shoudl i dual boot vista 64 and xp?

dt

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2004
520
0
18,980



yep, thats the only thing that i would say.

if everything works with vista 64bit then use it. no point of losing ram just because you hate vista lol.

this only applies if you have 4gb ram or over... if not then use vista 32bit or xp 32bit...if you have 3.5gigs of ram and a good pc then use vista. after a while it grows on you.
 

phantom93

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
353
0
18,780
DX10 is awesome, I have used vista for a long time but I was looking at Vista 64 and was wondering what OS i should use to fall back on incase I get a program that won't work with 64bit. I kidn of just wanted Vista 64 for crysis, get those extra FPS.

On xp, even tho i liek it I dont see a point in Overclocking, because games like crysis run perfect with DX9 High settings. (obviously depending on yoru hardware.)

So ill go Vista 64 and put my old xp back on.
 

Oh Snap

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2008
414
0
18,780
I've had a lot of issues with the Adobe CS3 products and Vista using Aero, so if you do any graphic stuff I'd recommend doing that in XP.

Maybe by the time Microsoft releases its next OS Vista will be more reliable.
 

phantom93

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
353
0
18,780
yeah, idk to me it seems like when XP came out, ppl didnt wanna go to it becuase of sort of the same issues. Im just gona stick with 32bit vista only atm thx for the info tho
 

phantom93

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
353
0
18,780
ill consider upgrading later then, the thing is my anti virus software isnt 64bit comaptible. And i payed for a yr so i dont wanna waste it
 

chedrz

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2006
290
0
18,790
I don't think I've had any problems with programs running in Vista x64. I had a few driver issues in the beginning, but those have all been worked out at this point. You'd be fine with Vista x64.
 

phantom93

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
353
0
18,780
I know my hardware is but I'm reluctant because I bought 1 yr of this anti virus software and it is not compatible with 64bit operating systems. Won't even install so I don't want to waste it. When I get towards the end ill upgrade.
 

ZOldDude

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2006
1,251
1
19,280
Save money on the extra ram needed to make Vista run -close- to XP and have all your programs run better than Vista...by just not using Vista.
 
http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2007/09/24/downgrade-your-vista-to-xp/

If you get Ultimate or Business versions anyway, XP is free for the asking (may have to pay S & H if you need media).

About 2,000 programs "work" (to some extent) on Vista32 (less for 64) compared to about 35,000 in XP. But performance differences can still be quite large. With both on hand, you can decide for yaself and since it don't cost anymore, why not ?
 

Shez

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2004
296
0
18,780
I'm not sure where all the Vista 64 hate is coming from. I've run Vista 64 for months now and haven't had a single issue with it. I've played all the old and new games without a hitch and having recently used a computer with XP, am really glad that I made the switch. Plus with the specs of your computer, you're not going to see any visible difference between XP and Vista in the majority of your applications. Heck, as more and more games come out with DX10 support why not just stick with Vista and forgot the hassle of switching back.
 


That just doesn't "jive" with real world benchmarks. That's not a knock on Vista, every new MS OS has been slower than it's predecessor on the same hardware. It's like having a 15 year old kid and a 8 year old kid and asking :which one is better at baseball ?" The older kid's body is more mature, he has had more experience, and he is undoubtedly stronger and faster. That doesn't mean I hate 8 year old kids and it doesn't mean that the 15 year old kid was a better baseball player when he was 8 years old than this 8 year old is.

Usually each new OS gave us something that made the trade off worthwhile. With Win2k for me it was "hot docking w/ laptops" for example.....otherwise I woulda stayed with NT4. Vista doesn't have that killer feature that makes people wanna take the performance hit.

One can easily look up the benchmarks and see that there is quite a notable difference on same hardware. The most recent post SP1 benchmarks I have seen showed XP SP3 finished a set of Windows benchmarks twice as fast as Vista. AT 2 GB, Vista picked up about 4 %.

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/11/28/winxp-sp3-yields-performance-gains-over-vista-sp1-again

Really nothing has changed since this has been written....

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.html#conclusion_ko_for_windows_vista

whatever gain Vista picked up w/ SP1 was erased by XP's SP3.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=6

"So, onto conclusions. Looking at the data there’s only one conclusion that can be drawn - Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows Vista SP1. End of story. Out of the fifteen tests carried out, XP SP2 beat Vista SP1 in eleven, Vista SP1 beat XP SP2 in two of the tests, and two of the tests resulted in a draw."

With MS offering two OS's for the price of one, I';d use a boot manger to hide one of the two installed OS's with say XP on a 16 GB C1:\ and Vista 64 on C2:\. I put a common swap and temp file partition on D:\ and then arrange the rest as works for the individual user. Then when Vista hits SP3 or more programs are written for 64 bit, ya can just wipe C1:\

Of course if you see no real difference between one and the other, at any point in time, you can wipe XP with no real loss since you didn't pay for it.

 

TRENDING THREADS