Which Operating System?

How much memory do you intend on installing?

xp 64 bit, or wait untill windows 7 64 comes out.

I have xp already.... not sure which bit (32 or 64)... I'm just looking for what is best for me in the future and trying to save money at the same time. I do not mind RC software, but like I said I am new to this whole process so will I be okay starting up my pc with no operating system and then downloading to RC software? Sorry if I am asking a dumb question!

Regarding the earlier post - With no operating system, you will not be able to reach out and download anything. You will need to download and have your discs prepared in advance.


The Release Candidate for 7 will be available until the end of this week from Microsoft. This version is good until May 2010, at which time it will shut itself down every two hours to remind you to purchase a regular licence.


Sooner or later, you'll need to buy a real licence. You can use Win 7 RC until the real version is publicly available in October. Or you can buy/use Vista 64 now - with a coupon for the free upgrade to 7 - and upgrade it later.

You can buy whichever version you like - For home usage, please use Home Premium unless you have the need to set up networking domains, encrypt your drives, or things like that.

Fjunior225,

If you wish to try Windows 7, you may want to hurry up and download Windows 7 RC while you still can. Come August 15th the Win 7 download will no longer be available. The Win 7 RC can be downloaded directly from Microsoft here: http://tinyurl.com/cwl3fs
Also, if you have worries about this process, Microsoft does have an official Windows 7 RC Support Forum located here http://tinyurl.com/9fhdl5 . It is supported by product specialists as well as engineers and support teams.

If you enjoy your experience with the RC version of Win7, you can now pre-order your copy of Windows 7 for a discounted price! For more information, see the Windows 7 Pre-Order offer page here: http://tinyurl.com/nldc8p

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

Sure, how is the compatibility though?

Yeah, because we all know how well multi core has gone so far...

Second, how about compatibility? I'm sure companies don't want to leave XP for a reason...

That is my point exactly. Most people tend to like an os that actually works with most of their purchases. Idk, that could just be me though. Who knows. *shrug.

If that works for you then no. The original poster should rethink about 6 gigs. 4 is usually enough for almost everything.

Tell me something, most people like to get a app or game here and there. For those who can use it, that's fine. For those who can't, use XP. For those where it doesn't matter but they like eye candy and don't really care about the speed of the os get Vista. I was impressed with Windows 7 but it's not out yet and it seems to have the same compatibility bs issue as Vista.

w7 rc is fantastic, so long all of your applications will work in vista, they will work on windows 7, but theyll be faster.

I said it's NOT OUT YET and it SEEMS to have the same compatibility bs issue as Vista. Vista compatibility isn't bs? Can you honestly say that?

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. I asked a person in another thread about it and he said he couldn't find some of the drivers. How does a current os that's been out for about three years still not have normal drivers for normal things? So, unless your saying that all those people that are complaining about it are lying then I can see where your coming from.

So, what your saying is that Windows 7 somehow has better support over Vista?

Where did I say that "Windows 7 has compatibility issues"?

Those links stated nothing specific... more blanket statements about UAC (which can be disabled anyway) and how older software wasn't designed with it in mind. However, that software can still and does run on Vista... but those links say nothing about Windows 7. UAC in Windows 7 is more configurable than it is in Vista. However, even with UAC, I haven't had any trouble running any of the apps that I've thrown at it.

But that's not really what I wanted. What I wanted to know is how your PERSONAL experience with Windows 7 led you to believe that it would suffer from compatibility issues. Posting a bunch of general links about Windows Vista doesn't do anything to answer that question.

Also, I wanted to know what specific software you came across that didn't run on Vista or won't run on Windows 7. When I say that, I mean software that doesn't run AT ALL. Software that can be patched or run in admin mode doesn't count as a "compatibility issue", as the software can run... just not necessarily out of the box. (As a lot of software has a problem with... most still need to be patched after they're installed). Whether you like UAC or not is irrelevant.

With any new operating system there is bound to be compatability issues. However, Vista & windows 7 will NOT have and DO not have compatability issues with any current software. Infact, I have programs designed for windows 98 running on my Windows 7 machine. Habitat, you cannot compare the intitial release of vista to what it is today.

You provide no solid evidence, and your information is complete biased bs. Your constant vista bashing is not necessary and disruptive.

WE ALL KNOW YOUR OPINION SO STFU!

Most patch work is solving issues residing in the program itself.

Exactly my point, bill gates said it himself, "ask me when we release the next version of windows." I dont disagree that vista had issues at the release. However, the current status of the OS is much more efficient and solid. Just like how XP sucked at the release and matured over time.

(I dont want to hear your BS of how a fresh install of XP runs better than xp sp2) Blah blah blah blah......

Actually no, all I asked was "How is the compatibility though". How do you know that isn't going to help the op? Could save him a lots of money since he doesn't actually NEED a new os if the one he is already WORKING PROPERLY. I've asked other people and they seem to say they have a bit of trouble.

Also, what your doing is trolling. I was just making a good point in the discussion.

And could you explain what my opinion was? I prefer an os that works smoothly and I know won't have problems. That's not an opinion.

Alritey, I will ask the OP what games he will be running since his system would be used strictly for gaming.

Hello OP, what exact games are you trying to run on this new system? I am currently using Vista x64, and I would say i have almost every new game out since i am a very avid gamer. I am also running XP 32bit on my 2nd system. Just state your games you want to run, and I will tell you if it's compatible with Vista x64 or not. This should address Hab's question about compatibility pertaining to your question about gaming on certain OS (xp,vista,w7) in 32/64bit mode.

To address Hab's statement about rethinking getting 4gb of ram over 6gb; the OP already has 6gb of ram and is using an i920, of course he would want to use the ram in tri-channel so XP 32 would be not make logical sense in that regard due to the lack of tri-channel support and and being unable to support >4gb. Also since he is gaming, Xp (both 32 and 64) have the oldest API (out of xp/vista/w7)which is DX9, so that would not make sense for getting the most out of his gaming experience. Vista & W7 will be able to run games in DX10/11. Clearly the OP's graphics card is a ATI 4870 which is capable of running DX 10.1/11 as i'm sure you already knew so using DX9 in XP would be a clear waste.

MY OPINION: In my opinion, i would recommend you to use W7, I've been using the RC with a dual boot from Vista, and it has been great imo. If you can no longer get the RC, then Vista x64 would be a solid choice. You could always upgrade to W7 later if you wanted to. SO THE LOGICAL CHOICE for the OP's needs would be either Vista 64 or W7

@aznguy0028

I guess toms reviews are full of it then going by what you say. According to their reviews, tri channel hasn't shown any benefits yet and anything over 3 gigs is unnecessary even for gaming and such. 4+ gigs was said to be reserved for intensive power users that are using all sorts of professional apps. This hasn't change in years either. They just decided to do a recent review to "refresh" people about the situation. If you need it then fine, you need my approval? LOL! Otherwise, isn't ddr3 expensive?
Then you are the same person asking why they purchased such and such video card when they should have nothing less then the best for what they need it for. That's just stupid, ignorance is only an excuse at this point.

@sminlal

He's just ranting for no reason. Must have been a Vista user at some time or another.



Have at it people...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a2zqRc1jvs

+1 on Win 7 x64.
Beware when running XP x64, not all products have XP x64 drivers, even if they have Vista x64 drivers!

I would get vista home premium 64bit, with sp1, and 2, its acvtually pretty good, and plus you get the windops 7 upgrade coupon.

Funny, I meant it as a joke and your trying to take advantage of it?

CLOWN!

DX11 isn't even out yet, and DX10 wasn't like all that your making it out to be....

He said he picked out his parts, what does this have to do with whether he has the parts or not? Could you show me where he actually said he BOUGHT the parts.

Uhhh, in some cases more memory can be a bad thing. Slow timing on larger sized ram, overclocking problems... Uhhhh, the list goes on genius. Of course you wouldn't downgrade on graphics but that's not really the same situation is it? Now your just getting stupid...

If you can't stay on topic and make sense, then you really shouldn't be posting.

Ironic isn't? Define fallacy.

So now your like some sort of prophecy that you can predict the future? I said that afterwards regarding your horrible incorrect post.

I quote:

"Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

Funny thing was, I didn't start the arguement, so that definition is incorrect unless describing yourself. Wasn't it you that got all confrontational and couldn't find fault with it? And for no reason I might add... Which in turn you couldn't find fault with which leads to your own fallacy that you were describing yourself.

I was just using facts from reviews and links while making side remarks as jokes. Nothing you should take personal.

And thanks dude, I knew what fallacy meant I just needed you make sure you understood this before I responded.

Or at least Vista x64 with a coupon for Windows 7.

Back on topic - Vista 64 has proven to be an excellent OS to game on in the (almost) 2 years I've been using it on my gaming PC. I've got a Windows 7 on pre-order simply because I want to stay up to date and it was a great pre-order price. If you're getting your hardware before the end of October, then I'd definitely vote for a Vista 64 OS so long as it comes with an upgrade to W7 free coupon.


By the way, to put this into perspective, I've also got an HTPC just converted from Vista 32 to W7 RC, a laptop running XP, stepson's PC runs Vista 64, other stepson has a laptop with Vista 32, and a digital photoframe running Windows 2000 - so I'm not biased, it's simply whatever's right for the task.

Pure BS. Free coupons were given to upgrade to Vista and I believe many manufacturers offered free upgrades to Windows XP as well. This is not exclusive to Windows 7 and isn't any indication of how good or bad Vista is... despite your misguided interpretations.

Windows XP has already been "phased out". It will no longer be sold after the end of January and it has already entered it's extended support phase.

Who are you to tell people what they "need"? If I decide I need 8GB of RAM in my computer, who are you to tell me that I don't? You have no clue what I'm doing with my computer... only I do... so if I say I need it, then I need it. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Covered this already, but it seems you completely missed my lesson. If there aren't many 64-bit capable computers in use, then it makes absolutely NO SENSE to produce 64-bit applications. After all, 64-bit Windows can run 32-bit apps just fine... but 32-bit Windows isn't going to run 64-bit apps. Once 64-bit achieves more market share, we'll start seeing more 64-bit apps.

Going 64-bit isn't about increasing performance. It's about making better use of the resources you have... especially if you have a lot of RAM. Even if you run 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, those apps can only make use of 2GB of RAM... this is why you're not going to see a dramatic increase in performance when you're running one 32-bit app. However, because it is a 64-bit OS, the app can be given any 2GB chunk of memory... so having more memory means you can run more apps with no appreciable slowdowns. If your game or app happens to be 64-bit, then it will be able to use any amount of RAM it needs.

Don't be afraid of 64-bit and don't let someone else tell you what you need. If you decide you want 6GB of RAM in your computer and want to fully utilize that RAM, then 64-bit is your only choice. You'll help 64-bit to become mainstream and force vendors to realize that they have to start gearing up for 64-bit or be left behind.