Should I get XP or Vista.

Windows XP is terrible in terms of 64-bit support. If you get XP, stick with 32-bit - but I'd definitely get Vista Home Premium 64-bit, it's the best way to go in terms of an OS right now.RayvinAzn

agreed, i have vista 64, works great no issues, looks cooler than xp too

I know there was a big backlash by gamers against Vista when it first came out because of a lot of compatibility and performance issues, but it has now been out for 18+ months, and hopefully all these issues have now been addressed.

Personally I'm just hoping that the Vista service packs are better tested than the XP ones. After all it was XP SP3 that crippled my PC last week, giving me that final push to buy a new PC and now switch to Vista (Home Premium 64bit)

i have both installed right now. i Usally boot with XP 32bit. dx10 is the only reason vista stays on my computer. Vista is slow compared to XP keep that in mind.saejox

I haven't seen any reasons that clearly say WHY you should go with Vista, though. I guess I'm looking at it from an upgrade standpoint instead of starting new, but I've never seen any reason to jump to Vista other than DX10 which isn't really that well-implemented.

Then, regarding whether to get 32bit or 64bit is a complete mystery to me. A lot of people just say blindly to get 64bit, but WHY?

I haven't seen any reasons that clearly say WHY you should go with Vista, though. I guess I'm looking at it from an upgrade standpoint instead of starting new, but I've never seen any reason to jump to Vista other than DX10 which isn't really that well-implemented.

Then, regarding whether to get 32bit or 64bit is a complete mystery to me. A lot of people just say blindly to get 64bit, but WHY?

jazztrumpet5

A 32-bit os can only address 2^32 bits of memory, or 4GB. If you want to use more memory than this (remember, that memory also includes Video RAM, cache, and a few other bits Windows takes over, so actual system RAM will be between 3-3.5GB on average) you need to use a 64-bit OS.

Vista is also more adept at using multi-core processors than XP - it was designed after dual-core processors were a distinct possibility for a home user to own, and is more efficient in using them.

It does use up more RAM, but I'm not even sure if I'd call it "using up" RAM - it pre-loads common programs into the RAM so they can be launched faster.

Basically, you can trace your argument all the way back to Windows 3.1 - why bother with Windows XP when 2000 uses half again as much RAM? Why bother with 2000 when 98 was even more efficient?

Let's face it - the vast majority of our hardware upgrades are made because Windows and other operating systems keep getting bigger. Gaming alone isn't going to drive the computer industry. It's time to move on - Windows XP has bred way too much complacency amongst computer users. Hell, I bet a good number of the people on here have never owned their own computer with any operating system other than XP. Of course they're loathe to switch, but it's time to move the hell on already. Personally, I'm glad Microsoft is going back to a 2-3 year development cycle rather than sitting on an honestly mediocre operating system for over a decade.

[QUOTE="jazztrumpet5"]

I haven't seen any reasons that clearly say WHY you should go with Vista, though. I guess I'm looking at it from an upgrade standpoint instead of starting new, but I've never seen any reason to jump to Vista other than DX10 which isn't really that well-implemented.

Then, regarding whether to get 32bit or 64bit is a complete mystery to me. A lot of people just say blindly to get 64bit, but WHY?

RayvinAzn

A 32-bit os can only address 2^32 bits of memory, or 4GB. If you want to use more memory than this (remember, that memory also includes Video RAM, cache, and a few other bits Windows takes over, so actual system RAM will be between 3-3.5GB on average) you need to use a 64-bit OS.

Vista is also more adept at using multi-core processors than XP - it was designed after dual-core processors were a distinct possibility for a home user to own, and is more efficient in using them.

It does use up more RAM, but I'm not even sure if I'd call it "using up" RAM - it pre-loads common programs into the RAM so they can be launched faster.

Basically, you can trace your argument all the way back to Windows 3.1 - why bother with Windows XP when 2000 uses half again as much RAM? Why bother with 2000 when 98 was even more efficient?

Let's face it - the vast majority of our hardware upgrades are made because Windows and other operating systems keep getting bigger. Gaming alone isn't going to drive the computer industry. It's time to move on - Windows XP has bred way too much complacency amongst computer users. Hell, I bet a good number of the people on here have never owned their own computer with any operating system other than XP. Of course they're loathe to switch, but it's time to move the hell on already. Personally, I'm glad Microsoft is going back to a 2-3 year development cycle rather than sitting on an honestly mediocre operating system for over a decade.

Rayvin, thanks so much for throwing something out there that puts some substance to the table, other than "just go get it". That's one of the best summaries I've seen, and it definitely helps me see why we buy what we buy. Awesome. 

Also, regarding 32 vs 64 bit architecture, I'm not quite sure how to tell if I can even run a 64 bit version of Vista. On MS's site, it says to check your processor architecture (x86 vs x64), which mine says x86, and according to MS, can't run Vista 64.

I'm a little confused on that, as my CPU is a Q6600... surely the quad-core is capable of running a 64bit OS?

[QUOTE="jazztrumpet5"]Vista is also more adept at using multi-core processors than XP - it was designed after dual-core processors were a distinct possibility for a home user to own, and is more efficient in using them.RayvinAzn