Im currently building my new pc and i have a few questions about OS's. Firstly i have pretty much chosen that i am going to just buy windows XP. I am open to use new software so i would be willing to try linux but 99.9% of PC's that will be interfacing with my network will be Windows. Will any issues be raised by using Linux or something else? In the most likely scenario that i will be using XP should i get a 64bit version or a 32bit? The CPU i have bought is a AMD athlon 64 3800+. I have heard there are alot of bugs with the 64bit version but i would like to use the CPU to its full potential. And last and definetly least, Vista. Is there much point. Personaly im thinking to wait till SP1 before i invest in the "WOW" Regards Inafinus
If you have XP, only get 32Bit, driver support for Xp64 is very spare, Vista 64bit supports most 32 bit drivers and has more compatibility. There's not a lot wrong with Vista, remember it's a 5 year investment. The price isn't going to drop for a while.
So you would recomend windows XP-32bit. Gotcha'. I would like to get vista but i dont think it will be in my budget either. Does anyone recomend anywhere too get XP at a resonable price?
You could probably afford an OEM version of Vista - around £70 for Premium. As for reasonable prices, check out bit-tech's very own shopping section! Personally I'd purchase 64-bit Vista in your situation, as your hardware will be new and most likely supported by Vista. Plus the fact that you intend on purchasing it in the future anyway.
Avoid Vista untill SP1 if you can. It runs considerably slower than XPSP2, and still has issues with random crashes and general instability. Basicly it's not complete yet. It probably won't be until SP1 and until 3rd party drivers mature.
best idea is to use the Vista 30-day trial to see if you encounter any major issues. If you don't encounter issues and like it, then you can get it; if not, then you can just get a copy of XP for the moment. [edit] Far too many people asking if it's worth it forget about the 30-day trial; why not see for yourself if it works? [edit]
Because it runs slower than XP SP2 and theres no actual reason to have it besides DX10, which isn't out yet
Mine isn't slower than XP, In fact, its slightly faster. Mostly it seems to be different for each system, so it makes more sense for someone wondering where to put their money to have a look at the options first. Best analogy I can give is that its like test-driving a car, see if it works for you before passing judgment.
I know plenty of people running Vista who don't have a problem with it, and many of them have commented that it's quite a bit faster than XP (possibly only after they've 'tweaked' it a bit, granted )
Nope, not faster than XPSP2. Plenty of proof of that taken from side by side brand new installs. Theres a lot of people who find it faster than their XP install was, but those XP installs are often 2-3 years old, so of course they're sluggish. There are tonnes of benchies out though, non-subjective data, that shows that vista is slower than XPSP2.
I know it's slower in the majority of benching synthetics, it's also slower in many(from what I've read I'd say most) games. Not sure about the heavy duty work apps.
everything I've read about says that the game slowdown (when it shows) is something to do with DX 9.0L (legacy) and should easily be fixable with a patch.
I don't see why that would affect benchmarking programs though. Not to mention theres still general instabiliity(possibly driver based, but the end result is the same for the user). I'm not out to hate Vista, I'm sure it'll eventually be as good an OS as XP SP2 is, I just don't think theres any reason for people to be adopting it yet - especially given its performance and stability(For some, not all people) issues.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but synthetic benchmarks are all about e-penis length, and nothing about real world performance. My Linux system would probably suck donkeyballs in synthetic benchies, but it owns (and that is by a large margin) most usable XP installs in real world snappyness and speed of execution. I'd be surprised if it would be slower in I/O intensive applications (due to the caching), and in general due to the improved (it was hard to get worse...) memory management. The eye candy is handled by the GFX card (which will probably explain the 'slowdown' in games, the OS desktop is in the GFX memory). Of course, that's based upon what I read, and logic. I won't come near Windows if I don't have to. And how much does the user notice really notice of the slowdown? Nobody notices the difference between 1 and 1,5 seconds load time. As an old Linux saying "A Windows user spends 1/3rd of it's life sleeping, 1/3rd working, and 1/3rd waiting" Spec, I think you are following (or at least reading articles from) the guy that bashed XP until the day Vista came out, and now just moved on to Vista.
I'm not sure to whom you refer to be honest. I've got about 25 tech sites in my bookmarks folder for them, and I tend to read articles on vista wherever and whenever i feel like it(just explaining here). I agree that synthetics are for e-peenorz, but if they're slower they're slower for a reason. I don't believe that only synthetic tests could be slower because of an OS and absolutely no other apps - it's just synthetics were one of the things I know has been tested as slower. As for games, as an example, I saw some SupCom benchies done on various computers, but always on both Vista 32 and XP SP2 - in every one Vista had significantly higher RAM usage, noticably higher processer usage, and significantly lower performance in game. To re-iterate, I'm not out to bash Vista. I like XP SP2, and I won't hate an OS just because it's made by the wrong group. I'm just going on what I've read, and the conversations I've had with people tried vista as a main OS for a while. It simply doesn't seem like a worthwhile OS to me, yet.
Well, I actually like it that Vista actually uses the RAM you pay for, so RAM usage should be higher. I don't know why you would 90% of your RAM free? you should have bought less then... CPU power wise, Vista is built to last, and in 1 year the technology will be on par, and the CPU will idle like it did on XP (again, something that barely happens on my system, CPU is there to work ). Lower Game performance, well, that's easy. Install the versions of the drivers that were released the day XP was released on your system. I bet you that your gaming will be slower then it is now on Vista, even if you run your SP2 (with the old drivers) compared to Vista freshly released. Now, that being said, you'd think (if I were a gamer) I'd go for XP, given the lower performance of Vista. BUT, in a couple of months bugfixes will be released. Updates will be available, god forbid, DX10 will be out. There I'll be, with my fresh copy of yesterdays best... While I had the chance to buy it when I purchased my brand new XP copy. Just saying Vista might be slower now, but in a couple of months it'll be on par, and in a half year it will be better. If there is an instable driver, companies will push updates ASAP, it is bad advertisment otherwise... Why spend money 2 times? Why force yourself to reinstall in 6 months? I'd buy Vista now, and live with the "lowered performance" [which I still doubt you'll notice enough to be bothered about without actually searching for a reason to bash Vista] for the time being... ...if I used Windows
So programs I want to run can use my ram and perform better than if windows is hogging half of it....I thought a linux geek of all people would natively understand that concept. Wow? Really?!? Dude I know it will eventually be as good as SP2, I'm pretty sure I've already said that. What bearing does that actually have on someones OS choice for today? You seem to be thinking I'm out to say "never get Vista". I'm not, and I've made that perfectly clear. From what you yourself are saying you clearly agree that right now the OS isn't as good as XP due to various reasons(including drivers, which again, I already mentioned) - this is all I've been saying. As for timeframe, the rumourmills says late 07 for SP1, which seems a bit further away than "a couple of months" to me. The OS isn't as good, for now. One day it will be no doubt, but for now it's not.
