Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What OS? - New Mid-range system

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • Windows Vista
  • Windows XP
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
January 23, 2009 7:21:41 PM

I have not lined up all the specs yet, as I will propbably purchase the parts in ~1month and I anticipate things to change some. However, I would imagine the specs would be similar to those outlined in TH's Mid-ranges systems.

My question is... What operating systemt shoudl I use. I always assumed I would just stay with Windows XP as its what I'm used to and I've hear of entirely too many problems with VISTA but if there a reason I should go with VISTA I want to do that. Otherwise, I'll probably hang with XP until Windows 7 comes out.

Let me know... What's the consensus among all you exper computer builders. What OS are you using. I mostly do Office type work and of COURSE, as much gaming as possible. (WOW, Waiting for SC2 and D3 as well)

Thanks

More about : mid range system

January 23, 2009 7:28:53 PM

I believe the consensus as of now is to go with Vista. It has become vastly more stable with the service pack and the 64-bit version allows you to take advantage of all of the RAM that most of today's home builds contain. The 32-bit only supports 3gb.

IMO, go with vista...you can get a 64-bit OEM version from newegg for $99.99.
January 23, 2009 7:47:29 PM

Is there a lot of improvement with the 64bit over the 32bit versions? Last time I built a computer I actually got one of the first 64bit processors but no one supported it. :-(

It looks like pretty much all newer processors support 64bit now?
Related resources
January 23, 2009 7:59:58 PM

er...slightly confused...the 64-bit refers to the operating system. I didn't know that it was processor dependent, but my knowledge on the subject is limited.

To answer your question, yes, all of today's processors support the 64-bit OS and it is only $10 more than the 32-bit as far as I know.
a c 136 B Homebuilt system
January 23, 2009 8:06:14 PM

Stick with XP . Its faster and you already have it .

If you must have 4 gig of RAM then you need a 64 bit OS .... but even then it will still be slower than XP with 2 gig .... so IMHO 4 gig of RAM is just for bragging rights even in Vista 64 .
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/128551,does-faste...


The only downside of XP is lack of support for DirectX 10 which usually means no option to run games on "ultra high" settings .
Not something i care about since it makes a tiny difference and drops frame rates drastically
January 23, 2009 9:07:06 PM

Oh man, now I've got one vote for each one. That site you sent me to also had an XP vs Vista and Vista won their to, albeit by a very slim margin.
January 27, 2009 12:19:29 PM

I see something else now. I went back and looked at the OS they'e using on TH for their sytem tests and it looke like they're using Vista 32mb. Any ideas why? Maybe I should start looking more at Vista. If I do that how do I know wether or not the 32mb or the 62mb will perform better with my system?
a b B Homebuilt system
January 27, 2009 1:46:47 PM

If you're going to spend the money on Vista, get the 64-bit version for sure. There's no reason to go with a 32-bit OS on a new build. 64-bit Vista works great with both 32-bit software and 64-bit software. It's also already been mentioned, but a 32-bit OS can't even fully use 4GB of RAM and completely cuts off the possibility of adding more than 4GB in the future. I run 64-bit Vista and have been very happy with it. There's certainly nothing slow about it, and I haven't run into any compatibility or stability issues at all.
January 27, 2009 3:25:41 PM

Good to hear thanks for the replies. I'm definently leaning towards the Vista 64 at this point. Thanks yo utax return. :-)
!