gm5k Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 hey guys title says it all... what do you think? thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCarter426 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 XP. And while you're at it, get rid of the Mac too. Really though, XP. Vista is a nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Skywalker Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 ^ He wants to know which is better to use and less messier for games? I say XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 XP all the way. I'd say that Vista was designed by monkeys, but that would be an insult to our hairy friends. It is quite simply an awful OS, memory hungry and has compatibility issues with a great many programs; in terms of game you need to get XP if you want to play older games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gm5k Posted June 17, 2008 Author Share Posted June 17, 2008 thanks guys. really appreciate it. ill be buying XP on my college campus for a nice price XP. And while you're at it, get rid of the Mac too. not happenin, buddy! 2.8 quad core w/ 10 gigs of ram(ram's on the way) it's for the home music studio. but id also like to play games with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 2.8 quad core w/ 10 gigs of ram(ram's on the way) it's for the home music studio. but id also like to play games with it... As far as I know Windows OP system of the 32 variety (wonderful fore thought put into Vista here) will only recognize a maximum of 3 GB of Ram: though you can also use the additional Ram for the Graphics Card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gm5k Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 As far as I know Windows OP system of the 32 variety (wonderful fore thought put into Vista here) will only recognize a maximum of 3 GB of Ram: though you can also use the additional Ram for the Graphics Card. hm, well i know my CPU is a Xeon 64-bit. does that matter or it's just possible to use more than 3 gigs on XP? oh well either way ill be fine...all that ram is for my music related software anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawathehutt Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 go with XP, vista was an insult to every electronic ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 XXXXXXXPPPPPPPP! Yes. That much. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 XP all the way. I'd say that Vista was designed by monkeys, but that would be an insult to our hairy friends. It is quite simply an awful OS, memory hungry and has compatibility issues with a great many programs; in terms of game you need to get XP if you want to play older games... Have you used it recently? If not, then you have very little authority to denounce Vista. I've been using it for about half a year now and it has yet to give me any problems. Everything I install works perfectly and my system is incredibly snappy and responsive. Vista's 'memory hunger' is an excuse used by people who don't realize what SuperFetch is. SuperFetch pre-loads commonly used programs into the memory to reduce activation time. Memory-intensive programs like Photoshop and Firefox open faster thanks to it. And while it may look like it's using a ton of memory when it's idle, SuperFetch frees up that memory and gives it right back when you start using your computer again. As for the compatibility issues, I am running the x64 version of Vista and have yet to encounter something that doesn't install. I use all the popular applications such as Firefox, Photoshop, Skype, Pidgin, mIRC, Winamp, Xfire, iTunes and they all work fine. I have Guild Wars, Unreal Tournament III, Assassin's Creed, Civ IV, TES4: Oblivion, Half-Life 2, Empire at War and a whole other host of games installed and they run just dandy. So I don't know where you get off saying Vista has compatibility issues. Unless you're running some ancient fossil of a program/game, Vista will have no problems with it. If you really must play some old games, then that's what a separate partition with XP is for. As far as I know Windows OP system of the 32 variety (wonderful fore thought put into Vista here) will only recognize a maximum of 3 GB of Ram: though you can also use the additional Ram for the Graphics Card. Excuse me, why are you saying this is Vista's fault? ALL 32-bit operating systems will only recognize 3 GBs of RAM, regardless if it's XP or Vista. In order to fully utilize 4 or more gigs of RAM, you need a 64-bit operating system and the only fully supported Windows variety is Vista 64. XP 64 is unsupported and has major compatibility issues with 32-bit programs (which are like, 99% of all programs out there right now). Vista 64 on the other had has excellent 32-bit emulation, enabling users to use their 32-bit programs as if they were running a native 32-bit environment. So yes, there was a LOT of forethought put into Vista, thank you very much. And using additional RAM for the graphics card? What are you on about? You cannot use desktop memory to improve GPU performance, at least not directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabish Bini Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 ^You have just earned 1,000,000 cool points for that post. You may not know it, but when XP first came out, the same thing happened to it which is happening now to Vista, everyone was saying it was cr@p, and look where it is now, the most popular OS in the world. I don't understand why people badmouth Vista so much, i've had it for a while now and i've had no problems AT ALL. Hell, even Metal Gear Solid, the original one from 2000(?) works perfectly on it, everything i've downloaded works perfectly on it, so just shut up and don't badmouth unless you HAVE ACTUALLY USED IT PROPERLY!! Anywho, it's really up to you whether you choose XP or Vista, if you wanna play a DOS game then you can just download DOSBox, but other than that, there both equal IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Happy Vista x64 user here. Of course, there are entirely valid reasons for people to stick with XP/MAC/KFC(etc), but they are entirely *dependent on individual hardware setup *dependent on individual user patterns and application preferences ----------------------------------------------------------------- *dependent on individual [/mathematical commonality in those statements] I suggest this thread be moved to the tech area where *the actual issue* can be dealt with in a balanced and informative manner, rather than degenerating into a fruitless argument about 'which OS is 1137'.... c'mon Niner >> 'make it so' special note to anyone making a "THIS OS SUCKS statement">> I suggest you read niner post carefully. It is 100% fact. Many users' knowledge tend to be populated moreso by misconceptons rather than facts. This is why we started the tech area in the first place = to better inform our beloved LFN colleagues. Being made fully aware of all options, and their strengths and limitations, is far more useful to a reader/fellow member, than a rant about what we think not accompanied by facts. We have Linux and Mac proponents as well, but at least they add to the discussion with interesting/practical facts(followed by lines of terminal window code) mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 For those interested in what the discussion is based around; http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm Have you used it recently? If not, then you have very little authority to denounce Vista. I was fixing a computer with Vista on only last week Perhaps this is not entirely fair given that my friends only come to me when they have managed to break something; but I have yet to be impressed by Vista yet and won't move over for a couple of years. I've been using it for about half a year now and it has yet to give me any problems. Everything I install works perfectly and my system is incredibly snappy and responsive. Vista's 'memory hunger' is an excuse used by people who don't realize what SuperFetch is. SuperFetch pre-loads commonly used programs into the memory to reduce activation time. Memory-intensive programs like Photoshop and Firefox open faster thanks to it. And while it may look like it's using a ton of memory when it's idle, SuperFetch frees up that memory and gives it right back when you start using your computer again. Windows has always been awful with memory; Mac's are far more efficient in their use of it; I run windows merely for compatibility reasons. I'm well aware of what SuperFetch is; however put it like this; me and a mate compared my rock gaming laptop (running XP) and his desktop (running Vista) - he had better system specks; yet mine was better for playing games on - care to explain? He has since gone back to XP... As for the compatibility issues, I am running the x64 version of Vista and have yet to encounter something that doesn't install. I use all the popular applications such as Firefox, Photoshop, Skype, Pidgin, mIRC, Winamp, Xfire, iTunes and they all work fine. I have Guild Wars, Unreal Tournament III, Assassin's Creed, Civ IV, TES4: Oblivion, Half-Life 2, Empire at War and a whole other host of games installed and they run just dandy. So I don't know where you get off saying Vista has compatibility issues. Unless you're running some ancient fossil of a program/game, Vista will have no problems with it. If you really must play some old games, then that's what a separate partition with XP is for. Funny; considering when me and my cousin went to play the latest version of Pro Evo on his wonderful gaming machine that has Vista it wouldn't run, because Vista had messed the gaming profile up; took us 30 minutes to fix the problem... Great compatibility that Excuse me, why are you saying this is Vista's fault? ALL 32-bit operating systems will only recognize 3 GBs of RAM, regardless if it's XP or Vista. In order to fully utilize 4 or more gigs of RAM, you need a 64-bit operating system and the only fully supported Windows variety is Vista 64. XP 64 is unsupported and has major compatibility issues with 32-bit programs (which are like, 99% of all programs out there right now). Vista 64 on the other had has excellent 32-bit emulation, enabling users to use their 32-bit programs as if they were running a native 32-bit environment. So yes, there was a LOT of forethought put into Vista, thank you very much. Vista should never of been released as 32 bit system... end of; you used any Vista 32 bit system? See all the ones I've ever seen are painfully slow. And using additional RAM for the graphics card? What are you on about? You cannot use desktop memory to improve GPU performance, at least not directly. To be honest I don't know how it's done; however where I ordered my laptop, If you ordered extra Ram, they can switch 1 GB over for the Graphics card to use You may finally want to answer me this... Why is it that pretty much all the tech savvy people I know are in consensus that Vista is bad? Especially such as my friends round the corner at the local computer shop who are on the 'front line' so to speak? And then among all my friends who are gamers, their is still a preference to XP. If you are then going to tell me Office 2007 is good, you are biased as charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I'll say XP just because that is what I use on my PC. I would use Vista, but the PC that I am using is designed for XP use. I do use Vista on my laptop though, and I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 For those interested in what the discussion is based around; http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm That article is ridiculously outdated and obviously written by someone with an anti-Vista slant. Drivers for 64-bit Vista are now out and readily available and 9 times out of 10 will work flawlessly. Funny how he suggests getting 4 gigs of RAM but says you won't be able to use it with a 32-bit system. Well, duh. I was fixing a computer with Vista on only last week Perhaps this is not entirely fair given that my friends only come to me when they have managed to break something; but I have yet to be impressed by Vista yet and won't move over for a couple of years. It isn't fair, especially since you only see the problems that arise with Vista. XP has had just as many problems over the years and it's just as easy to break something on it as it is to break something on Vista. If you really want to form a good, unbiased opinion on Vista, run it for a month on your own computer and use it everyday. Windows has always been awful with memory; Mac's are far more efficient in their use of it; I run windows merely for compatibility reasons. Windows does tend to run a lot of memory usage, however with the way technology is advancing every day, that is becoming less of an issue as RAM is obscenely cheap nowadays. I'm well aware of what SuperFetch is; Right, which is why you called Vista 'memory hungry' however put it like this; me and a mate compared my rock gaming laptop (running XP) and his desktop (running Vista) - he had better system specks; yet mine was better for playing games on - care to explain? He has since gone back to XP... You're going to have to do better than 'oh my XP system was better for playing games'. Do you have any quantifiable proof to support this claim? Funny; considering when me and my cousin went to play the latest version of Pro Evo on his wonderful gaming machine that has Vista it wouldn't run, because Vista had messed the gaming profile up; took us 30 minutes to fix the problem... Great compatibility that How did it mess the profile up? Are you sure it was Vista and not some other error? Please find proof for your claims before blaming it on Vista. Vista should never of been released as 32 bit system... end of; you used any Vista 32 bit system? See all the ones I've ever seen are painfully slow. Uhhh, I've used 32-bit Vista systems and they all worked fine for me. If you were running it on a computer that did not have the horsepower under the hood to run Vista, then yeah, it's going to be slow. But for someone with a dual core processor and a halfway decent video card, Vista is going to run just fine, regardless of whether or not it is 32 or 64-bit. There is little difference between the everyday operations of 32 and 64-bit Vista, just that the latter will allow you to actually use all of your RAM provided you have 4+ gigs of it. The standard memory capacity for computers today is 2 gigs and Vista 32 will run just fine on that. I don't know where you get off saying that Vista shouldn't have been released in a 32-bit version, either. The x86 architecture will remain prevalent for some time, so while x64 is indeed the future, not releasing a 32-bit version of Vista wouldn't be a smart move for Microsoft. To be honest I don't know how it's done; however where I ordered my laptop, If you ordered extra Ram, they can switch 1 GB over for the Graphics card to use I don't really see how that works. Not saying that it doesn't, but I can't imagine it working on a desktop system. You may finally want to answer me this... Why is it that pretty much all the tech savvy people I know are in consensus that Vista is bad? Funny, all the tech savvy people I know are in consensus that Vista is a fine and workable operating system. Different polling samples yield different results, I guess. Especially such as my friends round the corner at the local computer shop who are on the 'front line' so to speak? How many of them have used Vista as their primary OS for more than a couple of weeks? How many of them have installed Service Pack 1? How many of them have just used it in an everyday capacity (browsing the internet, word processing, gaming) rather than trying to find every little fault with it? Find me those answers and then we'll talk. And then among all my friends who are gamers, their is still a preference to XP. Old habits die hard. I'm not saying they should switch to Vista, XP is a perfectly serviceable OS that I myself will continue to use. I'm saying that nobody should denounce Vista without actually giving it a shot first. Right now, everyone who hates Vista falls into one or more of seven categories: People who tried to run Vista on an older system that didn't have driver support People who tried it when it was in beta or just after release when even drivers for newer hardware sucked and assume the situation hasn't gotten better since then People who haven't used Vista long enough to actually form an opinion of it outside of being annoyed at the constant UAC prompts you'll see when you're first getting everything installed and configured People who happen to rely on some abandoned piece of software that isn't Vista compatible and never got updated to support it People who don't understand how to read memory usage displays or what caching is People who haven't used Vista at all and just parrot whatever they hear on the internet People with an interest in making Microsoft look bad any chance they get. Truth be told, a majority to people fall into those last two categories, which is really sad. If you are then going to tell me Office 2007 is good, you are biased as charged. I wasn't aware of any point in my previous post where I made reference to Office 2007 and/or its merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 <snip> To be fair and to save us a bit of time, I have a feeling we're not going to agree and that we will just go around in circles so we may as well stop, that ok with you? Right now, everyone who hates Vista falls into one or more of seven categories: People who tried to run Vista on an older system that didn't have driver support People who tried it when it was in beta or just after release when even drivers for newer hardware sucked and assume the situation hasn't gotten better since then People who haven't used Vista long enough to actually form an opinion of it outside of being annoyed at the constant UAC prompts you'll see when you're first getting everything installed and configured People who happen to rely on some abandoned piece of software that isn't Vista compatible and never got updated to support it People who don't understand how to read memory usage displays or what caching is People who haven't used Vista at all and just parrot whatever they hear on the internet People with an interest in making Microsoft look bad any chance they get. Truth be told, a majority to people fall into those last two categories, which is really sad. I don't really fit into any of those categories Though I'm not Microsoft's biggest fan, they have done a lot for the industry. My standard SOP is to wait a couple of years before getting Microsoft's latest OS so they have ironed out all the bugs. I wasn't aware of any point in my previous post where I made reference to Office 2007 and/or its merits. No; but your opinion of it would reveal if your just pro-Microsoft being objective. Here's my biggest bug bear with Office 07; why oh why change the interface? I have as yet not discovered a way to go back to the 'normal' one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 To be fair and to save us a bit of time, I have a feeling we're not going to agree and that we will just go around in circles so we may as well stop, that ok with you? Okay, but don't badmouth Vista without having something concrete to back it up with. The whole reason I got started in this thread is because people are using the same old tired reasons for their Vista hate, reasons that no longer apply. No; but your opinion of it would reveal if your just pro-Microsoft being objective. I'm not pro-Microsoft, I'm pro-objectivity. Here's my biggest bug bear with Office 07; why oh why change the interface? I have as yet not discovered a way to go back to the 'normal' one. Dunno, still use Office 2003 here. Haven't gotten around to 07 yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Okay, but don't badmouth Vista without having something concrete to back it up with. The whole reason I got started in this thread is because people are using the same old tired reasons for their Vista hate, reasons that no longer apply. Ask JC; I'm sure that he will point out he has had problems trying to get games to run on Vista; as have quite a few of my friends, some problems have been resolved others not. Dunno, still use Office 2003 here. Haven't gotten around to 07 yet. I'm not a fan of 07 because of various admin functions I perform I have the latest copy; I'm not impressed; totally changed the layout. I'm getting used to it, but I feel quite a few will struggle to get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 You may not know it, but when XP first came out, the same thing happened to it which is happening now to Vista, everyone was saying it was cr@p, and look where it is now, the most popular OS in the world.Popular != good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanius Anglesmith Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 you used any Vista 32 bit system? I have, for almost a year. I've never had any compatibility issues, the system is very quick and responsive, and every single game or program I've tried to run has worked perfectly, including Dark Forces II from way back in '97. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exile007 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 hey guys title says it all... what do you think? thanks! I actually currently am using a mac/pc. And I love it. Windows I feel (could just be me) is more stable than on a normal P.C. Plus if your using a Mac Pro, the games should be running very nicely (considering mac pros can get up to 16 Gigs of RAM and two quad-core processors, 3.0 ghz each ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Popular != good. That's just what I was about to say. Thanks, jmac. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoolInTheWave Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Well, I have used Vista 32 for about a year, no problems here! It runs just fine and is actually faster than XP, no compatibility issues to report and I play some older games (expect for the UnRealED, but that crashes even on XP). To tell you the truth I've had more crashes in XP then I ever did in Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gm5k Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 well this is just getting more and more confusing... thanks for the input guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I think R9 is campaigning for Pro-Vista peeps to post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.