Is Vista Worth it?

[Cheeseplug]

I am currently running windows xp pro, and have been since 2002. I use my computer for multimedia purposes and playing games. And a lot of writing. I have been getting a little frustrated lately not being able to use AA in deferred shading games, and have just been a little curious as to what DX10 has to offer, and windows vista as a whole. And for the past holiday, someone gave me a $100 gift certificate to newegg.

I am currently running
AMD 5200+ windsor
m2n sli-deluxe 570
HD 4850
2gb of RAM
1 500 gb and 1 250 gb hard drive

Would it do me well to jump to Vista and double the ram? Does anyone have any personal experiences they can share with me? Or am I better off buying some other cool thing?

Thank you

Sorry if there are a billion threads like this one.

 

[Jeff7181]

The feature I like best about Vista is SuperFetch... makes opening programs much faster if you have a lot of RAM (4GB +).

I will say this... I don't think it's worth $100 to upgrade from XP to Vista. I only recommend Vista over XP when you're going to be buying a new license anyway. Also... forget about the 32-bit version of Vista... if you get Vista, get a 64-bit copy.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
The feature I like best about Vista is SuperFetch... makes opening programs much faster if you have a lot of RAM (4GB +).

I will say this... I don't think it's worth $100 to upgrade from XP to Vista. I only recommend Vista over XP when you're going to be buying a new license anyway. Also... forget about the 32-bit version of Vista... if you get Vista, get a 64-bit copy.

I have to disagree with the blanket suggestion of the 64 bit version if the op does not need or is not planning to upgrade to at least 4 Gigs of memory. The 64 bit version uses more memory out of the box than the 32 bit and doesn't give much of a benefit for less than 4 Gigs of memory. There is no point in having the extra overhead for little to no benefit.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
The feature I like best about Vista is SuperFetch... makes opening programs much faster if you have a lot of RAM (4GB +).

I will say this... I don't think it's worth $100 to upgrade from XP to Vista. I only recommend Vista over XP when you're going to be buying a new license anyway. Also... forget about the 32-bit version of Vista... if you get Vista, get a 64-bit copy.

I have to disagree with the blanket suggestion of the 64 bit version if the op does not need or is not planning to upgrade to at least 4 Gigs of memory. The 64 bit version uses more memory out of the box than the 32 bit and doesn't give much of a benefit for less than 4 Gigs of memory. There is no point in having the extra overhead for little to no benefit.

At the same time, there's no reason to spend money on an OS that could be a roadblock if he ever DOES want to upgrade his memory. At a time when you can get 4 gigs of memory for $30-40, there's no reason not to upgrade or at least allow an upgrade path.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
At the same time, there's no reason to spend money on an OS that could be a roadblock if he ever DOES want to upgrade his memory. At a time when you can get 4 gigs of memory for $30-40, there's no reason not to upgrade or at least allow an upgrade path.

There are still some compatibility reasons for not going 64 bit. And that system is not really worth spending the money on to upgrade to Vista in the first place. If I were the OP, I would wait until I buy the next system to make the move.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
At the same time, there's no reason to spend money on an OS that could be a roadblock if he ever DOES want to upgrade his memory. At a time when you can get 4 gigs of memory for $30-40, there's no reason not to upgrade or at least allow an upgrade path.

There are still some compatibility reasons for not going 64 bit. And that system is not really worth spending the money on to upgrade to Vista in the first place. If I were the OP, I would wait until I buy the next system to make the move.

Such as... ?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
At the same time, there's no reason to spend money on an OS that could be a roadblock if he ever DOES want to upgrade his memory. At a time when you can get 4 gigs of memory for $30-40, there's no reason not to upgrade or at least allow an upgrade path.

There are still some compatibility reasons for not going 64 bit. And that system is not really worth spending the money on to upgrade to Vista in the first place. If I were the OP, I would wait until I buy the next system to make the move.

Performance difference between Vista x64 and Vista x86 in both memory usage and speed is not an issue its so negliable you won't notice it,compatability is very good in general with Vista x64,its really only 16 bit software you have to worry about since no legacy 16 bit crap is in Vista x64.


I have both Vista x86 and x64 so speak from my expereince with both,however I prefer Vista x64 since it runs all the software I use and drivers are solid plus the obvious other benefits it has over its 32 bit brother.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Such as... ?

As Mem has posted, people that have software with 16 bit code is not compatible with Vista 64 bit. There is some legacy hardware that is partially supported under 32 bit Vista but will not work under Vista 64 bit. (This usually involves installing XP drivers.)

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Mem
Performance difference between Vista x64 and Vista x86 in both memory usage and speed is not an issue its so negliable you won't notice it

Not always true Mem. I also have two PC's in this house, one with 32 bit and the other with 64 bit. The 64 bit machine has about 1/3 more the memory over head than the 32 bit pc on a fresh installation. The 64 bit one has only 2 gigs of memory and accesses the PF more than the 32 bit one when performing the same task. I have tried to talk my room mate into getting at least 2 more gigs, but he is a tightwad and doesn't want to spend the 20 bucks.

 

[mechBgon]

I like Vista for its security. 64-bit Vista has additional security features that combat rootkits. So my viewpoint is, "get 64-bit unless there's a specific reason to avoid it." Especially since it's a long-term purchase; support until 2017 IIRC. Anyone here think you'll still want 32-bit in five years?

As for 64-bit using more RAM... with RAM as cheap as it is now, that doesn't seem like a good reason to avoid 64-bit. I'm on 64-bit Vista, with the Service Pack 2 beta installed, and have seen RAM usage ranging as low as <600MB. I sure hope everyone running Vista can at least afford 4GB, which is $32 at Newegg at the moment.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Mem
Performance difference between Vista x64 and Vista x86 in both memory usage and speed is not an issue its so negliable you won't notice it

Not always true Mem. I also have two PC's in this house, one with 32 bit and the other with 64 bit. The 64 bit machine has about 1/3 more the memory over head than the 32 bit pc on a fresh installation. The 64 bit one has only 2 gigs of memory and accesses the PF more than the 32 bit one when performing the same task. I have tried to talk my room mate into getting at least 2 more gigs, but he is a tightwad and doesn't want to spend the 20 bucks.

Do you have same software installed on both?..remember more ram you throw at Vista the more it uses it with prefetch etc..so one with 2GB and one with 4GB will give different results.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Mem
Do you have same software installed on both?..remember more ram you throw at Vista the more it uses it with prefetch etc..so one with 2GB and one with 4GB will give different results.

Yes on the software. I built and maintain both systems so they are set up almost exactly the same software wise.

Both systems have 2 Gigs of Ram. My rig has a Athlon X2 and DDR1 while my house mates rig has a E8400 and DDR2.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Such as... ?

As Mem has posted, people that have software with 16 bit code is not compatible with Vista 64 bit. There is some legacy hardware that is partially supported under 32 bit Vista but will not work under Vista 64 bit. (This usually involves installing XP drivers.)

I've seen this point before, and I've yet to find an example. What 16-bit software? What legacy hardware? The odds are much greater that someone will have use for 4+ gigs of RAM than this 16-bit software and "legacy hardware."

 

[lxskllr]

Buying Vista32 strikes me as being the same as buying a nice AGP gfx card. The card may be nice, but it's still AGP.

 

[Rottie]

if you plan to upgrade to Vista I recommand Vista Home Premium it comes with multimedia stuff that you are using and also you can try Vista Upgrade Advisor to ensure that everything are compatiable before upgrade smoothly and worry free

 

[Bill Kunert]

If you buy 32 bit Vista you can get a 64bit copy from Microsoft for $10 shipped. Then you can load both and see which you prefer.

 

[zerocool84]

Vista64 is great. Never had any compatibility issues with anything and it's much faster than XP.

 

[Cheeseplug]

Well, if I were to upgrade it would definitely be to 64bit vista home premium. I also would slap in at least another 2gb of ram, probably 4 even with the prices as cheap as they are. I just have a few reservations about upgrading the operating system. I am assuming 6gb of RAM would kick ass, which makes me lean towards vista.

 

[DarkTXKnight]

If I might be permitted to hijack this thread a sec I have parts for a ew system sitting in a box for a month (X2 6000+, 4 GB RAM 8800gts) and had been planning on using 32 bit because I would not have been expecting to go above 4GB anytime in the near future. Would I ( or the poster) see a significant difference in perfromance on the 64 bit vs 32 if we were only using 4 GB RAM?

 

[lxskllr]

You'll get to use your whole 4gb of ram with Vista64.

 

[Cheeseplug]

But is the performance from 2gb to 4g, or even 6gb that noticeable that it would be worth upgrading to 64bit with?

 

[lxskllr]

I don't know... You'll get a performance boost, whether or not it's worth $100 is up to the individual. Based solely on performance, and looking only at the present(not future), I would say it isn't worth it. I like Vista64 more than XP for reasons other than performance. It has some niceties that aren't performance based. For some people there's also small annoyances, so that argument's a wash. Really though, if you're into computers, and your the guy people go to for help, you should get Vista to familiarize yourself with the O/S. That way you can be more useful when people come to you for assistance.

 

[SickBeast]

I disagree that there is a performance boost in Vista. The disk performance absolutely sucks compared with XP. It uses way more memory. The only supposedly good feature in Vista is superfetch, but I never found it did anything with my 3gb of ram.

I would say you should wait for Windows 7. I hear there is a new beta coming out; maybe you could sign up for it to see if you like it.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I disagree that there is a performance boost in Vista. The disk performance absolutely sucks compared with XP. It uses way more memory. The only supposedly good feature in Vista is superfetch, but I never found it did anything with my 3gb of ram.

I would say you should wait for Windows 7. I hear there is a new beta coming out; maybe you could sign up for it to see if you like it.

Vista is much faster than XP. It has more memory usage because it utilizes the memory it has.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I disagree that there is a performance boost in Vista. The disk performance absolutely sucks compared with XP. It uses way more memory. The only supposedly good feature in Vista is superfetch, but I never found it did anything with my 3gb of ram.

I would say you should wait for Windows 7. I hear there is a new beta coming out; maybe you could sign up for it to see if you like it.

Vista is much faster than XP. It has more memory usage because it utilizes the memory it has.

I would like to see some benchmarks to prove that.

Every disk benchmark I've ever seen has Vista lagging XP considerably.

Superfetch would not benefit the OP as he only has 2gb of ram.