Looking to get a new OS (Vista, obviously)

So after reading the title, i have some basic questions. Mah pc is easily capable of running vista, but i was wondering the following:

1). What are the differences between all the different classes of Vista?
2). 32 bit vs. 64 bit?
3). Is it worth an upgrade from XP Pro just for DX10 and all the snazzy addons?

and if there is some super secret sale i am missing, post a link!

It's not really worth it, all you get is DX10 and some addons and flashy stuff.

In simple terms 32 bit can only see about 3.5 gigs of ram, 64 bit can see 4+, etc etc. Harder to get some drivers for 64 bit, etc.

It's not really worth it to upgrade to, I heard the new windows is already coming out by 2009-2010, meh.

Versions compared:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ns/choose.mspx

64-bit can address more than 4GB of memory. Useful if you have (or plan to upgrade to) 4GB of memory. If you buy the 32-bit version, you can have Microsoft send you the 64-bit DVD for $10. Only Ultimate comes with both 32-bit and 64-bit DVDs in the box.

If you want to play games using DX10 features, then yes. I'm dual booting XP and Vista, but frankly I don't see much appeal in the visual effects. I turn off the sidebar gadgets anyways cuz they seem to clutter my desktop.

Oh, and one more thing. Somehow, my youtube is loading in http://nl.youtube.com/ or whatever, the netherlands? Im in america dammit!! any idea what is goin on

Up in the top right hand corner you will see an icon that says "Site" just hit that and select the language.

yep, new windows coming out around 2010ish. I, personally, would wait the few years. it's bound to be 64 bit, DX10, etc. besides, DX10 will have a lot more games/graphics cards capable of handling it in a few years, so you can do a nice little overhaul of your system if you wanted to.

64 Bit can run 128gb of ram actually, industrial size obviously.

And do not get Vista, many games are incompatible and playing online shooters will kick you. You're better off with windows 98. (98 ftw)

I'm going to come down in the "don't bother" camp, as well. We've been evaluating it at work and I took the liberty of playing with it for fun, as well (I swear I was just doing stress testing! ). It defines the phrase "lack of polish" and, frankly, I think the feature set cannot possibly justify the price of even just an upgrade (and upgrade-only has never worked quite right for Windows). Furthermore, there are simply too many driver issues even with common components. The only other system I've seen with patchier driver support from non-Microsoft vendors was XP64 Pro (which I'm running quite happily now) and that was actually a whole new architecture, arguably.

I also have serious reservations about the current capabilities of DX10 applications. Ignoring the expense of snagging a decent DX10-capable card, it doesn't appear that most developers have yet scratched the surface of what DX10 has to offer (or, maybe it just doesn't have anything to offer, but my money is on developers still getting a handle on it).

Skip Vista and stick with Pro 64. The only thing I could see making Vista "worthwhile" is if you're twitchy about losing support for the OS within the next few years. My opinion? Vista is the new Windows ME. It's a placeholder piece of garbage for OEMs to toss on machines until a "real" new Windows comes out and, in the long run, it's going to be remembered as little more than a bad joke.

Sad, but very true.

I threw my money away on it, but oh well. It was all just a very stupid move for them, especially jumping from DX10 to DX10.1, I just have bad predictions of the future for Microsoft, they are being retards right now. I don't think I plan to buy anything else based off of ''future predictions'' as far as windows goes.

dont waste your money, you will have to re-install XP anyways once you realize nothing works. if your just looking for a change try ubuntu or something

I disagree with all the negativity about vista. If your going to upgrade Get the ultimate 64 vista or don't bother an MAKE SURE YOUR SYSTEM IS ABLE TO HANDLE IT.

I absolutely love my vista and using xp is like stepping backwards in time. The ability to do EVERYTHING, except game, with voice recognition is cool. Yes the OS has a big footprint and it uses resources BUT you know this ahead of time so make sure your setup can handle it. Vista is more secure than xp as well.

It is also true that Windows7 is coming. I suspect that it will have even greater voice recognition features than vista (possibly talk back instead of using text), but you don't need to be the 1st person on the block with windows7, all brand new OS's are buggy. I also predict those of us that have learned how to use vista will have an easier time adjusting to Windows7.

The down side to vista is that if you like to pirat...make personal back-up copies of dvds and cds vista will not let you. I keep xp around for this reason alone, dual booting will be the way of the walk.

Odd fact:
Ever since Windows for Work Groups 3.31 (the 1st server OS), all servers have sent/received information in 10Mb packets. Server 2008 addresses this issue by upping the limit to 1GB. All workstations that have vista 64 or more current (windows7) will be able to utilize this feature. Older OS will decode the 1GB packet into 10Mb packets. The advantage of the larger packets is going to mean LESS LAG from servers and faster download/upload times.

In short, I hope you do try out vista to see for yourself. Setup a dual boot system and see how much less and less you use the dieing dinosouar xp.

Soz about the wall o text.

But if Vista wasn't so bad, then why is Microsoft ditching it?

I personally own Vista 64 bit Ultimate and I can say that it was a very marginal move from windows XP.

All you get is new features, which are minor and how many people actually use them? The Vista voice recognition sucks, you have to basically yell to get it to work (and I've tried different mics, yes.) etc etc.

If you really want a flashy nice looking desktop, then get into customizing for windows XP, it's actually really fun and there is a lot of good themes out there. And if you're good enough you can make your own. Wanting flashy looking gadgets should not warrant you spending 150$+ or so on a new operating system.

And basically everything has drivers and works on windows XP, plus there is really no DX10 games out now, so I don't even know why anyone would come to think that they would need DX10.

So the question is, why did I buy Vista? Because at the time I thought that it was going to be the next OS that we would have for many years to come - surely I found out otherwise later, thanks Micro$oft for screwing over a ton of people. I don't usually ''bash'' on Microsoft, but this is plain retarded.. who can't agree. It was my fault for buying it though - in the end I didn't pay that much.

However on the bright side, when Windows 7 is released, most people (including I) will wait for all the bugs to get fished out, and hotfixes/etc before we use it. So Vista will still have another 2-3 years in for me, not as long as XP but oh well.

wut r ur system specs?

and wuts the reasoning behind wanting to get vista?
jus for the hell of it?

yes, vista has a lot of new feautures
but 9 out of 10 of the average pc user either wont notice or care for em

and if ur a gamer, most likely u wont see any performance increases either

When and where did Microsoft state they were ditching it? This is just another excellent pulled-out-of-my-ass bashing attempt.

Vista has much better memory management, better multithreading capabilities (xp loves to put 2 threads onto one core while the other is sleeping, Vista threads multimedia streams much much better - try stress testing and see who crackles first) if you do more than just play GW. Vista SP1 is pretty stable on all the machines I have built in the recent months and it didn't annoy anyone at work yet. Try recent articles (german computerbase has a decent one) on gaming performance before argumenting with Vista's 0-day problems.

Bashing Vista but recommending XP 64 which has much less driver support is almost classic. XP is overglorified, especially by those that haven't seen it without an SP. Vista was more evolved the day it hit the streets compared to XP's first day. Give it some time. Windows 7 is no legendary Wonder-Windows that MS holds back to surprise the whole world. I can already smell those that'll bash it just because it'll use Aero too.

Well, I don't mean to say Vista is ''Bad'' rather just pointless if you already have an OS.

It just seems like they are ''Ditching'' it since they are already releasing a new OS so soon. I just have a bad reaction to it because it doesn't really look good for such a thing to happen so fast, we've only had vista for a year and a half or so right? It's almost half way through 2008.

For them to mention that a new thing is already coming out kind of raises hell if you ask me.. and I just got caught in the fire by it, I didn't spend all this cash just to find out they are releasing a new one yet again, which presumably will have better compatibility (but hey, you never know, no one knows what they are doing yet).

I also wouldn't go to XP 64 bit, but that's just me. Really I am just waiting for the future of OS's because my plan was to get away from Windows XP and move onto something better. I am by no means a ''Fan'' of windows XP, I'm just saying that it works, and there is tons of mods to make it look nice/nicer than Vista (Assuming that you liked the way Vista looked, I think it's nice too).

Maybe I am jumping the gun by ''bashing'' them right now, I am really, but yeah.. It just lit my fire to hear that.

Windows7 is not the "ditching" of vista. It is the 1st of a surgically placed blow to kill XP. Microsoft will support their current OS and the OS before it for FREE as stated by MS. That means that if you want security updates or have OS related problems, after the release of Windows7, for XP you will have to PAY for the support. Historically MS has extended a 6 month to 1 year grace period on this rule so corporations can make the change to newer OS without as much hassle.

The problem is that XP was around for so long that people don't want to give it up.

I concur with everyone that said you shouldn't bother. But:

1) if (like me) you're planning to buy new hardware, you can grab an OEM version at 50-130 British pounds (you may have problems using the OEM version if you start changing too much hardware after first activating it);

2) it's much more secure than XP (if the protection of the data on your disk is essential for you, go for BitLocker in Vista Ultimate) and even if it has many problems, it's still quite nice.

Exactly... XP should only be used on computers with less than or equal to 2GB of RAM with a last generation CPU and graphics card. If you have more than 2GB of RAM, the current gen of Intel 45nm CPU's or AMD 65nm quad or tri cores, and if you have a DX10 capable videocard, you should be gaming with Vista x64.

In my experience, you won't know if your machine is 'capable' of running anything until you actually run it

Give it a try first, you can always revert back if you don't like it. Vista is worth the chance you give it.

By the time I'd be using over 3.5GB of memory, "Windows 7" will be out.

I don't see much of an appeal in DX10 so far either, or maybe that's just me running custom DX9 Crysis configs.

If you know how to run Server, I suggest the x64 version of Server 2003. Yeah I know its almost 6 years old now, but it has everything and more. I use Sx64 and Xpx64 Pro, and I would say I get about a 25-30% performance increase from Server. This is due to its stripped down nature and the fact that its a Server platform and is made to handle excessive loads.

1. Get home
2. 32bit = 3gb, 64= 4gb+
3. No

Not a whole lot of DX10 games to begin playing.

Is it worth it? No, but now is a good time as ever, those who were with Vista when it first was released know what I'm talking about.

Microsoft Home Premium is all you need, Ultimate is just for fan of Microsoft, stuff that should come with basic version of Windows, but doesn't because they want to see how many idiots would actually pay money for it (including me~).

I use Vista Ultimate 64, not because I need the 4GB support, I only use 2GB, but because "it feels like the right operating system to use".

In short, there isn't a lot of DX10 games, and even fewer 64-bit games.
Vista Home Premium!

MY Computer works well enough for the moment but getting older by the day.
My question is What kind of REQ will GW2 need?
Anybody come across this yet? I would like to buy a new one but I really want GW2 to kick ass on it so should I wait or is it already known what GW2 needs to kick but?

It will support DX10.

That is all we know.

'support' but not 'require' (i hope) -___-'

I have no proof other than memory, but I believe gaile grey has mentioned it will be dx10 and dx9.

Of course it will Support DX-9, for people who can't/don't want to go DX10, and of course for troubleshooting purposes.

The same reasons we have DX8 support in Guild Wars 1 still.

Yeah, all DX10 games in the market now, support DX9 as well. There should be no problem with this.

Windows 7 is out in 2010, RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO Vista.

disclaimer: while I'm not saying 7 is going to be any better, (I'd hope) I figure Microsoft would look at their current lols and lolwtfwuts and learn from their mistakes.

Shitty OSes are inevitable. You had 98, awesome. Then you had ME/2000 omgwtf. XP, not bad sir, I think I'll use it. Then Vista, lolololol. By this logic, 7 should at least be alright.

If you want to run Crysis with all the goodies, get the 64bit Ultimate Vista, otherwise don't bother. My big rig that I use for engineering runs Vista Ultimate 64bit, and has a hefty 8GBs of RAM, among some other unique "things". Vista Ult. 64 bit isn't that bad provided you have SP1 installed.


I have a good concept of what it will require, based on a 2009 GPU/GPGPU estimation paper we have, which I think if you guys dig for, you can find someone talking about it.

You are looking at for 2009 releases, 1GB RAM MINIMUM, 3.0GHz P4 or Equivalent processor MINIMUM, 256MB Geforce 6000 series/ATi 2000 Direct X 9.0c compatible cards MINIMUM (nVidia Geforce 6800 or ATi Radeon x800 for Vista), Cable/DSL or faster internet connection for online play.


RECOMMEND: Intel Core 2 or equivalent 1.8GHz or better CPU (2.2GHz Vista)/AMD Athlon X2 4000+ or better (6000+ vista), 2GBs DDR2 RAM or better (3GB Vista), 256MB nVidia 7900 series or better GPU/AMD HD2400 or better GPU (Vista Geforce 8000 series or AMD HD3000 series)


Hope that clears it up. GW2 may be more or less, my guess is a bit less or equal.

"Worth it" is such an objective term. But let me throw in my 2 cents:

I'd say it's not "worth it" in the generally accepted sense, if you already have a good stable installation of Windows XP. If you are still using 98, it's time to step up.

Personally, I had no intentions of getting Vista, but when I recently bought a laptop, it came with Vista. I instantly liked the "look and feel" of Vista, so when it came time to upgrade my computer (which I do quite often), and since I didn't have a "legitimate" copy of XP (shock! ), I decided to spring for Vista on my desktop. (I do have several original copies of Win95 and 98, so my conscience is clear. )

Well, that was (and still is) an adventure. If you just buy a new machine with Vista installed and use the software that comes with it, you should have no problems. If you are like me, and do a few other things like MAKE YOUR OWN DAM FOLDERS, it can be a real pain.
What I'm referring to with that last bit, is that when you make a "new folder" in Vista, it automatically marks the folder as "read only". This really makes a lot of sense - you make a new folder to put stuff in, but you can't put stuff in it because it's read-only. And, best of all, the only way to make it writeable is to open a "command prompt" and use the old DOS based "attrib" command.
There were numerous other fun things with Vista too. I think the OP could have lots of "fun" with it.

But Guild Wars works just fine and just as well as it did with XP. Of course, Vista decided to force my screen shots and templates to be on the C: drive under Documents, instead of on the D drive with the rest of GW, where I would want it, but...

As far as 32 bit vs 64-bit is concerned, the only real advantage to 64-bit (at this time) is the ability to address more that 4gigs of RAM. At the present time I have 4gigs, but can "only" address about 3.25gigs. But 3+ gigs is more than enough for what I do (including some video editing.) Given the possible driver problems, I wouldn't worry about 64-bit until the next version of windows.

And, speaking of the next version of windows, I wouldn't say the Microsoft is "ditching" Vista. The length of time between Vista and Windows7 is about the same as between Win95 and Win98 and WinXP (about 3 years). Seems like a more-or-less normal development cycle.

So, long story short. Vista can be a pain in the ass at times, but I haven't gone back to XP, though I've been really, really tempted at times.

That's odd - I make new folders in Vista all the time and I've never come across a write-protect issue before.

Is it a known issue?

I make folders at constant and dump pictures, music, and anything normal into them with no problems either, I was like ''o_0'' at that when you mentioned it, must be something weird.

I make folders all the time as well. No problems with any write protection... or any protection for that matter. UAC is not even a problem anymore.

Rather than disable UAC as many have done, I've just got used to it instead - I no longer see the requestors as I auto-click through them

I have vista.
Have never had any problems.
Then again, I only had to pay $80 for a legit upgrade - they were on sale at all Future Shop and Best Buy stores (in Ontario, at the very least). I was getting it for muh new PC around Christmas time and was reading up on some work-arounds where you can buy only the upgrade and run that, get a full & fresh install, without having to upgrade from another full version of Windows.

My advice is, if you see an upgrade (for Home Premium, at the very least, don't go basic) on sale, pick it up. Make sure your computer can handle it.

Yes, it's a known issue. The Command prompt Attrib thing was found as a result of Googling the problem. It was mentioned as a solution.

Perhaps it has something to do with the way you make a new folder and/or where the folder is located. If I open Windows Explorer and navigate to where I want a folder and right click and choose New>>Folder, the folder that is created is read-only and can't be changed.

What method are you using to make new folders. Is it part of some App, or just right-clicking, or...?

EDIT: on further checking, something seems to have been changed in some update or SP1. The folders are still marked as read-only, and can't be changed, but it doesn't seem to affect anything you put in it anymore.

We'll do you run Vista as admin of you're pc Quaker (cause i know alot of prefab pc's are set up to set you up as less than admin) and vista has alot of handy options of blocking unwanted eyes out if you really want to (not as hefty as 2003 server (anyone want denied access to all stuff except notepad? possible for example) vista doesn't go that far but still has nice options )

The only bad things i have to say about vista is the DRM which can be a hassle at times (not even preventing what it's supposed to do => lol => i mean cracked video's, blu ray and the other one had been cracked a couple of weeks after the release) and the nifty guard thing that in the end annoy's you so much you turn it off => my case, and those who don't develop the handiness of clicking through without reading the thing aka completely failing again at what it's supposed to do (i was affraid that would happen when i was in the beta for Vista)

for all the other reasons vista is nice, 64 bit is only worth the hassle if you want more than 4gb (trust me i know 2 apps which chew through 4gb like it's candy but that's another story) otherwhise stick with home premium 32bit that should provide enough for most of you're needs (basic is a joke not even worth the name vista)

about linux yes it's a great os for alot of things (like running UT2K4 server in 64 bit at blazing speed (trust me got more than enough experience with that one )
But linux still isn't for the masses even the most userfriendly ones seem a bit rough for the masses that's how it is till today it's getting better but still isn't there towards userfriendlyness