Which Operation System Do You Have?

DeadSpace · September 9th, 2008, 12:14 PM

Server 2008 x64, as mentioned, it's vista without the bloat...and alot more configurable/stable.

Vigilante · September 15th, 2008, 12:12 AM

I use a customised version of Vista x64. Some people said they moved to x64 at reaching 4gb memory, but the increased native 64-bit app size means the extra 700mb or so is often wasted, especially if they jump from xp 32 to vista 64.

However, I have 8gb of memory, and unfortunately xp was never really designed to be a 64 bit OS. It's performance is not as good as the 32 bit version, and the aforementioned issues with drivers and app compatibility made me choose Vista. Since I used vlite to remove all the junk (2gb of dvd space for voice input, wtf), the os installs fast, takes up a lot less space and runs like a dream. Mind you, I've hardly got ancient hardware so that might excuse my lack of issues with it; the majority of vista problems are with older hardware.

-Shockwave- · September 17th, 2008, 10:39 AM

I'm sticking with XP for now since I only have 1GB of memory and could not change to Vista with that little amount of ram. The only reason for me to change to Vista is to take advantage of the fact that my video card supports DX10 and pixel shader 4.0, but other than that I do not need to change OS's to a memory hog of an OS like Vista is. I can just make due with DX9 and PS 3.0 since it's not really going to improve anything much anyway.

When I decide to rebuild (and that should be soon, this rig is barely able to run anything decent anymore) I will probably just break down and buy Vista at that time.

blindartist · September 17th, 2008, 05:13 PM

Vista is and always has been a waste of time, even more so now that windows 7 is just around the corner

really your rig doesnt run anything good? asside from that video card you should be ok, ive got a smiliar set up except with a x1950 and i can run every game out there at max settings with rez of 1280x960, well crysis lags some at max but thats just crysis

Unixlord · September 17th, 2008, 07:22 PM

Well the windows 7 release may be around the corner but as with all M$ releases it will be a while before it becomes stable. The core of windows 7 is still Vista but that's a good thing, there will be less crap driver madness by nv/ati.

-Shockwave- · September 18th, 2008, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindartist

really your rig doesnt run anything good? asside from that video card you should be ok, ive got a smiliar set up except with a x1950 and i can run every game out there at max settings with rez of 1280x960, well crysis lags some at max but thats just crysis

I'm able to run a good amount of games at playable speeds, but nothing of the newest of the new. I got through Bioshock at 15fps because I couldn't bear to change any settings and had to leave everything on high and all settings that improved graphic quality was left on, so I had to suffer through slow speeds. The game would not have been worth playing at all to me if I had to lower the settings and make it look like crap.

Funerall · September 21st, 2008, 02:34 AM

XP because faster and simple

Vigilante · September 21st, 2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funerall

XP because faster and simple

I don't technically disagree, but I think Vista has it's moments. For example, with lots of memory (4gb+), Vista's caching subsystem works a charm, especially with large apps - games spring to mind. AFAIK it preloads programs in to memory in the order they appear on the start menu - so the ones you use most get cached first, and so on.

Thanks to DWM being graphically accelerated, alt-tabbing from games is a load faster than in XP, which can be very important if you run fullscreen games and IM apps at the same time.

Vista's actual performance after an app is loaded however, varies massively by system configuration - It clearly isnt optimised for older (XP-generation) hardware - its improved multithreading as evidence of it. But on a modern system (like mine), performance between Vista and XP is negligible to none. In some cases its faster thanks to better thread management in apps.

Sure, I'm not here to defend Vista or anything. I technically use it out of necessity - it does nothing for me that XP cant, except use all my memory. And I use some software that chooses not to run properly on xp x64 - it wasn't designed for x64 based processors initially, and theres such a feeling of xp being "forced" into x64. But I do like to point out the benefits of Vista, albeit the very few of them.

Unixlord · September 21st, 2008, 04:29 AM

I've got a Vista 64bit Ultimate SP1 DVD sitting right here. I'm going to have to install it eventually but I don't have to like it. I wonder if obama was referring to vista when he mentioned putting lipstick on a pig... it's still a god damn fat smelly frickin pig.

Shadow Lady · September 22nd, 2008, 02:15 AM

XP 32, cause Vista failed to impress me and XP 64 simply sux, oh and I use linux too but not as much