Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Is it worth buying Vista for a new build before Windows 7?

Last response: in Windows 7
Share
September 1, 2009 1:54:02 AM

I am in the process of building a new Intel Core i7 PC and am torn over what to do about the operating system. I would ideally like to use the new computer before October 22 when Windows 7 is released, but I would have to buy a copy of Vista in order to do so.

Is it worth my time and effort to purchase Vista 64-bit now and get the free upgrade to Windows 7 later? ... or should I just wait until October so Windows 7 will be a fresh install on my system?

September 1, 2009 2:28:22 AM

Most posters including myself, will tell you/recommend that you do a fresh install either way, so if you cant wait, then buy vista now, get the free upgrade coupon, which should get you a win 7 dvd when it comes out, and do a fresh install.

Score
0

Best solution

September 1, 2009 2:32:02 AM

dblakes221 said:
I am in the process of building a new Intel Core i7 PC and am torn over what to do about the operating system. I would ideally like to use the new computer before October 22 when Windows 7 is released, but I would have to buy a copy of Vista in order to do so.

Is it worth my time and effort to purchase Vista 64-bit now and get the free upgrade to Windows 7 later? ... or should I just wait until October so Windows 7 will be a fresh install on my system?


It all depends on how soon you plan to finish the computer. If you're ready to fire it up now, then buy Vista and upgrade later. Its not like Vista is a total disaster anyway, especially with all the updates that have been made since its initial release. Further, October 22 is nearly two months away and you never know if MS will delay it for unknown reason. Another reason to install an OS now instead of waiting until Oct. 22 is to verify that all the parts work while you can still easily RMA them if necessary. Many retailers have a 30 days RMA policy, which would be long past by Oct 22, so an RMA could be more complicated.

If you will be finishing your build sometime in October, you might then plan to wait it out. I plan to do an i7 build myself, but I'm waiting until after Win 7 is out before I start buying parts. That way everything will be done at once, no waiting for individual parts involved. But that's my plan, and you have your decisions to make. Personally, if you have the build started now, I'd buy the Vista and upgrade when the time comes.
Share
Related resources
September 1, 2009 3:13:06 AM

Well, you could just run Linux on it in the meantime. I like the SuSE distro myself. Linux has come a long way, but playing games through WINE still kinda sux :kaola: 
Score
0
September 1, 2009 3:39:44 AM

Thank you for the comments. I guess I will finish the PC build now and test it with either Vista or XP to make sure it works and do a clean install of Windows 7 later.
Score
0
September 1, 2009 4:22:33 PM

Boxa786 said:
Most posters including myself, will tell you/recommend that you do a fresh install either way, so if you cant wait, then buy vista now, get the free upgrade coupon, which should get you a win 7 dvd when it comes out, and do a fresh install.


That's probably the best route to go.

Option 2 is to use Windows 7 RC until it comes out on shelves, but that would involve having downloaded the RC already, since I believe that you can't download it anymore.

Or Option C is to run Linux in the meantime; maybe Ubuntu or SuSE, if you can live without Windows for the time being.
Score
0
September 1, 2009 9:58:29 PM

dblakes221 said:
Thank you for the comments. I guess I will finish the PC build now and test it with either Vista or XP to make sure it works and do a clean install of Windows 7 later.


I'd run Ubuntu until Oct. 22. Ubuntu installs in 30min max on a Core i7 including all software (Bittorrent client, Firefox, Office/Productivity, you name it) except for 3D graphics driver.

A proper Vista install takes 6 hours or longer if done properly unless you have slipstream media. First, driver installation. Then, playing in all the Microsoft updates and virus scanner offline (which takes gazillions of reboots and lots of time, maybe not quite so long with SP2 media). Then you need Firefox, OpenOffice, media players, Adobe Reader, Flash, JRE, IM client, etc. etc. etc. I don't think it's worth it for just a few weeks.
Score
0
a b $ Windows 7
September 2, 2009 2:01:17 AM

6 hours?

Absolutely not. On my computer, it took about 30min for the base OS, plus maybe 10min for drivers and another 20min for basic applications. It can take under an hour with a fast internet connection if you do it right, and should never take more than 2 hours.
Score
0
a b $ Windows 7
September 2, 2009 3:17:38 AM

^ 6 hours on dial up maybe.

Why not buy Windows 7 retail on ebay right now. Theres people selling their technet keys for $50-$100, each key is good for 1o installs so if you get one that hasnt been sold alot you can upgrade another PC or two while your at it.
Score
0
September 4, 2009 6:36:51 AM

Ya Im not feeling you there, I have installed vista 64 bit and 32 bit on lots of builds, ranging from Intel E5200 to there Quads, AMD's single core-Quads and even on a single core processor I have never seen more then a 2 hour install.

6 hours, man do you have like 10 games to install with steam accounts for each game?
Score
0
September 4, 2009 7:56:09 AM

My situation is very similar. I'm planning a new build and will most likely have it built by late September.

I ultimately want Windows 7 as my OS, so buying Vista w/ free Windows 7 upgrade (cheaper than Windows 7 upgrade alone) or the retail version are options. Another is to buy the OEM version of Windows 7.

I'm also considering using Windows 7 Enterprise Trial until Windows 7 is available and then doing a clean install.

There's still a lot unclear on how the various methods of installing will work. I found this article which helped.

http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/review_upgrade.asp
Score
0
September 4, 2009 11:25:31 AM

Everyone here seems to be forgetting one thing: Vista allows you to use it for free for up to 90 days using the license for the 30-day grace period. I would suggest installing whatever version of Vista you want, renewing the license after the thirty days to run Vista until 7 is released, and then bag yourself a copy of Windows 7 Home Premium.
Score
0
September 4, 2009 11:34:14 AM

120 days actually. 30 days then 3 resets of the grace period.
Score
0
September 4, 2009 12:37:37 PM

randomizer said:
120 days actually. 30 days then 3 resets of the grace period.


Ah, my bad. My brain isn't working today. I blame my lecturer.
Score
0
a c 209 $ Windows 7
September 4, 2009 6:12:48 PM

daship said:
Why not buy Windows 7 retail on ebay right now. Theres people selling their technet keys for $50-$100, each key is good for 1o installs so if you get one that hasnt been sold alot you can upgrade another PC or two while your at it.
To anyone contemplating this: this practice violates the Technet licensing terms and if Microsoft finds out about it they'll invalidate your key and you'll have wasted your $50-100.
Score
0
September 5, 2009 12:13:24 AM

Why would you even buy a key that you can only use 10 times? What a total waste of money. $100 to rent Windows 7.
Score
0
September 5, 2009 9:22:30 AM

randomizer said:
Why would you even buy a key that you can only use 10 times? What a total waste of money. $100 to rent Windows 7.


Its not a total waste of money. Technet and MSDN subs aren't meant for the general public, and the keys you get are more suited for Admins to test out the new operating systems and even include them into a network without buying a volume license key or separate physical copies.

My lecturer in college has a Technet subscription, and we got ten Widows 7 keys off it and installed 7 Enterprise on ten computers. It doesn't matter that the key can only be used ten times, we just clone the drives and can keep the activated installs for years.
Score
0
September 11, 2009 10:13:35 AM

As much as I hate Vista, did anyone think of the fact that by getting Vista now, you can choose between Vista or Windows 7? Not sure why you would want Vista, but having both is nice...

My initial comment would have been, if you already have an os, why do you need Vista? You can always wait for Windows 7.
Score
0
September 11, 2009 8:50:14 PM

Hmmm, gee, Idk, I've only had the RC and gone through Vista since the beginning, but silly me decided to try it with sp1 and guess what? Sure it was faster, but it was still Vista. Two years? You weren't around for the original release, so really how can you comment on such things with your proven ignorance? You said it yourself, I was just commenting with what you said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6qIETRCxbw
Score
0
September 14, 2009 7:59:48 AM

Put it this way, it has less support for games. And I know what your going to say. That's all I use my computer for. But seriously, I'm sure it's not anything you absolutely need Vista for. That's what's wrong with it. Initial released was a joke and it still hasn't given much more for a whole new os. What's wrong with Vista? It cost money, that's what's wrong with it.
Score
0
September 14, 2009 5:01:37 PM

It not Vista that sucked it was your 478 socket computer that sucked... :lol:  :cry:  Vista Rocks, Windows 7 is even better. Get Vista and the upgrade for 7 for you new I5 build, you will see... :hello: 
Score
0
September 14, 2009 10:16:38 PM

@medjohnson

You referring to me? I didn't install Vista on a 478, that's asking for trouble. Funny thing is, I can make an edcuated guess as of now that Windows 7 wouldn't have that problem... Hmmm...

What people don't see is that Vista was initially half of Bill Gates work of art. Microsoft took over during the time and decided to release it unfinished. This is why I refuse to buy or upgrade to anymore Windows products until they get their act together. Again, most people don't know this.
Score
0
September 14, 2009 11:31:11 PM

Yes we can all see that your in the know about alot of things, Oh yes thats right you could of downloaded the RC of Windows 7 free from MS and tried it for almost a year, so much for educated guess's and being in the know...
Score
0
September 15, 2009 1:25:01 AM

If gaming is all you use your computer for and you don't play 16-bit stuff you should throw XP away quickly. Vista is quite superior to XP for games, and Win 7 is marginally better again (negligible difference between the latter two).
Score
0
September 15, 2009 2:46:06 AM

medjohnson77 said:
Yes we can all see that your in the know about alot of things, Oh yes thats right you could of downloaded the RC of Windows 7 free from MS and tried it for almost a year, so much for educated guess's and being in the know...


Seriously, you need to change your way of thinking. Yeah, we all know that Windows 7 is free but is that point? No.

The thing is, I also knew about Windows 7, but why didn't I choose to use it, because honestly, I'm a hardcore computer user and realizes that XP does all I need, and is the fastest os to date so far. Yeah, I tried Windows 7 rc, the early version and I also tried the early version of Vista with the few thousand legit keys that went out in less than half an hour. But all in all, what has Windows Vista or Windows 7 actually offered the consumer over XP? Besides eye candy and a few nifty useless features, next to nothing...

Thanks for noticing my knowledge about computers, I'm truly flattered, but I'm a hardcore enthusiast and I'll be honest, I do a lot of research before I make a computer purchase and anyone that takes these forums too personally shouldn't be on here.

I just post here because I have a lot of extra time, learned a lot, it keeps me active in the computer knowledge thinking realm, and I can say for sure I've never given anybody advice out of opinion whether it went against my own personal choice.

For the record, Technologycoordinator should get some recognition because he's the only person I know that can keep it "somewhat" factual without offending anyone. And I"ll admit, I give better advice then TC, but he has a way that doesn't offend anyone, which something I'm just not good at.

No offense TC, but when it really comes down it, nobody likes the sugar coated version.
Score
0
September 15, 2009 7:57:02 AM

Umm, computer knowledge thinking realm, ahh yeah right, OK then... Theres nothing wrong with marching to the beat of your own drum, but blowing your own horn while your doing it. Once again = FAIL

I am not sure, should TC be thanking you for your oh so kind recognition? Once again=FAIL
Score
0
September 15, 2009 8:58:41 AM

TC deserves more recognition then you could imagine. Your one to say, after basing all your results on your AMD cpu. FANBOI! LOL! And that's the first time I ever threw the term out like that. So, it must mean something...
Score
0
September 15, 2009 5:22:42 PM

threednonsense said:
TC deserves more recognition then you could imagine. Your one to say, after basing all your results on your AMD cpu. FANBOI! LOL! And that's the first time I ever threw the term out like that. So, it must mean something...



And it looks like you have really given it to him.... Your the man. :whistle:  People who buy a I7 920 and put together a Intel rig and admit that the I7 and the C2duos are a good processor lines are no way a fanboy, so it must not mean much when you say it to me. :sleep: 

Further more I think Random summed it up for you about XP, Vista, and Windows 7. If you like XP better then the other, good for you, keep it, enjoy it, but your claims that Vista and Windows 7 are useless and offer next to nothing goes to show your knowledge level.

No problem, I did notice your vaste knowledge on computers in the computer thinking realm, and I can tell your a Enthusiast, and you research very hard before making the next big step in a purchase. Given what your processor and system is now, and your vaste research to date before a upgrade, I believe you will be hitting the lottery and will be able to afford to upgrade to the I9 when it is launched, that is if your still not researching into your next big perchase. I guess you should be as flattered my observation on your knowledge, as TC should be on your keen observation and comment on the quality of advice he gives.

BTW, one year I got my older brother a very good X-mas gift, they have them at Spencers at any mall you go to, they are called the "Big thinker condoms" maybe you should pick one up, they go over your intire head and ears, because when you are a big thinker like that, you have got to have some protection out here....
Score
0
September 16, 2009 12:12:04 AM

A fanboi has nothing to do with what system you have. Get it straight son...

Okay, would you kindly explain how most people would benefit from Vista? Cause all Microsoft did at the press conferences from what I watched was just tout it's marketing hype and "cool" features that really aren't needed at all.

Tell me how someone would actually benefit from Vista... It was a movement towards 64 bit? No, Windows 7 is the movement towards 64 bit. Vista was a step back with eye candy. Oh right, I almost forgot, for like one or two programs explicitly for a special professional user that could get it done on XP 64 as well? Give me a break... Or perhaps, somebody that's impatient that burns more than twenty discs a day. LOL! That one was funny.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. Stay on topic because I really don't want to have to answer the rest of your childish post and shut you down.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 12:30:58 AM

threednonsense said:
Tell me how someone would actually benefit from Vista...

If you play games, you benefit from improved framerate. While the difference is sometimes small, there are some notable gains in a few games, and considering this is a change of OS not a change of hardware it's quite impressive:

http://www.driverheaven.net/articles.php?articleid=137
Score
0
September 16, 2009 12:31:01 AM

threednonsense said:
A fanboi has nothing to do with what system you have. Get it straight son...

Okay, would you kindly explain how most people would benefit from Vista? Cause all Microsoft did at the press conferences from what I watched was just tout it's marketing hype and "cool" features that really aren't needed at all.

Tell me how someone would actually benefit from Vista... It was a movement towards 64 bit? No, Windows 7 is the movement towards 64 bit. Vista was a step back with eye candy. Oh right, I almost forgot, for like one or two programs explicitly for a special professional user that could get it done on XP 64 as well? Give me a break... Or perhaps, somebody that's impatient that burns more than twenty discs a day. LOL! That one was funny.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. Stay on topic because I really don't want to have to answer the rest of your childish post and shut you down.



Your comment on just use xp 64 over using Vista 64, and get it done shows just what a waste of a post you just put up. XP 64 bit sucks as a operating system. Vista 64 bit is were the support and a useful 64 bit operating system started. XP 64 bit was a joke, and still is as a operating system.

I believe Random already gave you not just one reason, BUT THE REASON young grasshopper.....time to move on :lol: 

Thank you Random, you just beat me to it, pretty bad when you have to post information, not once, twice..... and is there gonna be a third time. :pfff: 
Score
0
September 16, 2009 1:07:59 AM

And it wasn't even a good enough reason either... Given the fact that games are being held back the GPU more than anything, so how can you sit there and actually count it off as a plus? Yeah, it was a known fact from way back that Vista and Windows 7 scaled better at these really high resolutions.

Secondly, the only gains were mostly because it was all high resolution. You going to sit there and tell me 2560x1600 is the standard now? Even at 1920x1200 it's similar on most benches and that's still high resolution... Get your head out of your ass, it's clear at regular resolutions they are about the same...

So, back to the subject since not many people have 500 dollars to burn on that graphics card, and at least another 1,000 dollars on just the monitor. Could you please explain to me how this equates to the normal person? Let me make it a little easier for you. It doesn't.

Hmmm, Randomizer, you sure that site is credible? They used XP 64 bit... I thought that OS didn't support most games?...
Score
0
September 16, 2009 1:10:45 AM

Check the discussion thread for the article, he did say something about why he used XP 64, but I don't remember exactly.

Whether the gains were at high resolution or not doesn't change the fact that it is faster on Vista/Win 7. Crysis Warhead is actually only running at 1280x720.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 1:26:55 AM

Actually... That resulted in a 7 fps difference. That's counted as a neglible difference.

Okay, sure, it doesn't change the fact, but tell us something we didn't already know...

And I suppose 2560x1600 is the new standard then. I've been living under a rock...
Score
0
September 16, 2009 2:24:21 AM

Compare the DX9 and DX10 minimum framerates in Crysis Warhead as well. The average goes down slightly, but the minimum goes from 21 on XP and 24 on Vista to 32 on Vista. That is significant, not negligible.

In any case, you asked for benefits to moving to Vista, I provided one. You did not ask for a revolution. If you wanted that, you're looking in the wrong part of the forum. Revolutions (and even significant evolutions) are reserved for hardware. Software is always lagging behind.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 2:39:33 AM

At that LOW frame rate level, yeah, it's not neglibile, but that's mostly the gpu's fault if anything...

And I'll tell you why in a different point of view that's neglible. That's the lowest possible fps, and the fact that it's basically almost unplayable ANYWAY at those low numbers, it makes it technically neglible once again.

No, cause obviously gpu is a hardware issue... Unless your saying otherwise...

Hell, 10 fps can be loss during running fraps and playing the game at the same time. LOL!
Score
0
September 16, 2009 2:48:46 AM

Have you played Crysis? You don't need 80FPS for it, the game isn't twitchy. The reviewer also noted that the game was generally smoother in DX10, with a more consistent framerate. This is anecdotal evidence, certainly, which should really be backed up by a log of the framerate throughout the entire run, not just 3 bars. While I am not a fan of [H], their graphs which show framerate over time are very useful, although quite messy. this would have been quite easy to do had the reviewer taken the FRAPS log and pasted it into Excel...

Also, FRAPS does not lower the framerate unless you are recording (where it lowers it alot).
Score
0
September 16, 2009 4:16:08 AM

Sure, it doesn't need 80 fps, but that's a whole 50 fps difference...

Duh, this is also true for the most part when you turn up the quality settings on the graphics. You get a more steady smooth gameplay with decreased fps.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 5:22:00 AM

There is no 50FPS difference. I was talking about average framerate, not minimum. You must be crazy to think any modern game is going to get 80FPS minimum. You should stop playing games if you expect that; XP won't save you there.

As long as the minimum is around 30FPS or higher gameplay is generally considered smooth. How long do you think the game stays at the minimum framerate? If it was a long time then you'd see a significant decrease in average framerate as well. It is likely that it only remains at the minimum for a very short period, perhaps after an explosion and a mass amount of particles on screen. But we don't know without a log of the framerate over time. In Crysis, an average framerate of 50FPS is identical in playability to 60FPS, so the difference in average framerate between DX9 and DX10 is unimportant. However, in a firefight you are going to drop way down to the 20s in DX9, and the 30s in DX10, and this is what will determine how good your gaming experience will be.

And FWIW, the quality difference between DX9 and DX10 is negligible. In fact, you have to do side-by-side screenshots to see it.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 5:35:02 AM

threednonsense said:
And it wasn't even a good enough reason either... Given the fact that games are being held back the GPU more than anything, so how can you sit there and actually count it off as a plus? Yeah, it was a known fact from way back that Vista and Windows 7 scaled better at these really high resolutions.

Secondly, the only gains were mostly because it was all high resolution. You going to sit there and tell me 2560x1600 is the standard now? Even at 1920x1200 it's similar on most benches and that's still high resolution... Get your head out of your ass, it's clear at regular resolutions they are about the same...

So, back to the subject since not many people have 500 dollars to burn on that graphics card, and at least another 1,000 dollars on just the monitor. Could you please explain to me how this equates to the normal person? Let me make it a little easier for you. It doesn't.

Hmmm, Randomizer, you sure that site is credible? They used XP 64 bit... I thought that OS didn't support most games?...



I am not sure were your doing your shopping but I don't have $500 dollars into 2 4870's in CF, and I also didn't give a grand for my monitor. Try around $400.....mine is 28" and 1920x1200. :sleep: 
Score
0
September 16, 2009 6:55:41 AM

@Medjohnson77

First of all, go read the review. They used a 295 GTX. Second, I was talking about the 2560x1600 resolution monitor of course, that's where you see the "REAL" difference. Third, don't post if you don't got your facts straight...

@Randomizer

I don't know what your trying to get at, your agreeing with me with the factual findings, then you try to twist it around with opinion just to make an arguement, your making no sense, stay on topic... The point I was trying to make is that your EXAGERRATING by saying you don't need 80 fps, and you can't tell me that 30 fps isn't low. So stop trying compensate for everything... This is why I haven't been gaming in the last few years...

Edit: You mean to tell me you actually paid FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS for a monitor and it wasn't 2560x1600!!!??? Your an idiot, enough said.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 8:31:29 AM

Please treedpostfulofnonsence,

You just knocked Random for what you thought he was implying with 2560x1600 being some new standard, then you say that

Dumb a$$ productions take 750

And Action
" Secondly, the only gains were mostly because it was all high resolution. You going to sit there and tell me 2560x1600 is the standard now? Even at 1920x1200 it's similar on most benches and that's still high resolution... Get your head out of your ass, it's clear at regular resolutions they are about the same..." end quote

Then try to say that your looking atleast at $1000 dollars to get a 2560x1600 and call me a idiot because I picked up a 28" monitor with 1920x1200 at $347 dollars on sale. Correct me if I am wrong here but didn't you just put down your ever so bright thoughts on 1920x1200 is still high resolutions they are about the same?

Are you mental? Is this some kinda joker noobie posting to get a rise out of other posters by just talking out his a$$? Its almost like I am watching Dave and Charlie Murfey looking at some of your statements. "I m Rick James, I wouldn't just grind my muddy boots into someones couch, just to do it, come on I got more sence then that" two seconds later " yah, I ground my muddy boots into darkness couch" "Cocaine was a hell of a drug" :lol: 
Score
0
September 16, 2009 10:40:16 AM

dblakes221 said:
I am in the process of building a new Intel Core i7 PC and am torn over what to do about the operating system. I would ideally like to use the new computer before October 22 when Windows 7 is released, but I would have to buy a copy of Vista in order to do so.

Is it worth my time and effort to purchase Vista 64-bit now and get the free upgrade to Windows 7 later? ... or should I just wait until October so Windows 7 will be a fresh install on my system?


well, no. It is not worth it. I have Windows 7 32bit and it runs great. There are so many new things in there.Even my favorite programs - Mil Shield, Win Zip, Picasa, and AVG antivirus run perfectly in Windows 7.






Score
0
September 16, 2009 2:08:16 PM

threednonsense said:
The point I was trying to make is that your EXAGERRATING by saying you don't need 80 fps, and you can't tell me that 30 fps isn't low.

Fine, you win, 30FPS is low. 21FPS is lower, therefore Vista is far superior to XP in this instance. Clearly logic is beyond you (especially since you started comparing average and minimum framerates as though they are the same) so I am not going to argue this any further.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 2:59:29 PM

@ threednonsense

Hmm,

Grasshopper, you sure you understand how to read a fps chart?

Min is the lowest fps value you get during the entire benchmark run.

Avg is the mean fps value during the run.

Max is the highest fps value during the run.

Hint too, I wouldn't annoy a moderator, 'cause once they ban you, it ain't pretty :p 
Score
0
September 16, 2009 7:54:33 PM

@amdfangirl

Good site ethics huh? Yes, but we were talking about min fps.

@Randomizer

There ain't no setup can play recent games smoothly anyway. Unless you got a quad setup with a 2560x1600, there's really no point. Fine, let's go with 60 fps difference, that's fine with me... LOL!

@Medjohnson77

Your not funny. Second, for a resolution to increase from 1920x1200 to 2560x1600 without taking too much of a fps loss within reason to the increase, it's obvious that it starts to "scale" way better as resolution goes up.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 10:11:23 PM

threednonsense said:
@amdfangirl

Good site ethics huh? Yes, but we were talking about min fps.

@Randomizer

There ain't no setup can play recent games smoothly anyway. Unless you got a quad setup with a 2560x1600, there's really no point. Fine, let's go with 60 fps difference, that's fine with me... LOL!

@Medjohnson77

Your not funny. Second, for a resolution to increase from 1920x1200 to 2560x1600 without taking too much of a fps loss within reason to the increase, it's obvious that it starts to "scale" way better as resolution goes up.



I am sorry to have to break it to you, and I am just going to say this very bluntly, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about in this subject, and other subjects you have just been spewing your thoughts on.

If you really think that you need a Quad core, and a 2560x1600 monitor to run even Crysis or any other games for that matter, besides Flight sims games, and have it be playable your just talking out your ass with no facts to back anything you have to say up. I have a x 2 6400b.e @3.4ghz and a BFG 8800gts 512mb (g92) running with Vista 64 bit and It plays Crysis just fine. Not as high of framerates as I would like, or get with my other two Quad cores, but it runs just fine and smooth. If I was running XP, It would not be very playable at all. There is a big difference in 21 fps and 32 fps when you are talking about min fps and smooth game play. You have said in other post that you don't game anymore, you have not given any specs on your system that I have seen other then your E5200 at 4ghz with a stock cooler, can you say time bomb :lol:  It is no wonder your last $4000 dolllar investement took a crap on you, hitting it all the time, throwing it or whatever you did to it.

Get your research done, build your I5, put XP on it and enjoy your new build. Best of luck to you. :lol: 
Score
0
September 17, 2009 12:14:46 AM

LOL! Whatever...
Score
0
September 17, 2009 12:20:44 AM

threednonsense said:
This is why I haven't been gaming in the last few years...


I really wish you'd said that much earlier so I would have known not to continue posting in this thread. My time has been wasted arguing about gaming with someone who doesn't even play games. This would be like me arguing with JumpingJack or MU_Engineer about CPUs; I wouldn't know WTF I'm talking about.

I have fed the trolls, apologies all round.
Score
0
!