# Trying to decide between XP SP3 or Vista SP1...



## ADF (Nov 27, 2008)

I chose both in a dual boot, which has been working for me just fine until the past year.

Vista has never really been at a point were I felt I would benefit from using it as my main OS; whether it is the slow file transfers, the slow boot time, the resource hogging, the program compatibility issues or so on. I kept the nice and lean XP as my main OS and occasionally booted into Vista to test gaming performance or try out DX10. They are both MSDN copies provided by my university so they didn't cost me a penny, I have no financial investment encouraging me to get value out of them, I use what works well with my PC.

My PC is this by the way, I don't want anyone claiming I have a weak system to justify Vista being a hog.

AM2 5600+ X2 2.8ghz
2GB DDR800
512mb 8800GT

So Vista is mainly there to try DX10 and gaming performance on, then Securom appears. Because of Securom I cannot install a game once on my storage HDD and run it under both OS partitions on my dual boot HDD. Games are forcefully given a limited number of installs, I have to install a game twice to test it on both operating systems which is a waste of activations and screws up my storage system. One large storage drive and one smaller partitioned OS drive, a Securom game has to be installed on the HDD with the OS which only has enough space for general software and desktop files anyway.

XP has been acting up since I installed SP3 and won't defrag properly any more, I think it is time for a format. I'm dropping the dual boot system since Securom screwed my storage organisation method, problem is which OS?

Just so you don't think I am over reacting when I say program compatibility issues take a look at this. Winamp is my preferred media player and it connects to a couple of online stations I like to listen to, Vista hates it. As you can see in the linked image; while under Vista Winamp requires significantly more resources to run than WMP, what you don't see is the winamp video is jumping and stuttering all over the place. Thing is Winamp runs just fine under XP, I have actually seen this occur when running some videos under Firefox, it is like MS that sneaky bastard has given their player special access to resources and restricted others. I have a friend with a Vista laptop that experiences the exact same thing in other media players.

I recall other annoyances way back when I tried using Vista exclusively. For example Neverwinter Nights 2 loading times getting longer and longer the more you keep the game running, despite page file and the OS being on a separate HDD. How many of these have been fixed since SP1 I don't know, only through long term day to day use can I know. 

From my past and current experience with the OS you would think the decision would be clear, thing is I know from past experience that I eventually get tempted into trying Vista again because I am curious if the situation has improved and what DX10 mode is like in some games. There is also those bloody Vista exclusives like Alan Wake coming up, most likely  artificially exclusive but what can you do? Because of Securom; I cannot afford to be formatting and jumping OS every couple of months, at the same time if I end up hating Vista and wanting to go back to XP that is another format and Securom activations lost.

Considering the situation what do you all suggest?


----------



## net-cat (Nov 27, 2008)

Limiting solution: I'd go with XP. But that's just me and I don't do much gaming.

Legal solution: If you want the best of both worlds, suck it up and buy two computers and a KVM.

Solution that most people use: Pirate your games. Seriously. Things like Securom are getting utterly ridiculous. Vote with your wallet.


----------



## Pi (Nov 27, 2008)

Microsoft's consumer OSes are crippled horseshit. Server 2008 or Server 2003 is a better battle.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 27, 2008)

With that hardware you will actually get better performance with Vista SP1 over XP SP3.
By better performance I'm talking about a good 20+FPS in games, was a massive difference when I swapped.

Also all that file transfer and mem hogging you're talking about is none existent. You have 2 gigs of ram, you will run everything faster. If you had lower amounts of ram it would be shitty, but I would suggest Vista x64 premium with sp1.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 27, 2008)

In my world (Canada), it's perfectly legal to circumvent that copy protection for such a purpose; Whether the same is true in the USA, I'm not sure. All the same, that will destroy any chances of using said games online.

While your system could use more memory (4GB happens to be Vista's "sweet spot" as 1GB was XP's), it shouldn't be bogged down in the least by Windows Vista, especially if you were to disable a number of the lesser-used services and applications that come enabled by default.

The file transfer slowdown bug has been resolved in Vista SP1, though it's still been clocked slower than a comparable XP machine for some reason (extra overhead I guess, but I have to ask, why?).

As for Winamp, it sounds almost like hardware acceleration is disabled in your video preferences, and though I typically use VLC for my video playing needs, Winamp has always played my movies without spiking my dual core CPU to 80% and running like ass. If you go into your preferences and check under General Preferences -> Video, is "Allow hardware video overlay" checked? And "Allow YV12 overlay mode"? Is "Synchronize video to screen refresh rate" off or on? You should make sure those first two are on, and the third is off. Also, are you running NVidia drivers, or Windows Update drivers? It can make a big difference.


----------



## Alyxx_Vampire (Nov 27, 2008)

I'd go with Vista SP1 in this case if I had to choose a Microsoft OS.


----------



## ADF (Nov 28, 2008)

Runefox said:


> As for Winamp, it sounds almost like hardware acceleration is disabled in your video preferences, and though I typically use VLC for my video playing needs, Winamp has always played my movies without spiking my dual core CPU to 80% and running like ass. If you go into your preferences and check under General Preferences -> Video, is "Allow hardware video overlay" checked? And "Allow YV12 overlay mode"? Is "Synchronize video to screen refresh rate" off or on? You should make sure those first two are on, and the third is off. Also, are you running NVidia drivers, or Windows Update drivers? It can make a big difference.


Already have the latest drivers and Winamp is already set to those settings I'm afraid, I did find turning off Aero Glass helped though. It was still a CPU hog, around 55%, but it runs fluidly when the 3D interface is off. Of course that is part of the appeal of Vista, having to turn that off kind of negates the interface benefit.

As a said note I was discussing this with a friend today and he gave me a 1GB DDR800 stick he had lying around. He upgraded to 8GB DDR1066 at some point (show off) and already put one of his two sticks into a spare computer, this one was just gathering dust so I'm on 3GB right now.


NewfDraggie said:


> With that hardware you will actually get better performance with Vista SP1 over XP SP3.
> By better performance I'm talking about a good 20+FPS in games, was a massive difference when I swapped.
> 
> Also all that file transfer and mem hogging you're talking about is none existent. You have 2 gigs of ram, you will run everything faster. If you had lower amounts of ram it would be shitty, but I would suggest Vista x64 premium with sp1.


You forget I already have Vista installed currently as a dual boot, so I don't know where you are getting this 20fps increase and better performance from; I'm certainly not seeing it and it's right in front of me.


----------



## mrredfox (Nov 28, 2008)

vista is shit and requires too much of your pc's spec, xp is awesome and dosnt.


----------



## Hollow-Dragon (Nov 28, 2008)

I'd like to play some PC games on my computer.  I have Vista Home Premium x32 adn 2 gigs of ram and a 2GHz dual-core processor.  Would switching to a x64 bit version of Vista make a difference or no?


----------



## mrredfox (Nov 28, 2008)

Hollow-Dragon said:


> I'd like to play some PC games on my computer.  I have Vista Home Premium x32 adn 2 gigs of ram and a 2GHz dual-core processor.  Would switching to a x64 bit version of Vista make a difference or no?


yes because most games have compatability issues with 64bit machines, also your hardware may not even be able to support 64 bit, if it already came with 32bit installed you may wana check


----------



## Runefox (Nov 28, 2008)

> vista is shit and requires too much of your pc's spec, xp is awesome and dosnt.


Ten years ago, people said the same thing about XP. The only problem with Vista and system resources lies in low-spec systems (like low-end Dells, Acers, and etc with crappy integrated graphics and so on). I'm thoroughly baffled by the Winamp issues described above, but I honestly haven't seen any performance problems on any Vista machines I've ever put together - And they happened to all be in excess of the minimum requirements, which... Well, should be a requirement.

But hell, XP required 64MB of RAM or more, 128MB was recommended - That was freaking huge! Windows 98 and 2000 were MUCH better and used way less system resources, and games were much faster.



> yes because most games have compatability issues with 64bit machines, also your hardware may not even be able to support 64 bit, if it already came with 32bit installed you may wana check


... Uh... I guess I'll just go back to doing nothing on my Vista 64-bit machine then. Y'know, none of that Battlefield 2, or Far Cry 2 or Fallout 3, or every game I've ever played. Have you used 64-bit Vista?


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Nov 28, 2008)

XP SP3.

I can safely say that a Athlon Phenom 9550 with 2 GB DDR-1066 and an HD3200 with Vista, runs comparably to a 2.6 GHz Celeron, with 1 GB DDR-333, and a GeForce4 MMX 440.

I know, 'cuz I have both.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 28, 2008)

Archibald: What antivirus software do you use?


----------



## jagdwolf (Nov 28, 2008)

would say vista sp1.   however, your limiter is gonna be your ram speed, AND your MB speed.

But if you have a fast HD you can cache some of that and it will be good.  Newf is right however, I noticed a big big performace bump when I reformated and Vista'ed in.


----------



## Dark Crusader Fox (Nov 28, 2008)

Personally I say...
Go with the free, Go with Linux.
But whatever, its for you to decide. SP1 is my recommendation.


----------



## Hollow-Dragon (Nov 28, 2008)

mrredfox said:


> yes because most games have compatability issues with 64bit machines, also your hardware may not even be able to support 64 bit, if it already came with 32bit installed you may wana check


 
Well I already had a game on here pre-installed when i got is, he Sims life stories, but I uninstalled it.  It seemed to handle pretty well.  My computer should handle a 64-bit OS, I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 TK-57.  I also hear that 32-bit versions of Vista can only recognize 2 gigs of ram.  Is that just a rumor or the truth?


----------



## jagdwolf (Nov 28, 2008)

Hollow-Dragon said:


> Well I already had a game on here pre-installed when i got is, he Sims life stories, but I uninstalled it. It seemed to handle pretty well. My computer should handle a 64-bit OS, I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 TK-57. I also hear that 32-bit versions of Vista can only recognize 2 gigs of ram. Is that just a rumor or the truth?


 

3 gigs.   

but if you have 4 like I do the forth is "shared" by your video memory.  Depends on your Bios  however, when I look up my vid memory on one of several test programs, they all say I have 1.7meg

I run a gtx8800 liquid cooled card btw


----------



## indrora (Nov 29, 2008)

I'm going to go with Pi on this one: Server 2008 will work quite nicely. After that, XPSP3. Slightly more compatible, much MUCH more powerful.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 29, 2008)

jagdwolf said:


> 3 gigs.
> 
> but if you have 4 like I do the forth is "shared" by your video memory.  Depends on your Bios  however, when I look up my vid memory on one of several test programs, they all say I have 1.7meg
> 
> I run a gtx8800 liquid cooled card btw



^
What he said. Plus, Windows 32-bit divides the memory between applications and the kernel - 2GB for each (the technical cap is 4GB).


----------



## indrora (Nov 29, 2008)

Winxp/32 does what vista/* cant: seperate kernel space from user space. Drivers are loaded into KERNEL space and apps live in USER space. if a driver fucks up, the kernel fails though. Something HAVE seen though is the loading of drivers in seperate memory spaces in XP. I dont know how to do it but at my college all the run boxes have a greyed checked box labeled "Run In Seperated Memory Space" -- implying that there's a cheap hack they came up with that allows for them to run stuff in a protected environment.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 29, 2008)

Hollow-Dragon said:


> I'd like to play some PC games on my computer.  I have Vista Home Premium x32 adn 2 gigs of ram and a 2GHz dual-core processor.  Would switching to a x64 bit version of Vista make a difference or no?


Most games won't have a problem. But most games are also not 64-bit aware.

So, no.



Hollow-Dragon said:


> Well I already had a game on here pre-installed when i got is, he Sims life stories, but I uninstalled it.  It seemed to handle pretty well.  My computer should handle a 64-bit OS, I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 TK-57.  I also hear that 32-bit versions of Vista can only recognize 2 gigs of ram.  Is that just a rumor or the truth?


I've actually seen both Windows XP and Windows Vista see _less_ than 2GB. That's a limit that depends largely what hardware is installed in your system. Generally speaking, I tell people this:

4GB - Video Card RAM - 256MB = Max memory in 32-bit Vista or XP.

It's a pretty good approximation, usually.



indrora said:


> Winxp/32 does what vista/* cant: seperate kernel space from user space. Drivers are loaded into KERNEL space and apps live in USER space. if a driver fucks up, the kernel fails though. Something HAVE seen though is the loading of drivers in seperate memory spaces in XP. I dont know how to do it but at my college all the run boxes have a greyed checked box labeled "Run In Seperated Memory Space" -- implying that there's a cheap hack they came up with that allows for them to run stuff in a protected environment.


This is utter and complete bullshit.

"Run in Separate Memory Space" refers to the 16-bit compatibility layer. (Which is a non-issue in the 64-bit version of both XP and Vista, as neither support running 16-bit programs.)

Both Windows XP and Windows Vista can and do make a distinction between kernel and user space. (As Windows NT always has.)

To be fair, though, the barriers that XP puts up for getting into kernel space are minimal and the barriers that Vista puts up for getting into kernel space are disabled by most users.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 29, 2008)

Vista actually does make a good effort to keep userland programs in userland, but a lot of legacy apps simply assume administrative privileges, which I guess is actually the main reason for UAC having a field day in comparison to similar technologies in Linux and Mac OS X. The paradigm shift between XP and Vista is that the concept of the user is becoming more in tune with that of *nix, which is a Good Thing(TM). Of course, this means that all those old programs that expect write access to C:\Windows will go insane if you deny them that right, and you'll go insane if you keep having to allow it every time.

What Microsoft really needed to do (and what they probably would kill themselves by doing) was, as painful as it is to say it, take Apple's approach and break backwards-compatibility altogether. Barring that, another way to take a shot at it might have been to run the user in a virtualized sandbox environment separate from the main system (yay hypervisors!), but that would have added extra overhead, especially on systems without native virtualization support on the CPU (which most nowadays do have - I'm going to be very disappointed if this setup isn't the case or at least an option when Windows 7 is released, but I'm not holding my breath).


----------



## indrora (Nov 29, 2008)

@net-cat:
Well then i am mistaken in my knowledge of Win32. I've never had the heart to use Vista for more than 40 minutes at a time, and even then i hated it every second.
@runefox:
Windows 7 will run stuff in a VM according to MiX 08. its one of Microsoft's big things.

@OP:
I'd do a "Backwards Upgrade" plan -- Microsoft outlines this on their website. You buy one version of Vista, and if you hate it enough, you bitch to Microsoft and they send you XP Pro. However I'd look into this plan before executing it. Or just go with XPSP3. You can always go differently later. Or run Vista in a VM.


----------



## ADF (Nov 29, 2008)

Seems to be allot of divided opinion on this, there has been no definite answer I can go by so far; just plenty of opinions. Anyway I recorded a video of that Winamp issue I showed earlier, if anyone can figure out how to fix this without having to turn off Aero I would probably give Vista a go.



Dark Crusader Fox said:


> Personally I say...
> Go with the free, Go with Linux.
> But whatever, its for you to decide. SP1 is my recommendation.


Both the Vista and XP copies I have are from the Microsoft academic alliance, so no money out my pocket either way


----------



## net-cat (Nov 29, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Vista actually does make a good effort to keep userland programs in userland, but a lot of legacy apps simply assume administrative privileges, which I guess is actually the main reason for UAC having a field day in comparison to similar technologies in Linux and Mac OS X. The paradigm shift between XP and Vista is that the concept of the user is becoming more in tune with that of *nix, which is a Good Thing(TM). Of course, this means that all those old programs that expect write access to C:\Windows will go insane if you deny them that right, and you'll go insane if you keep having to allow it every time.


It's not just old programs. It's new programs written by people who don't have a clue how to write programs, as well. I was talking with someone who couldn't figure out for the life of him why anything and everything having unlimited access to %SYSTEMROOT% was, in fact, a bad thing.



Runefox said:


> What Microsoft really needed to do (and what they probably would kill themselves by doing) was, as painful as it is to say it, take Apple's approach and break backwards-compatibility altogether. Barring that, another way to take a shot at it might have been to run the user in a virtualized sandbox environment separate from the main system (yay hypervisors!), but that would have added extra overhead, especially on systems without native virtualization support on the CPU (which most nowadays do have - I'm going to be very disappointed if this setup isn't the case or at least an option when Windows 7 is released, but I'm not holding my breath).


Heh. Yeah, they won't do that. That's how they maintain their monopoly. If they break backward compatibility in any significant way, there's nothing holding people to the platform anymore. Virtualization is a good idea (a la "Classic" in early Mac OS X) but Microsoft has it in their heads that "Virtualized Machine=Second OS License." And most people will never go for that.

And really, it wouldn't take much for them to redirect API calls into a sandbox. (Much like Wine in Linux. It reads the Windows binaries and translates Win32 API calls into the corresponding X11/OpenGL/ALSA/whatever else calls.) In fact, there have been efforts* to do just that.

* Can't speak to the quality of that program... I've never actually used it.


----------



## indrora (Nov 29, 2008)

As for the Winamp thing, it looks like you aren't using the most recent (unless you've opted for the "modern" skin not "bento") -- it looks like Vista doesn't like Winamp at all according to the threads I've read on their forums. 

I'd just go with XP at that point...
@net-cat: Sandboxie is a wonderful little tool -- it does a lot of marshalling between the OS and the app -- the only problem is that it malloc's a fair chunk of memory for each process but doesn't malloc to accomodate more. Point and example: load Firefox with 5 extentions and get a "Out Of Memory: Cannot load ff3hist.sqd" or some such.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 29, 2008)

I have to say again that I haven't had any performance issues with Winamp on my Vista machine. But then again, I always run with my XMMS skin, Ultrafina SE, which is a classic skin. Not sure if modern skins have any issues.. I would imagine the alpha blending support might not be 100% the same between XP and Vista.


----------



## ADF (Nov 29, 2008)

indrora said:


> As for the Winamp thing, it looks like you aren't using the most recent (unless you've opted for the "modern" skin not "bento") -- it looks like Vista doesn't like Winamp at all according to the threads I've read on their forums.



It is the latest version, I just prefer that skin. I'll see if changing the skin impacts anything; though I doubt it.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 29, 2008)

I'm using vista x86 and i use winamp, flawless.


----------



## CyberFoxx (Nov 29, 2008)

Personally, I'd stick with XP. Pretty much all it's bugs, tweaks and workarounds have been documented from here to the Orion Nebula. Plus, with the stuff I do under Windows, Vista wouldn't bring anything worthwhile to the table.

Of course, this is just my opinion, feel free to take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## dietrc70 (Nov 30, 2008)

I can dual boot, but I find I like Vista 64 better for nearly everything.

I often work with large PDF's and have lots of windows open at once on two monitors.  With a gaming card, Aero has much faster desktop response and refresh than the 2D desktop mode.

The multitasking is much better on Vista.  I can run multiple encoding jobs in the background and max out both cores without the desktop becoming sluggish.

Also, Vista has nicer screen fonts (IMO) and looks better if you have a very high resolution monitor.  With XP, at high resolution the text on the desktop is tiny, and if you change the DPI it looks out of proportion.

PS--Winamp also works perfectly for me with the modern or Bento skin.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 30, 2008)

I guess what you could do is use VLC for video and Winamp for everything else - That's what I do. I don't find Winamp to be ideal for video playback, really, and VLC offers quick access to audio tracks, subtitles, etc if the video supports them. And it works with pretty much everything out of the box, not to mention every OS (including Linux-based phones).

I wonder if the difference in performance might have anything to do with your having an NVidia card, versus Newf and I having ATI cards?


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Nov 30, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Archibald: What antivirus software do you use?



Used to use AVG, but it proved particularly painfully slow and resource hoggy.  So I recently switched to Kaspersky.


I always try use the same antivirus on all my systems.


----------



## ADF (Dec 1, 2008)

Runefox said:


> I guess what you could do is use VLC for video and Winamp for everything else - That's what I do. I don't find Winamp to be ideal for video playback, really, and VLC offers quick access to audio tracks, subtitles, etc if the video supports them. And it works with pretty much everything out of the box, not to mention every OS (including Linux-based phones).
> 
> I wonder if the difference in performance might have anything to do with your having an NVidia card, versus Newf and I having ATI cards?



I gave VLC player a go under Vista, it doesn't have the same performance problems Winamp has and supports everything I used Winamp for. What I find interesting is this player uses the Vista 3D interface, when you also factor in that these problems go away when Aero Glass is turned off; it's as if Winamp is still trying to run a software interface while 3D is on and causeing some sort of performance issue in the process. If that was the case you would think they would have fixed something this bad a long time ago.

That said with this player taking Winamps place my main complaint is resolved, it's just the possibility of issues I encountered with Vista in the past appearing; which SP1 could have resolved. I guess I'll try using Vista as my main again, but I'm leaving a small blank partition for XP in case I encounter compatibility issues with important software.

I have 3GB ram now but I'm not touching 64bit, the last time I tried that performance was horrible and a friend right now is having disk read performance issues on 64bit. I see no point in going for 64bit if it is just going to cause compatibility issues with older programs/games and only improve a minority of supporting programs.

It's true Vista's a hog but my system isn't some retail budget computer, hopefully I don't end up regreatting the choice a month from now.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 1, 2008)

Well I would have to ask what program or anything you're having trouble running under x64.
Also, I'm for some reason doubting you had any performance issues with winamp, seeing as myself and 2 other people have already said no drop in performance, at all.

Like people hate vista for doing nothing wrong; lot of that going around.
Especially people that haven't even used it.


----------



## ADF (Dec 1, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well I would have to ask what program or anything you're having trouble running under x64.
> Also, I'm for some reason doubting you had any performance issues with winamp, seeing as myself and 2 other people have already said no drop in performance, at all.
> 
> Like people hate vista for doing nothing wrong; lot of that going around.
> Especially people that haven't even used it.


Nope; you're just such a Vista fanboy you refuse to recognise someone may have a less than perfect experience with the OS :roll:

Here, have another look at the problem. That's two images and one video I must have faked now, strange behaviour from someone who just said they will install Vista now that they have a Winamp alternative huh?





Anyone else I would put down to sarcasm, but I know what you're like.


----------



## Maio Maio Tigerman (Dec 1, 2008)

i have found only one game *that i want *that wont run on vista (have found loads but most i dont want to play) and it was BF2142, it was working then when i updated my vid drivers it stoped working. i contacted EA abd they said that it wasnt designed to run on vista and that i should go get my money back lol. (the store said that they wont give money back on it because it is an online game where you have to register the CD key)


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 1, 2008)

ADF said:


> Nope; you're just such a Vista fanboy you refuse to recognise someone may have a less than perfect experience with the OS :roll:
> 
> Here, have another look at the problem. That's two images and one video I must have faked now, strange behaviour from someone who just said they will install Vista now that they have a Winamp alternative huh?
> 
> ...


Again I asked you to name -one- thing you can't get to work in x64 that you use.
Also, that skin you're using for winamp didn't even work in xp for me when I did use XP.


----------



## ADF (Dec 1, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Again I asked you to name -one- thing you can't get to work in x64 that you use.


If you are after specific information you can criticise to prove Vista 64bit is amazing and anyone who says otherwise is full of crap... I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. I installed Vista 64 and found *everything* to be incredibly slow, after a while I couldn't take it anymore so formatted and switched back to 32bit Vista.

That's it, no specifics, just generally horrible performance. I don't for a moment expect that to be everyone's experience but it put me off from trying it again. Either way I don't have 4GB ram or many 64bit programs so there is no particular reason for me to go for 64bit.

And no matter what I say you are just going to keep pushing it as the best thing ever, I know what you are like so please save it.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 1, 2008)

You do know that you must install drivers, right?
I mean it's actually impossible for it to be slower, unless you had a back crack (which I'm betting 99% you did not purchase it) or your system isn't actually 64 bit, just extension and even then it shouldn't be slower. So I'm going out on a massive limb and saying you're full of crap, just like a few other times I've seen you post on FA forums, you're usually negative about something with absolutely no negative qualities, or at least none that you're being negative about.

calling me a fanboy is another ignorant response, when in fact I got for only what's best and I would only use linux if I didn't game, Vista is simply the best OS for gaming and there isn't any issues that you're complaining about in the operating system; x86 or x64.


----------



## ADF (Dec 2, 2008)

Why would I need a cracked copy when I can  get a free copy from my universities Microsoft academic alliance program? Drivers are also common sense.

Why not just for a moment recall that because Microsoft operating systems run on such a variety of hardware; the experience is inconsistent between machines? Your experience is not the only one, just because you don't encounter a problem others have doesn't mean they must be lying about it.

*That* is common knowledge and I shouldn't have to bring it up, stop throwing your conspiracy theories at me.


----------



## dietrc70 (Dec 2, 2008)

ADF said:


> If you are after specific information you can criticise to prove Vista 64bit is amazing and anyone who says otherwise is full of crap... I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. I installed Vista 64 and found *everything* to be incredibly slow, after a while I couldn't take it anymore so formatted and switched back to 32bit Vista.
> 
> That's it, no specifics, just generally horrible performance. I don't for a moment expect that to be everyone's experience but it put me off from trying it again. Either way I don't have 4GB ram or many 64bit programs so there is no particular reason for me to go for 64bit.



Agreed, there is no benefit to Vista 64 over Vista 32 unless you have 4GB or more.  It seems to demand a 1GB "tax" to reach roughly the same speed as Vista 32.  I'd always recommend Vista 32 over 64 unless you really want/need a lot of memory.

Also, Vista 64 is much more likely to have weird compatibility issues.  I was an early adopter of XP x64, which was royal pain in that regard even though the OS itself rocked.  There's a lot less grief now in getting stuff to work in a 64 bit OS, but 64 bit Windows is a lot more likely to give you grief with certain kinds of software.

It's cool to have 8GB and a Windows 2000 Virtual PC, Adobe Bridge CS2, and huge files opened in Acrobat 9, Photoshop, and InDesign all at the same time.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 2, 2008)

dietrc70 said:


> Agreed, there is no benefit to Vista 64 over Vista 32 unless you have 4GB or more.  It seems to demand a 1GB "tax" to reach roughly the same speed as Vista 32.  I'd always recommend Vista 32 over 64 unless you really want/need a lot of memory.
> 
> Also, Vista 64 is much more likely to have weird compatibility issues.  I was an early adopter of XP x64, which was royal pain in that regard even though the OS itself rocked.  There's a lot less grief now in getting stuff to work in a 64 bit OS, but 64 bit Windows is a lot more likely to give you grief with certain kinds of software.
> 
> It's cool to have 8GB and a Windows 2000 Virtual PC, Adobe Bridge CS2, and huge files opened in Acrobat 9, Photoshop, and InDesign all at the same time.



What are you talking about? x64 runs at the same speed or (and it usually is) faster than x86, in fact having x64 doesn't magically take up more ram, it just allows for more than 4gb of memory.
I have no idea where you and ADF get the idea that x64 is slower, because it's actually a noticeable increase, not any decrease.

Not one person I've spoken to that has used x64 found it slower than x86, people that do actually say that usually haven't tried or are just making crap up. If you think it's running slower how about you tell us why. Come on, seriously now what makes it take up more ram, or slow down a computer; it actually allows more ram and the x64 cpu to not be confined to x86 tasks. x64 will add registries to x86 programs, making them run faster than on a 32 bit OS, and any 64bit programs will run even faster than those. It's impossible for it to be slower, as well all those people talking about not having apps work or drivers work are also talking out of their ass, anything that doesn't work you can emulate or fix to work and if a really old device doesn't work I'm going to toss out a suggestion; get a new device. Stop using your decade+ old webcam, give it to a friend or toss it, and go purchase a $10 one, at least.


----------



## dietrc70 (Dec 3, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> What are you talking about? x64 runs at the same speed or (and it usually is) faster than x86, in fact having x64 doesn't magically take up more ram, it just allows for more than 4gb of memory.
> I have no idea where you and ADF get the idea that x64 is slower, because it's actually a noticeable increase, not any decrease.
> 
> Not one person I've spoken to that has used x64 found it slower than x86, people that do actually say that usually haven't tried or are just making crap up. If you think it's running slower how about you tell us why. Come on, seriously now what makes it take up more ram, or slow down a computer; it actually allows more ram and the x64 cpu to not be confined to x86 tasks. x64 will add registries to x86 programs, making them run faster than on a 32 bit OS, and any 64bit programs will run even faster than those. It's impossible for it to be slower, as well all those people talking about not having apps work or drivers work are also talking out of their ass, anything that doesn't work you can emulate or fix to work and if a really old device doesn't work I'm going to toss out a suggestion; get a new device. Stop using your decade+ old webcam, give it to a friend or toss it, and go purchase a $10 one, at least.



I'm talking about computers with less than 4 GB.  When Vista first came out, one of the tech magazines did benchmarks and found that Photoshop and other operations were roughly the same speed on 64 with 4GB as they were on 32 with 2GB.  Vista 64 with 2GB was noticeably slower than Vista 32 with 2GB.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 3, 2008)

dietrc70 said:


> I'm talking about computers with less than 4 GB.  When Vista first came out, one of the tech magazines did benchmarks and found that Photoshop and other operations were roughly the same speed on 64 with 4GB as they were on 32 with 2GB.  Vista 64 with 2GB was noticeably slower than Vista 32 with 2GB.



Source?


----------



## CyberFoxx (Dec 3, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> What are you talking about? x64 runs at the same speed or (and it usually is) faster than x86, in fact having x64 doesn't magically take up more ram, it just allows for more than 4gb of memory.
> I have no idea where you and ADF get the idea that x64 is slower, because it's actually a noticeable increase, not any decrease.




Got an Intel setup? With an AGP card? And 4GB of RAM? Well, with that, 64-bit is slower. Intel, for whatever reason, don't allow IOMMU access to the AGP aperture in 64-bit mode. Now, I admit I'm not sure of the exact performance figures, but that extra copying of a full memory page for the bounce buffer can't be good.

Bounce Buffers
Wikipedia Artice with anchor to differences between AMD64 and EM64T


----------



## dietrc70 (Dec 3, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Source?



Google it; it's from initial testing of the OS upon release a couple years ago, and it corresponds with my own comparisons of the two OS's.  Running Vista 64 on 2GB was horrible.  At 4GB it was great.

64-bit pointers take up more memory than 32-bit pointers.  Vista 64 uses more memory for the OS than does Vista 32.  Therefore, unless you have more memory than Vista 32 can address, there will be less memory available for caching and more swapping with Vista 64 than Vista 32.

If you have 4GB+, then Vista 64 will have the advantage.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 4, 2008)

CyberFoxx said:


> Got an Intel setup? With an AGP card? And 4GB of RAM? Well, with that, 64-bit is slower. Intel, for whatever reason, don't allow IOMMU access to the AGP aperture in 64-bit mode. Now, I admit I'm not sure of the exact performance figures, but that extra copying of a full memory page for the bounce buffer can't be good.
> 
> Bounce Buffers
> Wikipedia Artice with anchor to differences between AMD64 and EM64T



If it's not 64bit compatible, then it will be slower. I'm talking compatible here; fully.



dietrc70 said:


> Google it; it's from initial testing of the OS upon release a couple years ago, and it corresponds with my own comparisons of the two OS's.  Running Vista 64 on 2GB was horrible.  At 4GB it was great.
> 
> 64-bit pointers take up more memory than 32-bit pointers.  Vista 64 uses more memory for the OS than does Vista 32.  Therefore, unless you have more memory than Vista 32 can address, there will be less memory available for caching and more swapping with Vista 64 than Vista 32.
> 
> ...


I asked you for a source, unless you give me a source what you're saying is complete garbage, you have to prove your claim and not with just one link, either. Reliable source, and at least 3 of them or else I won't believe what you say.


----------



## Pi (Dec 4, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> If it's not 64bit compatible, then it will be slower. I'm talking compatible here; fully.



I asked you for a source, unless you give me a source what you're saying is complete garbage, you have to prove your claim and not with just one link, either. Reliable source, and at least 3 of them or else I won't believe what you say.

Also quit pretending to be me. You're not good at it.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 5, 2008)

Alright Pi, how about you slap on a 32-bit CPU, fire up Vista x64, and see what happens. :3


----------

