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.)
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.
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 ?
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.
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 %.
"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.