Need 64 bit OS

Effluo

Hi i'm a student and i'm looking for an Os for my new gaming pc.

Budget is the name of the game so i was looking at Vista home basic for 85 euro on dabs.

Anyone tell if there are any big dissadvantages having only basic vista for me.

It'd be pretty much only a gaming pc

Also dabs do it for 85 euro Oem anyone know where i could get it a bit cheaper.


Cheers much obliged

watty

Home basic has LESS features than XP pro.

Vista poor for games period. Except of course if the developer "paid" by MS to make game be DX10 only.

Also many games won't run so well on 64bits as 32bits.

NT4.0, XP, Vista, Linux are all available in 32bit or 64bit versions. There are many Driver and Application, esp. Games compatibility issues with 64bit. All x86 family will run 32bit OS fine. You don't have to have 64bits unless an DEC Alpha 64, itanium or something else that a gaming pc will NOT be

You might get an OEM XP pro from surplus/liquidated stock type sellers.

If really stuck on Vista, go two levels up. The Vista Home Basic is a cut down version really for old Intel Integrated Graphics (that are rubbish for games) that actually can't run a full version of vista.

Avoid any version of any MS with "Home" in the name, get next level up.

Sierra Oscar

I have been using Vista X64 on my primary gaming computer for over one year, and it has worked out great.

Unregistered.

watty wrote: »

Home basic has LESS features than XP pro.



Vista poor for games period. Except of course if the developer "paid" by MS to make game be DX10 only.



Also many games won't run so well on 64bits as 32bits.



NT4.0, XP, Vista, Linux are all available in 32bit or 64bit versions. There are many Driver and Application, esp. Games compatibility issues with 64bit. All x86 family will run 32bit OS fine. You don't have to have 64bits unless an DEC Alpha 64, itanium or something else that a gaming pc will NOT be



You might get an OEM XP pro from surplus/liquidated stock type sellers.



If really stuck on Vista, go two levels up. The Vista Home Basic is a cut down version really for old Intel Integrated Graphics (that are rubbish for games) that actually can't run a full version of vista.



Avoid any version of any MS with "Home" in the name, get next level up.

Are you taking about Ultimate??
Isn't that just Vista Home Premium AND Vista Business??

Explain what advantage a student would have by having any of the Business features....


IMO, Home Premium SP1, although, I do keep hearing good things about Windows 7, if you think you could wait a couple of months..... go for that.

Capt'n Midnight

if you want cheap , the Windows 7 beta is free to use till August
of course being beta it might take you that long to get the games working on it :pac:

Don't forget that the OEM license doesn't allow you to install windows after you've got the pc, it must come on/with the PC or not at all. This is why the retail copies cost so much , over €500 for the bells and whistles version in PC world (and it's not even enterprise)

yoyo

watty wrote: »

Home basic has LESS features than XP pro.

Vista poor for games period. Except of course if the developer "paid" by MS to make game be DX10 only.

Also many games won't run so well on 64bits as 32bits.

NT4.0, XP, Vista, Linux are all available in 32bit or 64bit versions. There are many Driver and Application, esp. Games compatibility issues with 64bit. All x86 family will run 32bit OS fine. You don't have to have 64bits unless an DEC Alpha 64, itanium or something else that a gaming pc will NOT be

You might get an OEM XP pro from surplus/liquidated stock type sellers.

If really stuck on Vista, go two levels up. The Vista Home Basic is a cut down version really for old Intel Integrated Graphics (that are rubbish for games) that actually can't run a full version of vista.

Avoid any version of any MS with "Home" in the name, get next level up.

Vista Home Premium is grand... Whatever you do DON'T go for XP 64Bit, and I'm using 64Bit and older games and newer work fine (with maybe one or two exceptions), I don't notice any major issiues though, compatibility for drivers and stuff these days is grand, and the built in 32Bit compatibility program in the 64 bit OS works grand

Nick

watty

Actually it doesn't "work fine", only mostly works.

yoyo

watty wrote: »

Actually it doesn't "work fine", only mostly works.

OK, What issiues did you discover during testing it? Because the only game I can think of off the top of my head not working is Scarface, It has graphics corruption bugs, and I've managed to play 125+ games fine on Vista 64Bit (This figure is taken from the Vista games explorer btw)

Nick

Cy_Revenant

watty wrote: »

Actually it doesn't "work fine", only mostly works.

From reading your posts here and in many other windows related threads, I can only imagine that you are paranoid, and hate new things.

I've been using 64bit Vista on my primary computer for over a year now. In all that time the only problem I had was nVidia not releasing decent drivers for it until last May.

I have had no other driver related issues.

I have had no program compatibility issues.

Every game I've installed, and I've installed quite a lot of them, has played perfectly.

If you're planning on using 4GB or more of RAM, use Vista 64bit. There is no reason not to, it makes no sense not to.

Vista 64bit works fine.

And theres no reason to pay for anything more than Home Premium.

PogMoThoin

I'm running 64bit Vista on my pc and have yet to have a game thats incompatible, they run in 32bit mode, Crysis being the only game which supports 64bit and actually runs faster than in 32bit (Warhead actually ran worse on my pc as it only had 32bit).

Like Cy_Revenant, I had nvidia driver problems at first with a 7900gt but they're all sorted for ages now, anyway I've upgraded gpu since.

Overheal

I'm sorry Watty. I can respect that you're a veteran who probably served as a Lieutenant during The Browser Wars and probably still suffer from shellshock from the days of old when Trojan emails were headline news wiping out C:\ at whim. You were probably even there, out with the best of them toiling away and contributing bug reports or commentary on Project: Whistler. But times have changed. And every piece of software has a spectacular life cycle. XP was not at all received well when it came out. Yet SP1 and SP2 eventually came out, and XP became "the sh!t". In a few years I have every confidence it will fall out of style when due to dropped support, the hacking community makes it un-navigable. Sure, an expert PC user could keep using it for the next 10 years, but the average, iliterate user, would have it corrupted in no time: My cousins have made this clear to me time and again: I spend 2 days fixing, securing, and upgrading one of their PCs to XP Home SP3 - its dead in a week. I give up.

32-bit home premium, the only thing I ever failed to get running was Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries. Quite possibly, the greatest game on Earth. But that was long before SP1, and I havent tried since. But that game also happens to be 13 years old, using very outdated 3d engine technology.

Other than that I've had no performance issues aside from my piece of shyte nVidia 8400M GS - and we all know by now how that went.

However, I think, we can all come together, and continue to enjoy this sweet morsel of reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ntr-pw_6C0

Blazer

+1 for Vista 64bit.
Go for it..run all my games on it with no problems.
The only games I had problems with was F22-TAW (about 9 years old easily) and Lock-On (bout 4 years old).
Apart from those 2 everything else has been rosy.

Effluo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Don't forget that the OEM license doesn't allow you to install windows after you've got the pc, it must come on/with the PC or not at all. This is why the retail copies cost so much , over €500 for the bells and whistles version in PC world (and it's not even enterprise)

So if i get Vista home basic OEM i seperately from dabs will i not be able to install it?

Overheal

OEM Licenses are only allowed to be installed on 1 PC. Technically it is possible to move the installation to another PC, but it requires going blind on paperwork by calling up Microsoft technical support.

And OEM also only allows you to install either 32 or 64 bit. Retail licenses allow you to switch around.

kayos

I’ve been running Vista Ultimate x64 since its release on my main gaming rig.

Driver Issues? 1 Due to Linksys refusing to bring out a driver for the European version of a wireless card I have, annoying but easy to work around.

Games Issues? 1 One of the C&C games which was new at the time had some CD check that just would not work with 64Bit.

Other than that Vista 64 has been pain free and trouble free. Would not have a problem in recommending it to any one that was some level of skill with a PC, in case a driver issue does pop up.

Stephen

Another +1 for Vista 64bit. I'd still be using it if I wasn't currently running the Windows 7 beta on my games machine now, and that has worked just fine so far too.

I would go with home premium though. Basic is a bit too restrictive for my needs.

I share a lot of Watty's opinions, though not all of them by any means. My biggest complaint about Vista is that they've changed it too much, it doesn't feel the same anymore. It feels more like a Mac than Windows to me.

Also, with 64-bit, it requires signed drivers. I have virtual drive software and a gamepad which although I have 64-bit drivers for them, they aren't signed so they won't work unless I press F8 on every boot. I just can't help but think there's a more sinister reason for it than "improving stability" - I personally think it's to enforce DRM policies like Protected Media Path. But an advantage of this is that it should prevent most rootkits from working even if ported to 64-bit (but then the rootkit writer just needs to get a cert).

Effluo

Overheal wrote: »

OEM Licenses are only allowed to be installed on 1 PC. Technically it is possible to move the installation to another PC, but it requires going blind on paperwork by calling up Microsoft technical support.

And OEM also only allows you to install either 32 or 64 bit. Retail licenses allow you to switch around.

????
So i will be able to install Vista 64bit on a new pc without an operating system by myself after calling microsoft support?

astrofool

Karsini wrote: »

I share a lot of Watty's opinions, though not all of them by any means. My biggest complaint about Vista is that they've changed it too much, it doesn't feel the same anymore. It feels more like a Mac than Windows to me.

Also, with 64-bit, it requires signed drivers. I have virtual drive software and a gamepad which although I have 64-bit drivers for them, they aren't signed so they won't work unless I press F8 on every boot. I just can't help but think there's a more sinister reason for it than "improving stability" - I personally think it's to enforce DRM policies like Protected Media Path. But an advantage of this is that it should prevent most rootkits from working even if ported to 64-bit (but then the rootkit writer just needs to get a cert).

Only MS can sign the drivers through the WHQL system, Windows should have had this required for years. If I remember correctly upwards of 80% of Windows blue screens were driver related.

The cost for getting a driver WHQL'd is negligible, however, the main reason a lot of these drivers don't get signed drivers, is that they fail the required tests for getting signed, and the devs won't spend the money fixing their problems.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

Only MS can sign the drivers through the WHQL system, Windows should have had this required for years. If I remember correctly upwards of 80% of Windows blue screens were driver related.

The cost for getting a driver WHQL'd is negligible, however, the main reason a lot of these drivers don't get signed drivers, is that they fail the required tests for getting signed, and the devs won't spend the money fixing their problems.

Nvidia's Vista drivers were WHQL'd yet were pathetic so it's not always the case that a logo'd driver is guaranteed reliable.

But nah I accept your point. It's just a pain when stuff you have doesn't work anymore for whatever reason. I can probably find compatible substitutes, I'm just not adaptable to change very easily.

Overheal

Effluo wrote: »

????
So i will be able to install Vista 64bit on a new pc without an operating system by myself after calling microsoft support?

If you buy an OEM Licence of say Home Basic 64 bit, you can install it on 1 machine. In very exceptional circumstances, if that machine dies, then microsoft will allow you to install the OEM license to a second machine. But that process is very long winded and requires calling up Microsoft Technical Support.

The Short Version of the story is I think you really need to know what youre doing a little bit more before you decide to do this. Especially on a budget. 64-bit will not really give you a gaming performance boost. If you already have XP, stick with it, and buy some beer, or better RAM, or a Better Power Supply, etc. - something else that will give you a tangible performance boost.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

If you buy an OEM Licence of say Home Basic 64 bit, you can install it on 1 machine. In very exceptional circumstances, if that machine dies, then microsoft will allow you to install the OEM license to a second machine. But that process is very long winded and requires calling up Microsoft Technical Support.

Agreed. If you want to keep things legit you're better off steering clear of OEM unless you don't intend to replace your PC any time soon!

astrofool

Karsini wrote: »

Nvidia's Vista drivers were WHQL'd yet were pathetic so it's not always the case that a logo'd driver is guaranteed reliable.

But nah I accept your point. It's just a pain when stuff you have doesn't work anymore for whatever reason. I can probably find compatible substitutes, I'm just not adaptable to change very easily.

It'll be a long hard road in IT if you don't adapt to change :P

Agreed on the nVidia point, however, some of the things companies do with drivers, they should be shot. WHQL stops most of that happening, and gets more stringent all the time.

For example, ATI currently have huge problems on i7, using a whql'd driver, in a few months they wouldn't be able to get a similar driver whql'd as the tests catch up with the new platform.

PaddyTheNth

Effluo wrote: »

????
So i will be able to install Vista 64bit on a new pc without an operating system by myself after calling microsoft support?

If its a full copy of Windows, yes. If its an OEM copy - I've never had a problem with moving OEMs to new machines...even a Dell one...activated online without a problem. You're not supposed to do this though. YMMV.

PaddyTheNth

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

If its a full copy of Windows, yes. If its an OEM copy - I've never had a problem with moving OEMs to new machines...even a Dell one...activated online without a problem. You're not supposed to do this though. YMMV.

That's correct. As I said here you can reactivate an OEM copy after 120 days but the EULA doesn't permit you to do it. So you violate the terms of your licence by doing so.

astrofool wrote: »

It'll be a long hard road in IT if you don't adapt to change :P

True, though I don't intend to stay in this game long. I've other things screaming out for me to do!

Effluo

Karsini wrote: »

That's correct. As I said here you can reactivate an OEM copy after 120 days but the EULA doesn't permit you to do it. So you violate the terms of your licence by doing so.

I'm buying a pretty highend gaming machine which i figure most of which will do me for abouts 3-4 years so i really don't see the problem with getting the oem version.

It will be used for this pc and this pc alone and in 4 years time i would hardly want to be holding onto my vista os.

I don't see why i wouldn't get it when all i really want is to install it on this single pc...

watty

However get Home Premium not Home basic if you really insist on vista rather than the higher performance XP (also in 32bit nearly pointless 64bit versions).

Basic has less features than XP and was for PCs that could not meet Vista spec.

The lacks in Home Premium compared with higher versions of Vista are mostly to do with Networking, Administration, configuration. As long as you have no Server/LAN and are not doing any programming, the Home Premium would be fine for Games (though apart from DX10, inferior to configure or performance than XP pro)

Why am I cynical and not conned? Because I've written OSes, Languages and Applications for a living and spent 8 years in slavery solving IT & Network problems beyond the peanut paid script monkeys.

Unless you are simulating weather or playing a game written badly by morons compiled exclusively to 64bits, you don't NEED an 64bit version of an OS. Actual 32bit software goes slower on a the SAME cpu with a 64bit OS. It's only specific "written for 64bit" Applications that really need 64bits that go significantly faster.


The higher end a computer is for gaming the more likely it will die or become obsolete. If you are doing office and Internet tasks a decent reliable laptop might last you 8 to 10 years now. 486 era was the worst, PCs seemed to get obsolete every 8 weeks. That era saw 486-20MHz ISA bus with basic VGA to 486-160MHz PCI with 3D XGA.


If you want a good warranty and good compatibility and performance a true high end PC comes with the OS with all vendor drivers and tweaks pre-installed. Really about 4 to 6 years ago with P4 and later building your own PC and adding OS is a bit like fitting blue LEDs or orange Neons and spoilers on a car. Unless you are very expert, building for a niche (not games) and a customised Linux.

The last "High End" PCs I built where both AMD3700+ with X1600 graphics and XP pro for conversion of MPEG2 to MPEG4 and realtime remux of MPEG-TS. They are really very poor at it. The Avivo support for encoding (not decoding = playback) never arrived and they can't even encode one TV channel in real time (broadcast quality, not for PMP) from MPEG2 to MPEG4. I can buy a system that can do 16 channels in real time at BBC quality. It's not however a PC and costs about $150,000, or about $9,000 a channel However it works.

Effluo

I understand that in 2 years time my pc will be worth peanuts

i did my best to get the most "future proof" thing i could, and part of my attempt at future proofing i wanted to go for a 64bit os. Purely to make use of the 4+gigs of ram, also i've heard windows7 is to come out pretty much only in 64bit and so more software will be written in 64bit. (is that right?)

There is a 32-bit beta of Windows 7 but I'd say it'll be the last 32-bit client OS. Regardless of the apps you run, using a 32-bit Windows system limits you to ~3GB of RAM, simple as. MS removed PAE36 support from XP in SP2 and it's been in no 32-bit Windows OS since.

Overheal

Well, multicore processors have been mainstream for a few years now and only now is software being developed to take advantage of the change. 64-bit only became a buzzword 18 months ago, and I suspect it will be quite some time before its really adopted. especially by gaming. Dont fall into the idea of "future proofing" by geting a DX10 capable operating system. For instance.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Well, multicore processors have been mainstream for a few years now and only now is software being developed to take advantage of the change. 64-bit only became a buzzword 18 months ago, and I suspect it will be quite some time before its really adopted. especially by gaming. Dont fall into the idea of "future proofing" by geting a DX10 capable operating system. For instance.

It might even take longer for 64-bit. At least with multi-core CPUs the new binary still works on single core machines. With 64-bit you need a totally new binary so you're knocking out a lot of potential business unless you port the app to 32-bit as well. But I've seen similar things in the past, the PC Halo 2 requiring Vista for example.