Windows XP or Vista?

[inshead]

Im currently waiting on my power supply to get here to put my new system together which includes the Intel i7 920, OCZ DDR3, etc. Ive been using XP and have yet to purchase Vista. My question is should I go ahead and purchase 64 bit Vista or continue using the copy of XP I have until Windows 7 comes out? I know for some of you its an easy decision but another $180 or so for OEM version isnt easy to justify after purchasing all this hardware.

 

[coopchennick]

I'd definitely keep XP until Windows 7 comes out then get that.

The only way I could justify getting Vista now is if indeed Microsoft will offer free upgrades to Windows 7, given you purchase Vista within a certain time frame (not quite sure what that is - if it's even true)

If you're going to get rid of XP, you don't want to spend >$100 just to use Vista for a few months.

 

[Outlander_04]

I have not bothered with Vista . Its slower , and a less friendly experience for the user .
Windows 7 seems to be all the things that Vista was supposed to be and is not .

PS if you buy Vista you dont need more than home premium for home use . The ultimate versions dont really include anything useful.

 

[paq7512]

If you are running more then 4GB of ram go with Vista x64, plus service pack 2 is coming out this month.

 

[frozenlead]

Vista is an excellent OS, if you do choose it.
However, in your position, I would only choose it if you need to use >4GB RAM. Otherwise, the money doesn't really justify getting it.

 

[geofelt]

With an i7 system, you are probably getting 6gb.
With 6gb, you need a 64 bit OS to see more than about 3.4gb..
I think Vista is better at 64 bit than XP.

Shopping tips for Vista:
1) Do you qualify for an academic license?
If so, you can get Vista at a discounted price.
2) Look for an upgrade version of home premium instead of OEM.
Upgrade is a retail version which gives you support from microsoft, unlike OEM(AKA system builder),
and allows a more hassel-free ability to transfer the os to a different pc(motherboard).
For $10, microsoft will send you the 64 bit DVD.
I saw Vista home premium upgrade recently at Costco for $85, amazon for $89.
There is a legitimate two step instalation process to install an upgrade version
You install vista from the cd, but do not initially enter the product code.

Just tell the install which version you bought, and do not activate.
After it installs, you have a fully functional vista for 30 days.
Step 2 is to insert the cd again, while running vista and then do an upgrade.
This time, enter your product code, and activate.
After activation. you may delete the initial version which is named windows.old.

3) Do you possibly need Ultimate? There are very few features that the home user would want.
Check out the differences on the microsoft Vista web site.
If you get a retail or upgrade version, you will still be able to upgrade to ultimate later.

 

[indigoataxia]

PS if you buy Vista you dont need more than home premium for home use . The ultimate versions dont really include anything useful.

You mean an extra $200 for Dreamscapes arent worth it?

Third for keeping XP. If you have more than 3GB of RAM you should get a 64 bit OS though.

 

[Why_Me]

I have Vista 64 on one of my laptops, and desktop, and Vista 32 on my other laptop and I like it. Windows 7 isn't due to be released until sometime in 2010. I would say it's worth the $100 to go with Vista 64 and enjoy the newer games that utilze DX10, not to mention I find Vista user friendly. SP1 has rid Vista of any bumps it had to begin with. And we all know how many "bumps" XP had when it came out...sans the reason it's up to SP3 now.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp <=== Vista sp1 vs XP sp3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116488 $99.99 Free Shipping*
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64-bit for System Builders - OEM

 

[Outlander_04]

Vista is an excellent OS, if you do choose it.
However, in your position, I would only choose it if you need to use >4GB RAM. Otherwise, the money doesn't really justify getting it.

Even the advantages of using a 64 bit OS is on shaky ground .

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264.html
is an article about what you get when you use more RAM.... and to cut a long story short the answer is:
A lighter wallet

Once you factor in that vista's application performance has always been slower than XP then there is no reason to buy vista 64

 

[croc]

Im currently waiting on my power supply to get here to put my new system together which includes the Intel i7 920, OCZ DDR3, etc. Ive been using XP and have yet to purchase Vista. My question is should I go ahead and purchase 64 bit Vista or continue using the copy of XP I have until Windows 7 comes out? I know for some of you its an easy decision but another $180 or so for OEM version isnt easy to justify after purchasing all this hardware.

Choice is yours. Personally, I'd limp along with XP for another 6 or 9 months, then get Win 7. But I tend to buy retail versions to eliminate hardware upgrade issues, so that may colour my opinion.

 

[geofelt]

Very few programs today are built to be able to use more than 4gb. Running a single instance of a 32 bit program can hardly be expected to show any benefit running on a system with more than 4gb. Where the benefit of more than 4gb comes into play is when several programs using up to 4gb are running at the same time.

Vista does have some other advantages over XP. For example, in the security area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Download and rad the latest report showing vista to be much less vulnerable than XP:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=aa6e0660-dc24-4930-affd-e33572ccb91f&displaylang=en

 

[inshead]

With an i7 system, you are probably getting 6gb.
With 6gb, you need a 64 bit OS to see more than about 3.4gb..
I think Vista is better at 64 bit than XP.

You are correct, I did get 6GB. I am aware of the benefits of a 64 bit OS over a 32 bit as far as just my reading and researching. Personally, however, I have not tried one over the other yet. I had originally planned to go with 64 bit Vista, rather it be Home Premium or Ultimate.

I appreciate the great feedback and will possibly look into getting the $99 OEM version of Home Premium listed by Why_Me. What would be another option of just trying out the Windows 7 beta? I know it is currently closed on the Microsoft site and have heard good things about it, but would this be a viable option for a main system that I will use to play games on right now?

 

[halcyon]

You don't know anyone that can let you try Vista? You don't need to activate it, you can just see for yourself. Don't they give you like 30 days?

I think it'd be worth doing so just for your edification. There's so many opinions, some say Vista is the worst OS MS has ever made, others, such as myself, are quite content with it. I think you need to test it yourself with your software and purposes.

...just my .01 cent.

 

[inshead]

You don't know anyone that can let you try Vista? You don't need to activate it, you can just see for yourself. Don't they give you like 30 days?

I think it'd be worth doing so just for your edification. There's so many opinions, some say Vista is the worst OS MS has ever made, others, such as myself, are quite content with it. I think you need to test it yourself with your software and purposes.

...just my .01 cent.

There is a coworker that said he would be willing to let me borrow his copy of Ultimate if I wanted, the problem is that I would more than likely want to purchase Home Premium if I did decide to go ahead and purchase one.

Dont get me wrong, I have used Vista 32 bit plenty and had no problems with it personally. I just havent used Vista 64 with a setup like I have now to see how well it performs.

 

[frozenlead]

Even the advantages of using a 64 bit OS is on shaky ground .

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264.html
is an article about what you get when you use more RAM.... and to cut a long story short the answer is:
A lighter wallet

Once you factor in that vista's application performance has always been slower than XP then there is no reason to buy vista 64

That's why I said if you need to use the RAM. For instance, there is a very noticeable performance increase when editing 1080p video with 4GB of ram as opposed to something lower, like 2GB.

 

[geofelt]

There is a coworker that said he would be willing to let me borrow his copy of Ultimate if I wanted, the problem is that I would more than likely want to purchase Home Premium if I did decide to go ahead and purchase one.

Dont get me wrong, I have used Vista 32 bit plenty and had no problems with it personally. I just havent used Vista 64 with a setup like I have now to see how well it performs.

If you just want to try home premium, use the ultimate dvd from your friend. When it asks you for your product key, leave it blank, and respond home premium when it asks what you bought. I think all the dvd's are identical, differing only in the product key which differentiates the feature set. You will have a full features vista for 30 days.

 

[halcyon]

If you just want to try home premium, use the ultimate dvd from your friend. When it asks you for your product key, leave it blank, and respond home premium when it asks what you bought. I think all the dvd's are identical, differing only in the product key which differentiates the feature set. You will have a full features vista for 30 days.

+1

 

[p00p00head]

In my opinion, it shouldn't have to be XP vs Vista. Instead, it should be XP vs Vista vs Windows 7 Beta vs Linux(probably Ubuntu or OpenSuse if you're new to Linux)

Windows 7 would probably be your best bet since it's still downloadable off of torrent sites and will probably last you until the retail version becomes available.

Linux could be a good option for you if you don't game but judging by your choice in graphics card, I'm assuming you do...so I'll just leave it at that and only mention Linux as a possible option.

As far as XP vs Vista, many people still actively buy XP instead of Vista so that right there tells you a little bit of the story. In terms of performance, 64 bit Vista with an extra 3 gigs of RAM over good'ol XP with 3 probably isn't worth the $99 bucks if you're going to replace your Vista in a matter of months anyways.

 

[halcyon]

I still don't quite understand the dislike of Vista, but I do admit that it does require a contemporary hardware configuration to run well, unlike XP. Shame on it. Shame on you Vista for not running well on 6-year old computers. The nerve of Microsoft.

 

[shortstuff_mt]

I still don't quite understand the dislike of Vista, but I do admit that it does require a contemporary hardware configuration to run well, unlike XP. Shame on it. Shame on you Vista for not running well on 6-year old computers. The nerve of Microsoft.

:lol: I agree. Most people still bashing Vista either haven't used it lately (since SP1), haven't used it at all (just "heard" that it sucks), or are trying to run it on old hardware.

 

[geofelt]

:lol: I agree. Most people still bashing Vista either haven't used it lately (since SP1), haven't used it at all (just "heard" that it sucks), or are trying to run it on old hardware.

For an interesting insight to this, google "mojave experiment"

 

[Outlander_04]

For an interesting insight to this, google "mojave experiment"

yeah lets talk about the "mojave experiment "

MS got a bunch of people to test the "new" operating system . Every day for a week or so the testers got told how much faster it was .
At the end of the week they got asked to rate the "new" windows .

Most of them commented how fast it was.

Then MS dropped the bomb ....... it was Vista all along .


If this is proof that vista is fast im Santa Claus.


What is actually proof of is that
1/ Microsofts marketting department is shameless
2/Tell people something long enough and they start to believe it
3/MS werent willing to actually benchmark Vista versus XP

 

[croc]

yeah lets talk about the "mojave experiment "

MS got a bunch of people to test the "new" operating system . Every day for a week or so the testers got told how much faster it was .
At the end of the week they got asked to rate the "new" windows .

Most of them commented how fast it was.

Then MS dropped the bomb ....... it was Vista all along .


If this is proof that vista is fast im Santa Claus.


What is actually proof of is that
1/ Microsofts marketting department is shameless
2/Tell people something long enough and they start to believe it
3/MS werent willing to actually benchmark Vista versus XP

Why don't you set up three drives, one XP one Vista and one win7 beta, load them all identically (Say, Office 2003, an AV, whatever else you'd normally use, including a game and Fraps...) then time them all with a stopwatch for time from post to fully loaded, time to open a word document, fraps in your chosen game, time to load that game and report those stats? I did just that, and XP is NOT as fast as Vista. Win 7 is a bit faster than Vista, but its still beta, so no real comparison can be made until it releases as retail.

Until you do the above, you are just spreading FUD.

 

[Why_Me]

I admit I don't use my pc much for anything other than surfing the net, and playing online games for the most part...but I never understood why people had it in for Vista so much. I remember when XP came out and a lot of people refused to convert to it. It seems to be the same thing with Vista. I haven't had any problems Vista so far.

 

[Outlander_04]

Why don't you set up three drives, one XP one Vista and one win7 beta, load them all identically (Say, Office 2003, an AV, whatever else you'd normally use, including a game and Fraps...) then time them all with a stopwatch for time from post to fully loaded, time to open a word document, fraps in your chosen game, time to load that game and report those stats? I did just that, and XP is NOT as fast as Vista. Win 7 is a bit faster than Vista, but its still beta, so no real comparison can be made until it releases as retail.

Until you do the above, you are just spreading FUD.

it would have taken far less time to just search on google for benchmarks ... and probably more accurate too since almost universally they say the exact opposite to you regarding XP and Vista

This is a quote from tomshardwares comparison of Vista and XP :

"Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space?

If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with XP."