Options

Is Vista Worth It Yet?

MeepZeroMeepZero Registered User regular
Pretty much that, do you think it's worth it to cross into Vista territory? I'm on XP now, and I'm perfectly happy with it, but with adding in DX10 support that adds a new layer of things to some of the new games coming out.

I am running...
Core 2 e6600
2GB Ram
Nvidia 8800 320MB
Thats the nitty gritty of it, what do you think?

Alternatively I heard there was a way of getting DX10 to work on XP, anyone try or have luck with this?

Aprjs.png
sig.jpg
MeepZero on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    DoomulonDoomulon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Your best bet is to get Vista if you want true DX10 support. I worry about all these hacks that attempt to get it to work on XP. You could very well be asking for a larger headache than just upgrading to Vista.

    Your specs look good, so I don't see a problem upgrading. I have been running Vista for over a year now on similar specs and have no complaints. It is a shame that DX10 is tied to Vista, but if you are expecting this huge revolution in graphics, don't hold your breath. Few games truly take advantage of it yet. Hell, I wasn't even really impressed by Age of Conan and that was supposed to use DX10 extensively...

    Doomulon on
  • Options
    MorskittarMorskittar Lord Warlock Engineer SeattleRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    AoC didn't use DX10. It's... part of the expansion pack or something?

    Vista has a lot to offer other than DX10, particularly on a work machine. x64 driver support is on par with 32-bit, and one-button instant search is addictively good. Running video drivers outside of the kernel is awesome too, so you can play old games without worrying about the whole machine crashing on a driver error. It takes a lot to bring Vista to its knees.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • Options
    RookRook Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Age of Conan's Dx10 version isn't out yet. There's onlyfew games that look kinda prettier in Dx10, mostly I think it's supposed to be fairly arbitrary in that they've just done things they could have done in Dx9 in the new renderer.

    As for Vista, it's nice, I like it. I'd definitely get it on a new machine. However, I probably wouldn't pay that much for it if I already had an OS. If you can get a cheap version (student copy etc) it's not too shabby.

    Rook on
  • Options
    DoomulonDoomulon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    AoC didn't use DX10. It's... part of the expansion pack or something?

    Vista has a lot to offer other than DX10, particularly on a work machine. x64 driver support is on par with 32-bit, and one-button instant search is addictively good. Running video drivers outside of the kernel is awesome too, so you can play old games without worrying about the whole machine crashing on a driver error. It takes a lot to bring Vista to its knees.

    Yes, I can attest to that as well! It is a rare day in Vista for me when a game completely locks up my computer. On the rare occasion my video driver crashes, the process restarts automatically without much trouble. The games sometimes freak out though and need to be restarted, but not all of Vista.

    Doomulon on
  • Options
    SilvoculousSilvoculous Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The best reason to upgrade to Vista is if you can see yourself having 4GB of RAM anytime soon. Frankly because 64-bit XP is a joke and not really a native 64-bit OS at all. Vista is the only real choice in that matter.

    I wouldn't say it's worth as much as it costs though. See if you can get a student discount (I was actually given a free copy by my high school).

    Silvoculous on
  • Options
    JWashkeJWashke Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I definetely enjoy Vista and would recomend it. But for DX10 I have found it to be a huge resource hog for every game I've tried it on.

    I'm running
    core 2 duo t8300
    4 gb ram
    8600 gt
    and in games like company of heroes It's pretty much unplayable with DX10 enabled.
    And the graphical upgrades dont seem that amazing either, however your video card seems better so your mileage may vary. But I wouldn't upgrade for just DX10 support.

    JWashke on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I have been using Vista 64-bit (Business edition, since that was free through MSDNAA) since I built my new computer. I've got:

    Core 2 Duo E7200 (overclocked to 3.4GHz and 1600MHz FSB)
    4GB RAM (hence the 64-bit)
    Radeon 4850

    and everything runs wonderfully. (Whole computer, not counting screen, cost about $750, if you were wondering.) DirectX 10 is nice to have, I guess, but the real reason I went with Vista is because I needed a 64-bit OS to address all that RAM, and I've used XP64 and driver support was terrible. That said, it's got a bunch of nifty features and if you have enough machine to run it well, go for it.

    If you don't have a good enough machine, though, you might as well stick with XP. My rule of thumb here is that if you're building a new comp and need to buy a new copy of Windows, you'd be foolish to go with XP, but if you're thinking about upgrading some old computer to Vista, well, don't.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    JWashke wrote: »
    I definetely enjoy Vista and would recomend it. But for DX10 I have found it to be a huge resource hog for every game I've tried it on.

    I'm running
    core 2 duo t8300
    4 gb ram
    8600 gt
    and in games like company of heroes It's pretty much unplayable with DX10 enabled.
    And the graphical upgrades dont seem that amazing either, however your video card seems better so your mileage may vary. But I wouldn't upgrade for just DX10 support.

    DirectX 10 is not a "resource hog".

    Your problem is that the GeForce 8600 series had terrible DirectX 10 support and were in general just some really shitty cards. (This is not to be confused with the 8800, or the 9600, both of which are awesome). The 7600GT outdid the 8600GS/GT in some benchmarks, for fuck's sake. Get a decent graphics card.

    The worst part is that this is the second fucking time nVidia did this. The Geforce FX series came out right around the time DirectX 9 did, and while they technically supported DX9, they were really shitty at it.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    Desert_Eagle25Desert_Eagle25 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Vista uses more resources than XP. If anyone thinks Vista is a resource hog, however, they're totally wrong. Quite the contrary, it handles resources very well. The OS has been worth it since SP1, and there's absolutely no reason not to switch, unless you want to run Fallout 1 or something....

    Desert_Eagle25 on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Vista uses more resources than XP. If anyone thinks Vista is a resource hog, however, they're totally wrong. Quite the contrary, it handles resources very well. The OS has been worth it since SP1, and there's absolutely no reason not to switch, unless you want to run Fallout 1 or something....

    And, honestly, if you turn of AeroGlass and the Sidebar, it doesn't really take up that much more memory than XP does. It just defaults to taking up an obnoxious amount of memory.
    of course, I built my computer to contain an obnoxious amount of memory in the first place, so I leave that stuff on, because Glass looks cool.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    powersurgepowersurge Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    As someone who is running Vista Home Premium 64bit I say go for it. Its my OS of choice for my gaming desktop (when vista first hit I tried it and decided to dual boot XP but post SP1 all I have is Vista64).

    While I do have an extreme amount of RAM in my desktop I don't really think Vista is a big ram hog as long as you have 2gb of ram. My uncle's got a Vostro 1310 with only 2gb of ram and Vista is snappy and runs World of Warcraft just great.

    If DX10 is your only interest though you will be disappointed. Of the few DX10 titles out there it only really offers a small improvement over DX9. In fact with Company of Heroes I just run DX9 as I didn't really see much difference between the two yet DX9's performance is better (which allows me to crank the AA up). I'd say the only game where I've seen a real difference is in World in Conflict. The lighting and effects are flat out pretty in DX10. (Every shooter and RTS fan should at least download the demo)

    powersurge on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    It's going to take some time before DirectX10 is really fundamental to games and provides some serious new eye candy, and Microsoft making it Vista-exclusive sure isn't helping.

    But it was years between pixel shaders getting introduced and them becoming widely used, and it'll be the same for geometry shaders.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    ZxerolZxerol for the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't do so i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Vista is a fine operating system despite the popular (and ill-informed) consensus around the net. But if your reason for going Vista is just DX10, then I'd weary of spending the money for it unless you can get a great deal. At the moment, DX10 doesn't bring anything outstanding on present games that support it, and I've played almost all of them. Nice to have? Sure, I guess. Good reason to plunk down another ~$150? Ehhhh...

    Zxerol on
  • Options
    Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Vista has been worth it for quite some time. DX10 however is only so good. I mean the 8 series makes for some nicer crisper shadows and water effects like in Bioshock for example, and some nice explosion effects in WiC but I don't think that you should buy the OS JUST for the DX10. Your system will work real nice with it though but I would recommend getting a bit more ram and you can multitask as much as you fucking want. :D

    SP1 really polished up the OS and with some customization tweaks here and there, it is actually quite zippy and nice and I have had a better experience with Vista 64 Home Premium SP1 than with XP ever. :P

    This will serve you well.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184

    Lucky Cynic on
  • Options
    Shorn Scrotum ManShorn Scrotum Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I'm so god damned tired of these threads. There are countless locations where you can find reasons to upgrade.

    Just stick with XP for the rest of your life.

    Shorn Scrotum Man on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    Dark ShroudDark Shroud Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Vista uses more resources than XP. If anyone thinks Vista is a resource hog, however, they're totally wrong. Quite the contrary, it handles resources very well. The OS has been worth it since SP1, and there's absolutely no reason not to switch, unless you want to run Fallout 1 or something....

    And, honestly, if you turn of AeroGlass and the Sidebar, it doesn't really take up that much more memory than XP does. It just defaults to taking up an obnoxious amount of memory.
    of course, I built my computer to contain an obnoxious amount of memory in the first place, so I leave that stuff on, because Glass looks cool.

    Aero runs off the video card. It uses the GPU for processing and will use the video card's memory. So unless you have an integrated video card or little memory on your card this isn't an issue. Aero also shuts down during game play when the video card is actually needed.

    In short yes Vista is worth it. The only people it wasn't worth it to Pre SP1 were those with nVidia cards & mobos with their piss poor drivers.

    Dark Shroud on
  • Options
    StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I'd like to take advantage of this thread and ask all you savyy Vista folks the following:
    I have a 4850 and Vista SP1 Ultimate. But the option to turn dx10 shaders on within Company of Heroes is grayed out... Crysis runs on DX10 mode, though, and so does Assassins Creed.

    What could be causing that?

    Stormwatcher on
    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I'd like to take advantage of this thread and ask all you savyy Vista folks the following:
    I have a 4850 and Vista SP1 Ultimate. But the option to turn dx10 shaders on within Company of Heroes is grayed out... Crysis runs on DX10 mode, though, and so does Assassins Creed.

    What could be causing that?

    No idea. I have the same card and game and DX10 works fine.

    Do you have the latest card drivers and latest version of the game?

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Pretty much that, do you think it's worth it to cross into Vista territory? I'm on XP now, and I'm perfectly happy with it, but with adding in DX10 support that adds a new layer of things to some of the new games coming out.

    I am running...
    Core 2 e6600
    2GB Ram
    Nvidia 8800 320MB
    Thats the nitty gritty of it, what do you think?

    Alternatively I heard there was a way of getting DX10 to work on XP, anyone try or have luck with this?
    If you're willing to spend the time and the money, do it. Your machine will run Vista quite happily. It's not perfect, it has little annoyances (most of which can be disabled), it is not as much of an upgrade that XP was over ME, and on slower machines it occasionally has "Vista moments" where a lot of processes try to access the hard drives at once and it gets stuck in I/O. But if you give it time to settle in you will probably find yourself liking it in the end.
    Daedalus wrote: »
    JWashke wrote: »
    I definetely enjoy Vista and would recomend it. But for DX10 I have found it to be a huge resource hog for every game I've tried it on.

    I'm running
    core 2 duo t8300
    4 gb ram
    8600 gt
    and in games like company of heroes It's pretty much unplayable with DX10 enabled.
    And the graphical upgrades dont seem that amazing either, however your video card seems better so your mileage may vary. But I wouldn't upgrade for just DX10 support.

    DirectX 10 is not a "resource hog".

    Your problem is that the GeForce 8600 series had terrible DirectX 10 support and were in general just some really shitty cards. (This is not to be confused with the 8800, or the 9600, both of which are awesome). The 7600GT outdid the 8600GS/GT in some benchmarks, for fuck's sake. Get a decent graphics card.

    The worst part is that this is the second fucking time nVidia did this. The Geforce FX series came out right around the time DirectX 9 did, and while they technically supported DX9, they were really shitty at it.
    8600 was aight for mobile but yeah, it's a pretty sorry excuse for a desktop graphics card. I have a dual-core Athlon rig that's more than a year old, it seemed sluggish with a 7600GT and I was considering replacing the whole rig. But then I bought a GeForce 9800GT for $130 and it now runs every game perfectly.

    Except for Crysis. But Crysis hardly qualifies as a game. It's more like an interactive, system-wide torture test that was designed for computers from 2009.
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Vista uses more resources than XP. If anyone thinks Vista is a resource hog, however, they're totally wrong. Quite the contrary, it handles resources very well. The OS has been worth it since SP1, and there's absolutely no reason not to switch, unless you want to run Fallout 1 or something....

    And, honestly, if you turn of AeroGlass and the Sidebar, it doesn't really take up that much more memory than XP does. It just defaults to taking up an obnoxious amount of memory.
    of course, I built my computer to contain an obnoxious amount of memory in the first place, so I leave that stuff on, because Glass looks cool.
    I've used Vista on everything from a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB SDRAM to a Core 2 Extreme with 4GB of DDR2, with the only commonality between those machines being DirectX 9-capable video cards, and I can assure you that Aero makes no difference to performance and in some cases actually improves it, because it moves work from the CPU to the video card. In any case, on a machine like that it won't hurt.

    Azio on
  • Options
    JWashkeJWashke Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    JWashke wrote: »
    What I said.

    DirectX 10 is not a "resource hog".

    Your problem is that the GeForce 8600 series had terrible DirectX 10 support and were in general just some really shitty cards. (This is not to be confused with the 8800, or the 9600, both of which are awesome). The 7600GT outdid the 8600GS/GT in some benchmarks, for fuck's sake. Get a decent graphics card.

    The worst part is that this is the second fucking time nVidia did this. The Geforce FX series came out right around the time DirectX 9 did, and while they technically supported DX9, they were really shitty at it.

    Thats why I said his mileage may vary because he has a better card, I'm just posting from my own experience, and it is in a laptop otherwise I would upgrade but I have found it to be a pretty decent card. I can play Crysis at medium just fine.

    JWashke on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I think we need a sticky thread at the top of this forum that's closed, locked, and just has as a title:

    "It's okay to switch to vista, really"

    Seriously. We're up to 1 thread a week about this now. Each time we say the same thing. If you have a new machine there is absolutely no reason to get XP, unless you're a business.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • Options
    PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    I think we need a sticky thread at the top of this forum that's closed, locked, and just has as a title:

    "It's okay to switch to vista, really"


    Seriously. We're up to 1 thread a week about this now. Each time we say the same thing. If you have a new machine there is absolutely no reason to get XP, unless you're a business.

    Like this text, the proposed thread should also be limed in the forum listing.

    PeregrineFalcon on
    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I have Vista Home Premium 32-bit, and I'm thinking about upgrading to 64-bit (and adding 2 more gigs of RAM to my comp). I'd have to buy a new copy I guess which is fine, but is the 'upgrade' process smooth or a pain in the ass?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    I have Vista Home Premium 32-bit, and I'm thinking about upgrading to 64-bit (and adding 2 more gigs of RAM to my comp). I'd have to buy a new copy I guess which is fine, but is the 'upgrade' process smooth or a pain in the ass?

    Uhhh, actually I don't think you have to anymore. I am not 100% on this but I think that this is something that MS has a sort of compromise on.

    Lucky Cynic on
  • Options
    squirlysquirly Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    I have Vista Home Premium 32-bit, and I'm thinking about upgrading to 64-bit (and adding 2 more gigs of RAM to my comp). I'd have to buy a new copy I guess which is fine, but is the 'upgrade' process smooth or a pain in the ass?
    You don't have to buy a new copy, each cd-key works on either 32 or 64-bit installs.

    And I have no idea if a 32 to 64-bit upgrade works but upgrades in general, for any OS, is rather horrible and prone to destruction.

    I'd recommend doing a clean install.

    squirly on
    Diablo2 [US West; Ladder]: *DorianGraph [New/Main] *outsidewhale [Old]
  • Options
    The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard It's never lupines Irvine, CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I installed Vista when I built this machine about 8 months ago and after tweaking it and switching off all the garbage options and features I love it. I'll be upgrading to 64bit in the next few months to squeeze a few more frames out of the high end games because I have at least a gig+ of RAM that isn't recognized since I'm over the 4 gig threshold.

    The_Spaniard on
    Playstation/Origin/GoG: Span_Wolf Xbox/uPlay/Bnet: SpanWolf Nintendo: Span_Wolf SW-7097-4917-9392 Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/
  • Options
    PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    I have Vista Home Premium 32-bit, and I'm thinking about upgrading to 64-bit (and adding 2 more gigs of RAM to my comp). I'd have to buy a new copy I guess which is fine, but is the 'upgrade' process smooth or a pain in the ass?

    No you don't. Call Microsoft and say "I Can Has 64-bit Version?" and they'll send you a 64-bit version for $10 or so, IIRC.

    PeregrineFalcon on
    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    I've used Vista on everything from a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB SDRAM to a Core 2 Extreme with 4GB of DDR2, with the only commonality between those machines being DirectX 9-capable video cards, and I can assure you that Aero makes no difference to performance and in some cases actually improves it, because it moves work from the CPU to the video card. In any case, on a machine like that it won't hurt.

    well, if you have onboard video, there is no video RAM, there's only system RAM, so it would make a difference there.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    I've used Vista on everything from a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB SDRAM to a Core 2 Extreme with 4GB of DDR2, with the only commonality between those machines being DirectX 9-capable video cards, and I can assure you that Aero makes no difference to performance and in some cases actually improves it, because it moves work from the CPU to the video card. In any case, on a machine like that it won't hurt.

    well, if you have onboard video, there is no video RAM, there's only system RAM, so it would make a difference there.

    I assume that since he's talking about "video cards" he probably doesn't consider an onboard one a real card.

    Which is a smart thing to do, in most cases. :P

    PeregrineFalcon on
    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • Options
    MorskittarMorskittar Lord Warlock Engineer SeattleRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    I have Vista Home Premium 32-bit, and I'm thinking about upgrading to 64-bit (and adding 2 more gigs of RAM to my comp). I'd have to buy a new copy I guess which is fine, but is the 'upgrade' process smooth or a pain in the ass?

    No you don't. Call Microsoft and say "I Can Has 64-bit Version?" and they'll send you a 64-bit version for $10 or so, IIRC.

    As long as you have retail. OEM is trickier.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • Options
    PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    I have Vista Home Premium 32-bit, and I'm thinking about upgrading to 64-bit (and adding 2 more gigs of RAM to my comp). I'd have to buy a new copy I guess which is fine, but is the 'upgrade' process smooth or a pain in the ass?

    No you don't. Call Microsoft and say "I Can Has 64-bit Version?" and they'll send you a 64-bit version for $10 or so, IIRC.

    As long as you have retail. OEM is trickier.

    Right. If you have OEM, you have to call your vendor and ask them. Sometime you'll get lucky and they'll give you the 64-bit restore media - I know Dell and HP have done this - but then you've still only got "restore media" and not a real disc.

    PeregrineFalcon on
    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • Options
    MeepZeroMeepZero Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Wow alot more response than I was expecting. Thanks guys!

    Offhand the only reason I can see for me going to Vista is DX10 and good 64-bit support. I may hold off until I buy some more ram for this thing though.

    Does the 64 bit support help performance that much over 32 bit, or is it just the extra memory addressing that is the big deal for now?

    MeepZero on
    Aprjs.png
    sig.jpg
  • Options
    wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    I have Vista Home Premium 32-bit, and I'm thinking about upgrading to 64-bit (and adding 2 more gigs of RAM to my comp). I'd have to buy a new copy I guess which is fine, but is the 'upgrade' process smooth or a pain in the ass?

    Uhhh, actually I don't think you have to anymore. I am not 100% on this but I think that this is something that MS has a sort of compromise on.

    Your key *should* work with both 32 and 64 bit versions of vista. You just need to get a copy of a 64 bit disc.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • Options
    wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MeepZero wrote: »
    Wow alot more response than I was expecting. Thanks guys!

    Offhand the only reason I can see for me going to Vista is DX10 and good 64-bit support. I may hold off until I buy some more ram for this thing though.

    Does the 64 bit support help performance that much over 32 bit, or is it just the extra memory addressing that is the big deal for now?

    Honestly, if you're putting together a new machine the only reason *not* to go to vista is that you're stuck in 2001.

    Seriously, it's time. XP is 7 years old. yea it works fine but they are done with any big updates to XP, the only thing left will be security updates.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MeepZero wrote: »
    Does the 64 bit support help performance that much over 32 bit, or is it just the extra memory addressing that is the big deal for now?

    Extra memory addressing. However, DDR2 is so cheap right now that there's no reason not to get 4GB if you're building a new computer. 32-bit Vista can only address 3GB (and change). 64-bit can address 128GB, (IIRC).

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    I have Vista Home Premium 32-bit, and I'm thinking about upgrading to 64-bit (and adding 2 more gigs of RAM to my comp). I'd have to buy a new copy I guess which is fine, but is the 'upgrade' process smooth or a pain in the ass?

    Uhhh, actually I don't think you have to anymore. I am not 100% on this but I think that this is something that MS has a sort of compromise on.

    Your key *should* work with both 32 and 64 bit versions of vista. You just need to get a copy of a 64 bit disc.

    No I knew that one, I meant about the disc itself. Apparently you just call them for a $10 disc. That's cool.

    Lucky Cynic on
  • Options
    .kbf?.kbf? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    MeepZero wrote: »
    Does the 64 bit support help performance that much over 32 bit, or is it just the extra memory addressing that is the big deal for now?

    Extra memory addressing. However, DDR2 is so cheap right now that there's no reason not to get 4GB if you're building a new computer. 32-bit Vista can only address 3GB (and change). 64-bit can address 128GB, (IIRC).

    As a side note the only desktop motherboard that supports more then 8 is the Skulltrail which cost about $700 (and still only supports 16).

    Straight from wiki
    The emergence of the 64-bit architecture effectively increases the memory ceiling to 264 addresses, equivalent to approximately 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM. To put this in perspective, in the days when 4 MB of main memory was commonplace, the maximum memory ceiling of 232 addresses was about 1,000 times larger than typical memory configurations. Today, when 2 GB of main memory is common, the ceiling of 264 addresses is about ten billion times larger, i.e. ten million times more headroom than the 232 case.

    Most 64-bit microprocessors on the market today have an artificial limit on the amount of memory they can address, because physical constraints make it highly unlikely that one will need support for the full 16.8 million terabyte capacity. For example, the AMD Athlon X2 has a 40-bit address bus and recognizes only 48 bits of the 64-bit virtual address[1]. The newer Barcelona X4 supports a 48-bit of physical address and 48 bits of the 64-bit virtual address.

    .kbf? on
  • Options
    DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    For ease of use:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1033/ordermedia/default.mspx

    There's the site you'd go to if you want to order a 64-bit disc from Microsoft. You choose a shipping country, enter in your product key, and if you're eligible it'll let you order a disc.

    Interestingly enough they also offer 32-bit CD-ROM copies of Vista.

    Dehumanized on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    .kbf? wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    MeepZero wrote: »
    Does the 64 bit support help performance that much over 32 bit, or is it just the extra memory addressing that is the big deal for now?

    Extra memory addressing. However, DDR2 is so cheap right now that there's no reason not to get 4GB if you're building a new computer. 32-bit Vista can only address 3GB (and change). 64-bit can address 128GB, (IIRC).

    As a side note the only desktop motherboard that supports more then 8 is the Skulltrail which cost about $700 (and still only supports 16).

    and, y'know, most P43/P45/G43/G45 boards.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010200280+1072710689&Configurator=&Subcategory=280&description=&Ntk=&SpeTabStoreType=&Order=BESTMATCH&srchInDesc=

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    For ease of use:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1033/ordermedia/default.mspx

    There's the site you'd go to if you want to order a 64-bit disc from Microsoft. You choose a shipping country, enter in your product key, and if you're eligible it'll let you order a disc.

    Interestingly enough they also offer 32-bit CD-ROM copies of Vista.

    Yeah, I don't qualify since it's the OEM version. I don't mind buying a new copy though since I took advantage of various versions of Windows available when I was but a lad.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.