Vista or XP?

[nathan123]

I've heard good thing about both, especially since the release of SP1 for vista. I'm running XP with SP2 atm, but i have a quad core processor, which i've been told with work better if i use Vista, is this true?

 

[Leimone]

I do prefer XP SP3.

 

[Ramuthra]

main reason for changing would be because of the extra memory allowances, and ofc xp eventually being gotten rid off. but other than that its up too you

 

[Enter Name]

BOTH. Vista for DX 10 games (CBA to get hack for XP) and XP for older stuff, also i like working with XP.

 

[Rishwin]

Stop posting that there is a DX10 hack for XP, there is not. It makes your PC think it has DX10 but it does not, why would you even bother with it?

32x Vista SP1 (and not sure about XP SP3) fixed the issue with having 4gb of RAM appearing as 3.5gb, ect. So there is no reason to choose it for the extra RAM, cos you won't really go over that, will you?

IMO stick with what you know. XP has been around for a while and has served us well, many companies (nvidia for one) have sated that they will NOT be using Vista in their businesses (that is a loss of 80,000 licenses form nvidia alone not using it), but will stick with XP till the new OS is released. I personally will be doing the same unless i REALLY need it for DX10 in which case i would dual boot Vista for gaming ONLY.

But just bare in mind that i would never consider gaming on Vista without 4GB of ram.

 

[nathan123]

I'm not a huge gamer, i just want the best from all 4 cores of my CPU. Also i wont be getting a 32bit version of Vista, my 64bit version is currently downloading (i love MSDN Academic Alliance) which should work better than my 32bit copy of XP

 

[Robert]

Linex?

XP if you can get away with it, Vista if it's forced on you and you have the ram to use it.

 

[Aaron]

@Robert, if lunix nice? I've never really looked into it.

I would probably go with vista. But, don't listen to those stereotypes because if they don't have vista they're probably going to say:

1). It's bugged
2). It's slow

First off, you have to know that vista does take up a little space, but not enough to make your computer run slow.

This is what my laptop is running on:

15.4 BrightView Widescreen
120GB(5400RPM) Hard Drive
802 11b/g WLAN
6-Cell Lithium-lon battery
Windows Vista Home Premium
Dual Core Processor

Which is alright.

 

[BlahHx2]

I would go with vista. I have vista ultimate and it runs amazing just need to know the ins and outs of vista.

 

[Meth0d]

In the time that I ran Vista it has only been an annoyance. (I'm back to XP for now) All vista does is eat system resources for a fancy GUI.

 

[Robert]

@Robert, if lunix nice? I've never really looked into it.

I would probably go with vista. But, don't listen to those stereotypes because if they don't have vista they're probably going to say:

1). It's bugged
2). It's slow

First off, you have to know that vista does take up a little space, but not enough to make your computer run slow.

This is what my laptop is running on:

15.4 BrightView Widescreen
120GB(5400RPM) Hard Drive
802 11b/g WLAN
6-Cell Lithium-lon battery
Windows Vista Home Premium
Dual Core Processor

Which is alright.

Think of linux like Firefox, it's nice to start off with but you will have to spend a while getting everything you want from it. Although if you want do game on it, pretty much forget about it. If you use it for other things, you will pretty much never ever get a virus

The thing with Vista is although it might run fine on your PC, unless you have huge specs (ie more than XP was designed to be able to use), XP would run better.

 

[Enter Name]

Stop posting that there is a DX10 hack for XP, there is not. It makes your PC think it has DX10 but it does not, why would you even bother with it?

32x Vista SP1 (and not sure about XP SP3) fixed the issue with having 4gb of RAM appearing as 3.5gb, ect. So there is no reason to choose it for the extra RAM, cos you won't really go over that, will you?

IMO stick with what you know. XP has been around for a while and has served us well, many companies (nvidia for one) have sated that they will NOT be using Vista in their businesses (that is a loss of 80,000 licenses form nvidia alone not using it), but will stick with XP till the new OS is released. I personally will be doing the same unless i REALLY need it for DX10 in which case i would dual boot Vista for gaming ONLY.

But just bare in mind that i would never consider gaming on Vista without 4GB of ram.

I wasnt boasting at all. Even if there was DX 10 for XP i am not using it, as games in the future will only work with VISTA.

 

[Netrogor]

BOTH. Vista for DX 10 games (CBA to get hack for XP) and XP for older stuff, also i like working with XP.

Rishwin, re-read.

@ Linux Idea
You can game on Linux... if you pay one group or another to use their emulator setup. A monthly subscription fee of the sorts. I've played Call of Duty 4 on Ubuntu Linux, without any noticeable loss fps/quality wise. It is a bit of a nuisance to set it up to play games, though, so don't expect anything simple like you would get from Microsoft.

 

[Rishwin]

Rishwin, re-read.

He said he CBF to use a DX10 hack for XP. My post pointed out that there is none that work. you re-read.

 

[Matt525]

I'll stick with XP till a new OS is released.

My mom got Vista on her pc, and it sucks balls..

 

[Jhewt]

I've both installed on my pc, one per hd. I really like to work with XP, but it really sucks at multimedia (Video, etc..).. so i use Vista for gamming and multimedia. For example, for me XP runs the 3dsmax twice faster than Vista, also when its rendering, both are 64 bits, so XP wins with a few minutes less than Vista FOR ME.

 

[Netrogor]

He said he CBF to use a DX10 hack for XP. My post pointed out that there is none that work. you re-read.

No, you re-read. You yourself said it - a hack job stylized enabling, not actual DX10. And it is being improved, the DX10 port/emulator to/for XP, by the third-party developers working on it.

@ O/S Choices
If you are ever up for it, and do enough things to demand for the setup, try tri-boot. Linux, WinXP, and WinVista all setup on a single HD (partitioning off sections so it works, obviously).
I used to use all three in tri-boot; it is difficult to setup, initially. So, as I said, only go for it if you have a reason to have it and are up to the task of making it work (Vista, on occasion, may corrupt your bootloader and ignore the Linux build).

 

[Pfa]

I would dual-boot. Vista for DX10, XP for normal stuff. You can try tri-booting with Linux if you wanna be a rebel

If you are looking to optimize your quad-core, Vista is the way to go as with XP it's not very efficient. You also get 4GB RAM support from Vista.

 

[Enter Name]

Ill be trying Linux in the future. Also MAC OS sounds good as well. As as far as i no MAC OS dosnt get virus or crash often as Windows, but for no XP 32 bit and Vista 64 bit will do.

 

[takassss]

Both has it pro and cons, personally since i like xp over vista cos its seems like xp gaming is much faster, at least to me.