PDA

View Full Version : gaming... vista x86_64 or win7 x86



meep_meep
December 3rd, 2009, 12:05 PM
Hi guys,

I am going to install windows on my first build :D (it already has ubuntu). The purpose would solely be for gaming!

I have access to free copies of either vista 64-bit or windows 7 32-bit which should I install??

I've looked around and I havent seen any clear opinions.

With vista64

*install 64 bit games (are there any?)
*use my 4Gb of ram
*have frustrating user interface slowness

with win7

*new OS :D
*quicker interface
*cant play 64bit games
*wont make use of all ram

What should I get? I would like to starcraft 2 when it comes out!!

meep

madverb
December 3rd, 2009, 12:09 PM
4GB of RAM I would go with the Vista 64bit and just make sure you install up to SP2.
If your computer is powerful you shouldn't notice any of the drawbacks of Vista.

Note: On my crappy work laptop Vista ran like **** and 7 runs decently.

cascade9
December 3rd, 2009, 12:15 PM
Windows 7. Vista is a dog, your only going to 'lose' 0.6GB (roughly) by using 32bit win7. There are 64 bit version of some games (half-life, STALKER and Far Cry are all I cant think of offhand) but there are no 64bit only games for windows...AFAIK anyway.

Grenage
December 3rd, 2009, 12:17 PM
Doesn't 7 come with the option of either 32 or 64 on the same disk?

Zoot7
December 3rd, 2009, 12:17 PM
I'd probably go for Windows 7 if I were you, merely for the sake of DirectX 11 (assuming it doesn't go by the wayside like DirectX 10).

meep_meep
December 3rd, 2009, 12:29 PM
Doesn't 7 come with the option of either 32 or 64 on the same disk?

erm ive got access to win7 32 via uni msdn but my gf is using the win7 64 version on her desktop.

Diluted
December 3rd, 2009, 12:30 PM
I'd probably go for Windows 7 if I were you, merely for the sake of DirectX 11 (assuming it doesn't go by the wayside like DirectX 10).
You can get DirectX 11 for Vista as well, through an update.

szymon_g
December 3rd, 2009, 12:46 PM
why can't you install windows 7 64bit? on dvd, there are both versions
i'd go for it, in some benchmarks- win seven is faster than vista- alost as fast as windows XP (sorry for no URL, i tried to re-find them, but i couldn't :|)

3rdalbum
December 3rd, 2009, 02:31 PM
If it's a choice, install Vista 64-bit. Windows 7 is almost as slow, and it uses more RAM than Vista. So you'll be ahead if you have a 64-bit operating system.

pwnst*r
December 3rd, 2009, 02:36 PM
i'd go with 7, but lol @ vista interface slowness. untrue.

CharlesA
December 3rd, 2009, 03:01 PM
Go with W7. Even if it's only 32-bit.

I also lol @ Vista "interface slowness."

Diluted
December 3rd, 2009, 03:10 PM
If it is solely for gaming, then I'll second the choice of Windows 7, purely because of its faster boot performance (since you're multi-booting).

Skripka
December 3rd, 2009, 03:22 PM
If it's a choice, install Vista 64-bit. Windows 7 is almost as slow, and it uses more RAM than Vista. So you'll be ahead if you have a 64-bit operating system.

Bah-you're cornering yourself using a 64bit OS on Windows. Most of the apps I want and need to use do not exist for Win64-and do not run under a compatibility mode either.

PS-W7 is much faster than Vista or XP was here.

pookiebear
December 3rd, 2009, 04:14 PM
My game laptop has winxp 32 bit with only SP2 install with the daylight savings time update.
NO surfing the net.
Boots in about 5 seconds.
ATI driver loaded.
chipset driver loaded.
NO pcmcia drivers
No modem driver
no smart card driver loaded. (just tell them to not ask at next reboot)
No bluetooth driver loaded. I use a usb gaming mouse hooked to it.

NO AV software.

NO internet except multiplayer through a game.
WOW gets 80fps
CS-source gets 60ish


But from your options listed I would go with win7. better memory management. Just dont load ANYTHING but the games and drivers you need. Keep all the fancy internet apps and office and stuff on another computer for installing and uninstalling.

alphaniner
December 3rd, 2009, 04:27 PM
You didn't say how much RAM you have total, but either way I'd go with 7. You can always get a third-party RAMdisk program if you want to access the RAM above 3.5 or whatever.

meep_meep
December 3rd, 2009, 05:15 PM
i'd go with 7, but lol @ vista interface slowness. untrue.

it depends on what computer you have. on our phenom i x4 its slow for stuff like UAC to load and to load programs its slow. Stuff that our old XP computer was quicker at! so it depends on what system i guess.

meep_meep
December 3rd, 2009, 05:16 PM
You didn't say how much RAM you have total, but either way I'd go with 7. You can always get a third-party RAMdisk program if you want to access the RAM above 3.5 or whatever.


I've got 4 Gb of RAM but wont really need all of it if Im just gaming

alphaniner
December 3rd, 2009, 05:28 PM
True enough. But if you copy certain game resources to a RAMdisk it can make a huge difference.

Then again with 4GB you probably couldn't make a very useful RAMdisk.

Psumi
December 3rd, 2009, 05:47 PM
Windows 7 should have a PAE driver for your system (if your system is PAE enabled.)

If this is the case, then the 32-bit version will see all of your RAM.

My system is PAE enabled, and Ubuntu can detect all 6 of my GBs of RAM in 32-bit.

alphaniner
December 3rd, 2009, 05:50 PM
Are you sure about that? I know Ubuntu can do it, but I wasn't aware Windows could.

forrestcupp
December 3rd, 2009, 05:53 PM
erm ive got access to win7 32 via uni msdn but my gf is using the win7 64 version on her desktop.

I hate to tell you this, but if you have one disk with both versions on it, you're not allowed to use both on 2 different computers. It's an either/or thing that they do just to make it easier on you to decide which one you want. You only have one code, and you can only use it on one computer.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

-grubby
December 3rd, 2009, 05:56 PM
it uses more RAM than Vista

Cache. Also, he has 4 GB of RAM.

cascade9
December 3rd, 2009, 05:58 PM
Thats what I was thinking forrestcupp, and your 100% right.


it depends on what computer you have. on our phenom i x4 its slow for stuff like UAC to load and to load programs its slow. Stuff that our old XP computer was quicker at! so it depends on what system i guess.

Oh, noes! you made the classic mistake of installing WinXP _then_ trying vista! You not meant to do that, your meant to buy a new PC with vista on it......if you use XP 1st you can see how slow vista is.

CharlesA
December 3rd, 2009, 06:02 PM
Oh, noes! you made the classic mistake of installing WinXP _then_ trying vista! You not meant to do that, your meant to buy a new PC with vista on it......if you use XP 1st you can see how slow vista is.

I still cannot tell if that's sarcasm or not. :o

I started with WinXP, went to Vista and now onto W7. I haven't really noticed any decrease in performance. WinXP would boot super quick, but it's also an ancient OS, that was created to run on older hardware.

cascade9
December 3rd, 2009, 06:10 PM
Semi-sarcastic.

Not many people did that, and everyone I know of that did come back with 'bloody heck vista is slow' (including me, not that I did it on my own PC LOL)

I've found WinXP and win7 have an major edge on everything over vista, Win 7 and XP arent that different in performance.

As for how old XP is..who cares? It matters from a long term support point of view in some ways, and it also matters if you want DX10/DX11/aeroglass, but apart from that the age of the OS matters not one iota.

meep_meep
December 3rd, 2009, 06:17 PM
I hate to tell you this, but if you have one disk with both versions on it, you're not allowed to use both on 2 different computers. It's an either/or thing that they do just to make it easier on you to decide which one you want. You only have one code, and you can only use it on one computer.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

my gf got msdn through her college. There are different options to download loads of different versions of windows. So she downloaded two different .iso's for win7 64 & 32-bit.

How many versions of windows can you use/install under msdn?

meep_meep
December 3rd, 2009, 06:18 PM
Semi-sarcastic.

Not many people did that, and everyone I know of that did come back with 'bloody heck vista is slow' (including me, not that I did it on my own PC LOL)

I've found WinXP and win7 have an major edge on everything over vista, Win 7 and XP arent that different in performance.

As for how old XP is..who cares? It matters from a long term support point of view in some ways, and it also matters if you want DX10/DX11/aeroglass, but apart from that the age of the OS matters not one iota.

True true, i might just install XP 32-bit cos most of the games I want to play are old apart from starcraft 2!!!!

Diluted
December 3rd, 2009, 06:21 PM
my gf got msdn through her college. There are different options to download loads of different versions of windows. So she downloaded two different .iso's for win7 64 & 32-bit.

How many versions of windows can you use/install under msdn?
That depends on whether you're talking about MSDN or MSDNAA. In the likely case of MSDNAA, she should be able to get two different product keys for 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows 7.

One tiny question, are you using your girlfriend's account or yours to acquire these licenses?

forrestcupp
December 3rd, 2009, 06:23 PM
my gf got msdn through her college. There are different options to download loads of different versions of windows. So she downloaded two different .iso's for win7 64 & 32-bit.

How many versions of windows can you use/install under msdn?

I was wondering if that's what you meant.

My wife has an MSDN subscription, but there are a lot of different kinds. She has the Visual Studio Professional with MSDN Professional subscription, and she is allowed to claim 10 keys of each product before having to call in. If your girlfriend's account works the same, then you shouldn't have any problem getting another key for 64-bit Windows 7. You install with the same iso, and just enter the 2nd key while installing.

Psumi
December 3rd, 2009, 06:23 PM
I see people have ignored my PAE comment.

NoaHall
December 3rd, 2009, 06:25 PM
I see people have ignored my PAE comment.

I believe it's disabled - only enabled on Server editions.

alphaniner
December 3rd, 2009, 06:28 PM
I see people have ignored my PAE comment.

:cry:

I see you have ignored my question about your PAE comment...

Psumi
December 3rd, 2009, 06:29 PM
Are you sure about that? I know Ubuntu can do it, but I wasn't aware Windows could.

Yes, Windows can do it. I had PAE enabled on an install of XP/2000 once. Problem was, it was 32-bit system (processor) with PAE

Diluted
December 3rd, 2009, 06:30 PM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension) seems to say PAE is enabled.

NoaHall
December 3rd, 2009, 06:31 PM
Yes, Windows can do it. I had PAE enabled on an install of XP/2000 once. Problem was, it was 32-bit system (processor) with PAE

Server editions only.

Psumi
December 3rd, 2009, 06:32 PM
Server editions only.

Really, I was so sure Win98SE had PAE compatibility.

alphaniner
December 3rd, 2009, 06:33 PM
I once enabled PAE on XP, it allowed me to use the 3.5-8GB range for a RAMdisk, but the OS still didn't see it directly. I'm unsure that changed in Vista or Seven.

meep_meep
December 3rd, 2009, 06:36 PM
That depends on whether you're talking about MSDN or MSDNAA. In the likely case of MSDNAA, she should be able to get two different product keys for 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows 7.

One tiny question, are you using your girlfriend's account or yours to acquire these licenses?

yeah its MSDNAA, i guess. I dont know much about it because it is her account. Are there EULA or licensing issues because the MSDNAA - Student Use Agreement (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/academic/bb250622.aspx) states that you can only use the products on your personal computer. Which would be I shouldn't install any MSDNAA software on my computer.... :(

I was hoping to do this so that I wouldnt have to buy a copy of windows because I dont want to install a pirate copy....

Diluted
December 3rd, 2009, 06:38 PM
That is true. However, it is really a question of morals. I'd highly doubt Microsoft would go after every single person with an unlicensed copy of Windows. It would be too expensive for them to do so.

forrestcupp
December 3rd, 2009, 07:43 PM
That is true. However, it is really a question of morals. I'd highly doubt Microsoft would go after every single person with an unlicensed copy of Windows. It would be too expensive for them to do so.

Right. MS wouldn't go after you, and your copy of Windows would appear to be a genuine, unpirated copy, which means you wouldn't have any trouble with updates or MS downloads. But if you care about EULA's, it's probably still morally or ethically wrong for you to do that.

If you were married to her, and you both technically owned all your computers, it would be a different story.