fact:
Ever since Windows for Work Groups 3.31 (the 1st server OS), all servers have sent/received information in 10Mb packets. Server 2008 addresses this issue by upping the limit to 1GB. All workstations that have vista 64 or more current (windows7) will be able to utilize this feature. Older OS will decode the 1GB packet into 10Mb packets. The advantage of the larger packets is going to mean LESS LAG from servers and faster download/upload times.

In short, I hope you do try out vista to see for yourself. Setup a dual boot system and see how much less and less you use the dieing dinosouar xp.

Soz about the wall o text.

Brianna · May 06, 2008, 05:42 PM // 17:42

But if Vista wasn't so bad, then why is Microsoft ditching it?

I personally own Vista 64 bit Ultimate and I can say that it was a very marginal move from windows XP.

All you get is new features, which are minor and how many people actually use them? The Vista voice recognition sucks, you have to basically yell to get it to work (and I've tried different mics, yes.) etc etc.

If you really want a flashy nice looking desktop, then get into customizing for windows XP, it's actually really fun and there is a lot of good themes out there. And if you're good enough you can make your own. Wanting flashy looking gadgets should not warrant you spending 150$+ or so on a new operating system.

And basically everything has drivers and works on windows XP, plus there is really no DX10 games out now, so I don't even know why anyone would come to think that they would need DX10.

So the question is, why did I buy Vista? Because at the time I thought that it was going to be the next OS that we would have for many years to come - surely I found out otherwise later, thanks Micro$oft for screwing over a ton of people. I don't usually ''bash'' on Microsoft, but this is plain retarded.. who can't agree. It was my fault for buying it though - in the end I didn't pay that much.

However on the bright side, when Windows 7 is released, most people (including I) will wait for all the bugs to get fished out, and hotfixes/etc before we use it. So Vista will still have another 2-3 years in for me, not as long as XP but oh well.

snaek · May 06, 2008, 05:47 PM // 17:47

wut r ur system specs?

and wuts the reasoning behind wanting to get vista?
jus for the hell of it?

yes, vista has a lot of new feautures
but 9 out of 10 of the average pc user either wont notice or care for em

and if ur a gamer, most likely u wont see any performance increases either

Surena · May 06, 2008, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

But if Vista wasn't so bad, then why is Microsoft ditching it?

When and where did Microsoft state they were ditching it? This is just another excellent pulled-out-of-my-ass bashing attempt.

Vista has much better memory management, better multithreading capabilities (xp loves to put 2 threads onto one core while the other is sleeping, Vista threads multimedia streams much much better - try stress testing and see who crackles first) if you do more than just play GW. Vista SP1 is pretty stable on all the machines I have built in the recent months and it didn't annoy anyone at work yet. Try recent articles (german computerbase has a decent one) on gaming performance before argumenting with Vista's 0-day problems.

Bashing Vista but recommending XP 64 which has much less driver support is almost classic. XP is overglorified, especially by those that haven't seen it without an SP. Vista was more evolved the day it hit the streets compared to XP's first day. Give it some time. Windows 7 is no legendary Wonder-Windows that MS holds back to surprise the whole world. I can already smell those that'll bash it just because it'll use Aero too.

Brianna · May 06, 2008, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Well, I don't mean to say Vista is ''Bad'' rather just pointless if you already have an OS.

It just seems like they are ''Ditching'' it since they are already releasing a new OS so soon. I just have a bad reaction to it because it doesn't really look good for such a thing to happen so fast, we've only had vista for a year and a half or so right? It's almost half way through 2008.

For them to mention that a new thing is already coming out kind of raises hell if you ask me.. and I just got caught in the fire by it, I didn't spend all this cash just to find out they are releasing a new one yet again, which presumably will have better compatibility (but hey, you never know, no one knows what they are doing yet).

I also wouldn't go to XP 64 bit, but that's just me. Really I am just waiting for the future of OS's because my plan was to get away from Windows XP and move onto something better. I am by no means a ''Fan'' of windows XP, I'm just saying that it works, and there is tons of mods to make it look nice/nicer than Vista (Assuming that you liked the way Vista looked, I think it's nice too).

Maybe I am jumping the gun by ''bashing'' them right now, I am really, but yeah.. It just lit my fire to hear that.

zamial · May 06, 2008, 08:19 PM // 20:19

Windows7 is not the "ditching" of vista. It is the 1st of a surgically placed blow to kill XP. Microsoft will support their current OS and the OS before it for FREE as stated by MS. That means that if you want security updates or have OS related problems, after the release of Windows7, for XP you will have to PAY for the support. Historically MS has extended a 6 month to 1 year grace period on this rule so corporations can make the change to newer OS without as much hassle.

The problem is that XP was around for so long that people don't want to give it up.

Fril Estelin · May 06, 2008, 08:29 PM // 20:29

I concur with everyone that said you shouldn't bother. But:

1) if (like me) you're planning to buy new hardware, you can grab an OEM version at 50-130 British pounds (you may have problems using the OEM version if you start changing too much hardware after first activating it);

2) it's much more secure than XP (if the protection of the data on your disk is essential for you, go for BitLocker in Vista Ultimate) and even if it has many problems, it's still quite nice.

Lania Elderfire · May 06, 2008, 10:03 PM // 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surena

Vista has much better memory management, better multithreading capabilities (xp loves to put 2 threads onto one core while the other is sleeping, Vista threads multimedia streams much much better - try stress testing and see who crackles first) if you do more than just play GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

The problem is that XP was around for so long that people don't want to give it up.

Exactly... XP should only be used on computers with less than or equal to 2GB of RAM with a last generation CPU and graphics card. If you have more than 2GB of RAM, the current gen of Intel 45nm CPU's or AMD 65nm quad or tri cores, and if you have a DX10 capable videocard, you should be gaming with Vista x64.

Admael · May 07, 2008, 02:41 AM // 02:41

In my experience, you won't know if your machine is 'capable' of running anything until you actually run it

Give it a try first, you can always revert back if you don't like it. Vista is worth the chance you give it.

I Dont Do Coke · May 07, 2008, 03:38 AM // 03:38

By the time I'd be using over 3.5GB of memory, "Windows 7" will be out.

I don't see much of an appeal in DX10 so far either, or maybe that's just me running custom DX9 Crysis configs.