New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vista or XP? - Page 6

post #51 of 91
I'd say Vista 64bit. I'm running Vista 64 Ultimate and love it.
FoReVeR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-3770K Asus P8Z68-V Pro EVGA GTX 970 SC w/ACX 2.0 16GB(4x4GB) 2133MHz Mushkin Redline Ridgeback 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
2x 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM Samsung 840 EVO SSD 250GB Aopen DVD/CD Burner Sony DVD drive 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Logitech G510 Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouse
Antec 900 Mid-Tower Logitech G500S 
  hide details  
Reply
FoReVeR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-3770K Asus P8Z68-V Pro EVGA GTX 970 SC w/ACX 2.0 16GB(4x4GB) 2133MHz Mushkin Redline Ridgeback 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
2x 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM Samsung 840 EVO SSD 250GB Aopen DVD/CD Burner Sony DVD drive 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Logitech G510 Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouse
Antec 900 Mid-Tower Logitech G500S 
  hide details  
Reply
post #52 of 91
Vista 64--not even a question. It's not a personal attack on 003, but I get the impression from his posts that he has not actually used it on his machine. I dual-booted and played with Vista, and other than the first couple days or so of using it, the OS loads much faster than XP, and programs start up CONSIDERABLY faster than XP it's not even funny (personally I stayed with my current install of XP 32-bit 'cause it's all set up already, and I also don't need a 64 bit OS with only 2GB of RAM). But the next time I need to do a reinstall of my OS, I'll probably just go with Vista as it's rumors of having poor performance and being a resource hog are greatly exaggerated (and incorrect given today's availability of good-performing machines).

I did try XP64 (used it for maybe a week perhaps a couple years ago), and it was in no way faster than 32-bit XP--in fact, I found no difference in performance between the two OS's, and at that time, my wireless network adapter did not have any XP64 drivers, so I ditched the idea of XP64.

Go vista 64--no use in spending money on an older OS that doesn't perform as well.
Edited by guyladouche - 6/10/08 at 7:21am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #53 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
You should go with XP x64, it is the far better OS. I use it, with gaming and OCing being my main focuses as well, and I also have 8gb of RAM. Things couldn't be going better. Bottom line, XP x64 is faster than Vista, more secure, and a much more solid OS. If you absolutely need DX10, then you could use Vista, but if not, I strongly suggest going with XP x64. The posters that are saying it is bad appear to be either inexperienced and/or simply mistaken. I have asked them some specific questions, to help clarify the issues they claim. Watch as they will most likely not provide answers, or the answers will be vague and evasive of the question, or be wrong.





Zeag, rRav3n, and JerseyDubbin.

1. Can any of you provide specific examples (manufacturer and model number) of hardware that has driver support in Vista 64, but does not have driver support in XP x64?

2. How many of you have even used XP x64?

3. If you have used XP x64, please try and provide a timeframe of when you used it, being as specific as possible. The hardware configuration you used it with, and the hardware and software that did not work, but does work in Vista 64, would also be good information.
You are well known for your love of XP64. Im not a Vista Fanboy and I loved XP but XP64 IMO was a shambels and never took off. The drivers it does have ...or atleast some I found to be a little slow responding and the OS in general was not easy to work with..yes that was a while ago now but now Vista 64 is out with MUCH MUCH MUCH better support and performance Compared to XP64...Why would I want to go back. Not only that but XP64 is outdated and support is going to end soon. If you are in the market for a new OS it makes 0 sense to go with OLD software when you can have the latest and best performing so far for a fraction. more.

XP64 is not an economic choice. Also from a performance point of view compared to vista its not an economic choice.

Overall its not economic at all...not even slightely IMO. Yes if you have a license for it and you want to go for an 64bit OS on the cheap...perhaps. However like I said if you are investing in a new OS altogether there is no point in going to XP.

Overall 100% I can say that XP64 for people looking for a new OS is just not a viable choice anymore.
post #54 of 91
I would also like to add that, just because drivers are available, it does not mean the work as well as Vista 64 with its drivers. Now, I know I will get flamed asking for what drivers and when, but, honestly, when I used it, I had issues. If you claim the issues were user derived, so be it. If I am not capable enough to get one OS to work, but the other one works fine, regardless of the reason, my choice goes to #2. In fact, that is one of the best reasons. If YOU prefer it and it works easier FOR YOU, why use something else?
Current
(3 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphics
i5 6600k MSI Z170-A Pro RX-480 
  hide details  
Reply
Current
(3 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphics
i5 6600k MSI Z170-A Pro RX-480 
  hide details  
Reply
post #55 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by dralb View Post
I would also like to add that, just because drivers are available, it does not mean the work as well as Vista 64 with its drivers. Now, I know I will get flamed asking for what drivers and when, but, honestly, when I used it, I had issues. If you claim the issues were user derived, so be it. If I am not capable enough to get one OS to work, but the other one works fine, regardless of the reason, my choice goes to #2. In fact, that is one of the best reasons. If YOU prefer it and it works easier FOR YOU, why use something else?
The foundation on which you are supporting your argument is flawed and moot. I never claimed the issues were user derived.

XP x64 had the misfortune of being the first real 64-bit workstation OS that MS released, and as such, for a good while after it was launched, the driver and application support was quite poor. However, after SP1 was released for XP x64 (and FYI, XP x64 SP1 is newer than XP SP2, and contains all the fixes and enhancements and then some), support slowly started to increase, at a rate that gradually got faster.

Unfortunately, most PC enthusiasts already had the sour taste of no driver and/or application support in their mouths', and had falsely attributed it to XP x64 sucking hard. And more unfortunate, is that the effects of that first sour aftertaste are still being felt today, which is easily observed through the blind hostility most people regard XP x64 with, even people that have never used it, but just heard from others who heard from others who heard from others that it sucked.

Today, XP x64 SP2 is an extremely mature OS, with just as much (if not more) driver support for hardware as Vista 64 has, and all applications work perfectly.

Vista 64's popularity is only riding on the fact that it was Microsoft's second 64-bit mainstream workstation OS, and many of the kinks present with the first release of XP x64 were ironed out due to 64-bit support being much more widespread because of XP x64... even though most people still hold nothing but contempt for it.

XP x64 is every bit as good as Vista 64, and in many ways, even better.

As my closing, I will restate my three initial questions.

1. Can any of you provide specific examples (manufacturer and model number) of hardware that has driver support in Vista 64, but does not have driver support in XP x64?

2. How many of you have even used XP x64?

3. If you have used XP x64, please try and provide a timeframe of when you used it, being as specific as possible. The hardware configuration you used it with, and the hardware and software that did not work, but does work in Vista 64, would also be good information.

I find it ironic that my prediction of how this thread would play out in Post #11 held true for the most part.
Quote:
Watch as they will most likely not provide answers, or the answers will be vague and evasive of the question, or be wrong.
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
post #56 of 91
vista x64 for the reasons people have said.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD3R‏ HIS Radeon 5850 6GB OCZ Platinum 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB Samsung Spinpoint Pioneer DVD+/-R/RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 24"Samsung SM2494HS+Sony Bravia 20" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Eclipse II OCZ ModXstreme Pro 700W Modded Antec 900 Logitech MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD3R‏ HIS Radeon 5850 6GB OCZ Platinum 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB Samsung Spinpoint Pioneer DVD+/-R/RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 24"Samsung SM2494HS+Sony Bravia 20" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Eclipse II OCZ ModXstreme Pro 700W Modded Antec 900 Logitech MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
post #57 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
The foundation on which you are supporting your argument is flawed and moot. I never claimed the issues were user derived.
Again, your opinions, moot.

Quote:
XP x64 is every bit as good as Vista 64, and in many ways, even better.
All of which are opinion based. Our statements are factual based.


Quote:
1. Can any of you provide specific examples (manufacturer and model number) of hardware that has driver support in Vista 64, but does not have driver support in XP x64?
We said drivers suck...oh and my WiFi card drivers.

Quote:
2. Have I ever used Vista x64?
Fix'd.


Quote:
I find it ironic that my prediction of how this thread would play out in Post #11 held true for the most part.
I find it unsurprising an XP troll such as yourself would post thinking his opinion was fact.
Edit System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
830x4 ASUS blah blah blah PRO/USB3 FiveEightFiveZer0 2x4 AMD entertainment edition memory lolwut 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate Barracuda >:] WD Scorpio >:] idk lol 212 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
xx64en_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-_EN_DVD LED 23'' 1080P 5MS no dead pixels :D Goodwill 500w PCP+C 80+<3 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec 300 Was a G500 :*( Steel Series 
  hide details  
Reply
Edit System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
830x4 ASUS blah blah blah PRO/USB3 FiveEightFiveZer0 2x4 AMD entertainment edition memory lolwut 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate Barracuda >:] WD Scorpio >:] idk lol 212 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
xx64en_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-_EN_DVD LED 23'' 1080P 5MS no dead pixels :D Goodwill 500w PCP+C 80+<3 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec 300 Was a G500 :*( Steel Series 
  hide details  
Reply
post #58 of 91
How did this turn into I'll prove why (Insert OS here) is better.

Doesn't matter, no debate..CFX REQUIRES VISTA
Mighty-iTX
(12 items)
 
One foot in..
(17 items)
 
mATX
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4770K M7-Impact Strix GTX980 Samsung 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M4 256 Glacer 240L W8.1 K272HUL 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Seasonic X-650 Prodigy MX518 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
4770K/45/43 Maximus VI Extreme R290X R290X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung Crucial M4 64GB RAIDR LSSWM 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Cooler Master Glacer 7 Ultimate 64 SyncMaster Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
XFX 1050 BE 600T Silver MX518 Desk 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-4330 Z87 Gryphon GTX690 G.Skill RipJawsX 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
WD Blacks Hyper 212 W8.1 ACER 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Ultra X3 1000w Corsair 230T Orange Razer 
  hide details  
Reply
Mighty-iTX
(12 items)
 
One foot in..
(17 items)
 
mATX
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4770K M7-Impact Strix GTX980 Samsung 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M4 256 Glacer 240L W8.1 K272HUL 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Seasonic X-650 Prodigy MX518 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
4770K/45/43 Maximus VI Extreme R290X R290X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung Crucial M4 64GB RAIDR LSSWM 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Cooler Master Glacer 7 Ultimate 64 SyncMaster Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
XFX 1050 BE 600T Silver MX518 Desk 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-4330 Z87 Gryphon GTX690 G.Skill RipJawsX 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
WD Blacks Hyper 212 W8.1 ACER 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Ultra X3 1000w Corsair 230T Orange Razer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #59 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
The foundation on which you are supporting your argument is flawed and moot. I never claimed the issues were user derived.

XP x64 had the misfortune of being the first real 64-bit workstation OS that MS released, and as such, for a good while after it was launched, the driver and application support was quite poor. However, after SP1 was released for XP x64 (and FYI, XP x64 SP1 is newer than XP SP2, and contains all the fixes and enhancements and then some), support slowly started to increase, at a rate that gradually got faster.

Unfortunately, most PC enthusiasts already had the sour taste of no driver and/or application support in their mouths', and had falsely attributed it to XP x64 sucking hard. And more unfortunate, is that the effects of that first sour aftertaste are still being felt today, which is easily observed through the blind hostility most people regard XP x64 with, even people that have never used it, but just heard from others who heard from others who heard from others that it sucked.

Today, XP x64 SP2 is an extremely mature OS, with just as much (if not more) driver support for hardware as Vista 64 has, and all applications work perfectly.

Vista 64's popularity is only riding on the fact that it was Microsoft's second 64-bit mainstream workstation OS, and many of the kinks present with the first release of XP x64 were ironed out due to 64-bit support being much more widespread because of XP x64... even though most people still hold nothing but contempt for it.

XP x64 is every bit as good as Vista 64, and in many ways, even better.

As my closing, I will restate my three initial questions.

1. Can any of you provide specific examples (manufacturer and model number) of hardware that has driver support in Vista 64, but does not have driver support in XP x64?

2. How many of you have even used XP x64?

3. If you have used XP x64, please try and provide a timeframe of when you used it, being as specific as possible. The hardware configuration you used it with, and the hardware and software that did not work, but does work in Vista 64, would also be good information.

I find it ironic that my prediction of how this thread would play out in Post #11 held true for the most part.

You like XP64, we get it, however from the viewpoint from a person buying a new pc, there really isn't any conceivable reason to buy it. XP is at the END of its life cycle, and that is a fact. The only real argument you have given is that it performs better then vista, which has be defunct by numerous websites already e.i. extremetech http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2302498,00.asp. So the only real reason this person would have to get XP64, is that you like it. The driver issue is a moot point, the only real reason XP 64 has drivers now is because the drivers are developed first for vista 64 and ported back to XP 64. I'm not even sure how much longer manufacturers are even going to bother with XP64 anyways, considering the user base is a small percentage of the general computing population, more people probably use linux then XP 64.
i7 on the cheap
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 Gigabyte X58A-UD7 evga GTX470 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel X25-M 160GB LG GBW-H20L Windows 7 Ultimate Acer GD235HZ 23.6" 120HZ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Rocketfish 900W 80+ Silver Corsair Obsidian 800D Cyborg Rat 7 
  hide details  
Reply
i7 on the cheap
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 Gigabyte X58A-UD7 evga GTX470 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel X25-M 160GB LG GBW-H20L Windows 7 Ultimate Acer GD235HZ 23.6" 120HZ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Rocketfish 900W 80+ Silver Corsair Obsidian 800D Cyborg Rat 7 
  hide details  
Reply
post #60 of 91
Go for Vista 64.
I know from personal experience that Vista x86 performs MUCH better than XP x86. Programs open up MUCH faster and there is no notable difference in game play.
XP is near the end of its life cycle, support will soon end for it and you will then be extremely vulnerable to attack. Vista is at the beginning of it's life cycle and will be supported for years to come.

Things Vista has that XP doesn't:
1) DX10
2) Partitioning software that lets you change the size of active partitions, merge, and split
3) Resource Manager - tells you what each programs is using, disc read/writes, upload/download, memory
4) "Go to file location" in the task manager - I can't tell you how nice this is for troubleshooting
5) A very fancy interface
6) Superfetch - Programs load faster
7) More security - this can be argued, but MS and most people agree it is better
8) More stable - again, can be argued, but MS and most people agree it is better


There you have it eight great reasons that Vista is better than XP, there are many other features, but I don't use them and I'm not really familiar with them.

As for what version to purchace:
Basic - DO NOT BUY - EVER!
Home Premium - has windows media center and is good for home users
Business - does not have media center, includes many advanced functionality for people who know how to use a computer
Enterprise - it's not for you, don't consider it, it is for large businesses
Ultimate - The best of the best, has all the features of the other versions and more, however the price makes it unreasonable IMO

I would suggest Home Premium or Business, I have Vista Business x64 on my desktop and Home Premium x86 on my laptop, both are great! (Though I like business more)
My Pwny!
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 920 Asus M3A79-T Deluxe 6950 2GB 8GB @ 800Mhz 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
Perc 5/i Raid 0 w/ 2x 320GB + Raid 5 w/ 6x 750GB Windows 7 x64 Pro Antec 850W Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
My Pwny!
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 920 Asus M3A79-T Deluxe 6950 2GB 8GB @ 800Mhz 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
Perc 5/i Raid 0 w/ 2x 320GB + Raid 5 w/ 6x 750GB Windows 7 x64 Pro Antec 850W Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Windows