jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
Can anyone give me a reason of why i wouldn't want to spend the extra money to get XP Pro instead of Vista? I'm buying a monster PC and i realized i used up my last XP key on my work machine so i'll have to buy an OS. To any linux/unix/x-ix: i'm not interested. I will probably end up dual/triple-booting but now isn't the time to try to sell me a free* OS *Time is money that i don't feel like spending so actually it's not free ------------------ |
Lazarus Member Posts: 1668 From: USA Registered: 06-06-2006 |
Buy XP Pro. Vista will cause you so many hassles... take it from me. *erases his Vista hard drive 'again' in a frenzied rage* |
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
Hmmmm, maybe I'll double up on they keys for my current copy and not update until i go back to school in which i'll be able to get a copy of XP pro sp2 from them for free... (MSDN subscription) ------------------ |
Cohort X Member Posts: 126 From: The Great Pacific Northwest Registered: 09-16-2006 |
Vista looks like it's turning out to be another Windows ME. Do the smart thing and hold out until they actually release a better system. |
MastaLlama Member Posts: 671 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: 08-10-2005 |
i would go with XP and wait for a major service pack (at least 1) before going to Vista. |
kenman Member Posts: 518 From: Janesville WI Registered: 08-31-2006 |
Hi everybody Windows Vista not necessarily good right out of the box, depending on the need, dual boot Vista/XP. At some point Vista will be more stable, it just has to be. If it is not, it will be taken over by the linux. Yes Vista is not ready for the real world of gaming yet, but I would wager that within 4 or 5 months things should be back on target. Just My 2 cents. Change anybody? |
Lava Member Posts: 1905 From: Registered: 01-26-2005 |
quote: I wouldn't go so far as to say it's as bad as ME. It has problems but they didn't seem as much as a big deal I think because I realized before hand I would have problems. Also I think it will work better once more updates are released (like Llama pointed out) and more programs have updated compatibility and even without that hope-- at least Vista offers something new, which are the visuals, ME offered next to nothing. ME ruined one of my computers, Vista to me is just a bumpy ride. But putting that aside I say go with XP if you're more use to it or if you want more performance, Vista is a memory and video hog. [This message has been edited by Lava (edited June 25, 2007).] |
Brandon Member Posts: 594 From: Kansas City, Mo, USA Registered: 02-02-2004 |
I'll go with the wave that's saying to use XP instead. For now at least. I have Vista on a new laptop of mines (AMD Turion64 x2, MT6458) OGRE for some reason has terrible performance on my system when using OpenGL for the renderer, and when using DirectX it's far worse, 3D Game Studio however runs just fine though. Sorry for my complaining\rambling, I'll end it by saying that Vista is very pretty, but it's prob. best to go with XP if you're dealing with graphics. ------------------ |
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
Thanks, I was 98% sure that what i wanted to do (XP) but now i'm swayed The machine i'm getting is a monster; I plan on doing fun things like 3d gaming, shaders, modeling, CAD, lots of compiling, and the odd game of CS:source I had to stop coding with Ogre for a while there because my laptop couldn't handle it ------------------ |
Mene-Mene Member Posts: 1398 From: Fort Wayne, IN, USA Registered: 10-23-2006 |
I'll vouch for XP, but I'd say Leopard over all else, and Mac OS X. XP doesn't have amazing visual, but Vista doesn't have incredible either, its just somewhat showy, not really all that cool. Perhaps something to get excited about, but then forget. Vista also I've heard is really restricting, and can't run all your programs. What kind of PC are you getting, is it already settled? What's the specs? What's your choice? ------------------ I reserve the full right to change my views/theories at any time. |
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
yeah, vista isn't that great on developers sadly. its more for people that want to say "i have the latest windows on my computer!!!" i don't want to post the specs just yet cause i still feel a little guilty for spending so much cash on it (my dad is paying for most of it, but still), although it IS a tool for me since i'm a computer science professional now. For a hint though, the graphics card alone could buy a system from dell... ------------------ |
CPUFreak91 Member Posts: 2337 From: Registered: 02-01-2005 |
I'd probably choose XP. Oh and to annoy you, why don't you try Linux running VMware workstation running the legally virtualizable version of Vista? That way you can spend a good (well almost) $1000 on software. ------------------ "Oh, bother," said the Borg. "We've assimilated Pooh." "Socialism works great... if there are no people involved." -- Pastor David Ginter, Union Church of Guatemala. |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
I'll go against the flow here and say you shouldn't spend extra to get XP. sure XP now is a better OS. but it's on it's way out. Sure Vista sucks now. I hate it. XP sucked too, when it came out. ultimately, my suggestion is to ride XP as long as you can, but if you're gonna buy an OS, get Vista. so... what are the specs on this Monster PC? ------------------ |
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
I've been using Vista at work almost since the day it came out. So I am on it over 8+ hours a day. I've been fairly vocal on being less than excited about it. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's an ME, but I do feel like it is more towards that direction than a positive. If they fix the memory hog issue and easier use of UAC, then maybe I will change my tune. Even so, it certainly didn't radically change the way I use an OS or my daily productivity routines. In fact, I feel it's making me less productive. But...I do somewhat agree with Arch. We are currently at a crossroads, especially in the area of video cards. DirectX 10 cards are coming out and DirectX 10 is only available for Vista. If you are serious about video/3D technology, an expensive DirectX9 card may have you wanting more in a few months. But...there is also another area of controversy of how well DirectX 10 software will run on a DirectX 9 card and vice versa. 10 and 9 are apparently radically different. So, we have yet to really see how this whole 9 vs. 10 in both software and hardware will play out. XP is a safe purchase right now and your computer will probably be nice enough you can upgrade to Vista whenever you feel ready. I have been waiting on purchasing a new laptop. Well, partly because that's what I use for work, but I do also want a personal laptop as well. I toy with the idea of getting XP, but I'm waiting out Vista to see what improvements happen. I also want to take advantage of new flash technology built onto CPUs, but the DELL Inspiron's don't seem to have this yet. And...I also want to wait for DirectX 10 video cards. And... |
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
yeah, i'm probably overselling the computer so you're all expecting a render server or something like that by now :P the videocard is going to be a BFG 8800 OC2 i believe (can't remember the exact model i picked out) so it's an alright one... it has 768MB of videomemory goodness and well, if you really want to know the rest of the stats just google it. It's SLI ready as well so if i need an upgrade i can go that way as well. The processor isn't the top notch one i wanted as it's still newish technology and thus expensive this month: an intel core 2 quad Q6600 2.4ghz. and it'll come with 4 gigs of RAM but i'll be able to double that when the time comes. Yeah, it's not the GREATEST machine out there but i'll finally be able to render a decent scene now; my laptop now picks and chooses which models it wants to render and i'm limited to only assembler for shaders (nothing against ASM but high level fleshes out a bit faster). oh yeah, and the casing will have fancy lights if that sells it a bit better ------------------ |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
4 gigs is ideal for Vista. It might, and I stress might, run even a little better than XP at that. so I've been told. ------------------ |
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
it's not the issue with running vista that bothers me; its the fact that half of my software would work. and on top of that old games like X-Com Apocalypse and Squad Leader won't ever work with vista and good luck finding a fix for games that don't make anybody money. I should have been an electrician... ------------------ |
Lava Member Posts: 1905 From: Registered: 01-26-2005 |
quote: I found this interesting an article on ZDnet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=261&tag=nl.e622 [This message has been edited by Lava (edited June 29, 2007).] |
Lazarus Member Posts: 1668 From: USA Registered: 06-06-2006 |
quote: The operating system alone? Sheesh. I'd rather just run XP and save all that memory for running programs, thank you very much. |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
that's taking into account other programs. 2 gigs you're running just fine, but at 4, I believe, you'd pass up XP in performance (XP at 4 gigs) ------------------ |