Vista or XP Pro 64? (1 Viewer)

[Buzz Foster]

The new system, when I get around to building it, is going to be based on the AMD Windsor dual-core processor. I want to get the most out of it. Obviously, Vista is a good choice for that.

However, some of my hardware is not going to work on Vista, at least for a while. My M-Audio Delta-1010 is a pricey piece of sound hardware that, as yet, has no Vista driver, and I cannot get an answer out of M-Audio as to whether or not there is going to be one.

I plan to run dual video cards and triple monitors, and I know that XP Pro can handle that easily. But the reason I want to do that is so that I can be running multiple apps like Premiere, graphics editing, DVD authoring, video conversion, etc. Dual core helps with that, but I know that software written specifically for that, as Vista is, is going to take the most advantage of it.

So, I want to start a dialog here and hopefully figure out which I should do: stay with XP Pro 32 bit, upgrade to XP Pro 64 bit, or go for Vista and runa dual-boot, if necessary, to support old hardware.

Thoughts?

 

[Kabu]

Hi!

Have you tested your system for Vista compatibility? I found that I would be better off buying a new pc! There's a little tool that will tell you what will need to be updated, but I can't post the link as I am a newbie

It's called Windows Vista Adviser, I'm sure you can google it and find it quickly. I personally would not upgrade to a beta version. Let them get all the kinks out. Seems to me it may go by way of ME.

 

[Ken Chan]

The problem is the driver situation. 64-bit and Vista are independent variables. Right now, for everything to work, your best bet is 32-bit XP. If you're really really lucky, all your apps and hardware work with 64-bit Vista, which would (theoretically) take advantage of "all of" your high-end hardware.

In your line of work, 64-bit would probably be an advantage only if you're working on ginormous images -- it's all about being able to handle really big things all at once.

 

[Buzz Foster]

So, if I build the new system, I would or would not get full advantage of the Windsor dual-core processor with XP Pro 32?

Let's say I am ripping some of my CDs to Mp3 with CDex, and I want to also be working ona video in premiere. Is XP pro going to be able to let the processes work better than they do now? (Right now, any ripping/encoding/transcoding takes everything my system can give.) I think that mostly, this is what I will want to do that will have the highest demands...run one program on the side that takes a lot of processing power, but still be able to do other things at the same time that probably don't need as much juice.

[I should probably add that ideally, I would like to not have to go through a bunch of crap with reinstalling everything under the sun and needing 64 bit drivers for it all. But, M-Audio does have a beta 64-bit windows driver, so I could probably upgrade that. My Pinnacle DV-500+ has no hope of upgrade, and I am fully aware of it...haha.]

 

[Rommel_L]

Buzz,

For argument's sake you actually built the system NOW. The best OS for the system NOW is WinXP Pro (32-bit) because it's compatible with everything you have NOW, both hardware and software. If you decide to build the system in the near future (3-6 months), there could be a possibility that all your hardware and software would have an update that would make it compatible to Vista.

Just my $0.02...

 

[Buzz Foster]

Ok, so if I am building a system based on a 64 bit processor, then am I crippling myself by using a 32 bit OS, or am I better off just not building anything for the time being?

 

[Buzz Foster]

DRM is another problem I have. I have ripped my CDs to Mp3 since 2001. Nothing illegal or stolen. I am starting to convert my purchased DVD content to lower resolution mobile format for my Zen Vision W 60. I don't want an OS that is going to slap me and refuse to work with me when i try to do some conversion.

 

[Dennis*G]

windows 64 bit OS's, whether it's xp or vista or not for home use at all right now. Yes you get the extra memory support, but like stated, the driver problems are just not worth the hassle and probably wont be for a few more years. If you want to go 64 bit, your better off going linux and using linux tools to do everything you want in windows, but even there you will run into driver issues.

So, as stated, build now fine, get vista license, but actually load xp for now (every vista license allows you to run xp) then go vista about 6 months from now when most vendors should have a driver for it.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Having used xp, xp 64, and vista I can tell you you're pretty safe with any choice. XP64 has been out for quite some time now and there's no problem getting drivers for it. I loved XP64, it was lightning fast and was running far better than XPpro on newer hardware (even though they're both called "XP" and look identicle, XP64 is actually based on server2003, just like vista. In a way XP64 is to Vista what Windows 2000 was to Windows XP).

Now I have vista home premium running. I like it, its not WindowsDRM, I can rip/convert/pirate whatever the hell I like just fine. I've upgraded my graphics and monitor to HDCP compliance and will be able to watch HD on it. Yay. I like the new features and functionality in Vista and have no complaints. So either or is a fine way to go.

BTW, you do realize there are both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista available as well?

 

[Mike Fassler]

your not crippling anything, just because the processor is 64 bit doesnt mean you need 64 bit software, AMD 64 bit procs are extremely efficient in 32 bit apps you wont notice any real difference, as far as burning and doing other things at the same time, get more ram! you will be fine.

 

[Buzz Foster]

Yeah, I do realize there is both 32 and 64 bit Vista.

My guess is that no matter which direction I go, a system based on the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Windsor dual-core is going to be light-years faster than my Athlon XP 2400+ Thoroughbred core.

The only carryover hardware I am worried about is my Delta. There is a 64 bit driver, so that should work if I go to XP Pro 64.

I'm not going to worry about Vista for now (What is a Vista liscence, anyway?). I guess the focus now is whether or not I gain enough advantage upgrading to XP 64 to be wother the cost or headache. It sounds like it is not worth it.

 

[Rommel_L]

Buzz,

You need to reconcile your want to take advantage of the CPU's 64-bit capability by running a 64-bit OS and your need of being able run/use all available hardware and software...

 

[Buzz Foster]

I think i've decided to build the machine when I am able, buy Vista-ready hardware, and do the actual Vista upgrade later. For now, I will stay with XP Pro 32.

 

[Ken Chan]

Based on the "performance rating" number, it should slightly more than twice as fast. Two cores instead of one, faster clock speed (2.8 vs 2.0 GHz), and a newer/better core. You will especially notice the difference with multi-threaded apps, or if you commonly run multiple "busy" programs at the same time. But "light-years"? You're not comparing it to a 386

XP (Home and Pro) will take advantage of both cores. (If you are considering two separate processors in two separate sockets, then you need Pro.) 64-bit doesn't offer much practical advantage right now -- remember that you also need 64-bit apps. Of course, most desktop and laptop chips are 64-bit regardless, but most of that capability is being unused.