Xp 64 Vs Vista 64

[RevengE]

I am Debating on which OS to get, which do you think I should get and why?

 

[Deleted member 38767]

For the system in your specs - Vista. XP was never meant to be 64bit OS.

 

[RevengE]

Why do you say that? expand your thoughts

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Vista x64. There really is no reason to stay with XP these days. Vista is more stable and more reliable in all reality, and it has great support in x64 compared to that of XP x64. Not to mention that you have a rig more than capable to run it.

 

[RevengE]

Vista x64. There really is no reason to stay with XP these days. Vista is more stable and more reliable in all reality, and it has great support in x64 compared to that of XP x64. Not to mention that you have a rig more than capable to run it.

Okay. Can you dual boot xp with vista? I would Hope my system can run it LOL I have expensive stuff in her.And another debate should I get Vista ultimate or just home really what is the difference other than the huge price difference?

 

[Triprift]

Yeah you can duel boot your system can more than handle anything atm by the looks of it.

 

[RevengE]

Yeah you can duel boot your system can more than handle anything atm by the looks of it.

That would keep me from having to reformat as well im guessing? I have alot of stuff on XP pro that I do not want to lose.

 

[Deleted member 38767]

Why do you say that? expand your thoughts

When XP was coded there were no need and no hardware to run 64bit OS so they made it 32bit. Later on when the hardware and the need emerged MS just took good old 32bit code and retrofit it to 64bit. On other hand Vista was meant to have 64bit version so it was properly coded to be a 64bit OS as well as 32bit.

 

[RevengE]

When XP was coded there were no need and no hardware to run 64bit OS so they made it 32bit. Later on when the hardware and the need emerged MS just took good old 32bit code and retrofit it to 64bit. On other hand Vista was meant to have 64bit version so it was properly coded to be a 64bit OS as well as 32bit.

Hmm intresting, good input. I was leaning towards Vista 64bit anywise I want DX10 So what is the difference between this:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116493 And this:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116478 And last but not least:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116483

 

[Deleted member 3]

XP was never meant to be 64bit OS.

Considering Windows ran on 64 bit hardware since Windows 2000 I disagree with that statement.

 

[Deleted member 38767]

Home basic is... well the basic. You'll be better of with Home Premium. I've used Ultimate and Business and I didn't notice any difference. What Home Premium don't have are the advanced Back Up utilities. IMO Ultimate is overkill in most cases.

Considering Windows ran on 64 bit hardware since Windows 2000 I disagree with that statement.

How many 64bit capable Desktop System were there in 2000? There were no actual need for 64bit software util AMD released their 64bit CPUs.

 

[RevengE]

Home basic is... well the basic. You'll be better of with Home Premium. I've used Ultimate and Business and I didn't notice any difference. What Home Premium don't have are the advanced Back Up utilities. IMO Ultimate is overkill in most cases.

Okay so really if i picked up Business it would really have no disadvantages Vs Ultimate?

 

[Deleted member 38767]

IMO - no.

 

[RevengE]

IMO - no.

Okay. As for Dual booting what is the best way to do this?

 

[Perra]

IMO its an easy choice... i really don't see why anyone would choose vista over xp, vista is just bloat. What exactly makes vista better than xp? The only thing i could think of when i pondered about installing xp or vista the other day when i got fed up with windows 7 was Directx 10 and not even that makes it worth it.

I would actually have gone with debian if ati's linux-drivers were better and worked ok with wine but as it is right now, im sticking with xp.

 

[orionbg]

By some really odd reason Vista Business is slower than Ultimate?!?! I have tested them both! Mayde because of some services or something else but I prefer Ultimete over Business! If you don't need Ultimete extras get Home Premium! It has everything you need for a home/gamer system

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Each version of Vista has something that the "dumber version" we'll call it doesnt have. For example, Basic doesnt have media center but Home Premium does. Business on the other hand does not have media center but it has remote desktop support where as HP does not have remote desktop. Ultimate has everything. Basic also does not have Aero i don think.

IMO its an easy choice... i really don't see why anyone would choose vista over xp, vista is just bloat. What exactly makes vista better than xp? The only thing i could think of when i pondered about installing xp or vista the other day when i got fed up with windows 7 was Directx 10 and not even that makes it worth it.

I would actually have gone with debian if ati's linux-drivers were better and worked ok with wine but as it is right now, im sticking with xp.

And your the one that probably tried it the year it came out and hasn't touched it since. Vista has gotten a LOT better since its release and many people here will agree with me on that. I have been using Vista since RC2 and ive loved it. Never had issues with it. If you got the hardware to run it, then run it. Its simple. He has the hardware to run it. XP is old news. It is time for it to die.

Linux is shit when it comes to gaming anyway. Most of the people here game and really dont use Linux as a primary OS. If they do its for their servers or they dual boot.

Linux isnt worth my time and effort honestly.

@xRevengEx

The best way to do it IMO is probably have two hard drives. One dedicated for XP and the other for Vista if you wanna dual boot. Other wise, you will need to find a partitioning program so you can partition your XP drive from within windows and split it up so you can have both OS's on the same drive.

Whichever you decide to do, you will need to boot with the Vista DVD in the drive and make sure you install Vista on the non-XP drive (or partition). What i usually do so i dont fuck things up is i go into My Computer and label my hard drives for their intended purpose. (I have a Vista x64 drive, Win7 x64 drive, movies drive, and games drive all labeled as such)

 

[Haytch]

Perra has a point about Vista being bloated. But XP doesnt support DirectX 10.
If you want my advice, ditch them both and go with Windows 7 when released.

 

[Wile E]

IMO its an easy choice... i really don't see why anyone would choose vista over xp, vista is just bloat. What exactly makes vista better than xp? The only thing i could think of when i pondered about installing xp or vista the other day when i got fed up with windows 7 was Directx 10 and not even that makes it worth it.

I would actually have gone with debian if ati's linux-drivers were better and worked ok with wine but as it is right now, im sticking with xp.

Vista x64 is more stable, more compatible, and more secure than XP x64. So much so, that I actually dumped XP x64 in favor of Vista x64 Home Premium. It's an all around better OS.

 

[Deleted member 3]

How many 64bit capable Desktop System were there in 2000? There were no actual need for 64bit software util AMD released their 64bit CPUs.

Desktop, probably not many. Workstations, plenty. Though many got thrown away due to being ancient in 2000. Alpha has been 64 bit for ages (though Windows only supported 32 bit on it), Sparc same same story, POWER has been 64 bit for ages as well. Yet as far as I know the first 64 bit CPU supported by Windows was the Itanium.
The world is a lot bigger than just Intel and AMD and their x86 CPU's. Surely they're what everyone has at home, but the need for 64 bit software existed long before that in several markets.

Anyway, the point is that Windows has a place the workstation and server market as well. And in these markets 64 bit CPU's are(and were) more common. Hence I find it an odd statement that Windows XP was not meant to be 64 bit. Since NT4 ran on many platforms I'm sure they even had that in 64 flavor internally somewhere. At least it shows that the NT kernel is quite portable between platforms.

Besides, it's not that there suddenly was a need for 64 bit software on desktops when AMD released their Athlon64, in fact, there still is little need for it in most cases. Apart from it being nice that your OS can address more than 4GB without PAE most programs can't address that much.



As to the XP64/Vista64 question, I'd go with Vista, better driver support.

 

[Wile E]

Desktop, probably not many. Workstations, plenty. Though many got thrown away due to being ancient in 2000. Alpha has been 64 bit for ages (though Windows only supported 32 bit on it), Sparc same same story, POWER has been 64 bit for ages as well. Yet as far as I know the first 64 bit CPU supported by Windows was the Itanium.
The world is a lot bigger than just Intel and AMD and their x86 CPU's. Surely they're what everyone has at home, but the need for 64 bit software existed long before that in several markets.

Anyway, the point is that Windows has a place the workstation and server market as well. And in these markets 64 bit CPU's are(and were) more common. Hence I find it an odd statement that Windows XP was not meant to be 64 bit. Since NT4 ran on many platforms I'm sure they even had that in 64 flavor internally somewhere. At least it shows that the NT kernel is quite portable between platforms.

Besides, it's not that there suddenly was a need for 64 bit software on desktops when AMD released their Athlon64, in fact, there still is little need for it in most cases. Apart from it being nice that your OS can address more than 4GB without PAE most programs can't address that much.



As to the XP64/Vista64 question, I'd go with Vista, better driver support.

NT4 even had PowerPC versions.

At any rate, you are 100% correct about driver support between XP x64 and Vista x64.

 

[Perra]

And your the one that probably tried it the year it came out and hasn't touched it since. Vista has gotten a LOT better since its release and many people here will agree with me on that. I have been using Vista since RC2 and ive loved it. Never had issues with it. If you got the hardware to run it, then run it. Its simple. He has the hardware to run it. XP is old news. It is time for it to die.

Linux is shit when it comes to gaming anyway. Most of the people here game and really dont use Linux as a primary OS. If they do its for their servers or they dual boot.

Linux isnt worth my time and effort honestly.

I had vista installed up until a month ago, when i tried out windows 7, i liked 7, but it didnt like my hardware, everything crashed, all the bloody time. So i thought about going back to vista but decided to go back to xp instead and i can't say i'm missing anything from vista. Seriously, whats the big improvement that you need to have in vista that is'nt there in xp?

Now, when it comes to windows 7 though, that is a wonderful OS. That's what vista should have been from the beginning. I would still run the beta if the drivers for my hardware wasn't so prone to crashing.


Oh and the foremost point of me not using either vista or 7 right now is the dreaded "Display driver has stopped responding and has recovered"-message you get about 6 or 7 times before the whole thing BSODs on you... but not everyone gets that, so pray you don't if you get vista

 

[DrPepper]

IMO its an easy choice... i really don't see why anyone would choose vista over xp, vista is just bloat. What exactly makes vista better than xp? The only thing i could think of when i pondered about installing xp or vista the other day when i got fed up with windows 7 was Directx 10 and not even that makes it worth it.

I would actually have gone with debian if ati's linux-drivers were better and worked ok with wine but as it is right now, im sticking with xp.

Vista is faster and more secure than XP in almost every way. Also vista automatically has drivers in it for most hardware so that you don't need to install ethernet drivers for it. I'd say got for x64 vista since in my experience it is much more stable than XP x64.

I had vista installed up until a month ago, when i tried out windows 7, i liked 7, but it didnt like my hardware, everything crashed, all the bloody time. So i thought about going back to vista but decided to go back to xp instead and i can't say i'm missing anything from vista. Seriously, whats the big improvement that you need to have in vista that is'nt there in xp?

Now, when it comes to windows 7 though, that is a wonderful OS. That's what vista should have been from the beginning. I would still run the beta if the drivers for my hardware wasn't so prone to crashing.

Windows 7 is a beta so it is to be expected that it will crash and win7 is almost the same as vista is atm anyway.

 

[Wile E]

I had vista installed up until a month ago, when i tried out windows 7, i liked 7, but it didnt like my hardware, everything crashed, all the bloody time. So i thought about going back to vista but decided to go back to xp instead and i can't say i'm missing anything from vista. Seriously, whats the big improvement that you need to have in vista that is'nt there in xp?

Now, when it comes to windows 7 though, that is a wonderful OS. That's what vista should have been from the beginning. I would still run the beta if the drivers for my hardware wasn't so prone to crashing.

What version of Vista and XP? We are talking 64bit for both. The comparison is worlds different than 32bit XP and Vista.

 

[Perra]

What version of Vista and XP? We are talking 64bit for both. The comparison is worlds different than 32bit XP and Vista.

Ofcourse i am talking about 64-bit. havent used 32-bit in years.