hello , again
sorry for creating so many threads ><
wht OS should i get ?
vista ulti or xp pro ?
mostly gaming

sure xp . if u mostly gaming using the vista sure lag 1

ohh , xp 32bit can work with 4gb ram ?
haha cos i think vista32bit cant use 4gb ram
><

hello....
u better get vista....
if can grab vista ultimate-64 bit....
it can boost ur transfer rate data...

4 further info,go to windows' site,search the vista ultimate-64...
gud luck...

that's coz the system hardware is slow
not to mention u would miss out on DirectX10 on XP

any 32-bit OS has the 4GB limitation

but dx9 and 10 dnt have much diff xD

Yes, if you want to support more than 3.5GB of RAM then go for 64-bit version of O/S. Any 32-bit O/S will not support more than that due to architecture limitation. A quick browse through this forum will show you why is it so.

I don't think there's any need for the Ultimate version if you're only playing games. I'm using Vista Ultimate now and I rarely use the extra features of Ultimate. I'd go for Vista Premium if I were you.

And to answer the question, I think it's better to go for Vista Ultimate. There's not much performance difference between XP and Vista currently. The feature that slows down the game is the DirectX 10 code-path. You can run the game at the DX9 code-path and it'll run just like how it runs in XP. Currently the drivers are developing more maturely and the performance difference between XP and Vista has been decreasing significantly.

yup, agree with u on that part, have seen how people hacked Crysis setting for XP and enabled Very High mode, the DX9 graphic is almost the same as DX10's not sure about other games like Call of Juarez, e.g.

as can be seen here, DX10 rendering is certainly nicer, but who knows, it might be just marketing gimmick, just like Crysis, the same thing is achievable with DX9, but in order to promote DX10, they purposely disable some options

how to check whether my o/s is under 32 or 64 bit ??

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

besides image quality, seems like u would get performance boost as well with DirectX10

@limhongwoon, check your system properties if u are using vista

ts, if u're h/w is sufficient enoguh, y dun giv vista a try?
but seriously, if is not b coz of dx10, i wont use vista..........
for vista.................ur system properties will show 32 or 64 bit. (right click - properties on ur my computer)

for xp................go to system information. (all programs - accessories - system tools - system information).
in summary tab, "system type" will show x86 for 32bit & x64 for 64 bit.

btw, dis is h/w section....................

XP better..what for going to Vista? get the stable version!

My PC is 32bit Vista, i have 4GB RAM. Upgraded the Vista to Service Pack 1. The memory status in my Device Manger is 4GB. Is it only virtual or there is no way can use 4GB in Vista 32bit ?

care to explain what u meant by "not stable" in Vista?

hmm, afaik there is no way to utilize all 4GB RAM in 32-bit OS, heard about memory remapping stuff but not every program has the feature
perhaps it's time to shift to 64-bit, in coming years 4GB RAM will be mainstream, then no point sticking to 32-bit anymore. even the upcoming Windows 7 would only ship in 64-bit version only (confirmed before, but the beta has 32-bit version, so status unknown)

so get vista better ?

as usual, my recommendation is, if u have good hardware, by all means, try Vista, if u are not happy with it, revert back to XP. i had been using XP for the past 7 years, and i have no problem getting used to Vista after i change my rig.

and if u have less than 4GB RAM, or u do not need to utilize all 4GB RAM, stick with 32-bit system for now

and btw, personal experience tells me that Vista is ok, but since there are other forummers who suggest that it is not good and not stable, why don't u PM them to ask them to explain to u why it is not good or not stable?

This post has been edited by cyew86: Dec 5 2008, 10:04 PM

My Vista is works great with my PC. Smooth...

ohh , but many softwares are incompatible with vista right ?

u using core 2 quad ??

most consumer softwares have no problem with Vista...

my vote goes to Vista, and if possible, Vista 64-bits even if u ve less than 4GB RAM

64-bits is more secured, and is slightly faster than 32-bits... 32-bits programs, including games, have no problem running in it too...

if u re new to Vista, pls give it at least 1 week to settle down before bashing it if there's a need... it usually takes a newly installed Vista a few days to optimize itself to the user's habit of computing...

This post has been edited by astria: Dec 5 2008, 10:49 PM

even amd x2 3800+ can handle it well

classic response:

get 2 machines with the same hardware, one with Vista and the other with XP... use them as per normal and dun shut down/restart for at least 3 consecutive days, and see who's more responsive...

erm... mostly is compatible to vista adi... I'm using vista prem and vista ulti on 2 different rig... and i can said that vista prem is better then vista ulti... ulti would make your com slower than usual... well if u have a high ended com then any Os will do, depends on your rig...

Normal usage like gaming, school work, entertainment... prem will do the job perfectly... ulti is just waste of $$ and resources...

as i said is depends on ur rig... if u own a hardcore proc e.g I7core , GPU Hd4870x2 goes like hell or something like that, ulti would be a good choice since the dreamscene looks marvelous...

still i would recommend Vista Premium... Price performance wise XD

yeah, me too, is considering on either to get the ultimate or premium for my new laptop later. i think premium is enough, any 64 bit version?

what do you people think of Turion X2 RM72 (2.1 GHz) running Vista home premium? underpowered? RM72 is a lion processor, but i think its on a puma platform already. because im still thinking on either to get an AMD or Intel notebook, the price is RM700 difference man..

is that the Compaq CQ40???

anyway, Home Premium is sufficient for most users...

and as i ve suggested before, get 64-bits if possible... sooner or later we will need to use it anyway...

I dual boot my machine. VISTA is definitely faster and more responsive.

yeah..there's also CQ45 with RM70 2.0GHz..but those are not PUMA processor rite? so it is not underpowered rite? provided that the RAM is more than 2gb?

This post has been edited by milosevens: Dec 5 2008, 11:27 PM

Don't agree. 64-bit waste memory only. Unless u have 8GB of RAM, it's not worth going 64-bit...64-bit will consume 20% to 40% more memory for the same usage due to the larger words in the variables.

People who have only 4GB thinks they have more RAM by utilizing the extra 0.75GB...but in reality loses out more memory due to the 64-bit memory registers.

This post has been edited by Matrix: Dec 5 2008, 11:29 PM

vista is faster in startup & shutdown, not necessary faster wen running application.

Lol, yeah i use dual boot also..
Go for vista man.. get the 64-bit version

How fast do you want to run ur office APPS? The fact is VISTA is very responsive even after i throw in tons of apps, unlike XP which gets bloated and crawl like turtle. Having a responsive machine is > than getting that extra 2fps in ur game when modern PC can easily handles 30fps to 60fps in ur game. Having 2fps extra is moot.

does it make any significance difference?

if im from XP, wanna migrate to Vista Ulti, i have to change all the driver and software? meaning, i have to redownload everything again?

drivers - definetely

softwares - no for most

i would say vista... cause its future prove... go for vista ulti...

futureproof? windows 7 coming next june my fren

slower wen i copy massive amount of data from 1 location to another.......................=.=

i think windows seven is the same as vista. My friend said all the looks are the same except for one round dock i think..just maybe the performance is different..well, its not launch yet, what he see might just be the outlook or review by some net bloggers..

think 7 as an optimized Vista...

MS showcased 7 running on a EEE PC... smoothly...

its basically improved version of vista, promising better performance.................
ms also remove a lot of annoying useless feature from windows 7 which exist in vista.

from what i read:
- less bloated, can choose the components that u want to install
- some kind of super taskbar, more functionality
- ribbon interface on Wordpad
- directx 11
- less annoying UAC
- others all can't remember
it's a "minor" upgrade compared to from ME to XP or XP to Vista
this is something like from Win95 to 98 imho

i thought ms remove UAC in windows 7............................

btw, vista user out there, u can disable the super annoying UAC @ control panel.
& dx11 will b available for vista as well.

This post has been edited by tech3910: Dec 5 2008, 11:53 PM

Windows 7 = VISTA core with redesigned UI.

lets wait for it first..but it might consume more power than vista..i hope we dont need minimum 4gb ram to run it smoothly..if not most laptop jialat d lo..most also maximum 4GB.. and i just saw at HP website that CQ40 maximum supported ram is only 2GB!! im gonna think all over again about buying that model..

How many % of time u spend on ur PC coying massive files??? Yes, this is one instance VISTA is slower but only by seconds. And there is a good reason behind why it is slower. The way XP copy the files is faster as it didn't take extra precautions to check the data u copied. VISTA rectify this issue and thus inccured some penalty in time taken to copy the files. I'll rather waste a few seconds to know that my data is handled properly... ..and the benefits of a fast boot up system (which i do a few times a day), already more than make up whatever time i lost when copying huge files.

And oh...XP is so fugly looking on my 22" LCD....the crummy fonts is already enuff to justified and i removed it from my PC! LOL.

This post has been edited by Matrix: Dec 6 2008, 12:01 AM

vista isn't as "responsive" dat u think...................
i use both OS, xp3(32) & vista sp1(64).
vista seams 2 crash more often.................
i hate dat wen it happens wen copying files...........dis is y i dun cut-paste wen copying file in vista....................

vista definitely need some fix......................good thing the sp2 is cmg soon..............

ohh , thanks for the info

It depends on the specs of your computer (IMHO). If you've got more RAM to spare (At least 4GB), then it should be fine to game with Vista. If you've got 2GB of RAM and would like to game then I'd doubt that Vista will be your penultimate choice. I must say that XP is great. But hey, move on, upgrade your computer (save up, if no money) and get used to Vista. It took me some getting used to Vista. Heck, all my laptops are 2GB RAM but all my desktops are 4GB RAM. PS: I'm using 32-Bit and OEM OSes. Please PM me if you'd like to know what OSes I've got in my system (I've got 6 OSes in 4 different HDDs).

1) Oh yeah...XP is more responsive...because you 'think' it is. It is this kind of rumour mongering mentality with no facts that spoil the reputation for vista...I don't 'think' that VISTA is more responsive, bro. I experienced it.

2) Vista crash more often - BS - I've NEVER EVER CRASH VISTA since DAY 1. Even when there's the rare occasion with explorer screw up, it'll recover by itself. XP lockups and hangs...like eating nasilemak for breakfast.

3) Sounds like u have problem where i) you have doggy hardware. R u copying to external USB drive? Not all USB drive converter are made the same. ii) PSU not enuff power iii) You might have some renegade apps in your system. iv) Viruses?

Frankly, SP2 isn't going to help you if you don't want to check the problem yourself. I've copy over 100GB of data(including many huge movie files) from one hard disk to another the other day as i migrate from one drive to another (at same time terminated XP from my PC....)

100GB big enough for you??

(PS: Btw...why do you want VISTA 64-bit?? You have 8GB of RAM and need all of it??....64-bit isn't prime time yet...u should use the 32-bit version instead and see if it helps)

This post has been edited by Matrix: Dec 6 2008, 12:04 PM

Agree with you. I've never experience Vista BSOD before! To the *******, who said Vista crash (BSOD), list your specs, he probably download po*n and kena virus.

I hate it. Vista Ultimate in my Compaq! I've upgraded from Home Premium to Vista Ulti but not much difference, seems worse b4 upgrade cuz start-up becomes slower, IE crashing more frequently.........

Lucky thing Im still using XP Pro (Acer)

I doubt there's much of diferrence in terms of speed between Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate.

Quite honestly, Vista is much better than XP if your computer can tahan it.

And apparently, Windows 7 promises a shitload of performance enhancements, like much faster boot time, and less GPU power needed for Aero

64 bit just 2 max out gaming experience.
i copy data from 1 hdd 2 another, not USB device.

btw, vista crash coz it still doesn't hav good enough compatibility.
my sound driver crash once, bit defender internet security 2009 crash twice.
all which i hav 2 reinstall............

pls, u sounds like a vista fan boy now...............
do i even said vista is no good? den wt i'm using now?........................
i said, vista is still cannot reach the height of xp. (dis is y os has service pack)
it is still slowser den xp a little bit wen it comes 2 running application.
those little bit adds up, dis is y company skip vista..........
hard 2 blame, xp has been on the market for almost 10 years...........

This post has been edited by tech3910: Dec 6 2008, 03:29 PM

If you have <4Gb RAM, then it's pointless to use Vista 64-bit...

You might as well use Vista 32-bit, which is more stable and has less issues with drivers and stuff

Sheesh.... Since when does 64-bit equals better gaming experience. Well, i haven't try 64-bits, no comments. Why don't you try XP 64-bit for a fair comparison eh?

Did you know u are wasting more RAM with 64-bit O/S?? It actually degrade your computing performance. Guess u don't have 8GB RAM either.

I have 3 sound driver enable same time (mobo realtek, X-FI, and ATI 4850 realtek) directed to different output. Never crash or hang. Not even once.

And my karsperksy runs great...


It's your PERCEPTION VISTA is bad becoz u want to run 64-bit when u don't have enough RAM and for most part, 64-bit is still not stable yet.

You are giving your comments based on a 32-bit vs 64-bit OS...I'm doing a straight comparison between 2 32-bit OS....who's the fanboy now??

This post has been edited by Matrix: Dec 6 2008, 04:26 PM

i;m giving logical opinion based on my experience...............just b coz u use vista, doesn't mean vista is the best.....................
dun u know certain games like crysis runs better on 64 bit os?......................
did u even look @ my siggy?.................
even 3 gb is well enough 2 max out any games performance on 64bit.

i guess u dun even red my post b4 replying....................
did i ever mention vista is bad????
my point is, performance wise is not on the same height as xp.

y people & company skip vista?
coz its performance is not as fast as xp.
if ms can mek vista as fast as xp + all the GUI, dis will definitely convince company 2 upgrade.
speed & stability matter most in business world, not beautiful GUI.

vista is fun 2 use, once u disable the super annoying UAC.
vista has improved a lot wit the introduction of sp1, i expect sp2 to further improved vista.

edited, i think i hav 2 bold dis statement......................coz u people not reading...............

This post has been edited by tech3910: Dec 6 2008, 09:09 PM

i got both xp and vistax86, x64....
i running three os... all updated..

any problem i facing? no at all..
all of them are stable with me..

performance for xp better than vista?
it only occur if only u have lousy old hardware...
vista copy files slow? i don't think it is.
internet explorer always hang? if ur line is fast, it won't occur such problems.
vista X64 always got compability issues? so long i only found tat my ie 64bit cannot run some plugin. But inside vista x64 are ready a ie32bit for u.. so no problem at all..
driver problem? maybe ur hardware are superb old.
xp running games smooth than vista? oh god, u using old display card? from wat i found from the review, the benchmark only few FPS different from XP to vista....

found any vista problem? report in.. don't blind talking vista got lot of problem when got no proof



P.S.
this problem same as
the age of windows 98..

when windows XP release, got lot of user complain tat XP very slow.... and windows 98 is better for gaming.. i saw that.. and blaming that xp got lot of bugs and compability issues.

this judge what? i personnally also don't know..
some say wait the vista to release the best service pack just to install it? i think it is the time windows "7" already on market.

This post has been edited by chchyong89: Dec 6 2008, 08:22 PM

agreeable... ppl oso said vista is bad coz dey dun hav cash 2 upgrade n their com hardware is old n lousy.. to b honest... i relly love vista... n yes windows 7 hav less anoying uac... besides after sp1 has launched it is much faster...

the annoying vista UAC is able to off....

If I may comment, I've tested Windows 7 and what the say about the performance increase is true and real!

Serious? Wow, now I can't wait for Windows 7 Beta, in Jan 2009!

Is it true ah, they say you can play Crysis on Windows 7 without using a graphics card! (plays at 7 fps, but still)

This post has been edited by yen223: Dec 7 2008, 06:55 PM

Yes, I'm serious. The Windows 7 BETA is already released but you must know on how to acquire it. (Don't ask me how I acquired it, sorry ) Yes, you can play Crysis but @ 7 fps = WTFOMGROFLBBQLMAO... Trust me, it's still better to have a dedicated graphics card.

for now i suggest you use Windows XP Pro (32-bit) 1st. Windows 7 is still in Beta (who noes wat will happen later). DON'T even think of Vista on Gaming. Vista alone itseft taken 1GB-1.4GB RAM for BOOT UP. And MAX RAM for 32-bit OS is 3.00GB-3.50GB.

Regards

lol i think in vista without a gpu crysis will run at 1fpm

vista is ok to me..
so far after release until now..i use it no problem coming out...
somemore it's faster when u online..
gaming is ok.. just use a good 3d card..

gaming use VISTA SP1 ! it is as fast as XP now

without graphic card u got display on your monitor?

i hav a question here,for study purpose which 1 should i install in my lappie.i feel that vista can't install many program juz like xp support all version.vista abit freeze and not responding.wat about linz ubuntu in my lappie?

There's always integrated graphic processor.

From my experience of using Vista, it supports almost all the programs needed for my studies (Visual Studio, Photoshop, MS Office, AutoCad). The software supported by Vista has been increased significantly over the past 2 years. Now a lot of software has support for Vista

You just answered your own question lol. Use XP

Unless you're studying computer science, you shouldn't install Ubuntu. Its a lot trouble, and it's not that much better

ic.good advice.thanks.

XP SP2...
Vista

yep....agreed....no "YOU BUNTUT" for me. The nightmare of looking for drivers, trying to install them(it's not just double click), searching for good apps in a sea of junk apps....urrgghh....

Bro, Vista doesn't take 1GB -> 1.4GB of RAM during boot-up. I managed to run Vista on 512MB RAM.

Nope, it should be 7 fps and not 1 fpm ( ) with integrated graphics.

Agreed with you but trust me that Windows 7 will have even better gaming performance.

I fell off my chair due to laughing while reading this idiotic comment. Do you know what is integrated graphics?
PS: You were shaking your head.

still feels xp much more stable
my vista home also damn lagging when run under 1gb memory (without dedicated graphic card)

It may lag a little when used with integrated graphics because the integrated graphics has to share memory to buffer frames from the RAM and I doubt the RAM likes sharing. Get 2GB of RAM and share 256MB to integrated graphics to buffer frames and you'll be as smooth as a baby's bottom.

true

Please don't post single-liners. TIA.

2 Options.
1) Add RAM to 2GB. RAM so cheap now. Buy now or forever hold your peace.
2) Disable Aero interface. Your windows will fly.

I'm running 2GB RAM on Atom. Doesn't lag at all. I disabled the Aero and it flys. LOL.

btw, i noticed some observation about die hard XP users and would like to put foward an analogy.

It's like cars.

1) Example 1: Your Proton Saga BLM 1.3 use the CAMPRO 1.3 engine. You slapped this engine into a WAJA and then you complain it is slow yadda yadda..no power yadda...but you forgot the benefits of a bigger car, bigger boot etc. That's why they don't put 1.3 engine into a WAJA. It runs on 1.6.

2) Example 2: VIVA 1.0 vs Myvi 1.0....exactly same 3 cyclinder engine. Which car do you think is faster and more acceleration?? Of course VIVA 1.0
But Myvi is the bigger car.

3) Example 3: Myvi 1.3 vs Avanza 1.3....basically the same engine with different tuning. Which do you think has better acceleration? Nuff said.

So it's the same case with VISTA or any new O/S. When XP was released, those Win98 machines ..what..Pentium 1?? Can barely even BOOT XP.

If you want to have the benefits of new O/S, your machine must be able to take it. All this 'windows lagging' whining are nothing more than people who wants to have Aero, but not the GPU nor RAM to handle it. So who's at fault??

With Aero off, it is IMPOSSIBLE for VISTA to lag even for a lowly machine like an Intel ATOM.


This post has been edited by Matrix: Dec 10 2008, 02:47 PM

using Vista Ultimate on a Pentium-M 1.6GHz with 1GB RAM and GMA 900

no complains...

Bro, I recommend that you write a review regarding your Intel Atom processor and post it in "Essential Reviews and Guides". Also, make a link in your siggy to that review so that people will not complain about using Vista and it's slowness. Once they see Atom + 2GB they'll all STFU.

Hee-hee...actually i'm planning to do that...but it takes time...also planning do capture videos of the desktop with Atom in action.... looking for software that can do the video capture. Just slipstreamed VISTA SP1 and trying install into a Virtual PC......No more double work in future!

Glad you decided to slipstream your SP1 into Vista. You can record desktop videos with CamStudio or FRAPS (Full-screen only).

XP 64bit.. i heard vista has compatibility issues..

every 64 bit windows also hav compatibility issues la.................
driver, s/w & everything, priority is 32bit 1st...........

No lagging meh and pentium 1.6 can run vista?

If u gonna play games that required DirectX 10, go for Vista then. It's worth it
I bet, most high-spec games nowadays, and in the near future required DX10
Alang- alang ma...

Yeah. It’s a normal reaction. At that time, XP driver support & compatibilities is low. But after 2 years (maybe 3)…people start to appreciate XP especially their built-in USB support. Then drivers & compatibilities issues are solved…then well…we have a mature & stable environment which we all are comfortable with.

Vista is suffering from the same cycle. The only different is Vista have a slower adoption rate compared to XP against Win9x. Why ? Well, it’s in the hardware requirement. Vista needs a significantly higher hardware requirement than XP compare to XP against Win9x.

Of course, the argument of hardware upgrade surface. But do bear in mind that we are looking at a massive hardware upgrade for companies with many PC’s…budget might forbid them in the 1st. place. Generally,: -

Hardware for Win9x uses XP – slower
Hardware for XP uses Vista – much slower

The fact remain that Vista have a significantly higher overhead than XP. Only a faster machine compensates these overheads.

Slower adoption rate causes support service like drivers, compatibilities, cross-platform environment & etc to come slower than expected from respective vendor. That’s why companies still stuck with XP & Microsoft acknowledged it & continue to sell XP to certain parties.

I think these are some point to ponder in selecting an OS for your current system. I’ll seriously stick to XP for now as the support for it is very matured. I’m not saying Vista is not matured…it’s just that Vista have not reach the height of maturity of XP.

I reckon XP will last long enough for the release of Window 7.

I post this on another thread...just to share my thought again.

ohh , so just get vista ulti 64bit ?

Yes, if your hardware fully-supports 64-Bit and you've got 64-Bit drivers.

okay thanks ! ;D