Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Xp Vista or 7?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 5imp7y

5imp7y

    Hakker addict

  • Binrev Financier
  • 507 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA again....

Posted 24 March 2011 - 04:33 PM

Been playing alot of games latly, I boot linux 99% of the time, but if i wanna play some starcraft i totally need windows. I am currently Using windows vista. People keep telling me to use XP cause it uses less ram. Is all this true. I know it will use less ram, but will it work better?
Oh and i know all about WINE, but i dont like it, plus it is kinda annoying.
Thanks again
~5imp7y

Edit:
Forgot specs ^^
64 bit processors
6 gb ram
128 gb ssd
1tb hdd
nvidia geforce 460 gtx 1gb sli :-)

Edited by 5imp7y, 24 March 2011 - 04:35 PM.


#2 tekio

tekio

    5(R1P7 |<1DD13

  • Binrev Financier
  • 1,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Blue Nowhere

Posted 25 March 2011 - 12:34 AM

Your system is fine for Vista. What you're hearing is like saying Win98 is is better than XP because it uses less RAM. One thing to note: XP doesn't support DX10. If you've got a video card and game that supports DX10 XP will play faster (albeit DX9 only), but graphics are not as good.

EDIT: I'd highly recommend Win7 over Vista, though...

EDIT2: If you want to speed Vista up, all the snazzy Aero features can be disabled. When Vista is configured for performance the RAM usage actually rivals that of XP. IMO, the biggest improvement with Windows 7 is that Aero runs a lot smoother. Of course that isn't worth forking out $200.00 for a new O/S.

Right now the only thing keeping XP under updates was the surge of Netbooks a few years back (XP is ideal for these, IMO). XP is bound to hit retirement pretty damn soon. That basically means no more security patches at all. If there's a hole found, it's up to you to secure it when the O/S goes out of life-cycle. If you do choose the XP route, make sure it is XP Professional, not Home or Media Edition. One of the benefits of O/S deemed by MS to be a business product is that they're supported up to 2yrs longer than the "consumer" versions. So, even though Media Edition may seem to have all the bells and whistles like Pro, the Pro version will be supported with patches longer than Media Edition.

Edited by tekio, 25 March 2011 - 12:53 AM.


#3 5imp7y

5imp7y

    Hakker addict

  • Binrev Financier
  • 507 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA again....

Posted 27 March 2011 - 01:18 AM

Your system is fine for Vista. What you're hearing is like saying Win98 is is better than XP because it uses less RAM. One thing to note: XP doesn't support DX10. If you've got a video card and game that supports DX10 XP will play faster (albeit DX9 only), but graphics are not as good.

EDIT: I'd highly recommend Win7 over Vista, though...

EDIT2: If you want to speed Vista up, all the snazzy Aero features can be disabled. When Vista is configured for performance the RAM usage actually rivals that of XP. IMO, the biggest improvement with Windows 7 is that Aero runs a lot smoother. Of course that isn't worth forking out $200.00 for a new O/S.

Right now the only thing keeping XP under updates was the surge of Netbooks a few years back (XP is ideal for these, IMO). XP is bound to hit retirement pretty damn soon. That basically means no more security patches at all. If there's a hole found, it's up to you to secure it when the O/S goes out of life-cycle. If you do choose the XP route, make sure it is XP Professional, not Home or Media Edition. One of the benefits of O/S deemed by MS to be a business product is that they're supported up to 2yrs longer than the "consumer" versions. So, even though Media Edition may seem to have all the bells and whistles like Pro, the Pro version will be supported with patches longer than Media Edition.

Aight i think ill keep vista.
One more question, is it good, or even possable to install a 32 bit os on a 64 bit processor?

#4 tekio

tekio

    5(R1P7 |<1DD13

  • Binrev Financier
  • 1,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Blue Nowhere

Posted 27 March 2011 - 02:32 AM


Your system is fine for Vista. What you're hearing is like saying Win98 is is better than XP because it uses less RAM. One thing to note: XP doesn't support DX10. If you've got a video card and game that supports DX10 XP will play faster (albeit DX9 only), but graphics are not as good.

EDIT: I'd highly recommend Win7 over Vista, though...

EDIT2: If you want to speed Vista up, all the snazzy Aero features can be disabled. When Vista is configured for performance the RAM usage actually rivals that of XP. IMO, the biggest improvement with Windows 7 is that Aero runs a lot smoother. Of course that isn't worth forking out $200.00 for a new O/S.

Right now the only thing keeping XP under updates was the surge of Netbooks a few years back (XP is ideal for these, IMO). XP is bound to hit retirement pretty damn soon. That basically means no more security patches at all. If there's a hole found, it's up to you to secure it when the O/S goes out of life-cycle. If you do choose the XP route, make sure it is XP Professional, not Home or Media Edition. One of the benefits of O/S deemed by MS to be a business product is that they're supported up to 2yrs longer than the "consumer" versions. So, even though Media Edition may seem to have all the bells and whistles like Pro, the Pro version will be supported with patches longer than Media Edition.

Aight i think ill keep vista.
One more question, is it good, or even possable to install a 32 bit os on a 64 bit processor?

Yes. both the EMT64 (AMD) and Intel64 architectures are backwards compatible with a 32bit o/s.

#5 Afterm4th

Afterm4th

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 403 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:way up north eh

Posted 31 March 2011 - 04:55 PM

It is my understanding that vista and even more so with windows 7 will allow you to use your dual/quad core CPU at the OS level.

XP will obviously allow the use of dual/quad core processors but they will only be used if the application you are running utilitizes all the cores, the XP OS itself wont manage your processes/cores for you.


please correct me if i am wrong.

#6 tekio

tekio

    5(R1P7 |<1DD13

  • Binrev Financier
  • 1,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Blue Nowhere

Posted 31 March 2011 - 05:18 PM

It is my understanding that vista and even more so with windows 7 will allow you to use your dual/quad core CPU at the OS level.

XP will obviously allow the use of dual/quad core processors but they will only be used if the application you are running utilitizes all the cores, the XP OS itself wont manage your processes/cores for you.


please correct me if i am wrong.

I think it depends on the version of XP. Home only supports dual core. XP Pro supports quad, but will not support (or rather not take advantage of) i7, which is basically a quad with Hyperthreading in the desktop series or a dual with 4 threads in the mobile version. I'm not sure what the limitation of XP pro are (I think it's two dual core Xeons for workstation setups), but I remember some the versions of NT support like 16 CPU's, depending on the license.

I don't know about Vista with the i7, but I think only 7 takes advantage of the i7 technology.

#7 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 01 April 2011 - 09:12 AM

You could run Win7 smoothly with those specs. I would highly recommend against using Vista though.

#8 5imp7y

5imp7y

    Hakker addict

  • Binrev Financier
  • 507 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA again....

Posted 08 April 2011 - 08:24 PM

You could run Win7 smoothly with those specs. I would highly recommend against using Vista though.

I have had little problems with vista? Whay is 7 so much better?

#9 tekio

tekio

    5(R1P7 |<1DD13

  • Binrev Financier
  • 1,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Blue Nowhere

Posted 09 April 2011 - 12:35 AM


You could run Win7 smoothly with those specs. I would highly recommend against using Vista though.

I have had little problems with vista? Whay is 7 so much better?

Vista was horrible until service pack1. However, that addressed most issues with the stability of Vista's initial release. IMO, the biggest advantage of 7 is support for the i7 quad-core w/ hyperthreading. I see little reason for you to spend $200 to upgrade unless you happen to have an i7.

Edited by tekio, 09 April 2011 - 12:38 AM.


#10 Afterm4th

Afterm4th

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 403 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:way up north eh

Posted 15 April 2011 - 09:06 PM



You could run Win7 smoothly with those specs. I would highly recommend against using Vista though.

I have had little problems with vista? Whay is 7 so much better?

Vista was horrible until service pack1. However, that addressed most issues with the stability of Vista's initial release. IMO, the biggest advantage of 7 is support for the i7 quad-core w/ hyperthreading. I see little reason for you to spend $200 to upgrade unless you happen to have an i7.



7 is essentially vista with a modified kernel. its minimum suggested requirements are less than vista. This means that the os will run better on the same hardware than vista would.

#11 tekio

tekio

    5(R1P7 |<1DD13

  • Binrev Financier
  • 1,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Blue Nowhere

Posted 16 April 2011 - 09:54 PM




You could run Win7 smoothly with those specs. I would highly recommend against using Vista though.

I have had little problems with vista? Whay is 7 so much better?

Vista was horrible until service pack1. However, that addressed most issues with the stability of Vista's initial release. IMO, the biggest advantage of 7 is support for the i7 quad-core w/ hyperthreading. I see little reason for you to spend $200 to upgrade unless you happen to have an i7.



7 is essentially vista with a modified kernel. its minimum suggested requirements are less than vista. This means that the os will run better on the same hardware than vista would.

I've not done any bench-testing, but, yes the Aero runs a lot smoother on 7. But, with Aero turned off they're pretty close. That was my expedience anyway.

#12 bardolph

bardolph

    DDP Fan club member

  • Members
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 April 2011 - 10:12 PM

I've used both 32 and 64 versions of vista business - the 64 just devours RAM - it is almost unbelievable. And your only thought is - how do I get a ssd out of this !

btw guys could you suggest what I should do in vista to boost performance and make it more like 7 ?




BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!