Just built a rig

[suryad]

let the man run XP! gosh, vista really isn't all that cut out to what it should be yet anyway.

compatibility and support over eye-candy!

and don't tell me that vista is compatible with everything, because there's a large opposing list.

Haha and dont forget performance. I really dont have a problem with him trying to convince me. I enjoy arguments becuase that way I learn about new things. I am not always correct after all!

[ripken204]

performance? vista is fater for me than xp was..

[Idontwantspam]

Let me just say that under most circumstances, I would say DO NOT go with vista, and get XP. It's just a question with x64, and which would work better.

If we're talking x86, then I'd say get XP. Why?

• XP has waaaay more useful applications + drivers developed for it.
  
• There's a broader support base - lots of people know sh** loads about XP, vista is new, so there isn't as much expertise floating around.
  
• XP is mature. Once SP3 comes out, it'll be even more mature. Vista is still in SP0, and has lots of issues. Way more than XP does.
  
• Vista is a resource hog, there's no other way to put it. Granted, with 4gb of ram, it shouldn't be an issue, but wouldn't you rather that RAM go to what you're working on, not flashy graphics? Same goes for CPU and GPU.
  • You can get all that eye candy for XP, too. Google vista transformation pack.
    

  [*]If you're used to XP, changing to vista will be a PITA. Really.

So, what I would recommend you do in this case is:

buy Windows Vista business or ultimate (x64), then do a downgrade installation to XP (google it). Then, someday when you have to use vista for whatever reason, just install vista.

Alternatively, you could buy both, and do a dual boot. Use XP for most stuff, and use vista for the gaming.

[Zxian]

This is turning into another one of those XP/Vista debates...

I'll agree with Idontwantspam on a couple of points, but then there's the fact that my laptop (running XP Pro) is sitting here... with over 1.5GB unused RAM. Unused RAM is wasted RAM afterall.

Some of the things that make Vista far more user-friendly than XP:

- Instant search

- Better explorer layout

- Flip3D - some people say it's "eye candy", but it actually helps in many cases to see all the windows of what you're working on at once

Some people say that the system itself is slower when running Vista... but on which one can you get more stuff done? Vista has FAR better multithreading and multi-core support than XP. 64-bit was an afterthought for XP, while it was a major design consideration for Vista. People say UAC is a pain, but it's the way Microsoft wanted things to be done in XP. They just never actually implemented any of the security restrictions that they recommended programmers to follow.

I'll be moving my system up to Vista x64 when SP1 rolls out. I've been waiting for SP1 to fix a number of minor bugs, and in the meantime, things are working quite well as they are. In the meantime, I'm stuck using only 2.93GB of RAM out of the 4GB total I have installed.

[suryad]

This is turning into another one of those XP/Vista debates...

I'll agree with Idontwantspam on a couple of points, but then there's the fact that my laptop (running XP Pro) is sitting here... with over 1.5GB unused RAM. Unused RAM is wasted RAM afterall.

Some of the things that make Vista far more user-friendly than XP:

- Instant search

- Better explorer layout

- Flip3D - some people say it's "eye candy", but it actually helps in many cases to see all the windows of what you're working on at once

Some people say that the system itself is slower when running Vista... but on which one can you get more stuff done? Vista has FAR better multithreading and multi-core support than XP. 64-bit was an afterthought for XP, while it was a major design consideration for Vista. People say UAC is a pain, but it's the way Microsoft wanted things to be done in XP. They just never actually implemented any of the security restrictions that they recommended programmers to follow.

I'll be moving my system up to Vista x64 when SP1 rolls out. I've been waiting for SP1 to fix a number of minor bugs, and in the meantime, things are working quite well as they are. In the meantime, I'm stuck using only 2.93GB of RAM out of the 4GB total I have installed.

I agree with the unused ram. I agree with the multithreading. Fact is as has been shown many times on various sites and user testimonies...all that made no difference apparently because the end result is Vista is not faster. If this is the performance WITH all those enhancements that does not bode too well for Vista in my book.

[ripken204]

zxian, you say "Some people say that the system itself is slower when running Vista"

i would have to agree with that for people who have slow computers to begin with, even those "vista capable" computers. 512mb of ram is not capable at all, lol.

it's good to hear that you will be moving to vista soon

suryad has the best of the best and vista would just help even more.

suryad, just go with vista, i am not sure why you are so reluctant..

i have been using vista since RC1, that is over a year now. the only problems i had were with video drivers, but those are all fixed now.

vista is now, xp is old.

[Idontwantspam]

Geez, ripken. You sound like an advert for Vista!

Winflip 3D for XP. I've tried it, it works pretty well.

As people have mentioned, Vista has its pluses, but also its minuses. That's why I recommended getting vista and downgrading for now, or else doing a dual-boot.

[ripken204]

well i just think vista is better than xp. i've used xp for years and vista for over a year now. i havnt had any problems with programs or anything, especially since it has been out for so long now. i suppose he could dual boot but i just dont see a real reason.

[Idontwantspam]

well i just think vista is better than xp. i've used xp for years and vista for over a year now. i havnt had any problems with programs or anything, especially since it has been out for so long now. i suppose he could dual boot but i just dont see a real reason.

Whatev. I guess we can agree to disagree. Some people prefer XP. Some prefer vista. He should get what he thinks will work best for him.

[bonestonne]

O_o well, despite anything, i think that XP x64 is better than Vista.

but at the same time, why would unused RAM be a waste? its one thing if you're throwing more and more into a system that does almost nothing, but if you're actively using VMWare, or Photoshop, or Adobe Audition, or something that needs more RAM, its no waste if you go a day without using it.

i'm just trying to reach a point where i can migrate to XP x64 without a problem in the process, and currently i have a large problem that's stopping me, so whatever.

"so far it works for me" is hardly something that would convince me to switch to vista, what about some SOLID evidence that it can do better than XP for someone who does no gaming whatsoever, or someone who wants to have complete driver support. i don't see Vista Compatible on everything.

[Idontwantspam]

O_o well, despite anything, i think that XP x64 is better than Vista.

but at the same time, why would unused RAM be a waste? its one thing if you're throwing more and more into a system that does almost nothing, but if you're actively using VMWare, or Photoshop, or Adobe Audition, or something that needs more RAM, its no waste if you go a day without using it.

i'm just trying to reach a point where i can migrate to XP x64 without a problem in the process, and currently i have a large problem that's stopping me, so whatever.

"so far it works for me" is hardly something that would convince me to switch to vista, what about some SOLID evidence that it can do better than XP for someone who does no gaming whatsoever, or someone who wants to have complete driver support. i don't see Vista Compatible on everything.

THANK YOU!! Well said.

[ripken204]

lol, im so confused. what was well said?

"so far it works for me"

so you wouldnt say that about xp? both xp and vista work perfectly for me.

and do you have any solid evidence that vista does not work for the majority of people?

also his main purpose must be gaming because of how he spent over $1000 on video cards.

vista does have complete driver support for his system.

and that vista capable/ready thing was a joke i was making

i;m not trying to argue here, im just saying what i beleive to be true

[DL.]

Very nice rig, must've been really expensive and most likely quite loud too?

I would've selected another mouse; such as the G5 V2, Lachesis or Habu.

Just two HDD:s at a total of only 300 GB, but maybe you also have a file server at hand?

Vista x64 is probably a great choice for that machine, but XP x64 will also work very well.

[bonestonne]

i'm working on becoming a linguist, practice makes perfect.

i'd say that for anything. i drive manual transmission, doesn't mean everyone knows how to use a clutch, the most important part of a manual car.

do i have solid evidence that vista doesn't work for most people? yes, and plenty. does every single person in the world have a brand new computer? no. do most people have computers with Pentium 4s? well, to be very real about it, people are just beginning to get rid of pentium 3 based rigs. why is this important you wonder to yourself? easy: many people are switching to linux. you don't even need a P4 to have a decent linux rig. continuing on the train of logic, how many people are even running dual core? very very few. while you see forums like this, it clouds your mind of the many million more in the suburbs, ghettos, and rural areas of this country as well as the world. people like us are very lucky to have new computers like this, and here we are arguing over what operating system they've got..there are people who are really lucky to have Windows 98 running on their computer. with the world in mind, not just these forums, yes, i can easily say that Vista does not work for most people. if the world was just people on forums, then we'd all be closer to world peace, but also remember, there are places in the world that haven't even made it to running water or electricity. computers aren't even a word to them.

i have a $130 soundcard, but i don't have speakers that are good enough to accompany them. how would you sort that out? SLi works just as well in DX9 than DX10, because there aren't as many DX10 games as DX9. heck, the most intensive game i own i could play with windows 98 and it would be blasting through frames with onboard graphics better than DX10 games on a pair of 8800's. also, good graphics is not all gaming, in fact an SLi system is very beneficial for people who use photoshop or other photoediting software, as well as video editing software.

would you believe that a hummer got 20mpg in the city if the stickers told you? its a world much larger than the united states, and even in the united states there's lots of room for improvement.

i don't say what i believe, i say what is true, and there's my proof.

[ripken204]

yes but i am not talking about people with average computers, i am talking about a brand new top of the line computer.

and i highly doubt he is doing video editing, i am pretty sure it is for gaming.

and your saying that the majority of ppl on vista have problems? i would love to see that data.

i really dont know where you're coming from with that post for and is it directed at me?