What OS Should I Install?

M

mdma-

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
156
RAM / GSkill 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) 5-5-5-15 1.8V - 1.9V ($70)
CPU / Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz 65W ($190)
MOBO / Shuttle SG31G2 (LGA775) 250W PSU ($220)
PCI-E / ATI AIW X800 XL 256MB (Free)

I've just bought the above items, and am not sure what OS I should install. I own a few copies of Win XP Home, and Win XP Pro 64-bit. I realize Win 32-bit will only allow 4GB for all memory, effectively limiting space for RAM to about 3GB with some change. I've replaced two laptops of mine with XP over Vista, after encountering a very slow OS with no visible improvements. My desktop will be faster, but I see no reason to get Vista unless it is faster. The big question is: Win XP 32-bit Home, Pro, or 64-bit Pro?

How compatible is Win XP 64-bit in these days of Vista?
Is running 32-bit processes under the Windows-on-Windows 64-bit subsystem within 64-bit Pro as fast as running them under 32-bit Win XP on my system? (E8400 CPU, 4GB RAM) I mostly use Office 2k7, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Quake 3 Arena, and a few statistical software applications (STATA, SPSS, SAS, etc.) which like the extra memory.
Anyone know how the x800 drivers run on 64-bit XP?
Any tips for me or questions I should be asking?

Thanks guys!
 
If you're getting an OS anyway, just get Vista....it is in general as fast, and due to Superfetch, often faster than XP. If you've had problems with Vista's speed, I don't really know what to tell you other than my experience with it has been different (4 installs over various configurations).

Vista 64-bit will also have drivers for all hardware that has Vista 32-bit drivers, due to driver signing requirements by Microsoft. In general, this also means that XP-64 bit has drivers. I had been running XP 64 on my fileserver until I upgraded it to Server 2008 x64, and found it pretty speedy. Obviously, check ahead for driver situation though for either XP or Vista 64-bit. As a bit of an aside, my fileserver is still running an x800 XL, and the drivers were just fine for it. Performance was more or less the same.

As for 32 on 64, in theory it should be quicker, a lot of which has to do with the improved memory management in the Server 03 core used in XP x64. This also carries over to Vista and Server 2008 in terms of general performance.

This post has been sort of all over the place huh.
 
Windows Vista 64-bit, and don't look back. Compatibility generally isn't an issue and security is a huge improvement over XP. Unless you have a specific piece of software that still isn't Vista compatible, I would just get Vista 64.
 
I run Vista 64 on the Shuttle n my sig - I'm happy and enjoy the Vista "eye candy".

The only disappointment is that GameTap's free games don't run unless you have a 32 bit OS (XP or Vista), but nothing good comes for free, right? so meh
 
mdma- said:
Tom's Hardware shows how Vista is slower... schenksmill, do you have any reviews to back up the claim that Vista is faster? It's got more stuff, so I just don't see how it can possibly be faster...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-5.html
Click to expand...

Usually this is due to flawed testing procedures. Vista needs a couple days of general use to reorganize your HDD and flag items to be cached by SuperFetch.

Reimaging a clean install of Vista for the test is not an accurate way to test it.

Also that review is 18 months old.
 
Wow, how many more threads will we need on this subject? Use the OS that fits your needs and supports your hardware best. No one else can answer this for you. Vista runs every bit as well as XP on a somewhat recent system or newer, so check out the differences, do your own research and reading, and then decide what fits your needs best...not what people on some internet forum board will tell you.
 
Xp x64 is the bastard stepchild microsoft dont want to acknowledge. Support for it is still sub-par, its not real bad but there are still quite a few unsupported apps. What more can you expect from a hacked up server 2003 wearing an XP t-shirt.

The support for Vista X64 is leaps and bounds ahead of XP x64 in terms of support.

heavenlykid said:
Vista 64 if you want to utilize all that ram. Or Fedora 9 if your a linux guy/girl.
Click to expand...

Fixed for ya = P
 
pfunkman said:
What more can you expect from a hacked up server 2003 wearing an XP t-shirt.
Click to expand...
Server 2003's stability for a bargain price and *most* of the compatibility of XP?

OP: As one of the posters above me said, go Vista 64-bit and don't look back. Your hardware is more than enough to make it shine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top