Discussion in 'General Software' started by HiddenStupid, Apr 14, 2008.
which will slow down my computer?
I believe the answer is... both!
but, XP 64bit will take better advantage of the cpu and possibly the memory.... However there will be incombatibilities....
How exactly is that? Last time I checked Vista was the one actually utilizing RAM. XP doesn't do much with it.
I've never compared the two OS's myself but I've always heard that Vista is much more of a resources hog than any version of XP.
The definite advantage of any 64 bit OS is that you can put more than 3GB ram. 32bit will only read 3GB or 3.5GB.
man read before you write.... I never said that XP 64 utilizes ram.... I clearly said that it takes better advantage of it....check this http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878002.aspx
as for vista 32... well it consumes a lot more than any xp system i have ever seen...
I say it is more of a toss up. XP x64 will allow over 3.25Gb of ram to be utualized, and Vista is known to be a resource hog at times. If you are trying to figure out which one to use, my vote would be for Vista, then tweak it to improve some performance use this. I am a fan of x64 all the way, but the driver issues (or mainly just lack of drivers) for x64 XP is what is a big turn off for me.
Get Vista x64...runs great on my rig, sure it uses a hefty share of memory, but I got 4GB and it runs nice n' quick....running SP1, found no issues, incompatabilities yet! If you have an older scanner or printer, you may be SoL in x64 in the first place, but to me Vista x64 is better than x86! That's just my opinion though, so take it with a grain of salt!
Definitly Vista 64bit and if ya worried about the resource hog thing just use vlite.
vista 64 will be a little slower than 32 but at the same time it can utilize more ram and what not
Vista Without a Doubt. Though With More Than 1GB Of RAM Installed & With Some Visual EyeCandy Disabled, It Shouldn't Be a Problem. I'd Personally Preffer 2GB Min. For Vista To Run The Way It Should. While WinXP In Both The (32 / 64 Bit) Flavours, Will Run Smooth Well In Control With Your Current Setup.
I think with your 1.5GBs of ram that you should stick with XP, and you may as well stick with 32bit. 64bit wont give you any real advantage.
That being said, if you plan to upgrade to 4 gig then I would say go with Vista x64. It may be a resource hog, but it wont slow down your machine. It uses those resources to gain a speed advantage.
i run both, on two different computers. and the vista x86 starts-up a whole faster, mine is xp x64. and seems like it takes it about min for mine to load. my wifes computer is the one using vista and it's up and running in 30 or less
Xp 64 for sure... BUT checl out all your hardware that it has drivers for either OS's.
Vista 32bit don't bother go at least 64bit. I got Vista 64 bit free of MS and still don't use it as XP x64 was better to me.
- x2 4400+
- 3gig ram dual channel 2x 1gb stick - 2x 512gb stick
- x700 pro
Xp x64 is Server 2k3 with all the desktop services and features added back in. There is a huge advantage over the fact that it's more stable, faster, and doesn't rot like XP x86 does (get's slower the longer you use it, eventually forcing a reinstall).
Also, as to people's incompatibility statements, I'm assuming you've never used it, so far the only issues I've had is with my webcam, scanner and printer, which is the same with Vista x64, as x64 drivers are being released very very slowly for all of those.
I will however concede that boot-up times are longer than XP x86, but pfft, is an extra 10-20 seconds really that long considering the benefits of XP x64 over x86?
Ok , to start xp x64 is NOT XP, its server 2003 x64 in PRO mode, thus many of us from "the scene" (not that scene, the windows geek scene) call it x64pro .
Incompat issues are RARE these days, drivers are as good or better then the 32bit xp drivers, and far better then vista drivers.
Let me start by saing x64pro will allow you to access as much ram as your sysem can hold but will run FAR better on lower ram ammounts then any version of vista would, your very unlikely to find modern hardware u cant get x64pro drivers for, i have 1 item out of all the STACKS of hardware i own that dosnt got a driver an OLD webcam that came with my x800xt pe from asus way back b4 x64 os's where avalable.
I have found maby 4 apps that wouldnt work by default, all of them where easy fixes, one was doom3, it was just an MSI file that needed edited because Id fucked up and didnt add any os to the file other then XP, but if you know about doom3 u know u dont need the installer, just copy the files off the dvd to your hdd and its playable
Calling it XP x64 makes life more simple.
Yeah thats about the worsed issue i have had my self installers did not have the issue with doom 3 though. One app i remember was Area51 but as you say don't take much to correct as MS's Orca will solve that issue.
any app u cant get to install u just gotta ask for help on neowin or msfn or the like somebody will help, or google it, most cases theres already a work around, its been years since i had to edit any installer other then the at&t true voice installer that at&t refuses to fix(lazy fucks) i payed for the voiced then have to edit the msi to get them installed on anything above 2k
Just prefure to do it my self used this OS over 2 years now and still enjoy using it.
You said XP64 takes better advantage of the memory than Vista32. I just said it was vice versa, now how don't I read? The article you linked to is from 2005, so I won't bother reading it as it does not apply to Vista today as Vista wasn't even released back then.
Anyway, I believe this all comes down to my bad English, I for one don't see a difference between utilizing and taking advantage of. Same goes with consume in this case actually.
The reason Vista "consumes" so much RAM is that it caches things, once you require the RAM for something else it releases it. This is a good thing. XP simply doesn't use the RAM for anything. Therefor Vista utilizes the RAM better (or takes better advantage of it, whatever)
Also a bit of advice: Change your tone.
It is proven that if you have too much RAM it slows your computer down.
Mind giving a source for that?
It is a fact that win98 uses to crash at 512MB or more. And going past 4GB on 32bit via means of PAE slows down. But I don't know of any reason why having more RAM matters on a 64bit system. Not with the limits we have now anyway.
please tell me that there is not a hint of sarcasm in that......
lol haha a source.... makes the CPU work harder.
Also on a 64 bit system the limit is with your mobo and amount of power you have feeding it not the OS. Stressing your power causes unstability in all parts of your box. Vista with 3Gb RAM is enough for any person to use unless you creating 3d models on six different screens where i suggest you go look at Powermac with 16Gb RAM.
Windows 98 stops working after 2.0GHz CPU speed due to windows protection error, its coding does not support high powered machines. You have to pay for the fixes now GRR
heres the link:- http://www.freewarefiles.com/news/showarticle.php?articleID=10 read it
Edit:"Windows XP x64 is currently limited to 128 GB of physical memory "
I used it (xp64) for 3 years or so as the trial version, I only had 1.5gigs at the time.
If I were you, I would buy the 32, and borrow someones ultamate disk, then during install with the ultamate disk dont enter a cd key and select Vista (Version You bought here) 64bit. The same key will work if you select the same version in 64. I did this with my laptop (Ultamate 64 on my desktop Home Premium 64 on my laptop) from HP and used the key they gave me to upgrade to 64bit for free.
Separate names with a comma.