What OS Are You Using Right Now

[spearman914]

Currently on Windows XP 32-bit haven't tried Vista yet but I might skip Vista build a new rig till' a new OS will come

Try VISTA BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.....

Lol

 

[RadeonX2]

Try VISTA BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.....

Lol

how good is Vista 32-bit compared to XP 32-bit? well when I upgrade to 4GB then I'll try Vista... is Vista on 2GB would be fine for gaming? Crysis and Crysis Warhead was giving me a mild stutter on XP

 

[spearman914]

how good is Vista 32-bit compared to XP 32-bit? well when I upgrade to 4GB then I'll try Vista... is Vista on 2GB would be fine for gaming? Crysis and Crysis Warhead was giving me a mild stutter on XP

2 GB on vista w/ crysis is horrible. Benifits from vista 32-bit is DX10, superfetch, and much more fatures (thats about it). And one thing go with vista 64-bit for 4 GB's instead.

 

[RadeonX2]

2 GB on vista w/ crysis is horrible. Benifits from vista 32-bit is DX10, superfetch, and much more fatures (thats about it). And one thing go with vista 64-bit for 4 GB's instead.

I should stick on XP then
well I have superfetch on XP aka eboostr

 

[Melvis]

i play in 9, and its smoother than XP. i've never had any performance issues with games in vista... it was true in the early days, but the playing field is certainly level after SP1.

Ahh ok fair enough.

Hmm interesting, i have a m8 running Vista Ultimate 64 and from what ive seen he gets lower FPS in some games then i do, and with his system that shouldn't happen at all (E8400, 4GB 1066 RAM, SLI 9600GT's OC) and ive seen a few benchtests with vista and also seen it get up to 30FPS less in the same game when compared to XP, i was shocked it's such a big drop.

Also his RAM been used wile at idle after he boots up is 1.7GB we thought it must be just vista reading it wrong? or is this a true reading? i find that an insane amount at idle, compared to what i use around 200-300MB.

This is just what i have seen, and thats why i stay away from Vista.

 

[Ravenas]

Mac for everything but gaming.

 

[Mussels]

Ahh ok fair enough.

Hmm interesting, i have a m8 running Vista Ultimate 64 and from what ive seen he gets lower FPS in some games then i do, and with his system that shouldn't happen at all (E8400, 4GB 1066 RAM, SLI 9600GT's OC) and ive seen a few benchtests with vista and also seen it get up to 30FPS less in the same game when compared to XP, i was shocked it's such a big drop.

Also his RAM been used wile at idle after he boots up is 1.7GB we thought it must be just vista reading it wrong? or is this a true reading? i find that an insane amount at idle, compared to what i use around 200-300MB.

This is just what i have seen, and thats why i stay away from Vista.

what would you prefer - an OS that uses no ram, and loads things slowly as your HDD chugs away, or an OS that uses your ram and is responsive and fast.

Like all programs, it can simply drop them out of ram if you start a game... just because it uses it at idle, doesnt mean it uses it at the expense of other programs.

 

[Melvis]

what would you prefer - an OS that uses no ram, and loads things slowly as your HDD chugs away, or an OS that uses your ram and is responsive and fast.

Like all programs, it can simply drop them out of ram if you start a game... just because it uses it at idle, doesnt mean it uses it at the expense of other programs.

Well it doesn't really matter, because once you open a app, it remembers and stores it in ram anyway, so there for making it alot quicker to open the next time around etc, until you reboot the system. So unless you are saying that Vista stores every app you have on your PC in RAM when you load up ready to be opened fast? i cant see that been the case.

Yea that is true, im just saying that most PC uses now if they wanted to update to Vista, and run games on there PC, they will need at least 3GB of RAM or more just to do so. And most people still have a older system that wont even support this amount of RAM and or it is very expensive to buy and update the RAM in there PC. It makes the transaction to Vista a expensive upgrade for the normal PC users. And you might need a updated Video Card as well.

So does your system use that amount of RAM just after you boot it up at idle? I was just wondering really. When Microsoft recommend 1GB for Vista.

 

[Mussels]

Well it doesn't really matter, because once you open a app, it remembers and stores it in ram anyway, so there for making it alot quicker to open the next time around etc, until you reboot the system. So unless you are saying that Vista stores every app you have on your PC in RAM when you load up ready to be opened fast? i cant see that been the case.

Yea that is true, im just saying that most PC uses now if they wanted to update to Vista, and run games on there PC, they will need at least 3GB of RAM or more just to do so. And most people still have a older system that wont even support this amount of RAM and or it is very expensive to buy and update the RAM in there PC. It makes the transaction to Vista a expensive upgrade for the normal PC users. And you might need a updated Video Card as well.

So does your system use that amount of RAM just after you boot it up at idle? I was just wondering really. When Microsoft recommend 1GB for Vista.

vista loads itself into ram. It then releases that ram if needed.
Superfetch loads non windows apps into ram, to spread the love - that too i released if needed.

you can get 2GB of DDR2 ram for <$40 AU, so it better be damned cheap in the USA and other countries. if someone is trying to run vista on a system thats so old it cant take 4GB of ram... they really should upgrade. XP is 7 years old, and if they think a 7 year old system can run a brand new OS... yeah, they're gunna have problems.

 

[Melvis]

vista loads itself into ram. It then releases that ram if needed.
Superfetch loads non windows apps into ram, to spread the love - that too i released if needed.

you can get 2GB of DDR2 ram for <$40 AU, so it better be damned cheap in the USA and other countries. if someone is trying to run vista on a system thats so old it cant take 4GB of ram... they really should upgrade. XP is 7 years old, and if they think a 7 year old system can run a brand new OS... yeah, they're gunna have problems.

Hmm ok fair enough, interesting.

lol o yea i know DDR2 is real cheap RAM, even for us in Australia its cheap.
Yea i agree that should upgrade there PC if there running such a old machine that it cant even handle 2GB or more of RAM, and building a PC these days is SOOOO cheap compared to back then. Only thing is most peoples computers that come in that i have to work on are still using DDR1, and 90% are P4's there everywere, and we all know that the older RAM is more expensive, and that most of these machines have like a MMX 440 in them, so when they say i want to upgrade to Vista i say well umm you will need to get this and this to do so, then they say, O =/ ill pass then.

 

[Wile E]

Ahh ok fair enough.

Hmm interesting, i have a m8 running Vista Ultimate 64 and from what ive seen he gets lower FPS in some games then i do, and with his system that shouldn't happen at all (E8400, 4GB 1066 RAM, SLI 9600GT's OC) and ive seen a few benchtests with vista and also seen it get up to 30FPS less in the same game when compared to XP, i was shocked it's such a big drop.

Also his RAM been used wile at idle after he boots up is 1.7GB we thought it must be just vista reading it wrong? or is this a true reading? i find that an insane amount at idle, compared to what i use around 200-300MB.

This is just what i have seen, and thats why i stay away from Vista.

As Mussels pointed out, that ram is put to good use in Vista, and the OS frees up that memory if a program needs it.

And there is no performance loss in gaming. The early problems were attributed to drivers. The newer drivers perform the same on both XP and Vista. I do not have to change a single graphical setting in my games in Vista to get the same playability. The settings for both XP and Vista are exactly the same for me, and I ride the borderline of playability with my gfx card at my resolution.

 

[johnspack]

I can't vote because I don't consider xp32 to be a viable os. My os usage is as follows, XP64/XP64 on my raid array, Vista64/XP32 on my separate samsung f1 hd on my main computer. XP32 currently on my server, will replace soon with XP64 or Server200864. I only experiment with and bench with vista64, it sucks like 20% performance out of my system compared to xp64 Although much of that has to do with dx10, and especially aa. xp32 is much slower than either os, so I don't bother with it much.

 

[freaksavior]

I mainly use mac os x 10.5 for surfing and typing ps ect.

gaming i use my pc wich is vista ultimate 64

 

[spearman914]

what would you prefer - an OS that uses no ram, and loads things slowly as your HDD chugs away, or an OS that uses your ram and is responsive and fast.

Like all programs, it can simply drop them out of ram if you start a game... just because it uses it at idle, doesnt mean it uses it at the expense of other programs.

I rather be fast. Since RAM being used up does not mean slow (this is what people argue about) and like Wile E said if a application needs RAM windows will automatically free up cached files.