Windows Vista Is Vista Any Good

[a2amali]

I have vista at home and its great but i had to get a new PC.

So if you get a new PC and have the option then get vista at home

but in business there is no way i am getting vista because there are incompatibilites with old software and networking.

I doubt that HP or DELL will stop selling XP/Vista options

 

[murdoch]

Are HP & Dell not Gold Partners with Microsoft?
Hence they get a good deal from them??

As for me it's XP all the way.

 

[a2amali]

Yes Gold partners actually print out the image themselves and pay around $50 for each OS.

I am sure Microsoft is going to try to muscle us in to buying Vista for business but i doubt it will be anytime soon.

 

[Retro~Burn]

I intend on buying a new pc in the next two months. My intended specs will be :-

ASUS P5E3 Deluxe - motherboard

XFX GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB - graphics card

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Quad Core - processor

4GB RAM

Should I then get Vista rather than XP? I want to try a new OS any way.

 

[a2amali]

OH yes go for Vista becausethe 8800GTX card is capable to run directx 10 but you can only run directx 10 in Vista right now.
Also XP cannot really work with 4GB RAM its like 2 to 2.5 GB of effective use but Vista uses full 4GB RAM by caching the the paging file if it finds spare ram. I dont know why Vista still uses page file when its got free memory but it uses it better then xp anyway.

I also have a huge collection of family photos and i find that Vista streams then thum nails much quicker then XP, also i found that my CPU runs cooler in VISTA then XP for some odd reason (probably something to do with 64bits)

Vista is excellent for new PC, I would not touch XP unless for the sake of compatiblity

 

[Alf]

Take a look at the 8800GT or the newer 8800GTS 512

not only will you save money, but the new 8800GTS 512 will perform just as well as the GTX.

 

[floppybootstomp]

Take a look at the 8800GT or the newer 8800GTS 512

not only will you save money, but the new 8800GTS 512 will perform just as well as the GTX.

Well, almost as well

The difference is probably not that noticeable though and if I were buying a new vid card I'd definitely go for a GT

I'm not 100% sure on this but doesn't Vista 64 Bit fully utilise 4Gb RAM?

I'll probably change to Vista soon on my main machine and I'm still undecided whether to get 32 bit or 64 bit.

Memory is so cheap atm it would be nice to have 4Gb and DX10 working

 

[a2amali]

I have the 8500GT card which is DX10 and 4GB RAM with Vista64 its quite fast the Gears of war is very high detail and is better the xbox 360 in gaming, unreal 3 is cool too no lagging at all.

but its still not instant! i guess until we get memory drives it will never be.

 

[muckshifter]

... doesn't Vista 64 Bit fully utilise 4Gb RAM?

I gotta step in again, and, say once again ... NO! YES! MAYBE!

Is the motherboard "fully" 64bit compatible, there is that word, that does not exist in computer terminology ... is the operating system fully 64bit ... is the CPU fully 64bit

I'm simplifying the three basic needs here.

First and foremost is the MB fully 64bit ... the north bridge used in some, err, quite a few really, motherboards using Intel 945 chipset is limited to 2^32 addressable points on the memory bus. Intel’s spec sheet for the i945 chipset confirms this. So basically, a lot of PC manufacturers cheated out and used a 64-bit CPU (the Intel Core 2 Duo) with a 32-bit north bridge and didn’t bother to tell anyone.

I ain't gonna bother going into any more details ... basically, people need to read more before parting with any money's for PC manufacturers, rip-you-off-from-day-one propaganda. Oh, yeah, it's faster, innit ?


Well, brought another smile to my face anyway.

 

[Retro~Burn]

Are there some issues with Vista not being compatible with some games?

 

[Ian]

Are there some issues with Vista not being compatible with some games?

Some games may have problems, but I'm running all the games I want to OK now Which ones are you worried about, as it's probably best to check them individually. Any new games will be fine though!

 

[floppybootstomp]

I gotta step in again, and, say once again ... NO! YES! MAYBE!

Is the motherboard "fully" 64bit compatible, there is that word, that does not exist in computer terminology ... is the operating system fully 64bit ... is the CPU fully 64bit

I'm simplifying the three basic needs here.

First and foremost is the MB fully 64bit ... the north bridge used in some, err, quite a few really, motherboards using Intel 945 chipset is limited to 2^32 addressable points on the memory bus. Intel’s spec sheet for the i945 chipset confirms this. So basically, a lot of PC manufacturers cheated out and used a 64-bit CPU (the Intel Core 2 Duo) with a 32-bit north bridge and didn’t bother to tell anyone.

I ain't gonna bother going into any more details ... basically, people need to read more before parting with any money's for PC manufacturers, rip-you-off-from-day-one propaganda. Oh, yeah, it's faster, innit ?


Well, brought another smile to my face anyway.

Okey doke, as you ain't gonna bother, I decided to do some research

Some 90 minutes later my head is reeling and everything is as clear as mud

Nowhere, but nowhere on the Net, using Google, Ask and several different search questions, can I confirm whether or not the chipset on the system I intend to (maybe) install Vista is true 64 bit.

The motherboard is an Asus P5B Deluxe (non-Wi Fi) which the manual and Asus's site tell me has an Intel P965/ICH8R chipset.

From all I can gather after all that reading, it does seem to be a genuine 64 bit chipset but I haven't been able to confirm this.

I've looked loads of places, including Asus and Intels' sites Tom's hardware, Anandtech and countless Forums.

I also noticed the general consensus of opinion is that AMD based systems are much better suited to 64 bit systems, particularly when using Linux 64 bit Distros and AMD systems will give a noticeable performance boost whereas most Intel systems using 64 Bit OS's will not.

It was also the general view that, as yet, there is really no point in using 64 bit OS's as virtually nothing is really taking advantage of them yet.

And in the case of Windows Vista if you wanted to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit, it's just a case of purchasing a different activation code and re-installing. Whether that set of numbers is worth the extra money is open to debate, but it is available.

And yes Mucks, I know you've already said that previously

I have also seen, in my little trawl around netdom, Windows Vista getting well and truly slagged off, many referring to it as a Beta OS and likening it to ME.

I do remember, however, similar comments about XP back in '01.

I have an open mind and I think soon, for about seventy quid, I will try a 32 bit version of Vista Home Premium OEM, probably in January.

And we shall take it from there.

If anybody can root out info about the Intel P965 chipset being true 64 bit architecture or not, I will give you a big girly kiss

 

[floppybootstomp]

Oh, as for the memory issue.

4Gb

XP - No

Vista - yes.

Simple

 

[muckshifter]

everything is simple ...

Want me to "blow your mind" even more ???


Intel have only one 64 bit CPU, the Itanium, yes, one ... the others "support 64bit" operations.

Remember the 386sx? ... maybe you don't ... It was "32-bit capable". More digging on the subject revealed that it was 32-bit addressing in 16-bit data chunks.

The 945 chipset, can only handle 32-bit addressing, meaning that the Core 2 Duo/945 pairing is still limited to 4 GB of RAM
http://www.assemble.tripod.com/emt64t.htm

640k is more than enough for anyone

Bill Gates ... Not long ago, the thought of the 4 GB ceiling didn't mean much on anything but servers, but has, once again, been underestimated by the memory appetite of apps, especially for image and sound processing.



This is my interpretation from my readings.


Oh, and you only need 38bit to access 8gb ram.

8 GB RAM wont increase the performance.

Try a true RAID Aray.

 

[floppybootstomp]

Well, Mr Mucks, I'll take that as a 'no' then

Do I remember the 386? Why yes I do, it was at the heart of the first system I ever built

As you seem to be the only one out there who is prepared to give a definite answer that the 965 chipset does not perform as a genuine 64 bit chipset, I think I'll just have to accept that thing, albeit with your caveat 'This is my interpretation from my readings'

I mean, come on, normally I can work this stuff out for myself but the powers that be seem to oddly tight lipped on this issue.

Which kinda raises my suspicions.

And as far as I'm aware, I do have a true RAID array, if I can trust this motherboard RAID controller chip, anyway...

It certainly seems to boost performance, definitely (see my sig for specs)

All things considered, when I try this Vista thing, me wil go 32 bit.

And I will report every little bug, every little nuance, every little thing I don't even like the look of, lol

We shall see

And btw Mucks, will you please stop laughing, nobody has a right to do that......

Unless, of course, you're quite mad

 

[Retro~Burn]

Slightly veering off subject, but you mentioned having a RAID array, I know they come numerically RAID 0, 1 2 etc - so which do you have?

Is it only needed for servers or networks or would it be useful to someone such as myself who likes his games?!

 

[muckshifter]

No, me not laughing at anyone here, was not my intention.


Sorry, Flops, I do a lot of reading, don't always believe what I read, however, I am capable of conducting my own research, and, find juicy bits of info that only confirm what I have know for a long time ...

It's a numbers game.

At least AMD built 32bit & 64bit instructions onto the chip ...

OK, you want some of my readings ...

"The essence of the move to 64-bit computing is a set of extensions to the x86 intruction set pioneered by AMD and now known as AMD64. During development, they were sensibly called x86-64, but AMD decided to rename them to AMD64, probably for marketing reasons. In fact, AMD64 is also the official name of AMD's K8 microarchitecture, just to keep things confusing.

When Intel decided to play ball and make its chips compatible with the AMD64 extensions, there was little chance they would advertise their processors "now with AMD64 compatibility!" Heart attacks all around in the boardroom. And so EM64T, Intel's carbon copy of AMD64 renamed to Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology, was born."

http://techreport.com/articles.x/8131/1

When AMD's design team created the x86-64 ISA, they tackled several inherent deficiencies of the old x86 ISA. First and foremost among those was a very basic limitation of accessing memory with 32-bit addresses: the sum total of memory one can address at one time with a 32-bit number is 4GB.

That may sound like a lot of memory for the average desktop PC, but then again, not every PC is average, and the x86 ISA is increasingly becoming the platform of choice for technical workstations and servers, as well. As memory densities increase over time thanks to the happy benefits of Moore's Law, that 4GB limit is beginning to look smaller and smaller.

Not only that, but the practical effects of 32-bit addressing are even more constraining. By default, Windows XP limits applications to 2GB of memory space and reserves 2GB for system-level tasks. (It is possible for x86 systems to address more than 4GB of total memory using a mechanism called Physical Address Extension, created by Intel. In fact, some server versions of Windows allow up to 128GB of physical RAM in a 32-bit system. However, PAE uses a paging scheme that generally isn't considered the most optimal way of doing things.)

my empasis in bold.

"Consumers are confused over 64 bit computing, It appears more magical than it really is. Even with 32 bit computing, I couldn't help noticing a level of enthusiasm that went beyond its technical merit."
[size=-1]Bill Gates Microsoft founder - 10/14/03

http://theregister.com/content/4/33397.html

02/08/05[size=-1] [/size][size=-1]Intel Dubs 2005 'The Year Of 64-Bit Computing'[/size][size=-1] - Information Week
[/size][size=-1]"After [/size][size=-1]Opteron[/size][size=-1] garnered AMD its most successful foray ever into business markets, Intel responded last year with the introduction of 64-bit extensions for its Xeon processor. The EM64T-enabled Xeons shipped a million units in the first six months and will ship a second million by the end of this month, Brace says. By the end of the first quarter this year, Intel expects that 80% of its Xeon processors will ship with 64-bit capability. "[/size]

my bold again ...

Integrated Mar
[size=-1]"AMD64's offence is truly multi-dimensional," Defrere pointed out. "It can do both 64-bit and 32-bit. It's got speed (bandwidth) on its side, with A[/size][size=-1]MD's HyperTransport technology[/size][size=-1] going against Front Side Bus on the 32-bit side. It's game plan uses direct connect architecture to get the most of memory, I/O, and the CPU. Also, AMD64 scales unbelievably."[/size][size=-1]

more ... ?[/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1]http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2002/pulpit_20021226_000439.html[/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1]

Intel has not committed to a plan to bring 64-bit computing to the desktop. The company could create a desktop version of its Itanium processor, which runs 32-bit programs only through emulation, or it could follow AMD's approach, which adds 64-bit instructions to the existing Pentium-compatible architecture.

[/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513-5080522.html[/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1]I have more if you like ...[/size]
[/size]

 

[floppybootstomp]

Slightly veering off subject, but you mentioned having a RAID array, I know they come numerically RAID 0, 1 2 etc - so which do you have?

Is it only needed for servers or networks or would it be useful to someone such as myself who likes his games?!

It's in my signature - RAID 0 which is basically 2 disks working together as one.

I've been using RAID arrays for some years now and the only advantage gained has been when I've used Raptor hard disks.

Using other disks, in real terms, the advantage is negligible - in my experience.

Using a combination of RAID 0 and RAID 1 is worth considering though - if you can afford 4 harddisks.

Dual performance and permanent backup has to be a good thing, albeit a pricey one.

 

[alistair®]

I keep reading that there are problems with Vista and that a recent survey suggests that 50% of people buying new machines are specifically asking for XP and insisting that Vista is NOT used.

What exactly are the problems with Vista? It certainly doesn't seem like a step forward if people don't want it.

Anyone know the truth?

Vista has got a lot of bad press, mainly due to complaints about a lack of decent drivers. This might be the case with 64-bit, but it seems to be coming good now. I was sceptical about using it, and at first my fears were confirmed when I had a bad Nvidia driver which kept causing Windows Explorer to crash. Once I got that sorted, Vista quickly made XP look old hat! SP1 should be out soon too, so it has to be time to jump ship if you have the hardware