Ive run with 2 and 4 gig ram and 4 is better on my system for apps and gaming (RTS, didnt notice any difference in COD4), most noticable if i hit the Windows key during a game, straight to desktop without a hitch.
Win XP > Vista 64 Bit - worth it?
- Thread starter Credo
- Start date
Ive run with 2 and 4 gig ram and 4 is better on my system for apps and gaming (RTS, didnt notice any difference in COD4), most noticable if i hit the Windows key during a game, straight to desktop without a hitch.
If you are only running one or two apps, you probably wont notice any real difference.
Its when you are really using your PC that you will notice it fully.
Try converting a couple of your Home videos to DVD, burning a disk or two, defragging a drive or two, sending out a Movie to the Big screen for the missus, testing out some apps on a VM, and playing COD4 while you are waiting and then you will see why 4GB is needed.
Its when you are really using your PC that you will notice it fully.
Try converting a couple of your Home videos to DVD, burning a disk or two, defragging a drive or two, sending out a Movie to the Big screen for the missus, testing out some apps on a VM, and playing COD4 while you are waiting and then you will see why 4GB is needed.
Really? Because my machine flies through things much faster with vista 64 than xp 32 with the same setup. I have XP on a seperate partition so i can dual boot if i need to use XP for anything, but i always shudder at the thought of using it and seem to be constantly amazed with how slow xp is now i'm used to vista. Just general folder browsing etc is slower, app load times are slower... its just not as good. Xp takes an extra minute to copy over folders from my digital camera to my hard drive too.
And the internet is slower on XP
I moved over to XP64 from XP32 and that is a major upgrade in itself too!
So much so, that I had decided to move all my LAN PCs over to XP64.
I do have one Vista32 and one Vista64 PC on the LAN, but only to avoid wasting the licences.
My No.1 PC is on XP64 and I really do want to go with Vista64 on that but there is always something thats never quite there with Vista64 that forces me back.
Basically what I am saying is that XP32 is a great O/S but when compared to a 64Bit O/S - be it XP64 or Vista64 then the sad old XP simply starts to show its age... Its laggy, and fairly slow... Sure, you dont see this until you compare it to the 64Bits.
Even when you think it does not lag at all, it does.
32Bit users need to open their eyes and step into the real world for a minute and smell the coffee.
So much so, that I had decided to move all my LAN PCs over to XP64.
I do have one Vista32 and one Vista64 PC on the LAN, but only to avoid wasting the licences.
My No.1 PC is on XP64 and I really do want to go with Vista64 on that but there is always something thats never quite there with Vista64 that forces me back.
Basically what I am saying is that XP32 is a great O/S but when compared to a 64Bit O/S - be it XP64 or Vista64 then the sad old XP simply starts to show its age... Its laggy, and fairly slow... Sure, you dont see this until you compare it to the 64Bits.
Even when you think it does not lag at all, it does.
32Bit users need to open their eyes and step into the real world for a minute and smell the coffee.
2Gb to run Windows XP with Microsoft Word to run well.... No, like what has been said. It really really depends on what you are using the PC for.
Windows XP works perfectly on 1Gb of Ram. You should find yourself upgrading when gaming or doing a lot at once. You can't notice this by the commit charge in the task manager going over your amount of system ram. Then the PC is subject to disk trashing.
Windows Vista on the other hand uses a little more memory. Again really depends on what your doing. Although in this case I would say 2Gb as a recomendation.
I've just installed Vista Ultimate 64bit on my E6300 @ 3.22Ghz, 2Gb, 8800GT with a 74Gb Raptor. After using the 32bit edition for sometime I can say that it seems a lot smoother. I can't really point my finger on it although it just seems quicker.
I've never reached over 2Gb of ram either, came close and that whilst playing games and doing quite a bit of multitasking. Although I do keep my install very tidy.
If you have 1Gb of ram, I would personally upgrade the rest of your rig or get additional ram for Vista.
Like i said earlier, Vista will make use of available RAM, I ran some tasks with 2 gig instaled and it used 1.6gb, i added another 2 gb ram and then carried out the same tasks, Vista now used well over 2 gb ram.
Really? Because my machine flies through things much faster with vista 64 than xp 32 with the same setup. I have XP on a seperate partition so i can dual boot if i need to use XP for anything, but i always shudder at the thought of using it and seem to be constantly amazed with how slow xp is now i'm used to vista. Just general folder browsing etc is slower, app load times are slower... its just not as good. Xp takes an extra minute to copy over folders from my digital camera to my hard drive too.
And the internet is slower on XP
Really? My machine with vista64 is considerable slower than xp or server 2008 installed on the same hardware (e6600, 4gb ram).
From this we can probably conclude that people are either idiots, liars or that experiences with various operating systems vary enormously & its not worth asking for advise on something as subjective as this on a forum
PS my advise would be to try a demo of vista & see if if performs well for YOU on YOUR hardware & them make your mind up from there.
Vista x64 with 2GB is fine, however 4GB is recommended especially if you're playing intensive DX9 titles. The 1GB barrier for games was breached years ago with Planetside and EQ2 as it is.
Hell with ram prices as cheap as they are there isn't an excuse. As for the topic I'd simply ask the OT one thing - if XP is doing everything you want it to, and you're comfortable with it, then do you really need to move up? I asked myself this very question when Vista first came out and I said yes. I was too comfortable with XP and wanted a change of scenery as well as those nifty video/image thumbnails and the security. Even to this day when it is very reliable Vista can be a complete **** though.
Lastly Vista works smoothly as hell alongside my 360. I went through proverbial hell patching my neighbours XP to actually see his 360 so that is a major pro for me anyway.
To this day I still find it laughable when people state that vista uses too much ram whilst XP doesn't...
Hell with ram prices as cheap as they are there isn't an excuse. As for the topic I'd simply ask the OT one thing - if XP is doing everything you want it to, and you're comfortable with it, then do you really need to move up? I asked myself this very question when Vista first came out and I said yes. I was too comfortable with XP and wanted a change of scenery as well as those nifty video/image thumbnails and the security. Even to this day when it is very reliable Vista can be a complete **** though.
Lastly Vista works smoothly as hell alongside my 360. I went through proverbial hell patching my neighbours XP to actually see his 360 so that is a major pro for me anyway.
To this day I still find it laughable when people state that vista uses too much ram whilst XP doesn't...
Really? My machine with vista64 is considerable slower than xp or server 2008 installed on the same hardware (e6600, 4gb ram).
From this we can probably conclude that people are either idiots, liars or that experiences with various operating systems vary enormously & its not worth asking for advise on something as subjective as this on a forum
PS my advise would be to try a demo of vista & see if if performs well for YOU on YOUR hardware & them make your mind up from there.
The only thing I have noticed in Vista x64 compaired with x32 is a get a slightly slower frame rate in COD4 on Vista x64. Its only about 5-10fps but have noticed it. Although this could be down to the 64bit nvidia drivers.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 1,500
- Location
- Scotland
I'm on a 4200+ at stock(2200), and 2GB RAM. I'm dual booting Vista64 Ult with XP32 Pro and find vista is definitly faster than xp. windows and apps seem to open faster and more consistantly, on average games run better than in XP, even web pages seem to load faster. When installing i only had trouble with my wireless usb device drivers, a quick search on the net and i found some vista 64 drivers for it. everything else seemed even a little easier to install than on XP.
Vista seems much better at using multiple cores(the switch from 32->64 probably plays a big part) and is clearly better at managing memory. unless you like to run a lot of memory intensive apps simoultaniously an extra 1GB would be enough to enjoy vista64... but as was said with the prices u may as well go to 3 or 4GB+ if you're upgrading, in games especially, loading times will be noticably faster and framerates more consistant.
Vista seems much better at using multiple cores(the switch from 32->64 probably plays a big part) and is clearly better at managing memory. unless you like to run a lot of memory intensive apps simoultaniously an extra 1GB would be enough to enjoy vista64... but as was said with the prices u may as well go to 3 or 4GB+ if you're upgrading, in games especially, loading times will be noticably faster and framerates more consistant.
Last edited:
1. That's SuperFetch in action regarding apps loading faster. Of course the payoff is an annoying minute or so wait once the desktop appears after a fresh boot.
2. Quicker browsing - New and improved TCP stack iirc...It is definately noticeable.
3. Vista is definately feared towards multi core CPU's. Well it's obvious really. Single core CPU's I found fare better with XP.
What does annoy me about both x32 and x64 is the amount of crap services running by default, and there really is a lot. That really drives me up the wall.
Same, got 2GB in my media centre and it doesn't really need much more than that.
It handles games/tv/music/media fine too.
I've got 4GB in my computer, I may upgrade to 8GB sooner rather than later simply because DDR2 prices are so cheap these days... but it certainly isn't needed.
Media Centre is on Vista Home Premium 32bit and my machine runs Vista Home Premium 64bit. Both patched up to SP1
There's a difference in speed between 2GB/4GB but it's not a drastic jump personally.
If you are on Vista32 then its not worth it.
If you are on XP then the differences will be fairly sizeable in many ways and not noticealbe in others... Depends on luck a lot of the time as to whether or not it helps your particular PC out.
Im lucky enough to own a ridiculous number of different PCs of various flavours and on some, Vista is a hell to work with, and others its a dream. Annoyingly, my Main PC just hates it, and I want to move to it so much, but I just cannot.
I have compared the 4 top Windows O/Ses ( Vista and XP in both 32 and 64 bit guises ) and quite simply, XP64 is the slickest and fastest of them all, and I did this on 3 different setups ( Low+Hi end C2D & Dual Opteron ) but in all cases no matter what PC I used, I ound that Vista64 was much better than XP32 - even on slightly older systems in fact.
Software compatibility?
99% of software will run 100% fine
Sure, you will have a few niggles, but then Vista32 has has its fair share of niggles as has XP64, this is normal and these niggles are gettign fewer and farther between each other... My own opinion, is that absolutely every game I have ever tried, runs better on a 64Bit O/S than its 32Bit counterpart, although I know of others who said that the games dont work, I have never found one that has failed me.
Oh, thats a lie... Bet On Soldier wont run on a Vista 64 MAchine because the O/S is apparently too old?
Only 3d apps run slower in vista and CPU intensive apps, normal windows and Internet usage needs neither of those though, Vista is MUCH faster during browsing your pictures, watching a few films, blasting music, and posting on Ocuk....
A bit more on-topic:
1 gb is fine for xp, I've gamed with max gfx with 1gb of ram for awhile on xp, it just caused a small stutter at start as the pc hasn't cleared the ram enough yet for some games ( cough bf2), but if you keep your pc clean and processes to a minimum, 1gb is fine, even for games, or well old-ish games, I'm not sure about tha latest ones as it's been at least a year or 2 I think since I had 1 GB.
512 mb is fine for just browsing and office, my mums lappy pentium M 2 ghz and 512 mb ram is very nippy because it's kept clean by me. Hell even xp with 128 mb was doable on my lappy of 128mb ram and p3 600mhz, as long as I kept a max of 3 windows open (ie6 also, any newer browser= hog), used miranda IM instead of msn HOG and foobar2000, it was easily usable...
It all depends on your pc attitude though, if your're lazy and can't be arsed cleaning your pc, not closing unused stuff, etcetc, you need more ram.
I use 2100 mb of ram ( that's not superfetch/cache) alone because I keep too many stuff left open, but it's not a problem now as I have 4 full gb's of ram... I could easily reboot to xp, and close down stuff so much, that I won't even use 1.5gb during gaming...
Thanks for the info. Might as well keep the 32 bit a while longer then.