The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

Is their that much of a difference between 32 & 64 for either XP or Vista

 

XP 32-bit works well. Vista 32-bit works, ish. Vista 64-bit also works ok for the most part XP 64-bit is trash.

 

but sam, raptors have a much quicker rpm....

you full HDD WILL be the effect of that no doubt.

ill show you a vista boot up with a clean install when i get my build done. (hopefully with a samsung F1 320GB single platter disk)

 

They do, which makes them load an OS in around 70% of the time. 70% of 4 minutes is 2.8 minutes. If I can load windows XP on a fresh install in 50 seconds, Where have the other 2 minutes gone? (I booted XP off a WD2500AAJS on a clean install a while back and it took about 90 seconds - I'd wager the 753LJ is faster than the 2500AAJS).

The final nail in the coffin is that a Sempron 64-bit 3600+ with 1GB of RAM takes longer to load Vista, than a Celeron M360 1.4Ghz with 256MB takes to load XP (525 seconds versus 380 seconds)
The Vista laptop even has an instant BIOS, so has a good 5-10 second advantage on the XP one...

 

im not talking about bios boot included as that differs vastly for each computer, but from when vista starts loading till when you can start opening firefox etc.

Vista uses more resources... its universally know, why try and boot it with 1GB?

2GB as the standard when vista came out, same as 256 was when XP came out

 

Ah well, I'm counting not just the BIOS boot, but until the OS has finished booting up, not from when you're able to start clicking. With multi core processors, you can start opening programs long before the OS has finished loading - the side-effect is that they still take ages to open at that stage as the HDD is busy loading everything else.

 

Ok, so Vista might not run well with less resources, but WHEN you have a GOOD computer with 4GB of RAM in it already it works FASTER than XP Pro. This is a fact. I encourage anyone with a CLEAN HDD to go try it out

 

It's not faster than XP, nor will it ever be. Due to what Vista has to load, that's a technical impossibility. It's faster to shutdown on a powerful system, and it's faster to open programs when prefetch is enabled, but that has the downside of increasing the already high bootup time. There's no free lunch, not just with Vista, that applies to any OS.

 

Yeah, it's prefetch that makes it faster. It works so damn well though. I can turn on my computer, get some water and it's all booted up. Then whenever I want to open up programs later on they open fast.

 

I'd imagine it would conflict with me though, I only have 4GB of RAM, and since I max out games, I would probably run out. Vista 64-bit for me used 1.6-2.1GB at idle, and I got it up to 3.5GB in a game, which is pretty close.

 

You dont realize how it works then. It keeps these programs in memory so you can start them up pretty fast. But if you start to run out of memory from active programs then it takes out those prefetch programs from memory and "gives it back to you" in a way.

You don't actually start running out of ram due to prefetch.

 

Makes more sense. But if games don't fit in memory then surely you can see it has little purpose. I don't really give a damn if firefox takes 1 second to open instead of 2, neither do I care much about very small games loading fractionally faster. It's the big games that matter, and the big games that cause problems. On top of that, a minute extra bootup time versus 20 seconds less for loading a game doesn't really suit me either.

 

Ouch, unlucky!

 

when did it come out, january 2007?

im pretty sure 2x1GB sticks were the norm back then

 

Not for laptops.

 

2x1GB in my PC at the beginning of 2007 was considered excellent, you'd never have seen standard systems with that back then.

 

4gb is a standard now is it not?

sorry if you meant laptops, i was talking about desktops.

 

LOL - you're joking right?
Not for anything other than gaming PCs....