OS for new machine? · DIGIT-ARC

I

What OS should I use for my new machine with this config..

Intel C2D 2.66 E7300
Intel DG35EC
2 GB RAM
No Graphics Card

Xp or Vista? 32bit or 64bit? Home Edition or Professional? Please suggest..If possible PM the link also..

in my opinion windows xp with service pack 2 is the most stable windows to be used, so go for it

P

Go for Windows XP SP3 ..... A big NO to Vista

If you want to install Windows go for XP SP2 or SP3. See if you can get an OEM version from a system builder. You have thinkdigit forum for support anyway

I'm sure it's better than Microsoft's. Vista is a big NO NO. Or wait for Windows 7.

Running Windows XP on a system that powerful will be humiliating the system. Install Windows Vista SP1, it will work fine.

^yaa

, don't run xp on that system

err... i guess VISTA SP1 should be fine too .... i've been using it for 2 weeks now... haven't faced any problems...

Why not XP SP2 or SP3 which will utilise half the resources and run all his software and games? Isn't SP3 as secure? Especially if you run on a limited account and use admin privileges only when you install software?

gxsaurav said:
Running Windows XP on a system that powerful will be humiliating the system.

Don't get emotional

^^ why do you want to keep it to just 50% of resource. you have 2gig of RAM. let that be utilized. The CPU is also very powerful.

My vote is for vista 32-bit.

NucleusKore said:
Why not XP SP2 or SP3 which will utilise half the resources and run all his software and games? Isn't SP3 as secure? Especially if you run on a limited account and use admin privileges only when you install software?

One reason : User Experience.

Once you are hooked to the way Vista works, only then you realize how much XP lacked in UI & UX. Computing doesn't mean only performance from your hardware. you want then then use a CLI based OS, what you use a PC for is day to day work with the best possible user experience.

Windows XP SP3 is as not as Secure as Windows Vista & never will be. There is no system file protection, UAC or enhanced kernal in XP. Obviously you don't want him to login to an Admin account everytime he wants to install something. XP is a dead OS for a hardware that modern hardware.

Desibond is right, why keep 50% of the RAM free & empty, why not use all the resources of my system all the time to give me the most efficient experience.

^i completely agree.

gxsaurav said:
Obviously you don't want him to login to an Admin account everytime he wants to install something. XP is a dead OS for a hardware that modern hardware.

Simply right click on the exe and select Run As -> Administrator

gxsaurav said:
Desibond is right, why keep 50% of the RAM free & empty, why not use all the resources of my system all the time to give me the most efficient experience.

Because there are applications, like Photoshop and GIMP, which can put that "50% of free and empty RAM" to good use.

gxsaurav said:
Windows XP SP3 is as not as Secure as Windows Vista & never will be. There is no system file protection, UAC or enhanced kernal in XP. Obviously you don't want him to login to an Admin account everytime he wants to install something. XP is a dead OS for a hardware that modern hardware.

Hahahahahahaha.....
*www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=196737

NucleusKore said:
Because there are applications, like Photoshop and GIMP, which can put that "50% of free and empty RAM" to good use.

Exactly.

NucleusKore said:
Simply right click on the exe and select Run As -> Administrator

Because there are applications, like Photoshop and GIMP, which can put that "50% of free and empty RAM" to good use.

what makes you think that photoshop will be slow on vista. take a look at the photoshop tests.

*forums.vr-zone.com/archive/index.php/t-226541.html

So, much for 50% of free resources!!!

File copy (6.3GB ISO from Samsung drive to WD drive):

Vista: 2min 48sec

XP: 3min 07sec

File extraction (extracting the Crysis patch zip file with WinRAR):

Vista: 14s

XP: 13s

File extraction (extracting 3.9GB RAR archive file using WinRAR):

Vista: 2min 16sec

XP: 2min 22sec

File extraction (extracting 1.7GB ISO file using 7zip):

Vista: 2min 05sec (64-bit version of 7zip)

XP: 2min 18sec (32-bit version of 7zip)

Program load times:

Vista:
Photoshop CS3: 2 secs
OpenOffice: 1.5 secs
Crysis: 26 secs

XP:
Photoshop CS3: 8.5 secs
OpenOffice: 6.5 secs
Crysis: 33 secs

Photoshop CS3 "Retouch artist's benchmark":

Vista: 30s

XP: 29s

NucleusKore said:
Because there are applications, like Photoshop and GIMP, which can put that "50% of free and empty RAM" to good use.

In vista that 50% free memory is freely aviliable for other resource hungary programs,and if not used its not wasted as in XP.
(Vista automatically umloads all superfetch data once an application demands more memory.)

G

^^ dude i doubt that.. might be vista 64bit was used for above test

...may be a test done by M$ to gaet profit from vista...

Vista always sux than xp in performance...remember that as a rule

^^ I am using vista on a 3yr old pc and I am happy with it's performance and after testing win7 beta 1, I am on cloud 9.

anyways, forgot to mention the vista edition get. I would suggest Vista Home Premium.

@desiibond
Test System for those Tests ::
Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.2GHz (8*400)
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3
8GB DDR2-800 4-5-4-15
GeForce 8800GT 512MB (stock)
Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB <--- Vista Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Samsung SpinPoint T166 320GB <--- Windows XP Professional SP2

Thats a mammoth of a System. Vista is perfectly OK on it. But the system thread poster have is not THIS advance. Designing even a simple Wallpaper in Photoshop takes about 1500MBs of Ram (Well, I use Lots of layers

).

I suggest installing WindowsXP Service Pack 3 and if you are comfortable with experimenting a bit then, Ubuntu (as a secondry OS ofcourse).

^
What advantage does Premium have over Home Basic? (except Aero)

that could be a mammoth system but the point is that for any system (unless it's too old), you won't find slowness on Vista. It's as fast as xp and even faster in many cases (esp. gaming and network operations). But when it comes to interface and security, XP is no match to Vista.

G

^^ see i agree vista may be secure
but xp is also secure if u know how everything works..n use all features efficiently.....most xp users dont even know they are running os as administrator..thats the reason for security probs in xp...remember iam no fanboy of xp...jus ma xperience

i don have idea of graphics program performance...but i am a using xp more than 5 years...especially running simulations/numerical progs like MATLAB,PSPICE,etc ...xp rules over vista in case of simulation progs atleast

Anurag_panda said:
^
What advantage does Premium have over Home Basic? (except Aero)

not much apart from aero. major differnce is aero and vista media center.

*www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx
*tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2894132

My stupid gprs connection gives more speed and stability on vista than xp. And it is also incase of my friends bsnl broadband connection. For networking vista rockz.

and vista media center for multimedia just rocks.

Ok, another war going on, but my vote goes to xp sp3.

I'd have agree with y2j826, even i'm havin some trouble with SP3

Why waste on VISTA when you can get XP and all the compatible apps. And later if Win 7 comes out with a positive response then get that instead of the long lost in oblivion pavement for win 7 a.k.a. VISTA...lulz.

I can hardly see that what I can do on VISTA and no in XP. I will much out the last bit of performance when it comes to my sytem. Yes DX 10 is not there but tell me how many games come exclusively for DX 10 (which itself is a shameless selling strategy by MS, its clearly shown that DX 10 can be installed on XP).

Anyway its upto the user to decide, either to own a mashed potato or a small but rotund potato.

well if u want looks then go for vista

OR
if u want performance go for XP

Get Windows Vista in preference to XP. By now, most applications are optimised enough to run on Vista as good or better when compared to performance on XP.

And don't mind if results are published for Vista 64bit. If they really ARE, go get vista 64bit

The only propable problem with vista is that its interface takes a LOT of time getting used to. Several things are hidden away in odd corners and so many things which you could do with great ease in XP would seem damn hard on vista in the first week or two. You may have to use a few tuner software to optimise the OS. Personally speaking, I got sick of it in a day or two, but I am sure you have enough patience to spare on this OS.

The reason I am telling you to get vista is because WIndows 7 is to Windows Vista is to Windows XP what Windows XP is to Windows ME is to Windows 98. When Windows 7 comes out, there would be much better performance but much less to learn.

The monetary investment on Vista is half that on XP for a retail license. But that shouldn't worry you should it ?

Again reason to get vista.

F

y2j826 said:
in my opinion windows xp with service pack 2 is the most stable windows to be used, so go for it

Hi buddy,

Go for XP professional SP2 + with windows7 theme. it's da best OS one can suggest you, windows7 theme will give it a fresh look for you.

Install Vista if you can. I am using just the Home Basic version on my dual core, 2GD DDR2 laptop and I am loving every bit of Vista.

currently using Vista on two systems

System A
vista basic on
celeron 2.13 ghz with 512 ram works perfect for me ,no problems at all (i'm serious guys

)

System B
vista ultimate on my notebook with 1.6 ghz dual core works like charm

ur config is way better than mine i'll suggest u use vista its way better in user interface and functionality than XP

I

OMG! I always thought selecting the hardware would be difficult but this OS choice seems to be a never ending debate. You wont believe but I haven't installed any OS till now in my machine. Will do it on the weekend but still haven't decided which one..

+1 for vista

bhai believe me install vista ur config is absolutely perfect for it

I guess you could go with both sides and it would not matter. For your configuration both are good.
Neither is Vista bad, and XP is pretty good too. And you can do anything you do in one with the other.
I guess you should go for the one which is cheaper for you.
In case you go with Vista, go with the 64bit version.

desiibond said:
what makes you think that photoshop will be slow on vista. take a look at the photoshop tests.

You said slow? Well I NEVER said anything about the speed to open a file in photoshop or GIMP. What happens when you open fifteen to twenty photographs in XP and Vista and start working. And batch processing? Does Vista still beat XP. Come on.

Anurag_panda said:
Neither is Vista bad, and XP is pretty good too. And you can do anything you do in one with the other.

Clearly, you did not explore Vista enough to discover how its supersedes XP Pro.

victor_rambo said:
Clearly, you did not explore Vista enough to discover how its supersedes XP Pro.

I'll admit that I didn't explore Vista enough...Couldn't afford the license and I'm way too obsessed with *nix...

But I was speaking in terms for a basic user in the sense that XP has as good application support.

Anurag_panda said:
I'll admit that I didn't explore Vista enough...Couldn't afford the license and I'm way too obsessed with *nix...

license who cares abt them

^^
lol

Anurag_panda said:
I'll admit that I didn't explore Vista enough...Couldn't afford the license and I'm way too obsessed with *nix...

But I was speaking in terms for a basic user in the sense that XP has as good application support.

Even for a basic user, Vista has a lot improvisations to offer for all the features that existed in XP professional.

vista's life will be no longer than a year by the time windows 7 comes out however vista 64 would last longer. stick to xp, it has more life and runs every apps you throw at it.

6

go for vista. the only reason to stick to XP would be if your hardware aint upto the mark, yours clearly is... oh! another reason would be if you are one of those who like to check how much free RAM do they have at any moment. vista caches a lot of free RAM. people need to understand that RAM is a resource. not using it is a very stupid thing to do... there is no such thing as good free RAM... it is jsut wasted RAM. if the OS consumes it to be faster, its a good thing. caching RAM means just that, use it when its free and release it when other apps require it. people who have worked on exchange would know how good and effective RAM caching is...
however in the end.. the choice of OS is just not about the speed and free RAM.. it should not be... vista is better overall on every front when compared to XP...
another thing... do not go in for x64 if you do not have any dedicated use for it... most apps now are still 32 bit and they run in a separate subsystem on x64 OS.. its like a 32 bit environment for the app specifically.. (these show up with a "*" with their names in the task manager).. so running a 32 bit app on a 64 bit machine involves overhead... before someone gets upset.. i use vista x64 SP1 but i do so coz i run 64 bit guest OSes on vmware...

the only other reason to go x64 is if you are planning to upgrade to 4 gigs of RAM or more...

I recommend Vista x86 not 64 for the plain reason that some .net programs which have not been coded with x64 in mind will not and also itx64 does not give you a justifiable speed improvement. I have used all the OSes and am speaking of experience when I say, go for Vista 32 bit