Which Version of Windows?

Dark_Angel said:
Try it as I did, on a dual boot. That way if you have issues then you can nuke it.

I assume it should work ok with most of those games. There are a few issues with Vista on a couple of games KOTOR 2 for example - and that in turn translates to issues with W7. However, there are work arounds.

Virtual Dub I know I have working in Windows Vista 64 so I assume will work in W7. Most software is ok, especially if you use the XP compat mode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSyqlXEleMQ have a look here if you need an idea of how to dual boot.

DON'T go with 25 gigs though for a windows 7 partition. I would say 80 is a nice size.
Click to expand...

I'm already on quad boot ( 2x xp, one that works on sis chipsets, another that works on ALL intel and most nvidia chipsets, 2x vista, one that works on 945p, another that works on 965p) don't want a bigger mess then it is and a new install is absolutely not an option for me, if I have to use a clean install then I might as well not bother I have way too much to reinstall it would take weeks.

So upgrade only or not at all, too much hassle...


oh btw
Dark_Angel said:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2 here is one link for a second in google. Windows 7 BETA 1 vs Vista AND XP.
.
Click to expand...
Something is very fishy about that site, ''install OS'' xp the slowest, that is definitely a lie.

XP installs within 15-20 mins (on pretty much any modern spec, I have done this many many times), vista took 40( if not more) mins for me ( though I only have experience installing vista 3 or four times). There is no way 13 gb of vista installs faster then like 2 gb of XP.
 
snowdog said:
I'm already on quad boot ( 2x xp, one that works on sis chipsets, another that works on ALL intel and most nvidia chipsets, 2x vista, one that works on 945p, another that works on 965p) don't want a bigger mess then it is and a new install is absolutely not an option for me, if I have to use a clean install then I might as well not bother I have way too much to reinstall it would take weeks.

So upgrade only or not at all, too much hassle...


oh btw

Something is very fishy about that site, install OS xp teh slowest, that is definitely a lie.

XP installs within 15-20 mins (on pretty much any modern spec, I have done this many many times), vista took 40( if not more) mins for me ( though I only have experience installing vista 3 or four times). There is no way 13 gb of vista installs faster then like 2 gb of XP.
Click to expand...

On the few times I have installed Windows 7, it was faster than Vista. And vista is faster to install than XP. I pretty sure on that, from my own experiences, and a few non tech friends that reinstalled their OS commented on a few computers that "wow... it is faster than XP install".
 
snowdog said:
XP installs within 15-20 mins (on pretty much any modern spec, I have done this many many times), vista took 40( if not more) mins for me ( though I only have experience installing vista 3 or four times). There is no way 13 gb of vista installs faster then like 2 gb of XP.
Click to expand...

I've never had XP install that fast, and I've done more installs then I'd ever be willing to count. Even if Vista does take longer than XP (which I'm not sure it does) the fact that there is less user interaction makes it feel shorter.
 
That's very odd and completely different form my experience, guess i'll record installing xp once to show you guys :D.


Anyways, so is an upgrade from vista x64 to 7 x64 prossible ?
And how is game support, I really need to play games, that's what my pc is used for primarily.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I've never had XP install that fast, and I've done more installs then I'd ever be willing to count. Even if Vista does take longer than XP (which I'm not sure it does) the fact that there is less user interaction makes it feel shorter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, XP install really is so boring / frustrating that you just want to fall asleep. Windows 7 is amazing because it feels like it is automated, only a few options that you have to choose at the start, and then setup language.

snowdog said:
That's very odd and completely different form my experience, guess i'll record installing xp once to show you guys :D.


Anyways, so is an upgrade from vista x64 to 7 x64 prossible ?
And how is game support, I really need to play games, that's what my pc is used for primarily.
Click to expand...

http://www.intowindows.com/how-to-do-vista-to-windows-7-upgrade/ seems like the upgrade is the same as other OS.

As said, I don't think there are issues with games as far as I have found out. Crysis, Half life, COD and so on will work without a hitch.
 
Mantisgb said:
Windows 7 it is thanks a lot guys :D
Click to expand...

Good choice you also get other benefits over XP ie improved security,DX11, superior memory handling etc..to name a few and the much longer life span of 7 over XP.

Boot factor is NOT an issue even on Vista compared to XP I should know I have all 3.

Nobody buys an OS for boot factor end of story.
 
snowdog said:
That's very odd and completely different form my experience, guess i'll record installing xp once to show you guys :D.


Anyways, so is an upgrade from vista x64 to 7 x64 prossible ?
And how is game support, I really need to play games, that's what my pc is used for primarily.
Click to expand...

Not had XP install as quick as you on a PHYSICAL machine, Vista takes hours, 7 was pretty quick.

Yes you can upgrade, though I've not done a Vista-to-7RC myself. When officially released on 22nd October you'd upgrade to equivalent version, e.g. Home Premium to Home Premium, Ultime to Ultimate etc, then you can pay a fee to unlock a better edition after, say go from Home Premium to Ultimate.

As for all your stuff working, you should be mostly fine with XP-mode, but only if you have a CPU it'll work with - most modern AMD chips but not Semperon, Intel are funnier so no to Pentium, Core2 Duo E7xxx-series (E6xxx and E8xxx okay), and no to Core2 Quad Q8xxx-series (but again Q6xxx and Q9xxx okay).
 
I agree with XP, apart from the Aero interface Vista and Windows 7 don't offer much except for higher hardware utilization (services bloatware) and DX10 (which offers little over DX9).
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That's because you know nothing about 7.
Click to expand...

I've used it enough to know that it's hardly an improvement over Vista, the biggest difference is the Superfetch service no longer gobbles up all your RAM with programs you probably won't run, turn off Superfetch in Vista and it's as good as W7 is.

Neither are as smooth or responsive as XP.
 
mmj_uk said:
I've used it enough to know that it's hardly an improvement over Vista, the biggest difference is the Superfetch service no longer gobbles up all your RAM with programs you probably won't run, turn off Superfetch in Vista and it's as good as W7 is.

Neither are as smooth or responsive as XP.
Click to expand...

O.o

o.O

I honestly am amazed that so many people recommend XP still. As for Vista VS W7 performance with super fetch, mine is off in Vista a lot of the time and it is STILL slower than an earlier build of W7.

And I am talking about loading Photoshop, watching movies, zipping and uncompressing files across my server feels (slightly) faster on W7, but the last one may be my imagination.

*edit* Ignore the super fetch bit -.- I wasn't paying attention and my brain read it as Indexing -.-
 
Windows 98 is way faster than XP on the same hardware, why are we no longer running windows 98? This is the same argument you are trying to push here.
 
mmj_uk said:
I've used it enough to know that it's hardly an improvement over Vista, the biggest difference is the Superfetch service no longer gobbles up all your RAM with programs you probably won't run, turn off Superfetch in Vista and it's as good as W7 is.

Neither are as smooth or responsive as XP.
Click to expand...

My Vista x64 is every bit as smooth and responsive as XP (I still dual boot for the one piece of software I use that won't run under 64-bit). I hate using XP, it just feels so dated.

Oh, and I haven't disabled superfetch, I think it's a great feature and works just as it should for me, the programs I use most often load pretty much instantly. Why are people so obsessed witgh having ram 'free'? What's the point in having ram that is never used? I'm glad that superfetch is putting my ram to use.
 
It isn't that XP is a bad OS I want people to understand, and we aren't saying that it is bad. However, with the creation of more up to date tech (for software) it seems a bit silly to not move on.

I think the subject of security improvements, stability and so on has been beaten to death though so I won't post that... however I will mention that use whatever you like, but most that use Vista and W7 just don't want to go back to XP.

I will hold my hand up and admit though that when I first used vista and used the start bar I really didn't like it, and it took a bit of time to get "in to" it.
 
Dark_Angel said:
O.o

o.O

I honestly am amazed that so many people recommend XP still. As for Vista VS W7 performance with super fetch, mine is off in Vista a lot of the time and it is STILL slower than an earlier build of W7.

And I am talking about loading Photoshop, watching movies, zipping and uncompressing files across my server feels (slightly) faster on W7, but the last one may be my imagination.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not doubting there aren't other improvements but for me Vista and W7 just have too many un-necessary overheads and are more sluggish as a result, for example XP64 memory overhead is 800MB on Vista and W7 it's at least 2-3 times that not to mention the GPU/memory overhead of Aero.

I notice a difference on 4ghz i7 with 6gb ram and gtx280 so people such as the OP would probably see an even greater benefit when using XP.

DreXeL said:
Oh, and I haven't disabled superfetch, I think it's a great feature and works just as it should for me, the programs I use most often load pretty much instantly. Why are people so obsessed witgh having ram 'free'? What's the point in having ram that is never used? I'm glad that superfetch is putting my ram to use.
Click to expand...

Filling RAM with programs you're unlikely to use is equally a waste of RAM and additonally of HD activity, I'd rather have memory empty and ready to be filled when asked than to have the HD un-necessarily thrashing away on the off chance that I use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom