Vista ultimate or premium 32 or 64bit?

I chose Vista, but I'm going to Kick it Out, I'm running AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual Core, and it takes a Million Years to load up All the Vista Bollocks thats included such as Graphis Enhancements and the RAM Eating sidebar, I even extended my Virtual RAM from 2345MB Default to the Recommended 3067MB but still My Drive groans and its only 3 months Old so its not Knackered Unless your going to go Quad Core Extreme at 8800 Mhz and at least 768 MB Video Card then Vista is going to Kick your Ass Hard I even disabled 70% of the Stuff in Vista and it still runs like a Backwards Salmon swimming Downstream instead of Up, I liked it at first but its too much a strain on the System when it installs all the updates and All My Software is installed, In other words its like having Winows Millennium Installed, on a Pentium 3 and we all know what a **** Fest that was

 

Unless you buy an upgrade version, then you can not go back to XP, because XP's serial will expire once the Vista's serial will be activated.

 

ahh well i have a 8800 GTX 768mb and 2 GB ram and i am gonna use the 32bit and i am gonna get the premium so hopefully its fast and not slow.

also i have a intel Core Duo E6600 that i think is a very good processor plus intel works better with windows that amd i guess.

So hopefully it will be fast. I have downloaded the latest driver version for my new graphic card so hopefully that will make a difference

And in future updates hopefully it will even be faster and stable haha

 

I seriously doubt that.

64 bits processing is a long way from being optimized. Not a lot of apps, not a lot of drivers ...etc. The extra RAM you can put on it will likely not be used up. I would wait till Crysis and other DX10 come out to see whether or not 64 is useful. Also, don't spend the money on that E6600. The Q6600 can be had for the same price.

 

sadly i bought the dual core £6600 and i did not get the quad i thought it would use a lot more power so now i am stuck with the dual core and don't have the quad

but anyways i will get the 32bit of vista. maybe next yr i will buy a quad

 

Just Out of Curiositys sake, I just Installed Vista Business, and iy has a lot less RAM instensive gizmo's and runs fast, the Only thing missing is Vista Media Center, but I never use it anyway so I wont miss it, But I'm deffinately buying Quad Core in a Month or 2 or at least upgrading my System to run it

 

I have been running x64XP on my core 2 duo PC with nvidia 7xxx series card without any hitches.

 

Basically the only difference between Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate is that Ultimate has a couple of Microsoft office apps that Home Premium doesn't. I have each running on two different computers now and I actually prefer The home premium simply because I don't need any office apps. Besides that, I really don't see any difference. I read in a post above that his Vista runs like a salmon swimming downstream. Vista on my comp runs better than XP pro did, it sounds like his computer just isn't up to the task. Everyone that I know personally in this area that are running Vista are having no problems with it. I haven't had a problem with it since I installed it.

 

O how I love vLite. I dont have a quad-core processor, 2gb of ram, or a GeForce 8800 and I can still enjoy my Vista

 

Bigc wat do u have 32 or 64bit?

 

@DVD+R,
what amd x2 processer do you have?
example,
3800?
4200?
lodore

 

DVD+R has a 4600+ iirc

 

32 bit. Don't particularly like 64 bit. here is a screen shot of what is in the start up menu

 

Nice

for security in Vista i will have KIS 7.0 with practive and firewall disabled.

And when Comodo 3.0 becomes final i will have it with all features enabled including the proactive in Comodo.

Also Spybot-search & destroy 1.5 (hopefully it will soon come out as its vista support/compatible)

SpywareBlaster (its vista support/compatible as well right?)

And Adware Se

And A-Squared

I would get Avg Antispyware (Ewido) but its not Vista compatible yet no?

 

Spywareblaster is vista compatable. I run Avira Premium with the windows firewall with advanced protection and windows defender and spywareblaster. I don't get any infections of any kind with this set up so I can't see loading up on excess security apps I don't need or want. The more security apps you run the more chance you are taking of having problems. That is one of the main reasons people have so many problems with windows is just overloading on security and it eventually it starts working against you in excess resource use and incompatability between the different apps. But everyone to their own.

bigc

 

One week into Vista and I think it is AWFUL.

My new PC has twice as much memory and a faster duo core processor. The system boots slower, opens files slower, emails slower. Vista does everything slower even on amachine with double the memory.

I never fully understood why people hate MS so much. I now know. My next PC will be a mac.

 

I just can't understand why so many people say Vista is slow. It is as fast if not faster than Xp Pro on my comp. I wonder what the difference is. Since I have owned two computer shops maybe it is just experience useing computers. I do know every computer I have installed Vista on has performed as well as XP or better so there is something about the peoples computers or the knowledge on how to use one as far as I can see. I have never seen the slow performance that I read about, I would personally like to see one of these computers so I could Figure out what they are doing wrong or just what the problem really is. From personal experience and what I can perceive from reading everything I can on the subject, I have discovered that slow performance with Vista is a very small percentage of the Vista installs. Most people that are useing Vista are not having these problems.

bigc

P.S.
I will concede that boot times with Vista are a little bit longer but nothing serious.

 

In regular use the quadcore seems to be no way faster then duocore as came out in many tests[toms hardware,anand tech],if you fire up many app.and use them all at the same time, yess then there is a little difference.

 

I ripped out the Media Center in Vista Ultimate, using vLite along with Printer Drivers and Graphic Drivers and Languages and Saved 1.5GB then installed My own, as so far its like Grease Lightning Personally though I think I'd prefer more than 512 MB Video Card before I install the Full Ultimate Version again, Also I run MS Office Enterprise 2007 Encarta Premium 2007 (these take up quite abit) and as for My Games, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Requires almost 5GB to install and Pirates of the Caribbean at Worlds End takes about 2GB so theres 7 GB swallowed up straight away

 

Why would you need more than 512MB for a video card for Vista? The memory would be good for gaming but Vista's minimum video memory requirement is 128MB.

Also why run the full Vista?

 

Dual cores run VM's like a dream and burns DVDs fast. But after migrating to quad, I've noticed that it's a little faster in these tasks.

 

I own a quad core, I find that Linux uses them far more efficiently but till date there are few Linux and fewer Windows apps that can take full advantage of multi-threading with the quad cores, irony is that till date, majority of the programs written only take advantage of a single CPU, now some programs are switching over to take advantage of the second core, I have always been on SMP systems and years back, 2cpu.com used to have a list of SMP capable programs and all you got to see there was stuff like Adobe, Maya and 3dMax, very few encoders took advantage of SMP unfortunately.

 

Bescause I'm a stubborn SOB and I fiddle about too much, LOL the slightest indiscretion on my PC makes me run off and format it I'm paranoid and dont like left behinds after uninstalls Think I'll customize my New PC to the Absolute it can get, Terrabyte Storeage/Huge Massive RAM/ the fastest chip possible lol, and whatever else I can think off

 

But not that way faster as the Intel Boys proclaimed !

 

Yeah...not that much..but multithreaded apps run about +/-2x faster.