Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

New Gaming Computer - Vista Ultimate Or Xp Pro?

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
December 16, 2007 6:32:44 PM

Hey,


I am getting a new computer for gaming only, I will also be watching movies and surfing the web, I have configured all my computer components but I am still un sure about the operating system to go with.

My Configuration:

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
BFG GeForce 8800Ultra OC
4GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333Mhz
Asus P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi-AP
Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W
WD Raptor X 150GB, 10K RPM, 16MB Cache
Hitachi Ultrastar A7K1000 750GB, 7200 RPM, 32MB Cache


Vista Ultimate Vs. Xp Professional


Now it comes to choosing the right operating system, I've heard, and read that Vista gives "restrictions" if its not the correct copy? Or if your downloading? Is DX10 really needed? I Love the appearence that vista gives, but performace is much more important to me. On the TomsHardware Vista vs Xp charts Vista didnt do so well.

Please tell me which operating system would work best for me, My needs in this computer are mainly gaming, I would like to download music but I fear Vista will "restrict me" and if i use games thats are already one 1 computer will it allow me to play multiplayer? "Restrictions" is a problem for me because I think it wont allow me to play my games, idk help please? Also I fear does Vista invade my privacy? Knows wat Iam doing, tracks me?


I know my new gaming computer can support vista, but all the cons with vista is it really worth it? How much of a difference is DX9 to DX10? Also Anothe reason I'd like Vista is for Halo2, but I Halo2 is not a primary game, I mainly play battlefield2, and all my games dont require Vista only Halo2.


Help would be much appreciated, Please I need advice.


Thank You.
December 17, 2007 3:40:34 AM

I will vouch for vista and say that i've had nothing but good luck. My rig is pretty similar to yours. The nice thing is it recognizes multiple cores and resultingly runs super fast on quad systems. I was also a good little system builder and did my research to ensure driver compatibility.

What specific kinds of restrictions are you talking about?

Now all those nice things said...first of all, i'm not very knowledgable about software, i am much more of a hardware enthusiast. Second, it seems that for every fan of vista there are multiple people who loathe it. I chose it just for my rig to be a little more 'future proof,' as it seems xp is getting a bit old at this point in time.
December 17, 2007 11:31:08 AM

XP Pro! It will beat and b!tch slap Vista in performance any day! Your hardware is more than enough to handle vista but for pure game performance, go for xp pro. Look at getting a slipstreamed copy of the XP sp3 when it comes out to do a fresh install and you'll see a huge performance increase compared to vista. Only things vista has is DX10 and halo2, dx10 is overated and worthless right now, and halo2 is better on xbox and just a trick by MS to get you to upgrade to vista.

XP Pro all the way, but remember, XP and Vista 32 can only see 3gigs of that RAM, unless you go 64 bit, but that's a whole other story with drivers and weirdness and ****. I've had nothing but issues with the 64 bit XP, and vista 64 may be faster than normal vista, but still not as fast as XP Pro with 3gigs of ram. No one needs any more than 2 gigs anyway...
Related resources
December 17, 2007 1:31:42 PM

That machine is going to cost you a fortune, stay away from bleeding edge, go down one step and save yourself about 1/2 of what you are going to spend, the performance drop will only be about 10-15%.

Stay away from Vista and slow response time LCD's or you are going to get owned in gaming.

TC
December 17, 2007 2:46:56 PM

A recent UK magazine did a test with two computers, one an expensive High end Vista Rig built for Direct X 10 gaming and the other a cheap lower spec AMD XP system, with a last generation ATI card. The older lower Spec computer running DX9 under XP managed to outperform the expensive Rig playing the same games under DX10. Then they compared the difference in quality, but come to the conclusion the difference was small, not enough to warrant the expensive costs.

I have had first hand experience with Vista and DX10 and I can say with confidence the quality difference between DX9 and DX10 is minimal. I have played Crysis, Call of Juarez, World in conflict and Bioshock and I was hard pressed to tell the difference.

I have now removed Vista because of the stability problems it was causing and the fact that gaming is slower than XP even in DX9 mode. I now have XP running again and my games run as they should. XP gets the Jobs done quicker and more efficient despite it's age. XP is still very capable and many system manufacturers are still offering XP, which shows that system buyers still want XP over Vista.

Vista is Junk







December 17, 2007 2:58:03 PM

rayzor said:
The nice thing is it recognizes multiple cores and resultingly runs super fast on quad systems.


XP recognises and runs with multi-core systems
December 17, 2007 4:00:40 PM

There is one advice I can give you, go 64 no matter what because you have 4GB of RAM.

One thing for sure, you have a great powerful machine. I would tell you to go Vista but XP is still the best for gaming today, but for how long?

I am using Vista 64 and playing games (my card is an ATI AIWX1900) and work fine. The problems I had was more of my unstable overclocking.

I was part of the few who jumped on XP once available and the gamers was all againts it. Look at today, same story. Vista will be king and SP1 should help it too.

Why don't you install Vista Ultimate 64 trial and test it for a month? You will never know if you don't try it. That my best advise I can give you.

What do you think?
December 17, 2007 5:36:52 PM

quicsilver said:
Look at getting a slipstreamed copy of the XP sp3




XP SP3? Where can I get?


December 17, 2007 5:38:37 PM

LoneEagle said:
Why don't you install Vista Ultimate 64 trial and test it for a month? You will never know if you don't try it. That my best advise I can give you.

What do you think?


Where can I install the trail?
December 17, 2007 6:29:37 PM

You can not download a trial unfortunately but if you know somebody that have Vista, you can borrow the CD and install it (no activation please). The installation will be in trial mode.
December 17, 2007 6:54:47 PM

I've yet to see anyone seriously question the results firingsquad got in a detailed comparison between XP and Vista.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_...

Basically at this point there is a very small performance advantage for XP. When you get Vista you loose out marginally on performance but you gain dx 10 which, over time, will more than make up for it IMHO. Also as new Vista drivers come out the performance gap will no doubt close further and may well disappear.

If you have new and powerfull equipment Vista is a very stable and good OS. Better in many ways to XP.

XP is slightly faster in quite a few things and still has more universal compatibility.

Trendy copycats love to bash Vista. It makes them feel cool I guess. You are buying an OS to last you a few years. Vista will be the future. You watch. It's no ME.
December 17, 2007 7:11:38 PM

Quote:


If you have new and powerfull equipment Vista is a very stable and good OS. Better in many ways to XP.


I have decent hardware, maybe not the best, but Vista feels sluggish compared to XP. Having Powerful hardware does not equal stability either, as I found out with constant Blue screens and crashes when using Vista. Everyone is going to have a different experience good or bad when using Vista, but I hated .

Quote:
Vista will be the future. You watch. It's no ME.


Maybe, but like the ME of it's day Vista offers very little while being bloat ware.
December 17, 2007 7:16:08 PM

That why I recommand him to give it a try and he can decide by himself. Vista will kill XP one day like XP killed Windows 98 whern it was the OS gamer choice at that time. Everybody were not moving to XP because of ... same story again.
December 17, 2007 7:57:24 PM

I run Vista 64 and 32, I get no crashes really, no more than XP, not sluggish either. I have it on three machines. Zero blue screens, ever. All have two gig or more RAM. Others experience may differ.

I predict a great Vista experience for the OP, considering his proposed specs.
December 17, 2007 8:30:37 PM

Windows XP did face Critics True, but XP was a nice improvement leap over the older 9X based Windows system's. Vista is just Windows ME version 2, some nice features sure, but hardly a huge upgrade.
December 17, 2007 9:17:41 PM

speedbird said:
Windows XP did face Critics True, but XP was a nice improvement leap over the older 9X based Windows system's....



I have to call Balk on this one - The criticism against XP was *every* bit as vehement as is against Vista now. The system requirements were just as big a jump over 98, if not larger if you view it as a percentage over minimums. The Gamers *hated* XP. H A T E D And, speaking as one who adopted XP early as well - XP debuted with far less driver/device support, and was FAR FAR FAR less stable than Vista is today. No Bull: If a driver went in XP, it'd take down the whole system with it. If an application threw an error, it'd take the entire OS with it. And this happened a LOT. Now, if you have a lousy driver Vista takes a performance hit, you get weird errors, and stuff inside the OS may not work. But I'm telling you: In the 6 months I've been running it Vista has NEVER crashed. N E V E R I lived through early XP, and no rose colored glasses can change the fact that that mutha crashed almost daily. We just accepted it because that's the way things were at the time. If windows had a problem, it crashed. No pop ups saying there was an issue. No hints. Nothing but Blue Screen.

Vista at the same point in development is light years better than XP was. No doubt in my mind.

You're perfectly entitiled to your personal opinions and absolutely invited to use your best judgement. But know that everything you see slung at Vista today is the exact same garbage as was flung against XP then. Just different names.
December 17, 2007 9:31:37 PM

Xp Sp3 is just now reaching it's RC1 stage, will be a couple of months before it's out available to buy on shelves.

What I did, slipstreamed a beta sp3 XP cd, installed it on one side, then installed vista 64 on the other side, no other way to truly see the difference on the same exact machine within a matter of minutes of a restart.

Test them both, find out for yourself. Vista will one day be the faster of the two, and the more stable, but when is the true question. Not sure if knowing enough about my system makes me a trendy copycat to tell you my opinion XP is the OS to use for gaming, make up your own mind.
December 18, 2007 2:36:19 AM

Quote:
What I did, slipstreamed a beta sp3 XP cd, installed it on one side, then installed vista 64 on the other side, no other way to truly see the difference on the same exact machine within a matter of minutes of a restart.


With all of the patching and indexing and pattern learning (for the advance super fetching) that goes on in the first days of a Vista install I think I would hold judgment longer than that.

My Vista is smooth as silk and very snappy. More than my XP on the same machine. Some games and apps may be a little faster on XP but it's marginal. Stability problems and bad drivers and un-patched software WAS an issue in the early days of Vista but by and large they have been fixed by now.

As always, in businesses running proprietary software and demanding near perfect compatibility with deeply entrenched hardware and systems the uptake on Vista is rightfully slow. As it was with XP. Lots of businesses still use 2000, never made it to XP even.
December 18, 2007 9:31:00 AM

On a 4gb machine, 64 vs 32 bit OS will make NO difference in the available ram seen. It depends on the video card ram,( 768mb card = a little over 3gb usable).

only a motherboard that can do memory hole mapping or memory hoisting can get you the 'missing' ram back.
December 18, 2007 10:05:31 AM

sniffinpoprocks said:
On a 4gb machine, 64 vs 32 bit OS will make NO difference in the available ram seen. It depends on the video card ram,( 768mb card = a little over 3gb usable).

only a motherboard that can do memory hole mapping or memory hoisting can get you the 'missing' ram back.



Incorrect


In 32 bit Windows operating systems, the total addressable space available is 4GB. If you installed total 4GB memory, the system will detect less than 4GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as:

- System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..)
- Motherboards resources
- Memory mapped I/O
- Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
- Other memory allocations for PCI devices

Different onboard devices and different add-on cards (devices) will result of different total memory size. e.g. more PCI cards installed will require more memory resources, resulting of less memory free for other uses.

This limitation applies to most chipsets & Windows XP/Vista 32-bit version operating systems.

If you install a Windows operating system, if more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then the below conditions should be met:

1. The memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. The latest chipsets like Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, and AMD K8 CPU architecture can support the memory swap function.

2. Windows XP Pro X64 Ed. (64-bit), Windows Vista 64, or other OS which can address more than 4GB memory.



Note: According to the latest Change Log published my Microsoft, Windows Vista 32bit SP1 will display the installed amount of RAM. It is unclear at this point whether or not that memory will actually be available for use, or if it's simply change to the display.
December 18, 2007 11:07:22 AM

How am I "Incorrect"????
your first bullet says a memory controller which supports memory mapping must be used. Exactly what I said.

Video card memory IS the main factor in the total amount you will see.

And to quote my source: "By default, an all-64-bit PC will still have the standard big holes in its memory from three to four gigabytes. This is the lowest-hassle way to deal with the problem - just install more than 4Gb of memory, and live with the fact that your 8Gb PC with a 768Mb graphics card only actually has seven-point-not-much gigabytes of visible RAM."

here's my main source: http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

what's yours??
December 18, 2007 1:01:47 PM

sniffinpoprocks said:
On a 4gb machine, 64 vs 32 bit OS will make NO difference in the available ram seen. It depends on the video card ram,( 768mb card = a little over 3gb usable).

only a motherboard that can do memory hole mapping or memory hoisting can get you the 'missing' ram back.


In MS consumer level OS a 64 bit OS is a REQUIREMENT (one of several) for actually using more than 3 gig of RAM. You can install 4 on a 32 bit OS, it may show up in BIOS as 4, but you will only see 3+/- in windows.

If you meet all the other requirements such as CPU and chipset and enable memory remapping then if you use a 64 bit ver of XP or Vista you WILL see and use all of your 4 gig of RAM. I know because thats what I have, as do dozens of us here. This is all well diocumented if you do a quick search.

There used to be ways of getting round this problem on XP using PAE but it is no longer an option due to driver problems. It still works on some server vers of MS OS.
December 18, 2007 1:11:50 PM

Actually he was right but, here it is straight from the horses mouth(microsoft)"

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

"The chipset must support at least 8 GB of address space"
"The CPU must support the x64 instruction set"
"The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature"
"An x64 (64-bit) version of Windows Vista must be used."

these are ALL requirements!! So, you have x64 OS showing all 4gb? Great, then, without knowing it you have met the above requirements.

as for:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html
"The memory hole for IO still exists in the 64-bit world"
right from YOUR source!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windo [...] 64_Edition
does not even reference the 3gb limit/hole problem either way( it references the /3gb switch which is different)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223
again, no mention of the memory hole at all!! this is more of a basic into to the concepts

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
umm.. hello... this is talking about virtual address space(what an application can use) and again, is not addressing physical memory or the ratio of actual to what is seen.






December 18, 2007 1:20:03 PM

Quote:
"The chipset must support at least 8 GB of address space"
"The CPU must support the x64 instruction set"
"The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature"
"An x64 (64-bit) version of Windows Vista must be used."

these are ALL requirements!! So, you have x64 OS showing all 4gb? Great, then, without knowing it you have met the above requirements.


No, I did know it!

How did we get here? You have just echoed what I said. A 64 bit os is ONE of the requirements to use all 4 gig.

Above you said a 64 bit os would make no difference. It does make a difference, since it is a requirement.

EDIT: Most new enthusiast systems these days have 64 bit CPUs and MOBOs which support memory remapping. Certainly most NEW ones do and since we are addressing a choice for a new system we assume the other conditions without mention. This may be the source of the misunderstanding. No one is suggesting that a 64 bit OS is, alone, enough to fix the 3 gig/4 gig problem.
December 18, 2007 1:26:01 PM

Hi notherdude, Your right I know!!! I was counterpointing Scotteq and you posted in between me reading and replying.
December 18, 2007 1:28:34 PM

My edit above may explain how this misunderstanding came about:

Quote:
Most new enthusiast systems these days have 64 bit CPUs and MOBOs which support memory remapping. Certainly most NEW ones do and since we are addressing a choice for a new system we assume the other conditions without mention. This may be the source of the misunderstanding. No one is suggesting that a 64 bit OS is, alone, enough to fix the 3 gig/4 gig problem.
December 19, 2007 11:31:32 PM

Thanks for the info, I think i want to go with xp, ill upgrade to vista wen it become more mature.
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
August 31, 2009 10:07:13 AM

XP is best to go with because you don't need so much ram and memory for it so you will have even more memory to play your games which means smoother game play
August 31, 2009 10:34:49 AM

Thanks for that profound (and incorrect) insight, and resurrection of a thread that died 2 years ago.
!