Windows Vista vs Windows XP

[Fulmar]

I remember a friend ordering a Dell computer circa the 90's and the sales rep telling him the 128mb of ram it came with is more than he'll ever need.  And I'm sure there are plenty of other stories like this from years prior.

I remember the days I had a hard time filling 4gb on 2 hard drives.

[eagl]

Thats about it right there. You might change your mind one day if and when you need more memory but hopefully by then another OS will come along.

Another OS has already come along.  If I ever need more than 4GB of system memory (and yes I know that XP doesn't let you use all of that 4GB) I'll either switch to a suitable version of Linux or get a Mac.  No effing way will I buy vista.  I gave it an honest tryout and it failed miserably for me.  Plus they removed the "up one level" button in the file browser and tried to tell me I didn't need it...  *finger*. 

[Chalenge]

Another OS has already come along.  If I ever need more than 4GB of system memory (and yes I know that XP doesn't let you use all of that 4GB) I'll either switch to a suitable version of Linux or get a Mac.  No effing way will I buy vista.  I gave it an honest tryout and it failed miserably for me.  Plus they removed the "up one level" button in the file browser and tried to tell me I didn't need it...  *finger*. 

They also changed the browser bar so all you have to do is click on the parent directory to go up one level. 
Each folder has a > after it seperating the levels so they are easy to select between. I gave it an honest tryout also testing for months alongside an XP setup on another hard drive and the only thing that let me down was the AMD cpu. I didnt really run into trouble until I tried Vista 64 but I absolutely have to have more than 4 Gigs of RAM now and there is no going back. Personally I didnt think I wanted to deal with learning how another OS 'thinks' so I wanted to stay in the Windows family (and my quote stated 'within the Windows family). Im not sorry.

Why would he need more memory? 99.999% of all known apps, especially games, run 32-bit code. Therefore 3 gigs is more than plenty for home/gaming use.
Database servers etc. are a different story.

I use my computer for a lot more then just playing games and if I could have chosen more RAM I would have. 8 Gigs is doing just fine though. What I like about having so much RAM is that the 32 bit game/app is given 4 Gigs to run in and to this point that has been nothing but good (and fast). If a program crashes (which seldom happens) Vista 64 reports the problem and closes the program. With XP the system would sometimes just start back into the bootstrap process after an illegal shutdown of its own. A few people have told me that I did something wrong in setting up the system. Okay but I setup Vista too and it doesnt do that. Im not trying to say Vista is all gravy because I am sure there are still a lot of people with problems with Vista. I have to say though that for me I needed more memory and memory is cheap and memory makes things hum and my applications that need more memory dont hit a wall anymore. Im happy.

[BoilerDown]

Ram support over 4 GB (over 3 GB to be practical about it) is one of the few things Vista would be worth upgrading for, if you need that feature.  The previous poster is right, for how cheap ram is right now, maxing out your MB's capacity isn't crazy expensive like it used to be.  Most modern MBs support 8GB.

Play any multi-player games where the first to load a level has the advantage?  Create a ram drive, install the game to it, back up the files to hard drive.  Every time you play, copy the files back to the ram drive from your hard drive (presuming you've rebooted and lost the ram drive contents since last time).  You'll load levels, textures, etc so fast the I/O won't be the bottleneck any more.  Pretty friggen sweet. 

I'm sure there's tons of apps, that even if they won't access more than 4 GB of ram (or more likely if they're written for XP, 2 GB) that would run a lot faster with a ram drive.  Its an old concept that people have mostly forgotten about 'cause it hasn't really been needed or affordable for a while.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

They also changed the browser bar so all you have to do is click on the parent directory to go up one level. 
Each folder has a > after it seperating the levels so they are easy to select between. I gave it an honest tryout also testing for months alongside an XP setup on another hard drive and the only thing that let me down was the AMD cpu. I didnt really run into trouble until I tried Vista 64 but I absolutely have to have more than 4 Gigs of RAM now and there is no going back. Personally I didnt think I wanted to deal with learning how another OS 'thinks' so I wanted to stay in the Windows family (and my quote stated 'within the Windows family). Im not sorry.

I use my computer for a lot more then just playing games and if I could have chosen more RAM I would have. 8 Gigs is doing just fine though. What I like about having so much RAM is that the 32 bit game/app is given 4 Gigs to run in and to this point that has been nothing but good (and fast). If a program crashes (which seldom happens) Vista 64 reports the problem and closes the program. With XP the system would sometimes just start back into the bootstrap process after an illegal shutdown of its own. A few people have told me that I did something wrong in setting up the system. Okay but I setup Vista too and it doesnt do that. Im not trying to say Vista is all gravy because I am sure there are still a lot of people with problems with Vista. I have to say though that for me I needed more memory and memory is cheap and memory makes things hum and my applications that need more memory dont hit a wall anymore. Im happy.

I'm sorry but what exactly do you use your computer for if 3 gigs is not enough? A single 32-bit app is restricted to 2 gigs maximum ram at one time so you can still run 1 gig worth of other junk in the background while using your 'power' app at its maximum limit. Nothing changes about that fact when going to 64-bit OS and running a 32-bit app.

[Chalenge]

64 bit CADD.

[Mustaine]

That's because IT admins are the bottom of the pool when it comes to IT professionals. They are never happy. And neither would I if my professional career involved anything Microsoft including Vista.

I don't read charts that basic wrong. There is no visibile difference in speed between Vista and XP, I could pull tests and charts till hell freezes over and argue the same tiny differences for or against Vista.


<S>...-Gixer

are you dense?

Take my box runnin XP with a 32MB video card and 768MB PC133 ram. PROVE to me I can run vista on this as fast as XP.

IT Admin here at a small trucking company. Not all companies have the money to shell out thes of thousands of dollars for new hardware just so it can run vista similar to the XP machines we have going right now. Our main apps are a web based java run GPS locater for our vehicles, MS office, a legacy UNIX telnet based system, and a DB2 based ERP program that includes scanned in TIFF images of paperwork.

Simple interfaces, pure computing speed for the GPS and image viewer, and I can have stable, decent response PC's that all run less than 512MB and celeron processors for workstations. Until they stopped selling XP I could run a $300 bare bones system for every workstation... AND our main users all use 22" wide screen monitors for multiple windows open at a time.

show me an OEM on board graphic card that can handle that resolution in vista with the same components and price.


Otherwise you go prove to the owner of my company we have to shell out X $$$$ for 32 brand new vista capable PC's just because M$ says so when everything works perfectly fine as it stands.

[eagl]

They also changed the browser bar so all you have to do is click on the parent directory to go up one level. 
Each folder has a > after it seperating the levels so they are easy to select between.

That's not the same as an "up" arrow.  Sometimes I browse up to 10 levels down... putting all 10 levels in a place where I can go up one level with a single click would use up too much real-estate.  In a file browser bar, I want to see the name of my current directory, the full directory path if possible, an "up" arrow, and a "back" arrow in case I've followed a symbolic link and going up would not get me back to the directory where I came from.  Why can't MS give me the file system browsing functionality that I can get from a unix shell?

Once more, it's MS trying to impose a "solution" to a problem that didn't exist, and even worse trying to imply that there must be something wrong with me if I don't like their new way better.  To hell with them.

[Chalenge]

I think its 'neat.' 

There will be other things that come along and spoil our picnic on computers and that too will pass.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

64 bit CADD.

Umm.. so you're bringing your power workstation to a gaming box discussion for what exactly? 

[Chalenge]

I dont believe you are considering that someone might play AHII on the same system they have to work on? I'm not going to change out my system every time I go from work to play. I doubt many other people would even have two systems and when it comes to considering what OS to buy they will feel the same way. One system one OS its pretty simple Ripley.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I dont believe you are considering that someone might play AHII on the same system they have to work on? I'm not going to change out my system every time I go from work to play. I doubt many other people would even have two systems and when it comes to considering what OS to buy they will feel the same way. One system one OS its pretty simple Ripley.

Well I have 5 computers in my house and two of them are used for work and work only. I wouldn't even want to compromise my system integrity by installing games on them.

Besides it's a moot point as games practically never even support 64-bits so nobody needs or should have a 64-bit os for gaming.

[Chalenge]

Well in my mind if a game is going to compromise system integrity it shouldnt go on any of my systems. Regardless of what you think/believe I already made the point that before moving into any system you should do some research and know what your real needs are. I chose Vista 64 for real and valid reasons that are not invalidated by your belief that 32 bit games wont use more then 2 gigs and my system works wonderfully for gaming and work. I will worry about 'system integrity' if and when it ever acts contrary to my desires/designs (shortly after the cows fly home from market).

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Well in my mind if a game is going to compromise system integrity it shouldnt go on any of my systems. Regardless of what you think/believe I already made the point that before moving into any system you should do some research and know what your real needs are. I chose Vista 64 for real and valid reasons that are not invalidated by your belief that 32 bit games wont use more then 2 gigs and my system works wonderfully for gaming and work. I will worry about 'system integrity' if and when it ever acts contrary to my desires/designs (shortly after the cows fly home from market).

You chose Vista64 because you use one of the handful of special apps that support 64 bits known to man at this point. There's no point in going 64-bit for 99.9% of the population at the moment. All it brings is huge potential for driver trouble.

Oh, and Vista enuff said.

[Chalenge]

Thank you Ripley I always knew I was a cut above the rest! 

Thats precisely what I did and there will be others that follow suit. Someone on this forum posted that salesmen in their area are pushing systems with Vista 64 and maybe their wrong for that maybe not. Sure it doesnt do anything for AHII but AHII runs just fine and at a blistering pace thank you very much!

Oh and Vista works just fine thanks.

Have a nice day!