Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Which Operating System?

Tags:
Last response: in Windows 7
Share
August 11, 2009 4:11:42 PM

I am currently building a new gamimg pc and have already picked out my hardware. I am not sure which operating system to go for and need help. This is my first pc i am building and there are no neccessity for microsoft office programs such as word etc. This is strictly for gamimg and would like to know what is my best option.

Components:
GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD5
Radeon HD 4870
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem
Western Digital 640GB 7200rpm

All advice is appreciated!!

More about : operating system

a b $ Windows 7
August 11, 2009 4:16:32 PM

How much memory do you intend on installing?
August 11, 2009 4:18:32 PM

right now 6GB which i can upgrade at any time.
Related resources
August 11, 2009 4:20:15 PM

xp 64 bit, or wait untill windows 7 64 comes out.
August 11, 2009 4:22:11 PM

You will want a 64-bit variety of some sort for the amount of RAM you are installing. If you are playing recent games then I would recommend installing Win7 x64 RC and then installing the RTM in October when it is released to the public. If you are uncomfortable using RC software then I would go with Vista x64.
August 11, 2009 4:29:34 PM

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!
August 11, 2009 4:34:50 PM

Basically what I am asking is can I use my already owned xp (if its 64 bit) and upgrade it with the SPs? Or should I go out and buy a whole new operating system? If so which one that will benefit me and last me for the future?
a b $ Windows 7
August 11, 2009 4:42:19 PM

FJunior225 said:
Basically what I am asking is can I use my already owned xp (if its 64 bit) and upgrade it with the SPs? Or should I go out and buy a whole new operating system? If so which one that will benefit me and last me for the future?




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.
August 11, 2009 4:47:17 PM

Scotteq said:
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.



Thank you very much. That makes sense.... I am gonna stem a new topic about if I go with vista 64, does it matter which version or can I just buy the cheapest one?
a b $ Windows 7
August 11, 2009 4:49:40 PM

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.
August 11, 2009 5:32:16 PM

Thank you again for your help... I greatly appreciate it... Im sure ill be asking more when I first boot up my computer and something doesnt work.
a b $ Windows 7
August 12, 2009 4:21:21 AM

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
August 12, 2009 6:00:54 AM

If you ask me i would totally go and get the windows 7 64 RC. if you ask me, windows 7 is complete, i have yet to see a bug. It's more stable than vista and as fast if not faster than XP in all of my games. since you have 6 gb of ram 64 bit will absolutely fly.
a b $ Windows 7
August 12, 2009 3:39:27 PM

+1 to getting Vista Home Premium(64-bit) with a Win7 free win7 upgrade. With the latest SP Vista is very stable. Just be aware, 16-bit apps will no longer run on any 64-bit version of Windows. For dos stuff, use DOSBox.

Getting WinXP 64-bit seems like a bad idea with XP being over 8 years old. It was also not made with multicore in mind as much as newer versions of Windows(Vista/7)
a b $ Windows 7
August 13, 2009 2:44:16 AM

habitat87 said:
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...

Your right, there are many legacy devices and programs that cause companies to stay with XP. My Media Center is XP as well(it works well that way and XP is what it was built for). Your point? 5 years after XP many companies still used windows 2000, why? cause it worked.

So, what does not work for me anymore? My scanner, but that stopped working when XP came out. Starwars Episode 1 Racer and Shadows of the empire(16 bit installers, if i was to make my own installer, the app it self is 32-bit and would run). Do i miss those? nah, if i want to i can dual boot XP, i have over 1000gigs of partitioned(the drive is short stroked, this gives faster speeds and access times.) space that could be used for that, but i have yet to need it.

As for multi-core, programs codes for it can generally see a good improvement(want to encode HD on a single core?).
a b $ Windows 7
August 13, 2009 2:16:34 PM

Then in that case, should I not still be running windows 98? XP killed as much(more) software as Vista did. To add to that, all the software i mention not working, will NOT work on XP 64 either since its a 64 bit problem. With 6 gigs the OP is going to need a 64 bit os. XP makes NO sense for 64-bit. The FREE win7 offer sweetens the deal *shrug
August 13, 2009 7:37:08 PM

If fjunior wants to take advantage of triple channel, then I see no problem with a 3x2gig setup.

I have been using Windows 7 build 7100, mostly for gaming and works just fine. I would just download the rc and then purchase W7 when it comes out.
August 19, 2009 3:10:03 AM

w7 rc is fantastic, so long all of your applications will work in vista, they will work on windows 7, but theyll be faster.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 4:19:37 AM

Quote:
but it's not out yet and it seems to have the same compatibility bs issue as Vista.


Ok... I'm tired of hearing this statement with nothing specific to back it up. What compatibility issues are you referring to? What specific hardware or software will not run on Win 7 that makes you keep repeating this same thing over and over again? Simply stating "Windows 7 has compatibility issues" simply isn't good enough anymore. If you cannot provide specific examples, then please stop repeating your opinion and stating it as fact.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 5:50:48 AM

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.
August 19, 2009 6:53:02 AM

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!
August 19, 2009 7:10:54 AM

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......
August 19, 2009 7:19:59 AM

You have not helped the OP with anything you have said in this thread. Stop trolling around arguing your blatantly pointless opinions at any chance you get.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 11:09:01 AM

Well, if you prefer one that works smoothly and doesn't have any problems, I don't see why you like XP. XP works great on a fresh install, but it seems incredibly prone to grinding to a screeching halt over time. Vista and 7 seem to hold their performance better long term.
August 19, 2009 11:42:41 AM

habitat87 said:
Actually no, all I asked was "How is the compatibility though". How do you know that isn't going to help the op?


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

FJunior225 said:
I am currently building a new gamimg pc and have already picked out my hardware. I am not sure which operating system to go for and need help. This is my first pc i am building and there are no neccessity for microsoft office programs such as word etc. This is strictly for gamimg and would like to know what is my best option.

Components:
GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD5
Radeon HD 4870
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem
Western Digital 640GB 7200rpm

All advice is appreciated!!


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 :) 
a c 209 $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 5:46:37 PM

aznguy0028 said:
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
XP 32 has nothing to do with tri-channel memory. If you have 3 x 2GB DIMMs (and if they're in the right sockets) the system will run in tri-channel mode regardless of what OS you use. XP 32 would only be able to access the 1st 4GB, but it would do so in tri-channel mode.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 9:25:12 PM

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

+1 on Win 7 x64.
Beware when running XP x64, not all products have XP x64 drivers, even if they have Vista x64 drivers!
August 19, 2009 9:31:33 PM

habitat87 said:
@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.

Who said I ever needed your approval? I was referring to the OP's post about his needs for gaming and you asked about compatibility. So i clearly asked him which games he would like to know that is compatible on Vista/W7. You haven't addressed DX9 over DX10.1/11, and he already has 6gb of DDR3, even if it's more expensive than DDR2, your comment isn't even legit in this case because he already HAVE THE RAM <<< keyword. Is it that hard to understand that you can't save money by something you already bought and have? You can only save money when you don't have the product and can find a deal for it cheaper than anywhere else. And Why would anyone run anything sub par than what the best can offer? If I have a 4870, I would not use DX9 if I am a gamer, that's pretty obvious and easy to deduce. Besides he already has the 4870, should he downgrade to a 8600gt? If i already have 6gb or ram, why would i use anything than that, or go with XP to use 3gb? That's 3gb being wasted.

I've been noticing all your posts resorting to ad hominems now. That is a logical fallacy my friend. I no longer have respect for anything you say nor will reply to you anymore. I run both Vista x64, and Xp 32. So I'm not one of those i love vista only boys. Do me a favor and don't reply to me anymore either. k, thanks.
August 20, 2009 1:26:23 AM

I would get vista home premium 64bit, with sp1, and 2, its acvtually pretty good, and plus you get the windops 7 upgrade coupon.
August 20, 2009 2:17:47 AM

What aznguy0028 said.
August 20, 2009 2:55:22 AM

Last post:

"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."

Layman term - in philosophy and logical reasoning, a fallacy is an error made by a person when they can't rebuttal the claims of another person and resort to personal attacks in an attempt to discredit the other person.

Keyword here is logical fallacy, as in philosophy, not fallacy as a general term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_as_i...


habitat87 said:
Funny, I meant it as a joke and your trying to take advantage of it?

CLOWN!

Now your just getting stupid...

Ironic isn't? Define fallacy.

Those are ad hominem attacks. Thanks and have a great day. I'm done with this thread.
August 20, 2009 3:10:24 AM

another vote for win 7 x64
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 3:35:53 AM

Or at least Vista x64 with a coupon for Windows 7. ;) 
August 20, 2009 8:12:23 AM

habitat87 said:
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.


Congratulations! You have now single handed caused more threads to be locked than any other user in recent memory! (And my 'recent memory' goes back to when Dr. Thomas Pabst owned the website!)


August 20, 2009 3:26:57 PM

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. :) 
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 8:02:17 PM

Quote:
(although it's not as good as people are making it out to be), Windows 7 coupon is basically Microsoft saying "sorry about vista" to the consumers (this is somewhat a good thing)


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.

Quote:
eventually XP is going to phase out but not anytime soon, 64 bit support (whether it's showing it's potential as of now is not the subject), gamers could benefit a little if they need the best possible setup (given they already have their hardware setup properly)


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.

Quote:
Larger memory support isn't really needed (Reserved for only the most intensive of professional app users, even till this day


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.

Quote:
not many apps, games or utilities are taking advantage of 64 bit.


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.

Quote:
64 bit gaming, LOL! Even with SIX GIGS of memory and 64 bit, 32 bit with only 3 gigs and traded hit throughout benchmarks.


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.
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 10:20:35 PM

I read your links. Unfortunately for you, they only continue to prove how truly useless you are and how little you add in terms of relevance to any discussion on these forums.
August 20, 2009 10:58:08 PM

I'd go with the suggestions to get Vista64 with the free Win 7 64 upgrade - my personal experience of XP 64 was one of driver hell, though this has probably changed with sp/driver releases. I've been running Vista 64 for about nine months now, so I dodged the release bugs and issues that initially gave it a bad reputation. I can honestly say it's given me no problems at all - all the hardware worked from the start and I haven't seen any program compatibility issues. Even the much hated 'UAC' just means I have to click 'OK' maybe what, half a dozen times a week? No big deal and the OS seems very stable, even compared to XP.
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 11:34:24 PM

Pun intended while killing two birds with half a stone, starving the trolls and pasting links with one arm tied behind my back. All while running benchmarks for a another respectable thread. I think that about covers it...


Wow, bet you feel like a big boy now lol
August 21, 2009 1:46:13 AM

Zoron said:
I read your links. Unfortunately for you, they only continue to prove how truly useless you are and how little you add in terms of relevance to any discussion on these forums.


"It’s not a Windows problem, though. Rather, that’s just how x86 architecture works."

I don't think our young 'friend' quite gets it.

Usual pattern for a thread when Habitat is posting... OP poses a question, gets a few intelligent responses. OP then poses a few more questions, and in comes Habitat, spewing his fud. OP leaves thread in disgust, the mods let the thread continue, on average, for 80 to 85 posts before either someone complains, or the mods just realise that the thread is no longer worth taking up server time.

@Habitat: You need to learn a bit about CPU arch. prior to posting your fud. My Sparc 11i processor is a 64 bit RISC cpu. My i7 processor is a 32 bit processor with 64 bit extensions. My XP 32 bit does not take advantage of the x64 features, so I can only 'see' 3.2 GB RAM out of my 6GB installed memory. My Vista x64 DOES make use of the 64 bit extensions, so 'sees' all 6GB. So, it is indeed a software issue. Is that simple enough for you?

@ randomizer: My guesstimate for the last thread locked was 80 to 85 posts. My guesstimate for this thread is under 70 posts...
a c 209 $ Windows 7
August 21, 2009 5:33:59 AM

croc said:
"It’s not a Windows problem, though. Rather, that’s just how x86 architecture works."

I don't think our young 'friend' quite gets it.
Umm - much as hab annoys me, here he's quoting a Tom's review article. And the quote is correct inasmuch as the inability for a 32-bit OS to access a full 4GB of install RAM really does lie in the standard Intel desktop architecture and it's use of address space to access devices. Memory mapped device addressing has limited memory sizes ever since the "640K RAM limit" of the first IBM PC and it's 8088 CPU (which had a 1MB address space).

64-bit systems work around this limit by assigning the I/O addresses to the high end of 64-bit address space, but that's not something you can expect of a 32-bit operating system. I suppose you could say that it's a software issue because the 32-bit operating system isn't smart enough to use 64-bit addressing, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

August 21, 2009 5:44:39 AM

A 32-bit desktop Windows OS can't address more than 4GB. Any 32-bit Windows Server OS can address up to 64GB of RAM. There is a limitation imposed on Windows desktop OSs since XP SP2 (ie. non-functional PAE) which prevents this because drivers that aren't aware of the extra addresses can cause problems. The problem in this case is the software.
a c 209 $ Windows 7
August 22, 2009 2:46:09 AM

randomizer said:
A 32-bit desktop Windows OS can't address more than 4GB. Any 32-bit Windows Server OS can address up to 64GB of RAM.
Ah, OK - that's a fair comment. Of course the OS doesn't do that single handedly - applications still have make API calls to swap memory in and out of their 32-bit address space in order to take advantage of PAE.
August 22, 2009 3:00:22 AM

Which was the problem with drivers. They didn't know what to do when handed a 36-bit address range and borked. Servers typically run generic drivers which Microsoft have ensured work with the extra addresses.
August 25, 2009 4:15:45 AM

I am currently building a new gamimg pc and have already picked out my hardware. I am not sure which operating system to go for and need help. This is my first pc i am building and there are no neccessity for microsoft office programs such as word etc. This is strictly for gamimg and would like to know what is my best option.

Components:
GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD5
Radeon HD 4870
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem
Western Digital 640GB 7200rpm

All advice is appreciated!!




OP has given his hardware specs, 6GB of ram, I7 920 processor, 4870 DX10 CARD,



To dog Vista(and roll the fud over to Windows 7) like in every other thread as hab always does, which he then praise's a operating system (XP) that is at best on its way out, and the 64 bit version is a joke, which given the age and the fact of it is a joke, XP 64 bit makes it a useless OS to go with given the OP's setup and the fact that he is using This rig for gaming which means if he plans on upgrading to the new ATI DX11 cards XP is not a very good choice for him.

Very simple choice, get Vista 64 bit with the free upgrade to Windows 7 64 bit, so the OP can take full advantage of all of his new hardware.
August 25, 2009 7:00:25 AM

croc said:
"It’s not a Windows problem, though. Rather, that’s just how x86 architecture works."

I don't think our young 'friend' quite gets it.

Usual pattern for a thread when Habitat is posting... OP poses a question, gets a few intelligent responses. OP then poses a few more questions, and in comes Habitat, spewing his fud. OP leaves thread in disgust, the mods let the thread continue, on average, for 80 to 85 posts before either someone complains, or the mods just realise that the thread is no longer worth taking up server time.

@Habitat: You need to learn a bit about CPU arch. prior to posting your fud. My Sparc 11i processor is a 64 bit RISC cpu. My i7 processor is a 32 bit processor with 64 bit extensions. My XP 32 bit does not take advantage of the x64 features, so I can only 'see' 3.2 GB RAM out of my 6GB installed memory. My Vista x64 DOES make use of the 64 bit extensions, so 'sees' all 6GB. So, it is indeed a software issue. Is that simple enough for you?

@ randomizer: My guesstimate for the last thread locked was 80 to 85 posts. My guesstimate for this thread is under 70 posts...



Gets my vote for post of the year... anyway I often wonder why Hab even comes into threads involving anything but XP....

I mean if you don't like something thats fine but to willingly throw yourself under the bus like that...

To the OP I fully endorse putting Windows 7 64 bit on a fresh build.

Remember in the future if you decide to upgrade going from 32 bit to 64 bit means a complete wipe and not just an upgrade... Better to just bite the bullet now and get it out of the way on a fresh build. Makes saving your data and migrating to a new machine or install so much smoother.

August 25, 2009 4:24:33 PM

JonathanDeane said:
Gets my vote for post of the year... anyway I often wonder why Hab even comes into threads involving anything but XP....

I mean if you don't like something thats fine but to willingly throw yourself under the bus like that...

To the OP I fully endorse putting Windows 7 64 bit on a fresh build.

Remember in the future if you decide to upgrade going from 32 bit to 64 bit means a complete wipe and not just an upgrade... Better to just bite the bullet now and get it out of the way on a fresh build. Makes saving your data and migrating to a new machine or install so much smoother.





^^^+1


I think the biggest problem and if this is a real problem or not is matter of opinion and not a real reason to dog a OS is I just had a clients Seagate 7200.11 750 hd die with no warning a week ago. When I bought several 7200.11 models for my own computers, one of the 640gb seagates I used for a Raid 0 setup died within two weeks of getting it from the egg, and his 750 gb died within 5 months, no warnings just died. I was lucky and sent mine back to the egg and went with a refund and got two 640 gb WD blacks, he also made the choice not to wait for the RMA from seagate on his drive but couldn't get a refund. He ordered a new WD 640 gb harddrive and It came in a couple of days ago.

I talked him into going with Vista 64 bit because he has a rig that can take advantage of it, E7300, 4 gb of ram. The only problem I have really had with Vista 64 or Windows 7 64 is that the Asus driver and software CD with install all does not want to work. I have to install each driver and software one at a time instead. Not a big deal to me, and really doesn't take anymore of less time to do so. He was stuck on XP to a point, heard a lot of bad things about Vista, however he is now very happy he switched back 5 months ago, and happy he took the time to learn the new OS. I also installed Windows 7 RC 7100 for a dual boot for him so he can get used to the new OS for a few months. He called me yesterday, and also said he wanted to upgrade to Windows 7 64 bit when it comes out.

As far as the issue that keeps getting brought up by hab and software not running on Vista 64 bit, well for myself I just don't see his point, and neither does any of my clients on there builds with Vista 64. Most of the time when they plug in new hardware if not everytime, Vista 64 and Windows 64 find the drivers for there hardware and installs it for them. I can even run old Sega games like Shadow run and Desert strike, Phantasy Star VI in Vista 64. Point being if you have 10 year old printers, scanners, hardware, etc, etc, you may find problems with Vista 64 running some things. If your like me and other who run Vista 64 and have upgraded your hardware in the last 5 years, chance's are you will have no problems with Vista 64 bit or Windows 7.
August 25, 2009 5:43:05 PM

Dual boot.
a c 401 $ Windows 7
August 25, 2009 10:54:25 PM

i'm using the windows 7 ultimate rtm 7600 build.runs games perfect..wow ,cod 4,and conan.
!