Help me choose between Vista (32bit) or Windows XP

I am getting a replacement notebook (a Dell XPS 1730 with x9000 cpu, 8800 gpu's and 4 gigs of Ram). I have the option to get it with either Windows Vista (32 bit only) or Windows XP.

I mostly use this notebook for work (using basic excel and powerpoint software) and also for gaming (playing mostly flight and submarine simulation games).

My dilemma is that I read that the Vista (32 bit) operating system is only able to use a maximum of about 3 gigs of ram. Would I be better off staying with Windows XP which would be able to use all four gigs of my system ram? Would this be a better advantage for gaming and other software applications.

I am not that knowledgable about computers or operating systems and would greatly appreciate any help or advice!

Best regards.

 

Any 32bit OS will only use about 3GB of ram, regardless if its XP or Vista.

On my vista ult 32bit install, it uses 3.5 GB out of 4.

 

Thanks maxpower47 for explaining that for me.

Is there any advantage of one operating system being better than the other for my particular use?

 

Tim, don't be brainwashed into choosing vista, on the basis its new and looks pretty, only go with vista if you actually feel it is superior to XP.

When I recently purchased a laptop, i went with XP Pro, as I looked at vista, and there wasn't one single feature which would benefit me (if there was, i would have gone with vista), so decided that running a laptop with 2gb ram, would give me more performance with xp, and also tests have shown xp sp3, runs quicker then vista, plus xp is just as stable.....but vista does look extremely pretty (if that is important to you).

Vista did get a lot of bad press to begin with, due to software & drivers not being compatible, but I think that is all in the past now, and vista is no means a poor second to XP (i run it on the family pc) and haven't had any issues - just make your decision based on performance issues.

 

Vista = ME

Please choose XP

 

Given that, as you say, you have no experience with computers or operating systems, and given that, in terms of the ability to "see" your physical RAM there's little difference between XP and _Vista, I'd suggest that you go with _Vista (and I say that being a committed XP user who has no intention of ever going to _Vista). XP is still preferable to _Vista in certain ways; however, unless you've got experience with the OS, or you're a die-hard serious gaming fanatic, you're not likely to notice much if any of the differences, and being inexperienced, you're not likely to be engaging in the sort of OS maintenance that needs to be done to keep the OS running at its most efficient. Thus, I don't think you'd get much, if any, of the benefits XP has over _Vista.

On the other hand, by going with _Vista you're much more likely to get the sort of support assistance you'll need (once again, largely on account of your inexperience) than you would with XP, and _Vista will continue to stay current with non-security issues much better than XP - XP is now on so-called extended support, which means that it only gets security updates, and no longer gets the bells-and-whistles non-security upgrades (e.g., improvements in functionality that don't impinge on security).

So, notwithstanding that I otherwise prefer XP over _Vista, I would suggest that you seriously consider getting _Vista instead of XP.

 

Actually Vista is much better than ME. ME bluescreened all the time. Vista does not do that. In fact, I feel that Vista is much more stable than XP.
Tim

 

There is nothing not to like about Vista, and if you have a newish laptop, I can't understand NOT running vista if you have the option.

Before SP1, yes there were slow file transfers, vista was slow at detecting wireless networks, problems with sleep mode when closing screen etc...so much so that I was tempted to go back to XP.

However now, Vista boots faster than XP did. It doesn't slow down over time. And whilst XP used to boot in 20 seconds, as you install more software it slows down more and more?

Notice that XP slows down the longer it's left on in a session? Vista feels just as responsive throughout the whole session.

Vista interface is more responsive with capable hardware(Dual core w.2gb ram). Wireless connections are made instantly, file transfers whilst still a little sluggish are comparable to XP in most cases.

Plus, people complain about Vista drivers. The built-in drivers work much better than XP. I can plug in a lot of things without needing drivers from a CD. I can't say the same about XP. Tv-tuners, printers, cameras all work without additional software installation.

Plus all my programs run perfectly on Vista.

Those still disliking Vista are doing so either because they do not have Vista (and I admit it's not worth upgrading from XP unless it's supplied with your computer) and want to feel secure that XP which they still own is better than a newer OS which they do not have yet.

So in effect there is nothing amazing about Vista compared to XP, but why would you choose XP over XP Plus more?

Believe it or not, but when XP came out all these people rooting for XP were saying "Stick to 98 or 2000, XP uses so much Ram and has poor performance..."

Oh and Vista rarely crashes as often as XP. Only time it did was when I installed bad Nvidia graphics card drivers. I got a blue screen in that case.

 

Definitely go with Windows XP unless you need DirectX10 for gaming. If you feel the need to make it "pretty" like Vista, just install a visual theme or skin.

Nice generalization. I have Vista by the way. Other than directx10 and in rare cases, new software that was not programmed with XP in mind, Vista doesn't do anything new that can't be done in XP. XP consumes considerably less resources and is snappier letting you devote more of your computer's resources to the applications you want to run.

 

I have two laptops, one is loaded with software and running XP Pro, while the other is used by the family daily and runs Vista.

Now the specs are virtually the same, and they both load at virtually the same speed, and the only way to test (for sure), is to have two systems, with the exact same specs, before you make claims that vista loads quicker.

Also, my laptop (XP PRO) has been running for about 48 hours, been using photoshop here and then, watched the odd movie, used word and done some browsing, left in standby, come back to use and its still lighting quick.

In all my 4 years of running XP, I have not once seen XP crash, or slow down because its been on too long, if that has happened with you, then it could be down to 3rd party software, bad drivers, or a reason not caused by the actual operating system.

Also, please understand the actual hardware (specs), has a lot to do with the performance, in terms of speed tests, as my dell vostro certainly boots twice as fast then my previous lenovo laptop (which had xp).

I would say people are getting too attached to operating systems, and it turns into a vista v xp users war (which is pathetic) as both systems have a place in the market.

 

Wrong.

Some people just like to choose an operating system based on performance and haven't been brainwashed by adverts of having the "latest & greatest", also why think we all hate vista?.....I recently purchased a laptop and decided to select XP due to personal preference, not hatred for vista!

My main concern was with the hardware & specs of the laptop, and the last thing I needed, was a ram hungry operating system, which offered me no performance benefits over XP.

 

If performance is so important to you, then you will know that Ram hungry Vista uses "avaliable" ram more efficiently than XP.

My point isn't to make Vista shine. XP is well and good, but after using Vista for some time, I see it as XP plus more. At first I couldn't see much difference in terms of navigating and folder layout, but eventually things such as the start menu search, faster file searches etc became things I rely on.

 

get XP for now, there is no reason to have vista really. just wait for windows 7

 

I have used both Vista & XP, and them claims don't drop with me, as my XP system runs quicker, and snappy then the vista laptop, and I get better performance from a 2gb xp laptop, then I do a 2gb vista laptop, when using several applications at once, or ram intensive software, again that is just my own experience, so until I actually have a need to upgrade or change operating system, then I will stick with XP!

 

Another XP vs Vista hating thread. Why do XP users always frown on Vista when the subject comes up? There are advantages/disadvantages to both OS and it's a user's choice. For gaming XP would be a better choice since most games are still XP specifics. But games that's Vista compliant will have no problems. XP users... get a life. Lots of Vista users are happy, why be so negative. All the rhetoric I hear is passe and either is read or when people experimented with it the first time. MS retired XP and am afraid XP will die a slow spiral death. Even now developers are going Vista because that's where the money is going to be. Vista is maturing just like XP when it first came out. Vista rules!

 

kanehi - open your eyes and actually READ all replies, word for word, before you make a reply on this thread, it would help!

 

Ah the age old debate once again...

+1 to Vista for me. Google is probably your friend to compare, since all you're likely to get here is bias from each side. To put it simple for me, with SP1 I get just as good (or better in some) FPS for games, so that myth was completely wrong at least on my system. Also, Vista has several features I use every day that I miss whenever booting up my Inspiron w/ XP.

 

As I've already put my vote in for the OP to get _Vista, notwithstanding my preference for XP, I've got a good basis for taking issue with this point.

I am under no illusions that, as time goes by, _Vista will get better as compared to XP in terms of the non-security related functions - XP is in extended support now and only gets security-related updates, not those that merely improve non-security functionality (which _Vista, of course, gets). However, since security, not bells and whistles, is one of my paramount concerns, that is one of the big reasons why I continue to favor XP over _Vista; in short, unless you have a business version of _Vista, you will stop getting security-related support/updates as of April of 2012; however, if you have any version of XP - Home, Pro, or MCE - you will continue to get security-related support/updates until April of 2014.

That's two years more security support than you'll get with the basic, premium, or ultimate versions of _Vista home. Another way to look at that is: two more years of breathing room to decide if Win7 is going to pan out or not, and two more years for some linux variant to mature sufficiently to make changing over to it palatable in the event that Win7 ends up being merely a re-tread of _Vista.

This is of particular relevance to folks such as myself, who already have XP (including an additional retail version that I'll be installing on the notebook I get to replace my current 2003 vintage _Sony); however, even though it has less importance to folks who get _Vista prestuffed on a new system and don't otherwise have a copy of XP they can replace it with, it still has some relevance because, if you use a non-business version of _Vista, you're going to have to make the decision whether or not to go to Win7 much, much earlier on than will those still running XP.

That being said, if getting the latest non-security functional updates is more important to you than having an extra two years of security support, then I agree that you should go with _Vista (as I stated to the OP), particularly since with most new computers you don't get a chance and you pay for the _Vista license whether you really want it or not.

 

Wow. Thanks for all the feedback guys!

(By the way, I forgot to originally state that I am getting my notebook through Dell business so the operating systems would be either Vista Business (32 bit) or XP Professional.

I guess my decision really comes down to whether Vista will be able to load and play some of my older simulation games (such as IL2 Stormovik, Flight Simulator 2004, Submarine - Silent Hunter 3 and 4) as well as a bunch of older children's games that my young boys play (such as Lego Star Wars, etc.). Probably the most current and taxing system game that I currently play would be Silent Hunter 4. Since I am usually several years behind the curve when it comes to playing the latest games, I guess the ability to play older games (from 2-5 years old) would sway my decision.

Any thoughts or advice on this as it relates to the newer Vista operating system?

 

Lol.

On topic, Xp, on ANY hardware it runs way faster, the searching is as fast as vista, once you install windows search 4.0 from windows update... its just better.

Also, I have used vista as my main OS for 4 months, before it all became too much (having to do 3 recoveries becuase of problems) and i switched to Xp.

 

Vista has mature over the year and it really is more stable than XP
i use to be a die hard fan of XP and even without trying out vista myself, i use to state that it was no good.
in the beginning it wasn't but after SP1, you can't get anything better from microsoft for now.

 

Yes you can, XP x64, I will not use vista again until SP2 comes out... it was ok but.. just no.