- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,252
yeah Chris (long time no see man) I haven't heard of an install issue like that for a while now... what MOBO you using?
Vista or no Vista?
- Thread starter Sonec
- Start date
Just make sure you have minimum of like 4 gigs of ram to run it, i personally have xp pro. I like xp because of the compatibility with mostly everything but vista just seems much for user friendly and has lots more eye candy, so its really up to personal preference.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,253
2GB will run Vista fine...
~Gooda~
~Gooda~
I say go with Vista, it gets a lot of bad comments for no reason, most people who still comment bad on it bought it in the beginning, quit it and never really gave it a real try.
we have a computer with XP and one with Vista, i recommend vista more
-om
we have a computer with XP and one with Vista, i recommend vista more
-om
Yeah i use vista x64
Driver Cleaner Pro (google it) will best friend when problems arise.. it's usually always a driver issue (Alot of SB Products have problems with vista regarding driver issues)...
I would go the x64 route and get the 4gb and a quadcore cpu... things just breeze by it's amazing..
Oh vista also has a program called Super Fetch (google it).. you can plug in a flash drive to an extra usb port and it will use that to pre cache some of your programs.. vista does this well.. I chose this route over 8gb of DDR 1066 becuase i prefer to keep 2 open ram slots on my mobo(call it superstition).
Driver Cleaner Pro (google it) will best friend when problems arise.. it's usually always a driver issue (Alot of SB Products have problems with vista regarding driver issues)...
I would go the x64 route and get the 4gb and a quadcore cpu... things just breeze by it's amazing..
Oh vista also has a program called Super Fetch (google it).. you can plug in a flash drive to an extra usb port and it will use that to pre cache some of your programs.. vista does this well.. I chose this route over 8gb of DDR 1066 becuase i prefer to keep 2 open ram slots on my mobo(call it superstition).
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,253
i prefer to keep 2 open ram slots on my mobo(call it superstition).
Perfectly acceptable one at that. Filling all 4 DIMMs on your motherboard puts a lot of stress on your northbridge, and could require an increase in volts, which your stock cooling and/or motherboard may not be able to support.
It's more of a problem on AMD systems, but it's been known to happen on Intel systems as well, but not at such a large rate.
~Gooda~
![.[BORN]2kill](https://gravatar.com/avatar/7a920e218ce9eb00d195ea0ee4e646bc7931729ce2287f5f613432e52e0c7c37?s=96){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2008
- Messages
- 643
I am running Vista Ultimate 32-bit. I LOVE IT. It is leaps and bounds better than XP (in my opinion). Not everyone agrees and you know what? That's OK. Vista isn't for everyone. Some people are very comfortable with XP and don't need to switch.
Vista Runs games great if you have the necessary hardware. I am running a quad chip with 4 gigs of ram and some 7200 RPM sata drives. It screams for me.
Your mileage may very.
--born
Vista Runs games great if you have the necessary hardware. I am running a quad chip with 4 gigs of ram and some 7200 RPM sata drives. It screams for me.
Your mileage may very.
--born
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,057
TOO MUCH VISTA LOVE HERE!!!
Ok, so I am a cantankerous XP hold out. I hate Vista. I truly do. To me it's the difference between me having control over my system, or Windows having it. I want a operating system that does WHAT I TELL IT TO, when I tell it to, and nothing else. Vista does to much "calling home" and sending mystery packets of my data off over the ether to god knows where.
Personally ubuntu linux>windows XP>Vista. The only reason I run any windows product at all on my machine is that many video games won't run in Linux (all the source games run in linux with Wine and some tweaks).
I also hate all the flashy widget type stuff that Vista has. I don't need transparent menu bars, I would rather use that RAM for something useful, thank you. I know you can turn that stuff off, but it makes me cranky that it exists in the first place.
Of course I am a cranky old man, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I drive a 1991 Geo because it gets me where I want to go, and I refuse to buy something more expensive just because it has a couple more features. Toys and bells and whistles on my technology makes me angry, not happy. Simplicity makes me happy, so Vista makes me unhappy.
Ok, so I am a cantankerous XP hold out. I hate Vista. I truly do. To me it's the difference between me having control over my system, or Windows having it. I want a operating system that does WHAT I TELL IT TO, when I tell it to, and nothing else. Vista does to much "calling home" and sending mystery packets of my data off over the ether to god knows where.
Personally ubuntu linux>windows XP>Vista. The only reason I run any windows product at all on my machine is that many video games won't run in Linux (all the source games run in linux with Wine and some tweaks).
I also hate all the flashy widget type stuff that Vista has. I don't need transparent menu bars, I would rather use that RAM for something useful, thank you. I know you can turn that stuff off, but it makes me cranky that it exists in the first place.
Of course I am a cranky old man, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I drive a 1991 Geo because it gets me where I want to go, and I refuse to buy something more expensive just because it has a couple more features. Toys and bells and whistles on my technology makes me angry, not happy. Simplicity makes me happy, so Vista makes me unhappy.
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 23
In the past, this debate usually took the form of better gui vs. efficiency. Windows Vista does look better and comes with a few extra features, but early on it typically performed worse than Windows XP. Tom's Hardware did an excellent benchmark here.
However, after about a YEAR AND A HALF, the performance of Vista has been improved (mostly by improving drivers) to about the same as XP (sometimes slightly better). If you can stand the ads on the page, extremetech did a benchmark of Vista sp1 vs. XP sp3 here.
As a sidenote, dx10 is available for Windows XP. GET YOUR MOUSE OFF THE REPLY BUTTON and let me explain
Originally, the purpose behind restricting dx10 to Windows Vista was to force a new standard of GPU memory virtualisation that can't be done in XP. However, Nvidia had problems crafting drivers (ATI did it just fine) so Microsoft decided to make this requirement optional, removing the only barrier keeping dx10 from working on Windows XP. I'm not sure if I can post it on these forums, but the curious can search "dx10 on XP" and come up with some interesting results to learn more.
Overall, the only reasons to stay with XP are if you really like it and don't want to try anything new, really enjoy old apps not compatible with Vista, or run an older computer where every bit of system resources counts.
If you want a 64-bit OS the choice is even more clear, as Windows XP-64 bit is buggy and poorly supported. MS put it on the same development cycle as Server 2003 and has not indicated further development, leaving it with only sp2.
If you had written your post a year ago, you'd be receiving much different advice. However, as things stand now, get Vista.
However, after about a YEAR AND A HALF, the performance of Vista has been improved (mostly by improving drivers) to about the same as XP (sometimes slightly better). If you can stand the ads on the page, extremetech did a benchmark of Vista sp1 vs. XP sp3 here.
As a sidenote, dx10 is available for Windows XP. GET YOUR MOUSE OFF THE REPLY BUTTON and let me explain
Originally, the purpose behind restricting dx10 to Windows Vista was to force a new standard of GPU memory virtualisation that can't be done in XP. However, Nvidia had problems crafting drivers (ATI did it just fine) so Microsoft decided to make this requirement optional, removing the only barrier keeping dx10 from working on Windows XP. I'm not sure if I can post it on these forums, but the curious can search "dx10 on XP" and come up with some interesting results to learn more.Overall, the only reasons to stay with XP are if you really like it and don't want to try anything new, really enjoy old apps not compatible with Vista, or run an older computer where every bit of system resources counts.
If you want a 64-bit OS the choice is even more clear, as Windows XP-64 bit is buggy and poorly supported. MS put it on the same development cycle as Server 2003 and has not indicated further development, leaving it with only sp2.
If you had written your post a year ago, you'd be receiving much different advice. However, as things stand now, get Vista.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 616
This thread made me want to rant on the topic more, so rather than throwing a wall of text at all of you, I made a blog post about it on my site. Read it if you'd like to know more about my problems with Vista and Windows in general.
Fell free to rip my silly ideas apart in my comments if you like
.
Fell free to rip my silly ideas apart in my comments if you like
.
I like Vista, it doesnt give me a problem. The only problem I had with vista was my mouse didnt work properly with the Aero cursor pack so I had to use crappy XP's cursors 
But after SP1 it was fixed! No other problems except 1 free crappy game wont start (not even in administrator mode). No worries though.
But after SP1 it was fixed! No other problems except 1 free crappy game wont start (not even in administrator mode). No worries though.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 101
The vista does have some problems, like it won't run maplestory XD and a few other programs that's designed for XP. It does run programs from win98 and win95 much better than XP does (if you'll ever have to use that). Steam is vista-compatible so don't worry about that, so is vent, msn, skype and xfire. With the SP1 it rarely crashes. And if you think of 32bit vs 64bit, the 32bit can't handle more than 4Gb of ram, that's the biggest difference, if you ask me. Altho vista takes about 1Gb of RAM just to run, (vs XP's 256Mb), it's more userfriendly than XP, it takes a while to get into it but i love it!
