Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

XP to Vista - is it worth it?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1
RacerBG

RacerBG

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined 07-November 13
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

If everything is fine and the dreams are perfect after a few months I will make a big upgrade to my 6 years old PC - I will buy a new one! :D It will be nothing special in terms of today standarts (most probably 4 GB RAM, Intel dual core CPU with 2.7-2.8 GHz, integrated Intel HD video card, 500 GB HDD) but for my personal usage will be fine. If as I said the dreams are perfect and accurate maybe something better and cheaper will arrive by then. :)

 

Now after you have basic description of what I want to have I would like to hear your opinion about using Vista on it. I'm strong XP fan but I can jump over the river and use Vista for the new babe. Also I want to hear from you what Vista to buy (32 or 64 bit)?

 

If you ask me "Why Vista?" here are my answers:

I tried it and I like it more than 7.

It just works.

It is more beautiful than 7.

It haven't got a number behind the name. :D


banner-winxp-logo.gif



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
5eraph

5eraph

    Update Packrat

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined 04-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

With 4GB RAM you should go with 64-bit. Especially if you plan to upgrade your video later because video card memory will also map to the same 4GB space as your system RAM when running 32-bit Windows, reducing total available system memory.

Physical memory space limitations per OS:
  • 4 GB - All 32-bit OSes, Windows XP and later
  • 8 GB - Vista x64 Home Basic
  • 16 GB - Vista x64 Home Premium
  • 128 GB - Vista x64 Ultimate, Enterprise or Business editions
  • 128 GB - XP x64 Professional

Edited by 5eraph, 03 March 2014 - 08:13 AM.


#3
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Memory space limitations per OS:

  • 4 GB - All 32-bit Windows NT-based systems
  • 8 GB - Vista x64 Home Basic
  • 16 GB - Vista x64 Home Premium
  • 128 GB - Vista x64 Ultimate, Enterprise or Business editions
  • 128 GB - XP x64 Professional

 

Just for the record, not really-really.

Those are mainly ARTIFICIAL, license induced, limitations, see:

http://www.geoffchap...ense/memory.htm

(you may need to copy and paste the above address)

 

The good MS guys have also upgraded the 512 Mb of XP "Starter Edition" to the Vista 1 Gb and Windows 7 2 Gb   :w00t:.

 

Full data here:

http://msdn.microsof...8(v=vs.85).aspx

 

jaclaz



#4
5eraph

5eraph

    Update Packrat

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined 04-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Artificial or not, they're limited. But I see your point. ;)

Is there a legal way to change those limitations?

Edited by 5eraph, 03 March 2014 - 08:20 AM.


#5
RacerBG

RacerBG

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined 07-November 13
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Most probably I will buy this thing after 6 months or so. I hope that by then there will be better video card than this but I'm not very optimistic. If the limit for 32 bit OS is 4 GB (I hear about 3.5 GB or something) then after all why I need 64 bit?

 

By the way my target will be Vista Home Premium because it is cheap. ;)


banner-winxp-logo.gif


#6
5eraph

5eraph

    Update Packrat

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined 04-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

If the limit for 32 bit OS is 4 GB (I hear about 3.5 GB or something) then after all why I need 64 bit?


Your reason is underlined. On x64 you will have use of the full 4 GB in addition to whatever physical video memory your card has. Under 32-bit XP with a 768MB video card, my available system memory was only 3.25 GB of the installed 4 GB.

Edited by 5eraph, 03 March 2014 - 08:53 AM.


#7
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Artificial or not, they're limited. But I see your point. ;)

Well, actually there are a couple lines to be drawn :yes:.

In 2K and up to Windows XP SP1 the code was there AND there was NO actual memory limit (on selected hardware, with appropriate drivers).
With XP SP2 some code was seemingly removed, making it impossible to have more than 4 Gb (actually less than that available, roughly 3.5 Gb).
Vista reintroduced the "full" code and added the license checks.
Vista SP1 (accidentally :whistle:) introduced a change in the way RAM is counted that may (please read as "will likely") trick a large number of people into thinking that more than 4 Gb is supported.
 

Is there a legal way to change those limitations?

Point is defining "legal".
If the question is "are there around patches to MS files allowing to run 32 bit Vista or Windows 7 (or Windows 8/8.1) with more than 4 Gb of Ram available?" the answer is yes.
If the question is "are those patches legal?" the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

 

Please note how in this page:

http://windows.micro...-64-bit-windows

the good MS guys, while still mantaining the (as seen inaccurate) equation 32 bit=4 Gb RAM max (actually 3.5 Gb) are strangely saying the truth about the *need* or *opportunity* of choosing a 64 bit OS.

 

There are not (AFAIK and with the notable exception of a few very high end graphical/video oriented programs and possibly programs dealing with extremely large databases or very large numbers) any reliable report of 64 bit being in any way faster than 32 bit OS, actually available data hints that the performance of 64 bit and 32 bit programs is the same or very nearly the same, and in some case the 64 bit version is actually slower.

JFYI:

http://reboot.pro/to...32-bit-version/

 

jaclaz



#8
5eraph

5eraph

    Update Packrat

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined 04-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

If legal were: "I'm able to use it without facing penalties (or getting caught)," then the use of patches should be fine.

If legal is: "Endorsed by Microsoft to lift licensing limitations," then the use of unauthorized patches may violate your licensing agreement.

Further discussion, though extremely interesting to me, may be drifting a bit off topic. ;)

Edited by 5eraph, 03 March 2014 - 09:08 AM.


#9
RacerBG

RacerBG

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined 07-November 13
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Thanks for the answers, guys. Now the time will tell what will happen...


banner-winxp-logo.gif


#10
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I have just finished doing such a migration after months of preparation and asking questions (which I'm sure annoyed some people here and elsewhere, yet I will make no apologies for it).  However I have migrated from Windows XP x64 Edition to Vista Ultimate x64 Edition.

 

My hardware consists of an HP xw8200 Workstation with the following specs:

 

Two Xeon 3.68 GHZ CPUs

Two CSI Logic Ultra 320 SCSI Controllers each with a 73 GB 10,000 rpm disk attached

An nVidia GeForce 3200 PCI display adapter (my weak link bottleneck but it suits a workstation just fine, and that's what I had on hand)

7 GB ECC DDR2 400 Memory

Integrated audio, LAN and Sata (original) driving a DVD Burner

 

I found that initially there were some video issues (acceleration problems and artifacts),  but I have sorted those out  Keep in mind that I DID NOT have the video issues with a lesser PCI card that the system came with which is an nVidia GeForce MX 4000, when I performed a test installation of Vista last year.  I no longer have that card though.

Overall, I have Vista running quite quickly.  Now I've vLited out certain features like Indexing (I'd rather have those resources back and I don't mind the odd search taking longer), and I've turned off SuperFetch which I found contributed to slightly sluggish performance (but I do have conventional Prefetch running quite briskly).

 

I have to admit that I really miss XP x64 Edition.  It ran sooooooooo well.  I only migrated for extended phase supoort updates.  Many here think I am making too much of that factor, but I don't think that running an unsupported Windows version for heavy Internet use and everyday work is too wise.  So I moved along.  And sooner or later, I won't be able to run an updated browser or security browser.  In all, Vista is working well enough that I'll srtick with it.


Edited by JodyThornton, 03 March 2014 - 08:22 PM.


#11
Flasche

Flasche

    A bottled message!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 594 posts
  • Joined 20-January 14
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

Many here think I am making too much of that factor, but I don't think that running an unsupported Windows version for heavy Internet use and everyday work is too wise. And sooner or later, I won't be able to run an updated browser or security browser.

 

If security is such a big issue why don't you just make a small portion of your drive for Linux and install Malware protection on it so if you want to scan your old computer for viruses and stuff you can do it all you want with current support. Besides old systems like windows 95/98/ME (Me isn't that old its one year before XP also I know XP is about 14 years old) still have current virus/spyware protection. Avast 4.8 still gets definition updates and spybot search and destroy still supplies definition updates or the 1.xx versions (manual download from site). Also Spybot search and destroy also has on option to Immunize your browser which allows you to take preventive measures against spyware by using methods inside your browser(s) -quote spybot.


Edited by Flasche, 03 March 2014 - 09:03 PM.

Seeker Of Truth by E. E. Cummings                                                                                           Quote (Me)

  • seeker of truth                                                 "If you want to reach and discover the true meaning of order; You must go through chaos first."            344d0f9.jpg
  • follow no path                                 
  • all paths lead where
  • truth is here
 

#12
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

But running a scan on a Windows partition from another OS won't necessarily pick up security holes or exploits in the OS kernel that are an issue while Windows is booted.  Security holes are not just trojans or files or virusses.  There are other system exploits too.

 

By the way, who currently supports hybrid Windows systems (9x/Me)?  ClamWin?  Yikes - too many false positives there.  I like MSE better than I like ClamWin....lol.  Would you still really want to use dated versions of Avast or Spybot, just because they get definitiion updates?  I dunno.  They can't as effectively utilize what's in the definitions.  That's why they update the apps themselves.

 

I just want to be able to use Windows as a comprehensive single working unit.  I want to boot Windows, run my apps, browse in a secure compatible envirionment (using HTML5, modern technologes), have a scanner that stays out of the way like MSE, and then fugettaboutit!  LOL

 

Until next month I could still do that with XP.  After that, if I were to keep running XP x64 Edition, I'd have to find a way to kludge the updates from Server 2003 x64 and apply them, and eventually SeaMonkey and Firefox will stop providing updates to XP, so there will be no current browsers to traverse a modern web with.  Whereas, with Vista, I can go back to just using my system.  There.  Done!  :)


Edited by JodyThornton, 04 March 2014 - 07:38 PM.


#13
Flasche

Flasche

    A bottled message!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 594 posts
  • Joined 20-January 14
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

By the way, who currently supports hybrid Windows systems (9x/Me)?  ClamWin?  Yikes - too many false positives there.  I like MSE better than I like ClamWin....lol.  Would you still really want to use dated versions of Avast or Spybot, just because they get definitiion updates?  I dunno.  They can't as effectively utilize what's in the definitions.  That's why they update the apps themselves.

 

Definition updates are the most important part of the antivirus. Scanning is the most vital tool for you don't need active protection, but it does help.

 

 

But running a scan on a Windows partition from another OS won't necessarily pick up security holes or exploits in the OS kernel that are an issue while Windows is booted.  Security holes are not just trojans or files or virusses.  There are other system exploits too.

 

That's true, but on old systems like the 9x platform all system exploits are known/mostly known (there prob are still security holes or exploits that no one knows since no one really cares about 98 or me anymore) and by now have unofficial solution weather update or disabling a system part you need to secure your system.

 

A thing to note is that my old 98 system had only 2 virus ever (adobe site of course) on it compared to the viruses on my old windows 7 computer which had a constant battle with the viruses.


Seeker Of Truth by E. E. Cummings                                                                                           Quote (Me)

  • seeker of truth                                                 "If you want to reach and discover the true meaning of order; You must go through chaos first."            344d0f9.jpg
  • follow no path                                 
  • all paths lead where
  • truth is here
 

#14
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

See I'd be tempted to go back to say, Win 98SE or Win ME on a second system if only I could get modern browser support on it.  I can still use Seamonkey v2.9 on Windows 2000 but that's more of a security risk.  How do you find getting hardware support on those old OSs?  Can you use any moden equipment?



#15
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

 How do you find getting hardware support on those old OSs?  Can you use any moden equipment?

As an example, you could start by READing the stickies in the appropriate sections of the board, you know, like ;):

http://www.msfn.org/...-windows-9x-me/

http://www.msfn.org/...-nt4-2000-2003/

 

:whistle:

 

jaclaz



#16
j7n

j7n

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 18-December 06
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

On x64 you will have use of the full 4 GB in addition to whatever physical video memory your card has. Under 32-bit XP with a 768MB video card, my available system memory was only 3.25 GB of the installed 4 GB.

Not all of the video card's memory is addressable by the CPU. I have a 1 GB nVidia Fermi video card, and 3.47 GB of RAM is still available to the OS. Even if this memory could be "recovered" for the OS, it would once again be spent on larger 64-bit code and the graphical and other bloat of NT 6.

In 2K and up to Windows XP SP1 the code was there AND there was NO actual memory limit (on selected hardware, with appropriate drivers).

XP SP1 is such a great system. I am using it but never tried on a system with that much memory; because old software which SP1 is for for me, doesn't need it.

There is still Windows Server 2003, without a memory limit even updated to the last SP. Buying it is probably next to impossible though. I didn't consider 512 MB of "lost" memory reason enough to try and install it. People say it's working well.

I would go with Seven out of all NT6 variants due to its popularity. Chances are Vista won't support an application or have a driver in the future. Same reasons why I can't use XP SP1. Just installing the nVidia driver proved to be an excersise on it.

#17
spidernz

spidernz

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 21 posts
  • Joined 12-November 07

yeah I would skip vista and jump to 7 or 8.1

 

7 is more refined than vista as well, vista just felt like a mess.



#18
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,033 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

he said he doesn't like Win7 ;)


Posted Image

#19
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

yeah I would skip vista and jump to 7 or 8.1

 

7 is more refined than vista as well, vista just felt like a mess.

 

 

he said he doesn't like Win7 ;)

 

And, being the first one ever on this board to suggest that 8.1 can be a replacement or an alternative for 7 :w00t:, I would say that spidernz is eligible to take part to the finals for "the most senseless advice on board 2014" award. :whistle:

I mean, one thing is getting the stupid 8/8.1 as a bundle with a new machine, and another is actually purchasing a "full" license to downgrade XP to it. ;)

 

jaclaz



#20
Flasche

Flasche

    A bottled message!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 594 posts
  • Joined 20-January 14
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

I mean, one thing is getting the stupid 8/8.1 as a bundle with a new machine, and another is actually purchasing a "full" license to downgrade XP to it. ;)

 

jaclaz

 

 

Another funny little pic :P That explains windows 8.1

Spoiler

 

EDIT: I found where windows 8 developers got their "good user interface" ideas from  :sneaky:  http://toastytech.com/guis/uirant.html


Edited by Flasche, 12 March 2014 - 09:47 PM.

Seeker Of Truth by E. E. Cummings                                                                                           Quote (Me)

  • seeker of truth                                                 "If you want to reach and discover the true meaning of order; You must go through chaos first."            344d0f9.jpg
  • follow no path                                 
  • all paths lead where
  • truth is here
 

#21
11ryanc

11ryanc

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 33 posts
  • Joined 24-September 13
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I'm still using Vista and I like it a lot, nothing at all a mess with Service Pack 2. Now the same can't be said before that, but performance is about on par with Windows 7 now. Fact is Windows 7 removed a lot of features and functionalities from Vista in attempt to be more light weight, but many nice functions where torne out. Windows Explorer is more locked down in terms of customizing the arrangement of items, the classic control panel is replaced with a less configurable "Large Icons" view, WMP12 is a mess, Photo Gallery is replaced with Photo Viewer and no longers has the gallery nor the editing features etc. I personally would take it over Windows 7 in a heart beat, but switching from XP is up to you. I'd go for it though if you wanted a more updated system, I've had no issues with stability. Using Vista Business x64 SP2 on an HP Compaq 6005 Pro


31824.png

10155.gif


#22
11ryanc

11ryanc

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 33 posts
  • Joined 24-September 13
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Why take it over XP?

1. Search is integrated throughout the GUI

2. It is an easier OS to use and navigate

3. Security has greatly been improved under the hood, and due to it having such low marketshare it is less targered with viruses and attacks etc. (This is Windows still, it will never be that safe)

4. More compatible with new hardware, although Vista is starting to loose hardware support as well. But if you use AMD, it works fine despite maybe some missing hotfixes.

5. It looks very polished imo, more so than Windows 7.

So up to you, but I'd definately go for it. Just watch out with editions though. Ultimate is a little heavy if you have anything under 4 GB of RAM, but Business handles memory just fine. Ultimate is awesome if you can run it though, it has the most features and because of that it's also somewhat heavier.


31824.png

10155.gif


#23
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Why does Business run faster?  What do you sacrifice between the two?

(and don't send me on a Google chase...lol.  I'm at work, so if someone can actually tell me, I'd appreciate it.  I'm running a vLited Ultimate, and it's pretty much fine in 7 GB of memory.)



#24
11ryanc

11ryanc

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 33 posts
  • Joined 24-September 13
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag

@Jody

I really don't know why it's faster, almost all of the same features. But it uses significantly less RAM on my somewhat slow Compaq. Something to do with less services I believe.


31824.png

10155.gif


#25
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Which brings us right onto the Internet, through a "Google chase" :w00t:, here ;):

http://www.blackviper.com/

http://www.blackvipe...configurations/

 

jaclaz






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN