14 replies to this topic

[EVIL Shenanigans]

Simple question that i dont think has been asked for a while...I have a 32-bit home version of xp that ive been meaning to upgrade to a 64-bit for a while now; the Q being - should i go to Vista, or stay with XP (Not even considering Windows 7). And either way, should i go home, premium, professional?...probably not ultimate, but still....which?

Those interested in my computer in order to make a more educated suggestion will find the specs at the bottom of this page. Otherwise know that i dont do much more on it than game. My only stipulation would be that i still keep hearing of compatibility issues between Vista and older software...I'm a fan of several older games that are, even now, having problems through XP (though they didnt use to...im assuming this has to do with some recent software installed but I have yet to find the source). Then theres the lovely point of complications between my Motherboard and my OCZ Ram...bought two sticks that for whatever reason wont work in the primary slots...currently in the secondary running at a lower speed due to other complications between the manufacturers; the point being, if i were to go Vista, i'd probably buy more Ram to accommodate it and im honestly not sure if the primary slots will work with any other OCZ Ram which i would likely be purchasing. Anyways, i digress...have any other questions?...please ask. Otherwise, please suggest.

[WhiteRabbit]

XP pro definitely.

[DarkShadow]

there is nothing wrong with XP, until Windows 7 comes out its a fine and polished product that will get the job done.

[eRoC]

windows vista is the most useless piece of software ever released onto an optical disk.

[Aziz]

there is nothing wrong with XP, until Windows 7 comes out its a fine and polished product that will get the job done.

Have you heard anything promising yet???

[Stubs]

Well, i'm running Windows 7 right now and i have to say that it works very well
Windows 7 is much faster than Vista was on my PC, and everything is compatible except for Daemon Tools, which was easy to replace with Power ISO.
The only things i don't like about windows 7 are the start menu and control panel. It takes longer to get to the section you are looking for than it did in windows XP, and there is no option for an XP style control panel (yet)

[Chris82]

Not even considering Windows 7

Why the fuck not?

[EVIL Shenanigans]

Why the f*ck not?

Want to see what my computer can really do and i believe that the 32bit OS is holding back the hardware some. ...Not considering W.7 b/c i'll be joining the Navy in a few months and will rarely be able to use my computer for what it's made for, if at all. ...So, since theres only a beta out for W.7, i dont really wanna f*ck with it - im just wanting to try out a more advanced tried-and-true OS.

[Chris82]

Want to see what my computer can really do and i believe that the 32bit OS is holding back the hardware some. ...Not considering W.7 b/c i'll be joining the Navy in a few months and will rarely be able to use my computer for what it's made for, if at all. ...So, since theres only a beta out for W.7, i dont really wanna f*ck with it - im just wanting to try out a more advanced tried-and-true OS.

Okay, here's the thing though: 7, even in RC (not beta anymore) is just as stable and performs better than XP or Vista. XP's age shows well and Vista's incompleteness shows well...I really have a hard time using either XP or Vista after using 7.

But in any case, 64-bit Vista > XP

[DarkShadow]

But in any case, 64-bit Vista > XP

lol, 64bit xp> vista anything, there isn't a single thing wrong with xp 64 that you won't run into on another 64bit version of windows like vista.

[Chris82]

lol, 64bit xp> vista anything

Heh, that's funny Shadow, enjoy your archaic OS with less features and the same performance.

[DarkShadow]

what, like DirectX 10? which has no improvement in games? funny.

also a protip for your nub self, XP 64 runs on Server 2003 (best kernel Microsoft ever released).

[Chris82]

what, like DirectX 10? which has no improvement in games? funny.

also a protip for your nub self, XP 64 runs on Server 2003 (best kernel Microsoft ever released).

No, like native GPU-accelerated UI, advanced memory allocation/caching and indexing, an improved explorer window, a much better taskbar (especially in 7), etc...XP is shit.

And I know that your mindset is to stay on XP until it's so old that nobody supports it (lol) and then switch to Linux. Understandable. Have fun entering terminal commands and messing with settings for an hour just to get flash to produce sound. :)

[DarkShadow]

does that advanced GPU accelerated UI help in-game? No, Does that advanced memory caching bullshit do anything amazing? No, is Windows a UI for DOS? Yes.

Lets find some innovative features that Windows Vista still can't do/ can't do without help.

XML Registry, been promised since Longhorn(Vista) was in early alpha stages, increases Application speeds as well as improved Security.
Logical Service management, If I don't have a printer, Why is print Spooler service running? Wireless Zero config? really?
HD IO/s Optimization.
ability to load and unload drivers on the fly without having to reboot.

Vista Ultimate 64 is what, 5+ gigs installed, XP runs with 1-3gb at most without tweaking it up, all they've done is keep the same old code and change a few things here and there.

fuck you and your stupid UI tweaks of DOS, show some raw improvement and I would agree, but with XP vs Vista there is none, nothing but more resources for the same task.

I'm done, if I catch you mention anything related to Microsoft again I'm suspending you for speaking frivolous bullshit on these forums without proof.

[Chris82]

sounds like you're an idiot, don't shittalk linux because you don't have a fucking clue how to make anything work

Funny, I tried Ubuntu, Mint, and Debain, and none of them could successfully produce sound from flash (i.e. Youtube) without opening the terminal. I don't have a problem using the terminal but using it to do something so trivial really puts me off from liking Linux.

does that advanced GPU accelerated UI help in-game?

Actually yes, since Windows' UI improvements (like Aero Peek, unlimited transparency, animations, etc...) can be achieved without sacrificing performance that would use the CPU normally...and because whenever a fullscreen app is launched that makes DirectX calls, Aero is disabled instantly, any 'lost' performance is gained back. Either way, you can use the classic or basic or any of the thousands of themes made by users if you really care about retaining that non-existent 0.5fps that you wouldn't even fucking notice anyway.

Does that advanced memory caching bullshit do anything amazing?

Making programs launch and run faster the more you use them isn't notable?

is Windows a UI for DOS?

Funny since the NT kernal isn't based on DOS brah. But by your logic, GNU/Linux is a UI for Unix and OSX is a GUI for BSD.

XML Registry, been promised since Longhorn(Vista) was in early alpha stages, increases Application speeds as well as improved Security.

This does need to happen, but since that would require modifications of registry-using programs (at least to make use of the XML-based registry; I assume you see them implementing a hybrid registry to allow for XML-based entries while still maintaining a separate 'classic' registry to as to not break compatibility with older programs).

Logical Service management, If I don't have a printer, Why is print Spooler service running? Wireless Zero config? really?

IDK? It does that on XP as well and they're not difficult to disable.

HD IO/s Optimization.

Ok.

ability to load and unload drivers on the fly without having to reboot.

If you had actually installed Windows Vista/7, you'd know that is possible, that's exactly what it does with the ATi drivers. Other driver creators simply haven't done this yet and that's not Microsoft's fault; if ATi can create a graphics driver that requires no reboot, others should too.

Vista Ultimate 64 is what, 5+ gigs installed, XP runs with 1-3gb at most without tweaking it up, all they've done is keep the same old code and change a few things here and there.

It's called vLite bro. But I don't care. Why? I've got almost a terabyte of space, it doesn't phase me that a few extra gigs are taken up by Windows. Similarly to how I could care less about the fact that dwm.exe (Aero) takes up 21mb of memory. Why? I've got 4GB of memory. Nothing will use all of that memory. Not even GTAIV takes up all that memory when running. Sorry but software simply requires more resources as time goes on to accommodate new features. Why did XP take a lot more resources than 98? Because it had a lot of new features and a vastly improved UI. Why does stock Gnome take up less resources than Gnome with Compiz? Why does TF2 take up more resources than TFC?

fuck you and your stupid UI tweaks of DOS, show some raw improvement and I would agree, but with XP vs Vista there is none, nothing but more resources for the same task.

Again, it isn't DOS. And raw improvement? Seeing as how 7 is faster in all aspects than XP or Vista and accomplishes more (better UI, easier to use), I'd say your imaginary performance decreases are worth it.

but ignore me, I suck Steve Ballmer's dick for cash because a job at KFC doesn't pay well.