Quote:
Originally Posted by toretorden
Looks to me like you should be running the 64 bit version of windows vista. That's what I'm doing and although I have twice as much RAM as you do, it's been nice and stable in my experience.
64-bit Windows XP is - at least last time I heard - quite the hassle compared to Vista.
Vista has a worse rep than it deserves imo. I have two stationary comps right next to eachother, one with xp sp3 and the other with vista home professional (I think) 64 bits. Both work fine, but on a new comp with nice hardware, I'd definetly get Vista.
|
I don't see why he'd need Vista 64bit. 64bit allows for a higher capacity in some areas, but none of which he actually needs as per his usage. If anything, it would be more of a hassle at this point because of his not getting much out of 64bit versus the fact that he would no longer be able to run 16 bit programs nor utilize 32bit drivers. So if he uses anything that doesn't support 64bit, then he's just crap out of luck.
Not a real big payoff considering he's only going to be running 2 gigs of RAM and a processor that, while it's 64bit capable, isn't pushing any performance limits in any scenario.
He could add 2 more gigs and swap to a quad-core CPU on a 32bit platform and still be
well over his possible requirements in the foreseeable future.
Quote:
|
And I was going to run Vista. It's so much prettier...what seems to be its problem...?
|
Adidasss... Not really a problem, considering its current status versus when it first came out, but I just personally don't like that it's a resource hog and requires so much more disk space and RAM just to operate.
Personally, XP does everything I need it to, so I don't see a reason to upgrade to an OS that does add some nice features, but most of which I'd never personally use nor care about.
I'll switch my personal computer's OS when XP becomes obsolete and is no longer supported by software developers who create programs I actually want to use.
