Vista

Barry1337 · 18 Jul 2007 at 00:44

what operating system would be best for me 4gb of ram and only me using it.

shine · 18 Jul 2007 at 00:53

Barry1337 said:
what operating system would be best for me 4gb of ram and only me using it.

4GB memory is only fully utilised in 64 bit systems so either XP 64 bit or Vista 54 bit will suffice. Are you looking more specific recommendation on which version of Vista would suit you?

Tute · 18 Jul 2007 at 01:17

Gotta love 54-bit Windows. Supports more memory than 32-bit, but not as much as 64-bit.

I'd steer clear of XP64 really, the driver support for it was dire, is dire, and probably will be dire for evermore.

As for Vista, well Home Premium seems to be the version of choice from looking in other threads, the OEM version is a nice price.

You need to have a look at the comparison chart on Microsoft's website and see if you will use/require the features of Vista Ultimate.

Whatever you do though, if you go for x86 (32-bit) then you won't be able to use or address all of that RAM.

shine · 18 Jul 2007 at 09:47

Tute said:
Gotta love 54-bit Windows. Supports more memory than 32-bit, but not as much as 64-bit.

Yeah 54 bit also has better driver support.

whitecrook · 18 Jul 2007 at 10:00

shine said:
Yeah 54 bit also has better driver support.

This is down to 54 bit being more popular than the 64 bit.

I HAVE THE PROOF! : http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=54+bit&word2=64+bit

Ross1234 · 18 Jul 2007 at 10:02

whitecrook said:
This is down to 54 bit being more popular than the 64 bit.

I HAVE THE PROOF! : http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=54+bit&word2=64+bit

How does that work!

whitecrook · 18 Jul 2007 at 10:05

I would recommend Vista 64 over XP 64, as any driver for Vista so I read requires to be 64 bit compatible so if your hardware don't work in 64 bit, chance are it wouldn't work in 32 bit either.

I wouldn't recommend XP - it's old, it's gonna be outdated, as 64 bit XP driver support is a nightmare unless you have good solid hardware that's supported.

iCraig · 18 Jul 2007 at 12:38

whitecrook said:
I wouldn't recommend XP - it's old, it's gonna be outdated

How so? XP's SP3 is still to be released and it's product life cycle doesn't end for quite a while yet. It's very up to date.

Fair enough it doesn't have Direct X10, but is that vital? Despite being confident that Vista will do well, I think it's way too early to write off XP. For what I use XP for, Vista hasn't offered me anything more, and actually, in some cases, less.

jbloggs · 18 Jul 2007 at 12:41

I have never used XP 64bit, but Vista 64bit is very good indeed, runs very well with 4GBs of Ram

Burnsy2023 · 18 Jul 2007 at 12:57

I would suggest Genuine Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64 OEM...

Burnsy

whitecrook · 18 Jul 2007 at 13:03

iCraig said:
How so? XP's SP3 is still to be released and it's product life cycle doesn't end for quite a while yet. It's very up to date.

Fair enough it doesn't have Direct X10, but is that vital? Despite being confident that Vista will do well, I think it's way too early to write off XP. For what I use XP for, Vista hasn't offered me anything more, and actually, in some cases, less.

That's fine. Remeber XP came out in 2001, it's 7 years old. (I know SP2 yadda yadda)

I still used Win2k until the beginning of this year.

But the end is in sight - if it still works for you great it won't be long before your favourite software refuses to run on XP and requires VISTA, DX10 being the first example. This is the kind of thing that happend to win2k.

The OP has from the sound of it a spanking PC, why run an old OS on it. Should be able to handle VISTA nice enouhg.

Running XP now is just postponing matters. He'll upgrdae to VISTA at some point, what If he runs XP now, buys a bit of hardware and then finds out it won't work in VISTA - just run Vista now and save all the hassle.

Unless of course the OP likes to reinstall every few months. My Win2k install was 2.5 years old when I ditched it.

edit just checked a couple of dates here:http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
and here : http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

So another 1.5 years for WinXP and SP3 due out next year sometime..

something daft already!! · 18 Jul 2007 at 13:04

There are some issues with Vista 64 bit and using 4 gb of RAM. I would personally recommend using XP 64 until these issues are ironed out. There has been a Hotfix, but this does not work for everyone.

If you are going to go with Vista, I suggest installing it with only 2 gb installed then apply kb929777 and try your extra 2 gb. You may be lucky and not encounter the issue at all.

Barry1337 · 18 Jul 2007 at 15:03

Thanks for that guys what version of vista 64 bit will i get?

shine · 18 Jul 2007 at 15:06

burnsy2023 said:
I would suggest Genuine Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64 OEM...

Burnsy

I've got that its all I need.

iCraig · 18 Jul 2007 at 15:30

whitecrook said:
That's fine. Remeber XP came out in 2001, it's 7 years old. (I know SP2 yadda yadda)

Yeah but operating systems do not require annual releases to stay secure and stable as the main kernel doesn't need to change that often. The patches and service packs that augment to it keep it up to date. A blank version of XP pre-updates is seven years old, but my version of XP is only a few days old.

whitecrook said:
But the end is in sight - if it still works for you great it won't be long before your favourite software refuses to run on XP and requires VISTA, DX10 being the first example. This is the kind of thing that happend to win2k.

I agree, Vista will overtake XP. However XP is far from redundant. Even when Microsoft withdraw mainstream support I bet it will still be going strong.

whitecrook said:
The OP has from the sound of it a spanking PC, why run an old OS on it. Should be able to handle VISTA nice enouhg.

That isn't the issue in most cases, Vista may well be stable and secure, but the compatibility is still in its infancy. Not for everybody, but generally XP is far more compatible with existing software and applications than Vista is.

whitecrook said:
Running XP now is just postponing matters. He'll upgrdae to VISTA at some point, what If he runs XP now, buys a bit of hardware and then finds out it won't work in VISTA - just run Vista now and save all the hassle.

I'd agree with you if Vista had been out a few years, but it hasn't as far as its roadmap goes, it's pretty much still at the start of its life. If your PC and software is 100% compatible with Vista, there's no reason why not to jump to Vista, but on the other hand, if you XP PC does everything you need, there's no need to move to Vista yet anyway.

whitecrook said:
edit just checked a couple of dates here:http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
and here : http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

So another 1.5 years for WinXP and SP3 due out next year sometime..

1.5 years until it can no longer be purchased.

If you read here: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223 and here http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3221

You'll find XP's support will not completely dry up until 2014.

Barry1337 · 18 Jul 2007 at 15:34

Sounds Good

Dead Dog · 18 Jul 2007 at 20:39

i've just gone vista 64 HP, I've had no troubles with drivers, some utilities i have no longer work, but i just downloaded the new versions, nero 6 is the only thing i use that if i want the full version that i had, i'd need to get.
i'd say vista is the only OS to buy now.

whitecrook · 18 Jul 2007 at 22:32

iCraig said:
Yeah but operating systems do not require annual releases to stay secure and stable as the main kernel doesn't need to change that often. The patches and service packs that augment to it keep it up to date. A blank version of XP pre-updates is seven years old, but my version of XP is only a few days old.

K K, but VISTA is still newer.

I agree, Vista will overtake XP. However XP is far from redundant. Even when Microsoft withdraw mainstream support I bet it will still be going strong.

Indeed, I don't disagree. Plenty businesses still run Win2k now and I probably would be too if my hardware hadn't borked.

That isn't the issue in most cases, Vista may well be stable and secure, but the compatibility is still in its infancy. Not for everybody, but generally XP is far more compatible with existing software and applications than Vista is.

This is true, but only becuase of 'tried and tested.' XP has had a 6-7 year head start of course more things that exist today will be compatible with the more established XP. But if this doesn't affect the OP, which I don't think it will, I don't see this as a valid reason to go XP over VISTA (64). I think Vista 64 will be more compatible with a new 64 bit machine with 4 gig of RAM than XP ever will be.

I'd agree with you if Vista had been out a few years, but it hasn't as far as its roadmap goes, it's pretty much still at the start of its life. If your PC and software is 100% compatible with Vista, there's no reason why not to jump to Vista,

Indeed this is kinda my main point to the OP.

but on the other hand, if you XP PC does everything you need, there's no need to move to Vista yet anyway.

The OP isn't moving from anywhere as far as we know. He's starting here.

1.5 years until it can no longer be purchased.

If you read here: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223 and here http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3221

You'll find XP's support will not completely dry up until 2014.

I see. Didn't realise it went on for as long as that. But can the OP imagine himself running XP(32/64) in 2014? I doubt it, he'll probably be running Vista. (or whatever is around then)

Supposing he does XP now. At which point will he change to Vista? Hardware upgrade? Hardware seems meaty enough just now. App doesn't run? (the last few versions of adobe stuff won't run on win2k, for example) Why go to that trouble. Why not just start with Vista and build up knowledge of the OS and system, favourite utilities etc now, instead of wasting time 'doing' XP?

squiffy · 18 Jul 2007 at 22:46

K K, but VISTA is still newer

And newer is better? No. XP has matured, it has far wider hardware support & driver compatibility.

Vista probably will be too, but it'll take some time. XP was a bit of a dog pre SP1 (stuck with Windows 2000) Also because it's more demanding on the hardware, it means your next upgrade will be more sensible with Vista on it (once Vista has matured) as it'll be fast enough on it...rather than installing Vista on a slower computer with borderlong memory (which'll still be fine for XP)

Tried Vista for gaming rig, and the HTPC, and went back to XP Pro & XP Media Centre. Both suffered slow downs/problems. No such problems with XP based OS.

whitecrook · 18 Jul 2007 at 23:24

squiffy said:
And newer is better? No.

Well person I was replying to said his XP was a few days old.

Vista does have architectural improvements over XP, gained in part from Win2k3. (see. Storport vs scsiport, for one example)

XP has matured, it has far wider hardware support & driver compatibility.

people keep saying this but I fail to see the relevance unless I am misinterpreting it.

Who cares if XP is compatible with 10,000 different digi cams, or some obscure SCSI card from '95, or whatever?

All that matters is that it is compatible with the hardware it's going to be used with. This applies to any operating system XP is no different.

Vista probably will be too, but it'll take some time.

And that time is now for many people buying new 64 bit systems loaded with 4G+ ram.

XP was a bit of a dog pre SP1 (stuck with Windows 2000) Also because it's more demanding on the hardware, it means your next upgrade will be more sensible with Vista on it (once Vista has matured) as it'll be fast enough on it...rather than installing Vista on a slower computer with borderlong memory (which'll still be fine for XP)

Yes this is obvious. Any OS will run better on faster/more hardware. I beleive the OP to have sufficient hardware to run VISTA just now with power to spare.

Tried Vista for gaming rig, and the HTPC, and went back to XP Pro & XP Media Centre. Both suffered slow downs/problems. No such problems with XP based OS.

Anecdotal . No probs with that. Maybe your hardware is older and not supported properly under Vista yet. (or Vista is not supported by your hardware...)