XP or Vista 64 for new gaming computer?

P

pitfall317

n00b
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
11
I honestly don't know which one to get. I have XP on my old computer and I like it but I'm thinking about getting Vista 64 for the new one.

I haven't heard may good things about Vista but I did read in a post here that you need Vista 64 to recognize the memory I bought. I'd appreciate any help anyone can offer me.

Here's my build so far:

Case: COOLER MASTER COSMOS 1000 RC-1000
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Yorkfield 2.5GHz
GPU: BFG 9800 GX2 1GB
Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-EP35-DS4 LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX
Memory: G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar 640GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
DVD: PIONEER|DVR-115DBK 20X
Monitor: LG 22" Flat Panel

I'm still deciding about the PSU.

Thanks for the help everyone!!
 
Yes. The hope here is that I put together a system that will play anything very well for the next couple of years and then will support upgrades to keep the computer current going forward.
 
WinXP x64 will also recognize 4+ GB of RAM. DX10 is being made available (unofficially) for WinXP as well (check the news sites ;) ), so if you can stand using DX9 for a while longer... :)
 
Some games will not run in the 64-bit OS environment no matter what you try to make them work. So, XP-Pro SP2 is the ideal path to take.
 
There's no reason not to go Vista x64, especially with that hardware. Driver compatibility should be fine, and driver support is great.

pitfall317 said:
If I decide to add more memory will XP be able to recognize the extra memory?
Click to expand...

Any OS will.
 
bmaverick said:
Some games will not run in the 64-bit OS environment no matter what you try to make them work. So, XP-Pro SP2 is the ideal path to take.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about 15 year old DOS games? 'Cause I ain't never heard of a game that won't work - and if we are talking about such old games, DOSBox, or even running the games in a VM (limited to no 3D support, however) is almost always a secondary option.
 
If you plan to run DX10+ and use more then 4GB ram, vista 64, if you plan to stay dated with older stuff and keep it more compatible with older older games XP.
 
pitfall317 said:
If I decide to add more memory will XP be able to recognize the extra memory?
Click to expand...

WinXP SP2 will recognize up till about 3.58 GB as available for applications. The rest is reserved in the upper memory space for things like PCIe and such HW resources.
 
Joe Average said:
Are we talking about 15 year old DOS games? 'Cause I ain't never heard of a game that won't work - and if we are talking about such old games, DOSBox, or even running the games in a VM (limited to no 3D support, however) is almost always a secondary option.
Click to expand...

QFT, Vista x64
 
Go with Vista x64, XP x64 is Microsoft's unloved child. Driver support for Vista x64 is no longer an issue for most users, but with XP x64, good luck!
 
Sovereign said:
Go with Vista x64, XP x64 is Microsoft's unloved child. Driver support for Vista x64 is no longer an issue for most users, but with XP x64, good luck!
Click to expand...

Actually driver support for Xp64 is very good right now, as long as your hardware is not ancient and is made by a recognizable hardware maker.


O.P. If you have an extra Xp license hanging around that you are not using, try dual booting. If you can't get an older game to run in Vista64 revert to Xp for that game.
 
Sovereign said:
Go with Vista x64, XP x64 is Microsoft's unloved child. Driver support for Vista x64 is no longer an issue for most users, but with XP x64, good luck!
Click to expand...

God dammit, haven't we been over this enough: stop spreading that ridiculous bullshit, will ya? :D <<<--- Note the smiley there as I'm poking fun at you, but in the end, seriously...

The driver situation with XP x64 is almost but not quite a moot point anymore.

But to just keep saying it or implying it that way... geez, give it a rest. ;)
 
Joe Average said:
God dammit, haven't we been over this enough: stop spreading that ridiculous bullshit, will ya? :D <<<--- Note the smiley there as I'm poking fun at you, but in the end, seriously...

The driver situation with XP x64 is almost but not quite a moot point anymore.

But to just keep saying it or implying it that way... geez, give it a rest. ;)
Click to expand...

His comment is especially funny because drivers for Vista x64 will generally work on XP x64 as well :p
 
bmaverick said:
Some games will not run in the 64-bit OS environment no matter what you try to make them work. So, XP-Pro SP2 is the ideal path to take.
Click to expand...

name one major title. I'd be appauled if a game developer used 32bit exclusive code. System shock 2 (1996?) runs on the setup in my sig. If something that archaic can run on the newest OS in 64bit, anything can.

From all the data I can gather, including my own personal experiances and the experiances I've read about, Vista is the better OS.

Elledan said:
WinXP SP2 will recognize up till about 3.58 GB as available for applications. The rest is reserved in the upper memory space for things like PCIe and such HW resources.
Click to expand...

Win XP SP2 will recognize up to exactly 4.000GB. This includes mutiple buffers, including the L1 and L2 caches, and Video Ram, as well as system ram. 2 addresses per bit, 32 bits wide. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes /1024^3 (to get to gigabytes) = 4 GB exactly. In contrast if anyones intrested: 2 addresses per bit, 64 bits wide. 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes / 1024^3 = 17,179,869,184 GB = 16 Exabytes. We wont need to shift to the 128 bit system any time soon, which is good, because that number is so huge its no longer part of the SI system and would cause an overflow error on many calculators. 2^128 = 3.40 X 10^38 = 34 with 37 zeros after it... bytes.
 
Vista x64 will be your best choice for a new system. You don't want to invest your hard earned $$ on XP at this point... The performance features like SuperFetch and low priority I/O in Vista will perform extremely well with well equipped system like that.

In fact, with that system, your apps will be more responsive and load many times faster with Vista than XP.
 
And if you do come across games that don't work on 64-bit Vista, there's a good chance it's only the installer having problems because it's 16-bit. A number of older Star Wars games have 16-bit installers but the community has either made compatible installers or posted instructions on how to install on 64-bit systems, and then the games work fine. :)
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Win XP SP2 will recognize up to exactly 4.000GB. This includes mutiple buffers, including the L1 and L2 caches, and Video Ram, as well as system ram. 2 addresses per bit, 32 bits wide. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes /1024^3 (to get to gigabytes) = 4 GB exactly. In contrast if anyones intrested: 2 addresses per bit, 64 bits wide. 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes / 1024^3 = 17,179,869,184 GB = 16 Exabytes. We wont need to shift to the 128 bit system any time soon, which is good, because that number is so huge its no longer part of the SI system and would cause an overflow error on many calculators. 2^128 = 3.40 X 10^38 = 34 with 37 zeros after it... bytes.
Click to expand...

Actually, without the /3GB or /PAE switches in boot.ini, WinXP will have trouble reporting anything beyond 2 GB. This is due to how WinXP address memory and resources.

Theoretically you're totally right, of course.

Note: XP x64 and Vista x64 only support up to 128 GB as well, instead of the full 64-bit addressing space (2^64).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top