XP or Vista?

[Sir Travis D]

Gaming has always worked fine for me on Vista and Xp. The reason I would recommend Vista is because of the added security features, it has released SP1, and it will be supported by microsoft longer. Sure it has some compatibility problems, but only 1/40 programs I try don't work on it.

 

[PC eye]

i would NOT get it if you are a gamer. THe kernel and eveything else is a ram hog and not much is left for the game.

Did you know the recommended minimum for XP is 8 times more then that seen for the 16mb on 98SE? Ram hog? No! Expected increase typical with any newer version of Windows still lagging behind the then 512max to now 16gb seen for memory capabilities on desktop model boards. Larger in size and newer features designed towards newer systems as far as requirements.

gamer - XP
but, if you have a powerful enough system to run it smoothly, run vista...but here's the thing: XP only recognizes 3.25 GB of RAM, while vista 64bit recognizes up to 128 GB of ram (which is ridiculously high, i know). so, what i would do if i had the money, is i would get like 4 gigs of ram and dual boot XP and Vista.

Vista Basic 64 = 8gb
Vista Home Premium 64 = 16gb
Vista Ultimate 64 with network support = 128gb
Windows Server 2003 32bit = 32gb
and the list goes on.

When going to install a 64bit edition of Vista the MS recommendation is to remove 2gb on a system seeing 4gb installed first until after Windows is up and running. Seems the 3gb barrier still plays a role there too!

SP1 for Vista addresses the problem of a 4gb total not being recognised while still seeing about 700+mb of memory addresses mapped out to hardwares. What most seem to miss however is that the most popular games and apps were designed to run on systems seeing 2-3gb as the maximum amount of memory being used. oops!

 

[StrangleHold]

SP1 for Vista addresses the problem of a 4gb total not being recognised while still seeing about 700+mb of memory addresses mapped out to hardwares.

SP1 for Vista 32bit didnt solve the problem, you still have the barrier and memory addresses still ate up. The only difference is in Systems it just shows the true amount of memory installed. But it didnt change the way its addressed at all, same as always.

 

[PC eye]

SP1 for Vista 32bit didnt solve the problem, you still have the barrier and memory addresses still ate up. The only difference is in Systems it just shows the true amount of memory installed. But it didnt change the way its addressed at all, same as always.

I just gone done explaining that it only fixed the lack of displaying the total amount installed while not being able to change things in regards to the 32bit kernel. But as you will note even the 64bit editions also see drawbacks like when going to first install a 64bit edition of Vista 2gb out of a 4gb total would have to be removed.

In time everyone will be emeshed in 64bit OSs since MS planned originally to dump 32bit entirely for the next version coming in 2010. But take a look at the software market to see where that actually stands with nothing but 32bit saturation of games and apps there. It won't come overnight like the move from 95 16bit to 98 32bit saw for desktop versions.