Well i no Vista SP 1 is coming out, but will i be able to install it ect?
Also i dont think SP3 for XP is coming out as they usally stop making SP's when a new OS comes out.
Any help??!!??
Well i no Vista SP 1 is coming out, but will i be able to install it ect?
Also i dont think SP3 for XP is coming out as they usally stop making SP's when a new OS comes out.
Any help??!!??
SP1 can be installed on a naked Vista, or a fully updated one. Regarding SP3 for XP, it'll come for sure, and your statement regarding "as they usally stop making SP's when a new OS comes out" is incorrect.
Yes, like for the instance Win2k had 4 sp's.
The xpsp3 is already out. But in BETA.
You can download it from torrents..
It should be much faster than vista.
So is SP1 for Vista, cause I'm running it as we speak.
I really don't recommend to use closed beta's releases for OS.
But I think you should be able to get it here: Download Windows Vista SP1 Pre-launch Updates
Maybe, but I haven't had a single issue with it. My boot times have been decreased (even though that's quite irrelevant cause I hardly boot anyway) and in general SP1 just reacts a bit faster.
Why would Microsoft go through all the hassle of making SP3 and putting it in beta all this time to not release it?
It says that those SP's are making OS for about 10% faster. I believe that's why you are seeing that it's a bit faster than always. I really dunno about Vista, but it was like that on XP.
Anyway, when they plan to officially release both SP's?
Vista SP1 - February 18th or 19th
XP SP3 - March 23rd or 24th
Taken from a blog, so hope they are somewhat correct/close.
Download details: Windows XP SP3 RC2
xp sp3 rc2 out
i cannot find any well reviewed speed tests about xp sp3 faster than vista xp1.
for a fact xp is faster than vista and one of the most popular os in the world :) cutting making sp's wont be in the best interest of ms with the reputation they have ..
there are claims of up to 15% speed increase in xp from sp2 to sp3. vista already being
terribly slower than xp this should be less of a reason to switch to vista, and vista not supporting more than 3.5gb of ram where most super games need 4 gb to run well.
wtf if the point in vista ???
Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown | Tom's Hardware
I'd seriously suggest u to start do some research, cause most of your points are pretty much flawed.
Have to wait for both being final then test properly to see which one is faster.Originally Posted by omen
If u have an ancient computer, then of course. Hardly notice any speed differences between Vista/XP on new computers (excluding the frame loss on some games).
Well of course, then again what would u expect for a operation system that has ran for like 7 years (if not more). Pretty much Microsoft to blame for not releasing a new operation system within those 7 years.
Even though they might have a bad rep, they still #1 on the market.
hehe yes, can't comment on it cause I haven't properly tested SP3.
Meh.. don't be such a Vista hater and upgrade your hardware ;)
Version Limit in 32-bit Windows Limit in 64-bit Windows
Windows Vista Ultimate 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Business 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium 4 GB 16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB
Windows Vista Starter 1 GB Not applicable
source: Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)
Never really liked Tom..
Exactly the same with XP actually. What your commenting on there is the 32bit versions of both OS's. They can handle 4GB maximum MINUS any video memory. So if you have a 512mb GPU then you'll have 3.5GB available system memory.
64bit gets rid of that limitation and raises it to 128GB.
Yes, don't really see a point in running anything but 64 bits Vista, cause most hardware I've encountered is already 64 bits proof, and the whole 32 bits 'emulation' works quite well also.
My pc is 64-bit, but im runnings WinXP 32-bit xD
I ran a 32 bits version also but that's all due the fact of lacking support on XP x64 (at least none of my drivers worked, and so many compatible issues.. was unreal).
XP x64 failed!
Hmm.
I didnt change the software from since i bought my pc (2 years ago).
Hmm. But i was thinking on buying Vista, but almost everyone says vista sux -.-'
They say it sucks cause they are biased and most likely just saying it cause 'someone' else said it before them. Really, try it out yourself (run it for a week) and if you don't like it u will be at least able to comment on it why u didn't like it and so on.
But enough off topic from me now in this thread.
Hmm, maybe. I think i'll dl it in a torrent, just to try it out...
Well, yeh, thanks for the smalltalk ^^
all you 32 bit / 64 bit pansies ..
Windows Server 2003 System Requirements
windows server 2003 enterprise supports 64 gb of ram in 32bit mode :)
i have ran vista on my machine, the specs are in my sig.
i am studying for an mcse so its kinda my job to know loads about ms and their mistakes ( operating systems )
about server 2003 enterprise - it has a magical feature called physical address extension Physical Address Extension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it could be implemented in xp and vista but it wont because of varied hardware software and drivers that are out in xp and everything has to be tested with PAE
im not a vista hater i dont just hate things (well i do sometimes but this is off topic)
thing is xp is now refined and works very well compared to when it launched alomost everything runs and works.
if you patch with sp2 and all the updates install drivers correctly, you wont see a bsod for a very very long time.
and i was suprised how well xp handles multiples cores multiple cpu loads.. some software that was made in 2001 ~ had multiple cpu/ multiple core support i think that is amazing. where as vista alll that promises is dx10 and even that doesnt work properly. out current top end graphics cards struggle to cope with dx 10. and vista doesnt support wpa ? wtf they should have released it in 2 years time when it would have been ready..
PAE, that rings a bell somewhere. Interesting info though, I didn't realise that server 2003 could handle more than 4GB.
Well most people don’t give vista a chance when they first start using the OS, if you give it a chance you got use and like it more and more, I choose Microsoft Windows Vista.
Most people downgraded from vista because it cause problems. It was causing problems because they were not using it write or they choose the wrong version for the compatibility of there computer.
But it theu choose is write and look into upgrading it works well.
And for XP is works well be crashes every so often and may have to restart there computers.
My personal vote goes to Microsoft Windows Vista.
Vista & XP 32-bit versions work great on the pc i built.
AMD X2 3800+
ASUS A8N SLI Motherboard (NOT DELUXE)
3GB Corsair value DDR RAM
eVGA 7900 GT 256 GDDR3
eVGA 8800 GTS 320 GDDR3
500gb seagate SATA
320gb seagate IDE
40gb western digital IDE
Lite-On SATA DVD + - DL Lightscribe Drive
I've slowly upgraded it over the years and did a lot of research and waited for drivers. I'd say its 99% perfect right now. The only problem i have is a 0x00000124 BSOD after too much switching/opening/closing between fullscreen direct X games and the desktop.
I'm waiting for intel 8-core processors to come out for desktops. Then I'll quad-boot:
Windows Vista Ultimate x86
Windows Vista Ultimate x64
Windows XP Professional x86
Fedora 8 (Prob Fedora 12 by then) x64
If there is suffucient support for x64 by then, I may not even include the 32-bit version of windows
But basically what I'm saying...
Vista is only good for people that know their computer well & know enough about computers. Any dummy could run XP. Right now I would say XP has Vista by speed & stability, but Vista has security and looks.
Umm... Both SPs will be coming out at the same time and the last time I checked it was the 25th of this month.
As for XP bing good for multi core support. I laugh at that. It's good for up to 2 threads any more and it's efficiency goes way down. Vista handles more then 2 cores much better then XP. It can actually load balance them.
As for all the anti Vista crap, it's all down to what your system is. On my system with a quad core CPU and 4gb of RAM. Vista x64 does a better job at running the system faster then how XP x86 does.
NoPeace - out
