|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Well folks, I am more than impressed with game performance in x64, with Crysis especially. I think it really does get 15~18% more juice from 64 bit.
No compatibility issues to speak of, so long as you do a bit more looking for progs you need.
So far, UT3, CoD4, Crysis and Bioshock are all smoother, or at least that is my perception, in x64 and they look better as well..especially Crysis and Bioshock.
Having a 64 bit OS rocks. Very fast indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangta01 wrote: |
| Dood, go back to XP Pro SP2. Vista 64 has some serious bugs and it's not compatible with a bunch of stuff. Seriously, go back while you still can and MAYBE upgrade to Vista when they release SP1. There is a reason why most corporations and colleges, etc don't yet support Vista. |
Sorry to bump this up but this kind of post needs addressing.
I have yet to find any bugs with Vista x64. I have yet to find a driver that doesn't work, even for my old-ish webcam. Vista x64 is faster than XP as an OS and games look better. Applications, both old and new, respond, load and behave in a snappier way and the system is stable as a rock.
I was one of Vista's most severe critics and probably wouldn't have made the move if it weren't for the 64 bit attraction. I admit that I moved to Vista initially because I was bored with my computer. My XP box was running flawlessly and had been for years. It was running flawlessly when I wiped the install for Vista.
I recently upgraded my system and heard that the beaver had moved to x64. Superhero was planning to do the same, so I did some research. I became convinced that now was the time and that Vista had had some time to stretch it's legs. As it turns out, I had bought into all the myths about Vista without actually having tried it myself. They were true, but looking at those complaints, it would be hard for them not to be true of an OS that will be with us for a long time to come.
Look back at the release of XP. It was buggy. There were no drivers. It was a hog. It was a bit expensive (though not like Vista) and it had a lot of compatibility issues. People were slow on the uptake of XP. The one thing that XP had going for it was it was an alternative to the cursed Windows ME and the Windows 98 set. It was attractive because its predecessor was so deficient. What if MS had released an OS that didn't have higher demands than XP?
XP was (is) a good OS and in reality, this is the one thing that is different between it's aged arrival and Vista's. XP was a hard act to follow.
Consider Vista as an evolution, not a revolution. Would I pay $400 for Vista? Eventually, yes. And so will many of you. Try Vista and you won't go back to XP. Vista is all of XP and more. I am not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but I never would have posted this even 2 weeks ago. I highly recommend that you take Vista for a test drive and see for yourself...the x64 version if you have even a sniff about computing.
Everyone is saying that x64 is reserved for a segmented crowd; a bunch of geeks or professionals. In a sense, its true. x64 will require you to use a special driver set: first, 64 bit drivers and second, signed drivers. However, as I said, I have had absolutely no driver issues at all. Except for my graphics card, I had full functionality right out of the box. I didn't need any drivers and when I did, they were as easy to find as any 32 bit ones.
64 bit applications are arriving all the time and having your OS built around a much more powerful platform makes it just that; more powerful.
I strongly encourage people with attitudes like mine was or the quoted poster's is to try Vista, 32 or 64 bit, and see for themselves. Is it worth the money? Actually, and even Superhero will disagree with me here, but I say yes. Vista will be around for a while. It will not go the way of Windows ME. In another year, the majority of computers will be running Vista and now is a good time to get aboard. Hardware is pretty darn cheap these days and all CPUs made within the last year, longer for AMD, will run 64bit. It may be inviting trouble, but it is a fact that Core2Duos and AMD64 based products are actually running in a kind of compatibility mode when in a 32 bit environment.
So, to summarize: Read newer comments about Vista on the net; comments made within the last 6 months. Don't buy into the same stuff that was being said a year ago, because it just isn't true anymore. There are very few driver issues. Vista can run on lesser systems and still be all that XP was and is, and more. Vista is faster than XP as an OS and now that drivers are becoming prevalent and mature, it has caught up to XP in accessibility and ease of use.
As an endnote, it needs to be said that Vista is a nice looking product as well. Get the Ultimate (that is where MS failed: who doesn't want it all and why have so many versions?) and crank it up...its a welcome breath of fresh air from XP, which to me, now looks quite rough in comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually i agree with most of what Demophobe said. I do think the o/s is overpriced and a move from xp 32bit to vista 32bit is not really worth it, but from xp 32bit to vista 64 bit is a good move.
Microsoft really dropped the ball when they released vista in multiple versions; ultimate being the final version they created and everything else a crippled edition.
The reason I tried vista 64bit ultimate is because I couldn't get a working copy of xp x64 and I didn't want to have 1gb of wasted ram in a 32 bit system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, reading about the history of Vista, one can see the conundrum MS was in regarding 32 and 64 bit versions.
Vista was imagined as a 64 bit product from day one. This was a decision made in concert with both Intel and AMD's roadmap to make native 64 bit processors. Vista Ultimate 64 bit is the version that MS envisioned everyone running by now, but due to third party vendors not bothering with signing drivers (read: being completely accountable to both the customer and MS as a framework in which they can sell their product. Read: No Windows, no money for them.), Vista was dumbed-down and we now have 32 bit.
The multiple versions came about as a result of the above. Lack of an overall industry (software) move toward a more secure but more involved OS retarded education; people weren't brought into the loop by the entire industry wanting to make a shift, so MS alone would have to shoulder that responsibility, which would make them seem like the Giant throwing itself around again and open them up to criticisms that have always haunted them about being too big, too powerful, etc.
So, they released different versions to try to please everyone. Make everyone feel like they have chosen the version that suits their lifestyle. This is both rational and a money grab at the same time. Understandably stupid.
That said, Ultimate 64 bit is not for the unenlightened. As I previously stated, people are out of the loop and are unwilling to educate themselves in regards to true security on their computers. Like many things, people just want to use it, not have to learn it. So long as this attitude prevails, Windows will be a patch-up, generally insecure workspace. With UAC enabled, Vista 64 bit is locked down tight. Nothing can happen without the user explicitly knowing and permitting it to happen in regards to program behavior. That, I'm afraid, is too much responsibility for the average user. It leaves them with nobody to blame but themselves.
So, yes...a 32 bit XP move to 32 bit Vista doesn't make sense from a security point of view. In that way, Vista appears as simply an expensive face lift and many of the criticisms leveled at MS seem justified, though truth be told, the reasoning is largely faulty. Give 'em what they want and more. Make people feel like they are buying a product with them in mind specifically...the greedy MS makes a decision based mainly on how stupid and ignorant the average user is and seems happy to be.
Exploiting our desired ignorance.
EDIT: From a 32 bit point of view, Vista is an evolution. From a 64 bit point of view, Vista is a revolution, albeit much less of one that MS envisioned when Vista was Longhorn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been doing some reading, too, about Vista lately, and I've decided to get the 64-bit version of Home Premium, or maybe Ultimate. I'm trying to decide if I can justify the extra $80 for the Ultimate for stuff I'm not sure I'll use much, if at all. I've looked at the comparison charts, and the differences just don't seem significant enough to jump up to Ultimate.
Demo, can you give any good reasons why Ultimate is preferable over Home Premium?
It's getting closer to my build and I'm trying to narrow things down. Once I decide on an OS, I can start finalising the other parts. ie. I'm not gonna plunk down $300 or so for an 8800GT if I don't get Vista and can't take advantage of DX10, 4GB (2x2GB vs. 4x1GB), etc.
Cheers, and thanks for the review. I actually trust you guys more than I do the people that review on the shopping sites.
KPRROK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kprrok wrote: |
Demo, can you give any good reasons why Ultimate is preferable over Home Premium?
|
Nothing perhaps compelling, but I just wanted it all. That way I can choose what I want and don't, without limitation.
Encryption, full system backup, extras...these are boons, but perhaps will be unused by many, yourself included.
As for your graphics situation, get a Radeon HD3800 series card and then get Ultimate.
My opinion, but as I said, I would rather impose my own limitations that have my OS dictate what I can and will do.
Its a shame that people have to be in your position; an OS upgrade can make or break other hardware decisions. Oh well...get Ultimate. Areo is really sweet...without it, Vista looks like a re-skinned XP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hanguker
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Location: Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have drank the Kool aid from the 64 bit waiter and I gotta tell ya...it's just fine.
I for one will believe myself before anyone, and I am currently using Vista (albeit in the x64 flavor, a version surprisingly overlooked by the vast majority of reviews on your linked site, (experts, maybe, but they don't read history) and I am satisfied. More than that, I will now never return to XP and even more certainly than that, 32 bit.
However, keep putting faith in those reviews. I did for almost a full year and it turns out I was dead wrong.(Qualifier: Vista needed some time to get it's kinks out and 64 bit drivers/software were absent in the early going. I also had an older system, making my 'hate' for Vista more satisfying.) Look back at my postings: I was one of the most severe critics of Vista, but admittedly, my own thoughts were merely reflections of what I had read. Best to at least put a single toe in the water before saying the water is cold; this is what I learned and it sounds like many other people are in the same frame.
I do think that 32 bit Vista is a tank and have never stated other wise, here is no exception. This thread is about 64 bit and I stand my my posts and would argue toe to toe, now having much research and (limited) experience behind me. Vista was supposed to be 64 bit and the 32 bit version was for the unwashed masses; blame johnny everyday for those reviews. If people knew even a bit about computing.
However, that isn't their job, right? We don't want to have to know something about everything we use in life: we drive a car, but don't know how it works. We have telephones, but are oblivious to the tech behind them. We wear clothes, but don't know how to tailor. So it is with computers and so 32 bit Windows is still out there. Thank the entire software industry for forcing the 32 bit hand and MS for caving and not spending billions convincing folks why 64 bit is needed and how to go about doing it. And thank MS for providing the necessary framework for the software companies to make their cash and not lose their place at the teat.
To put a finer point on this reply: This thread is about 64 bit Vista. Find me a link that says it outright sucks from a tech point of view; no smarmy "I don't like it" stuff . People demand a secure OS, yet remain unwilling to educate themselves about how their participation in such a thing is absolutely necessary and MS had to release a version of Vista to comply with software devs, making themselves look bad by doing it. A no-win scenario though; if they had forced 64 bit, everyone would have been bawling about that as well. 32 bit Vista was a mistake. A forced situation, to be fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Although this thread has got me salivating about installing 64 bit Vista, I must say, I'm running 32bit Vista, without a single problem! Not a one!
If 64bit is even better, then.........great. I will "order" my copy right now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've finally decided on the Ultimate Version 64-bit. Now I just have to make sure all of the hardware I'm planning is compatible with it. Shouldn't be a problem, nothing obscure, all of it newish.
I read a few of those reviews, and I just wasn't convinced. Some were written a while back. Some were 32-bit only, some were just anti-MS. I trust demo that he is having a good experience and I know that since my hardware will be at least as good as his, I'm gonna go for it.
KPRROK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kprrok wrote: |
I've finally decided on the Ultimate Version 64-bit. Now I just have to make sure all of the hardware I'm planning is compatible with it. Shouldn't be a problem, nothing obscure, all of it newish.
I read a few of those reviews, and I just wasn't convinced. Some were written a while back. Some were 32-bit only, some were just anti-MS. I trust demo that he is having a good experience and I know that since my hardware will be at least as good as his, I'm gonna go for it.
KPRROK |
Though I have been the most vocal here, I know that the beaver and Superhero are also running 64 bit, though I am not sure if the beaver is running XP or Vista.
Anyhow, when you do go to 64 bit, you will at least have a small support group to query if things go weird and your experiences will also be valuable to us. I really don't think you will have a problem.
I did read that the 64 bit version must be requested for a small extra charge (yay MS!). You had best check on this...I may be wrong. You could 'order' a copy as eamo has done... 
@ eamo: I'm sure Vista 32 bit is at least as good or better than XP at this point. I was criticizing it only from an economic/marketing point of view. BTW...did your order arrive yet? My delivery was speedy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocklee
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Superhero/Demophobe for the Vista 64bit feedback. That was really helpful.
I initially installed Vista 32bit Ultimate for my Centrino notebook and while it works fine I couldn't use it on a daily basis with the apps I use as Aero slowed it down a great deal (and my notebook is more than 4 years old!). Instead of upgrading to a new notebook I'm getting a desktop instead and it should be 64bit.
Just a quick question, what affordable motherboards should I be looking at to accommodate the current Intel 64bit processors. I'm planning on building an entry level media system with a cpu upgrade much much later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vista is starting to piss me off.
Primarily this is the INFCACHE.1 error that comes up with newly installed hardware. I partitioned a drive, moved 90gbs of files there and now I constantly get asked to install the driver which cannot be found and following all suggested solutions results in nill, nada, nothing.
Basically it's come down to the point where I need to do a complete reinstall in order to access the partition I created.
One word to describe this
F U C K E D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having gone down the 64bit ultimate road and back, I will wait for SP1 or even SP2 before switching back to Vista. It will sit on the shelf and I will patiently wait for the updates and bug fixes.
Lable me an unhappy ultimate64 owner but patience is a virtue and I am sure MS will get the fixes done in due course (along with the OEM's, their vendors and the software developers getting their stuff to work right too).
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
problem solved.
I had previously imaged my drive with acronis. Well I went into the restore dialogue and restored the windows > inf folder and then installed the partition and everything is working.
Damn corrupted files... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
