XP 64-bit or Vista 64-bit????

Smallcats

Hi,

Im nearly finished building my pc and not too sure what os to use. Would it be a waste of money installing xp cause software in future will only run on vista.

Q6600
Hd 4570 1gb
asus p5k/epu
500gb westrn digital x4
corsair dominator 2gb (more on route)
corsair powersupply 650w
nzxt hush case

Cheers

Spear

Smallcats wrote: »

Hi,

Im nearly finished building my pc and not too sure what os to use. Would it be a waste of money installing xp cause software in future will only run on vista.

Q6600
Hd 4570 1gb
asus p5k/epu
500gb westrn digital x4
corsair dominator 2gb (more on route)
corsair powersupply 650w
nzxt hush case

Cheers

There's no advantage to XP 64bit now, Vista 64bit gets you DX10.1 and more attention such as patches from MS.

Anti

Spear wrote: »

There's no advantage to XP 64bit now, Vista 64bit gets you DX10.1 and more attention such as patches from MS.

QFT

the_syco

Smallcats wrote: »

Hd 4570 1gb

corsair dominator 2gb (more on route)

IMO, If you plan to game with only 2GB, XP, but if you're getting more RAM, go Vista. MS patches are nice, fix problems, and more Vista patches are coming out for new hardware, so Vista would a good option.

Smallcats

Ye i tought that i should go wit vista

Cheers

Smallcats

Just one other thing. Whats the differance between vista ulimate n the home edition

Smallcats

Its cool dont need to answer that Jus found out there

Mr. Presentable

Spear wrote: »

There's no advantage to XP 64bit now, Vista 64bit gets you DX10.1 and more attention such as patches from MS.

This is true. XP64 is great, but a previous generation.

DanGerMus

Oh god Vista 64 bit if it has to be 64 bit. XP 64bit = zero support Z.E.R.O nadda nuthin. No support.

Why not stick with xp all the extra ram a 64 bit system makes available is quickly gobbled up by vista being vista isn't it?
I suppose you do want the dx10 support now though.

Spiritine

yeh vista 64 is grand, have had no problems with it, apart from it using a whole gig of ram....

rasmasyean

Vista 64-bit has 32-bit emulation mode. I don't think XP has that. And I don't think many manufacturers make XP 64 drivers. XP 64 was never a "consumer product".

rasmasyean

DanGerMus wrote: »

Oh god Vista 64 bit if it has to be 64 bit. XP 64bit = zero support Z.E.R.O nadda nuthin. No support.

Why not stick with xp all the extra ram a 64 bit system makes available is quickly gobbled up by vista being vista isn't it?
I suppose you do want the dx10 support now though.

You can't select the highest graphics settings in certain games (e.g. Crysis "Very High" setting) without Vista.

heresjonny30

lol at ms already releasing patches for windows 7 (unrealeased). Definitely vista 64, get the sw assurance too its worth the extra pennies in the long run.

Vista is ms's main concern, patches a plenty and it is stable!!!

heresjonny30

rasmasyean wrote: »

Vista 64-bit has 32-bit emulation mode. I don't think XP has that. And I don't think many manufacturers make XP 64 drivers. XP 64 was never a "consumer product".

Why have a 64bit and emulate 32bit? seems pointless?

rasmasyean

heresjonny30 wrote: »

Why have a 64bit and emulate 32bit? seems pointless?

Backward compatability.

AlmightyCushion

heresjonny30 wrote: »

Why have a 64bit and emulate 32bit? seems pointless?

So that any software that isn't 64 bit yet will run on it.

rasmasyean

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So that any software that isn't 64 bit yet will run on it.

Only in theory. There are a few "older" programs that don't work but many of them have patching solutions, either from developer or from user community.

Google “Vista compatibility list”. Knowing a bit about computers helps getting the old problematic ones to work (Internet has a lot of solutions that smart people share).

heresjonny30

found this:

If any of you remember when we went from 286 cpus to 386 cpus (16 bit to 32 bit), you will know that the software and driver issues between 32 bit and 64 bit are going to be far greater than Microsoft wants you to believe.
32 bit MS Office 2007 will run on 64 bit Vista but, I’ll bet you that older versions of MS Office won’t run on Vista 64. The point is that you can expect significant problems with your current applications. Anyone care to bet how well you will do if you buy a shareware application from the web?
Seems like the thing to do is this:
1. Use 32 bit Vista on your 64 bit machine.
2. Make sure that new machines can handle at least 4 Gig RAM. (Amazingly, I have seen 64 bit processors on motherboards that only support 2G Ram.)
3. Buy 64 bit OS (Vista or later) when you have a requirement to run a 64 bit application - which will eventually happen. And, when you do, expect that the machine might need to be dedicated to your 64 bit app because your 32 bit stuff doesn’t run properly on it. (This is probably not a problem because the kinds of applications that will require 64 bit OS and gobs of memory will be cad/cam, video editing, or something else that is typically run on a dedicated workstation anyway.)
When we went from 16bit to 32bit, it took a good 5 years for compatibility problems to straighten out. Let’s hope it take that long this time. The good news is that the 32 bit apps currently available work well and so there will not be the desperation to upgrade to 64 bit that there was when we went to 32bit (because 16 bit application capabilities were quite limited.)

full thread here: http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-32-bit-versus-vista-64-bit/

its based on a more production enviroment but the same theory applies i am sure.

is the machine to be a gaming machine?

we use 64 bit on our oracle servers for the performance, do you need this?

heresjonny30

really liked roberto vargas's response????? comment 7

I had a few drambuies and not sure what he said.

rasmasyean

heresjonny30 wrote: »

found this:

If any of you remember when we went from 286 cpus to 386 cpus (16 bit to 32 bit), you will know that the software and driver issues between 32 bit and 64 bit are going to be far greater than Microsoft wants you to believe.
32 bit MS Office 2007 will run on 64 bit Vista but, I’ll bet you that older versions of MS Office won’t run on Vista 64. The point is that you can expect significant problems with your current applications. Anyone care to bet how well you will do if you buy a shareware application from the web?
Seems like the thing to do is this:
1. Use 32 bit Vista on your 64 bit machine.
2. Make sure that new machines can handle at least 4 Gig RAM. (Amazingly, I have seen 64 bit processors on motherboards that only support 2G Ram.)
3. Buy 64 bit OS (Vista or later) when you have a requirement to run a 64 bit application - which will eventually happen. And, when you do, expect that the machine might need to be dedicated to your 64 bit app because your 32 bit stuff doesn’t run properly on it. (This is probably not a problem because the kinds of applications that will require 64 bit OS and gobs of memory will be cad/cam, video editing, or something else that is typically run on a dedicated workstation anyway.)
When we went from 16bit to 32bit, it took a good 5 years for compatibility problems to straighten out. Let’s hope it take that long this time. The good news is that the 32 bit apps currently available work well and so there will not be the desperation to upgrade to 64 bit that there was when we went to 32bit (because 16 bit application capabilities were quite limited.)

full thread here: http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-32-bit-versus-vista-64-bit/

its based on a more production enviroment but the same theory applies i am sure.

is the machine to be a gaming machine?

we use 64 bit on our oracle servers for the performance, do you need this?

That's some age old news! :eek: Whatever is in that article is ancient history and barely applies today. :P You have to reember that you are talking about computer time and not like the "steel industry".

And also, MS Office 2003 does work fine. Although 2007 is much better.

heresjonny30

rasmasyean wrote: »

That's some age old news! :eek: Whatever is in that article is ancient history and barely applies today. :P You have to reember that you are talking about computer time and not like the "steel industry".

And also, MS Office 2003 does work fine. Although 2007 is much better.

the theory still stands, and your and the answer lies in the requirement, performance?

try and keep up. for the consumer, the steel age is more apt. If the consumer is using a 64bit product then yes the 64bit setup suits, but this is likely not the case. This example, I thought was good because it highlighted the actual needs of the user.

So once again, is the machine to be a gaming machine?

is the game 64bit, are the producers planning 64bit version?

Agreed on 2007. Check out Live office space too.

musicmonky

also, in 2010 when win 7 comes out you "might" get a few bucks off that version if you want to upgrade from vista. doubt it if you will be able to do that if you have xp.*

I have converted to 64 bit vista , its dam good no issues.
but you gotta throw 8gb at it IMHO. kill the paging file and it will fly. I went cheap skate and got DDR2. *

heresjonny30

i like vista, using business with a gb, shut off alot of the nice to haves and runs great, i think people are a bit scared of the change.

read your post on pc vs mac. good stuff, you must have alot of time on your hands. totally true though.

Signing off for the night, take it easy.

rasmasyean

heresjonny30 wrote: »

i like vista, using business with a gb, shut off alot of the nice to haves and runs great, i think people are a bit scared of the change.

read your post on pc vs mac. good stuff, you must have alot of time on your hands. totally true though.

Signing off for the night, take it easy.

haha...it did take a while to accumulate that info there (over a period of time), but most of what I wrote was 10% typing, 90% cut and paste. :P
Gotta love 64-bit for it's fast multi-tasking I guess.

Smallcats

cheers for the help lads. machine is for gaming but also do a lot of music production so ill b runnin a lot of audio files at pc