open All Channels
seplocked Issues, Workarounds & Localization
blankseplocked Oh Gawd I Might Install Vista....
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

McFly
Peanut Factory
Posted - 2008.11.24 21:02:00 - [1]
 

Before i destroy what little happiness I have in my comp... let me know those of you who have switched from XP to Vista, and is DX10 really worth it? I mean, is DX10 worth the baggage of Vista.... I've got a spare hard drive, and an itchy geek urge.... I've played with vista a couple times, but sorry I really dont like it. Since DX10 is eventually going to be standard, and possibly a requirement.

I'd switch to linux, but I like premium graphics. Unless we get OpenGL Eve that would make the linux transition really worth it. But anyway let me know what you guys think. I thought about dual boot but, really I spend more time with my comp on eve while doing other things, so it'd be kind of pointless to keep the XP Partition, since i'd rarely use it.

Thanks,

McFly
Peanut Factory
Posted - 2008.11.24 22:10:00 - [2]
 

Having 64bit again would be nice tho, since XP 64 Support was abandoned... I really liked XP64.

Dmian
Gallente
Gallenterrorisme
Posted - 2008.11.24 23:26:00 - [3]
 

I went from XP to Vista 64bits. No problems so far. Of course, I waited untill the SP1 appeared, since I didn't want to use a beta OS Laughing
I think it's not that bad, really. Well, to be honest, my Ubuntu experience's been worse.
But is up to you.
I changed because I wanted a modern OS, not some 7 years old system running on my new machine. I also wanted more than 4GB of RAM, so 64 bits was mandatory, and I think Vista 64 is more suited to the task than XP 64. (That's just my opinion, not a fact.)
But it really is up to you and what you expect of an OS. I understand that for most people, XP has all the features they need, is stable and, simply, do the job.
If you have more demanding needs, then XP might fall a bit short.

Kryttos
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2008.11.25 02:32:00 - [4]
 

wait for windows 7.

Borun Tal
Minmatar
Space Pods Inc
Posted - 2008.11.25 06:34:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Kryttos
wait for windows 7.


Windows 7 is Vista, with more modularity.

You guys really need to stop watching the Apple fan-boy commercials. Vista is stable, and has been for a long time. Educate yourselves, and stop playing the part of the fools.

RaTTuS
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.11.25 09:04:00 - [6]
 

Vista is stable - but I'd go with 64bit and make sure you have got more than 4Gb RAM otherwise stick with 32Bit XP

you can switch off 90% of all the annoying features though Laughing


Tzar'rim
Posted - 2008.11.25 15:47:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: RaTTuS
Vista is stable - but I'd go with 64bit and make sure you have got more than 4Gb RAM otherwise stick with 32Bit XP

you can switch off 90% of all the annoying features though Laughing




yup, if you have less than 4GB then use XP32, if you have 4GB or more; Vista 64. There's nothing wrong with it [b]if you install it properly and disable all the crap). If your comp can't handle Vista while having 4GB you're doing something wrong.

Dulmer
Caldari
IAC Fleet Logistics
Posted - 2008.11.26 10:53:00 - [8]
 

My laptop has 4gb memory, and came with Vista 32bit.

Would it be worth getting the Vista 64bit installed, I am concerned because of drivers.

Lrrp
Minmatar
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.11.26 14:39:00 - [9]
 

Unless you are running a number of different apps. while playing Eve, why would you need more than 4 gigs of ram?

Arous Drephius
Posted - 2008.11.26 14:45:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Lrrp
Unless you are running a number of different apps. while playing Eve, why would you need more than 4 gigs of ram?


Single boxing a 10 man mining op.

Dmian
Gallente
Gallenterrorisme
Posted - 2008.11.26 19:14:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Lrrp
Unless you are running a number of different apps. while playing Eve, why would you need more than 4 gigs of ram?

Well, while 32bit systems run pretty fine with 2GB, the switch to 64bit means that not only apps, but also the OS needs more memory to run than the same 32bits version.
So, while XP and Vista 32bits run comfortably with 2GB, it is advisable to use 4GB or more to run a 64bits OS.
But it doesn't mean that you can run Vista 64 with less that 4GB (in fact, right now I'm using just 2GB and have no problems at all.)
But using 4GB means that the OS will have plenty of space to perform all its functions without having to touch the disk.

Gone'Postal
Roast and Toast Inc.
Posted - 2008.11.27 06:06:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Borun Tal
Originally by: Kryttos
wait for windows 7.


Windows 7 is Vista, with more modularity.

You guys really need to stop watching the Apple fan-boy commercials. Vista is stable, and has been for a long time. Educate yourselves, and stop playing the part of the fools.



Why use Vista when windows server 2008 is so much better when used as a workstation? but one of the reasons I don't use it is the lack of customizing I can do to explorer, half the stuff It shows me I don't need to see, Why in hell would I want the option to burn every folder to a CD/DVD when NAS's are so cheep ?

Leelo Atriedes
Amarr
TransGalactic Networks
Posted - 2008.11.27 07:43:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Gone'Postal

Why use Vista when windows server 2008 is so much better when used as a workstation? but one of the reasons I don't use it is the lack of customizing I can do to explorer, half the stuff It shows me I don't need to see, Why in hell would I want the option to burn every folder to a CD/DVD when NAS's are so cheep ?


MS Vista 32-bit OEM starts at about 95 USD here, up to 385 USD for Vista Ultimate.

Windows Server 2008...cheapest OEM I can find starts on 458 USD.

All domestic prices.

Why use a server operating system for a workstation?

RaTTuS
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.11.27 11:09:00 - [14]
 

Ram disk that can use your hidden RAM in windows XP

Burno
Posted - 2008.11.27 12:59:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Leelo Atriedes
Originally by: Gone'Postal

Why use Vista when windows server 2008 is so much better when used as a workstation? but one of the reasons I don't use it is the lack of customizing I can do to explorer, half the stuff It shows me I don't need to see, Why in hell would I want the option to burn every folder to a CD/DVD when NAS's are so cheep ?


MS Vista 32-bit OEM starts at about 95 USD here, up to 385 USD for Vista Ultimate.

Windows Server 2008...cheapest OEM I can find starts on 458 USD.

All domestic prices.

Why use a server operating system for a workstation?


Because Windows Server 2008 is an amazing OS and actually benches a bit faster than Vista. Not to mention it starts bloat free then you pick and choose what you want to add to minimize overhead.

That said, some people have MSDN licenses so Server 2008 costs nothing extra. Wink

Leelo Atriedes
Amarr
TransGalactic Networks
Posted - 2008.11.27 14:21:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Burno
Originally by: Leelo Atriedes
Originally by: Gone'Postal

Why use Vista when windows server 2008 is so much better when used as a workstation? but one of the reasons I don't use it is the lack of customizing I can do to explorer, half the stuff It shows me I don't need to see, Why in hell would I want the option to burn every folder to a CD/DVD when NAS's are so cheep ?


MS Vista 32-bit OEM starts at about 95 USD here, up to 385 USD for Vista Ultimate.

Windows Server 2008...cheapest OEM I can find starts on 458 USD.

All domestic prices.

Why use a server operating system for a workstation?


Because Windows Server 2008 is an amazing OS and actually benches a bit faster than Vista. Not to mention it starts bloat free then you pick and choose what you want to add to minimize overhead.

That said, some people have MSDN licenses so Server 2008 costs nothing extra. Wink



Ok on the bloat stuff.
But I guess you can trim Vista much to you own liking like earlier versions of Windows.
With Vista and Windows Server 2008 sharing the same kernel and code base, shutting down some Services and the likes on Vista, should make it as good as WS2008. Right?

The EVE users on MSDN subscriptions must be quite limited.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2008.11.27 21:09:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 28/11/2008 03:57:12
Originally by: Leelo Atriedes
Ok on the bloat stuff.
But I guess you can trim Vista much to you own liking like earlier versions of Windows.
With Vista and Windows Server 2008 sharing the same kernel and code base, shutting down some Services and the likes on Vista, should make it as good as WS2008. Right?

The EVE users on MSDN subscriptions must be quite limited.

Ok, then i can say, since Windows 7 is running the same core as Windows Vista and Server 2008, does that mean you can trim those to be as good as Windows 7?. Nope, i don't think so.

Windows Server 2008 was released early in 2008, and it's way newer than Vista, and it can have lots of improvements and fixes etc over what Vista have.

Yes i run Windows Server 2008 64-bit my self now as the main OS, and believe me when i say it, if you know what your changing on in Server 2008, the Server 2008 will out perform Vista in any ways, whatever you do with Windows Vista.

I have tested out Windows Vista like 4-5 times, and none of the times i have had Vista longer than 1 week on my computer because it was not what i was expecting it to be. So i tried out Windows Server 2008 when it was released, and after like 1 month with testing, i did trash my Windows XP **** forever. And just gave Vista my finger and just forgot Vista.

Yes i went from Windows XP to Windows Server 2008, and oh god what a nice upgrade in the OS that wasWink. That's like going from Playstation 2 to Playstation 3.

I will never go back to Windows XP or Vista, EVER.

Leelo Atriedes
Amarr
TransGalactic Networks
Posted - 2008.11.28 06:40:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Leelo Atriedes on 28/11/2008 06:41:27
Originally by: NightmareX

Ok, then i can say, since Windows 7 is running the same core as Windows Vista and Server 2008, does that mean you can trim those to be as good as Windows 7?. Nope, i don't think so.

Windows Server 2008 was released early in 2008, and it's way newer than Vista, and it can have lots of improvements and fixes etc over what Vista have.

Yes i run Windows Server 2008 64-bit my self now as the main OS, and believe me when i say it, if you know what your changing on in Server 2008, the Server 2008 will out perform Vista in any ways, whatever you do with Windows Vista.

I have tested out Windows Vista like 4-5 times, and none of the times i have had Vista longer than 1 week on my computer because it was not what i was expecting it to be. So i tried out Windows Server 2008 when it was released, and after like 1 month with testing, i did trash my Windows XP **** forever. And just gave Vista my finger and just forgot Vista.

Yes i went from Windows XP to Windows Server 2008, and oh god what a nice upgrade in the OS that wasWink. That's like going from Playstation 2 to Playstation 3.

I will never go back to Windows XP or Vista, EVER.


Glad it works for you mate.
But you'll never find the majority of Windows-users with a server operating system as their workstation/gaming rig EVER... Cool

Windows 7 has some way to go before it's out of the oven, so it's a bit premature to state anything in that way you implie.

And for my own, Windows Vista is teh sheit (no XP machines left)- as all pc's (4 atm) at home are backed up nightly via Windows Home Server - to my knowledge backing up a Server operating system that way is not possible.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2008.11.28 14:31:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 28/11/2008 15:00:54
Leelo Atriedes. Today i don't really care what OS i run.

The thing i care about is to have an OS that have those things:

1: Very good security.
2: Have very good performance in games and programs.
3: Have DirectX 10.
4: No bloatware or that ****.
5: Many ways to configure your OS after your need.

I could probably write down 20 more things here.

So if you go after those 5 points, then Vista is out of the way because of all the bloatware and the other crappy things that are in the OS. Windows XP have very good performance in games and programs, but it fails in security and no DirectX 10, so it's also out of the way.

Then Linux, like Ubuntu, it have very good security, but it fails at having good performance in games and no DirectX 10. So then again, Linux is out of my way for gaming.

So there is only 1 OS that deliver all of the pooints that are very important for me, yes Windows Server 2008.

Leelo Atriedes
Amarr
TransGalactic Networks
Posted - 2008.11.28 14:43:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/11/2008 14:32:12
Leelo Atriedes. Today i don't really care what OS i run.

The thing i care about is to have an OS that have those things:

1: Very good security.
2: Have very good performance in games and programs.
3: Have DirectX 10.
4: No bloatware or that ****.
5: Many ways to configure your OS after your need.

I could probably write down 20 more things here.

So if you go after those 5 points, then Vista is out of the way. Windows XP have very good performance in games and programs, but it fails in security and no DirectX 10, so it's also out of the way.

Then Linux, like Ubuntu, it have very good security, but it fails at having good performance in games and no DirectX 10. So then again, Linux is out of my way for gaming.

So there is only 1 OS that deliver all of the pooints that are very important for me, yes Windows Server 2008.


I'm still happy that you found your personal "one-fits-all"-solution. Cool

If I copy and adapt your list, it would be like this:

1: Acceptable security [running behind NAT, Windows Update and a descent AV-program is good enough for me]
2: Have very good performance in games and programs.
3: Have DirectX 10.
4: [bloatware has never been an issue to me, I use whatever I find good for my needs]
5: Enough ways to configure your OS after your own need.
6: As I mentioned earlier; backuped every night through WHS.

Then the answer is Windows Vista. For me.

I know there are other ways to fulfill point 6, but WHS does the trick for me and the computers at home.


NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2008.11.28 15:03:00 - [21]
 


Leelo Atriedes
Amarr
TransGalactic Networks
Posted - 2008.11.28 16:00:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
http://en.onsoftware.com/windows-2008-server-better-than-tweaking-vista/Wink.


Great, but that only removes #2 from the list.

But it doesn't make me wanna install it instead of Vista, as I would need to "go find it in the woods" (you know what I mean...) if I wanted to install.

We'll see what happens with Windows 7.
So far I'm quite happy with my Vista experience.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2008.11.28 16:38:00 - [23]
 

Well, if you can live without EVEmon... go ahead and install Vista 64.

Leelo Atriedes
Amarr
TransGalactic Networks
Posted - 2008.11.28 17:09:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Tonto Auri
Well, if you can live without EVEmon... go ahead and install Vista 64.


Using both, works just fine.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2008.11.28 18:31:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Lrrp
Unless you are running a number of different apps. while playing Eve, why would you need more than 4 gigs of ram?


4Gig 64bit = 2Gig 32bit.
That's simple match.

Dmian
Gallente
Gallenterrorisme
Posted - 2008.11.29 12:26:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Tonto Auri
Well, if you can live without EVEmon... go ahead and install Vista 64.

???
I am using both too. No problem here.
BTW: did you know "tonto" means "dumb" in Spanish, right? Laughing

Cyb3r Thr3at
The Scope
Posted - 2008.11.29 15:19:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/11/2008 03:57:12
Originally by: Leelo Atriedes
Ok on the bloat stuff.
But I guess you can trim Vista much to you own liking like earlier versions of Windows.
With Vista and Windows Server 2008 sharing the same kernel and code base, shutting down some Services and the likes on Vista, should make it as good as WS2008. Right?

The EVE users on MSDN subscriptions must be quite limited.

Ok, then i can say, since Windows 7 is running the same core as Windows Vista and Server 2008, does that mean you can trim those to be as good as Windows 7?. Nope, i don't think so.

Windows Server 2008 was released early in 2008, and it's way newer than Vista, and it can have lots of improvements and fixes etc over what Vista have.

Yes i run Windows Server 2008 64-bit my self now as the main OS, and believe me when i say it, if you know what your changing on in Server 2008, the Server 2008 will out perform Vista in any ways, whatever you do with Windows Vista.

I have tested out Windows Vista like 4-5 times, and none of the times i have had Vista longer than 1 week on my computer because it was not what i was expecting it to be. So i tried out Windows Server 2008 when it was released, and after like 1 month with testing, i did trash my Windows XP **** forever. And just gave Vista my finger and just forgot Vista.

Yes i went from Windows XP to Windows Server 2008, and oh god what a nice upgrade in the OS that wasWink. That's like going from Playstation 2 to XBOX 360.

I will never go back to Windows XP or Vista, EVER.
there fixed Wink


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only