I'm slowly saving up the money for a good gaming PC, and I was curious about which version of Windows I should go with.
I've basically boiled down my choices to either XP corporate (got it from my dad, his company occasionally gives them out in contests) or Vista Home Premium 64-bit
I've heard good things and bad things about Vista, most often contradictory things such as:
"DirectX 10 is overrated!"
"No DX10 is awesome!"
"Vista is a resource hog!"
"No it's not! Turn off most of the extra useless crap and it's as fast as XP!"
"64-bit OS has driver issues!"
"That was two years ago! It's good now!"
The verison of Vista I'm buying will be an OEM System builder's copy. I'm concerned about the activation scheme Microsoft has. That if I change too much hardware, I have to call tech support. How bad is it, I really don't like the idea of having to call some Fuckwit somewhere in India to beg them to allow me to use software I paid for. My Corporate Edition version of XP is free and it will never stop working and tell to call tech support just because I decided to change my motherboard or videocard. (Obviously I plan on upgrading it as time goes, or when it won't be able to handle new games well anymore).
Of course, 64-bit and DirectX 10 is very tempting, and Vista is more modern than XP. I want to future-proof this machine, but the activation scheme has me worried. I don't like being denied access to software I paid for. (Some of you might remember my copy protection rant several months ago).
Building a gaming computer, need help with OS.
Building a gaming computer, need help with OS.
Shmups: It's all about blowing stuff up!
Re: Building a gaming computer, need help with OS.
I say it's the wrong year. I'm waiting for Windows 7 (next year) and Core i7 (however, I'm not sure the i7 processors with automatic overclocking, i.e. probably great for MAME, will be affordable for desktops for a while).
Anyway, Vista has some good features, but also a whole lot of garbage. I have never used Aero, never considered it. Not aware of a whole lot of tweaks for it so there's that too. Microsoft also needs to stop arbitrarily breaking UIs they can feel giddy in their upside-downness.
The idea of running programs with least privilege is great but until more vendors (including the assholes who sell computers, thanks ASUS) get programs that actually work with Vista a ken its gd but fuk me nae need t rub ur nipples about it calm the beef min
Anyway, Vista has some good features, but also a whole lot of garbage. I have never used Aero, never considered it. Not aware of a whole lot of tweaks for it so there's that too. Microsoft also needs to stop arbitrarily breaking UIs they can feel giddy in their upside-downness.
The idea of running programs with least privilege is great but until more vendors (including the assholes who sell computers, thanks ASUS) get programs that actually work with Vista a ken its gd but fuk me nae need t rub ur nipples about it calm the beef min
Re: Building a gaming computer, need help with OS.
Basically you're telling to stick with XP then. But how long will it be until games REQUIRE DX10? Plus, eventually 4GBs of RAM won't be enough. That being said, the technology is rather new, and it might be a couple years, but hey, I want to futureproof my machine.Ed Oscuro wrote:I say it's the wrong year. I'm waiting for Windows 7 (next year) and Core i7 (however, I'm not sure the i7 processors with automatic overclocking, i.e. probably great for MAME, will be affordable for desktops for a while).
Anyway, Vista has some good features, but also a whole lot of garbage. I have never used Aero, never considered it. Not aware of a whole lot of tweaks for it so there's that too. Microsoft also needs to stop arbitrarily breaking UIs they can feel giddy in their upside-downness.
The idea of running programs with least privilege is great but until more vendors (including the assholes who sell computers, thanks ASUS) get programs that actually work with Vista a ken its gd but fuk me nae need t rub ur nipples about it calm the beef min
And what makes you think that Windows 7 will be better than Vista? I mean, geeze, was Vista that bad of a fuckup that they are already working on a new OS? That's giving me second thoughts about picking Vista.
For now, I guess since games don't require Vista or DX10 right now, XP would be smarter choice. Plus I save $100 on the OS.
Shmups: It's all about blowing stuff up!
Go XP Pro. Almost every game that has directx 10 features, look nearly as good (or identical) under dx9. Crysis, which was touted as the first major dx10 game, actually was fully functional under dx9. Every setting that was "dx10 specific' worked under dx9 by just switching the names of the settings in a config file. As to vista itself, game requirements are approximately double compared to XP. Need a minimum of 512 mb of RAM under XP? You'll need 1 gb under Vista. Seems ridiculous to me.
Microsoft has kept saying they'll drop support of XP and get everyone to use Vista, but then so many people hate Vista and request XP Microsoft has continued to support it while already working on Windows 7.
The smart thing to do would be to skip Vista and go straight to windows 7, but until it's out (which should be a couple years) go with XP.
edit: I can almost guarantee games won't REQUIRE dx10 for a LONG time, if ever, because that would mean the game REQUIRES vista, and game developers aren't stupid enough to do that. dx10 doesn't offer nearly enough that's improved over dx9 to warrant game developers requiring it, either. As I said, all the features of Crysis that people thought were dx10 only, like post-processing, depth of field and motion blur, are entirely possible under dx9, they grayed out those options until you edit a config file. All the hype around dx10 when it was coming out has turned out to be pretty much hot air.
Microsoft has kept saying they'll drop support of XP and get everyone to use Vista, but then so many people hate Vista and request XP Microsoft has continued to support it while already working on Windows 7.
The smart thing to do would be to skip Vista and go straight to windows 7, but until it's out (which should be a couple years) go with XP.
edit: I can almost guarantee games won't REQUIRE dx10 for a LONG time, if ever, because that would mean the game REQUIRES vista, and game developers aren't stupid enough to do that. dx10 doesn't offer nearly enough that's improved over dx9 to warrant game developers requiring it, either. As I said, all the features of Crysis that people thought were dx10 only, like post-processing, depth of field and motion blur, are entirely possible under dx9, they grayed out those options until you edit a config file. All the hype around dx10 when it was coming out has turned out to be pretty much hot air.
"I think Ikaruga is pretty tough. It is like a modern version of Galaga that some Japanese company made."
Re: Building a gaming computer, need help with OS.
tl;dr - Get a good graphics card and you can upgrade the OS later
The thing about DX10 is this: Some games (Bioshock I guess) have some sort of enhancement in looks with DX10, but going after it for performance upgrades isn't really a factor yet - devs are conscientious about what sort of hardware most people have available for running their games. With a good new video card like one of the new HD 4870 (or 4850X2 right), you won't need to worry about it.
But to make it simple - ATI seems to have the bonus here, although if you were going to wait for Nehalem / Core i7, be aware that Intel is limiting the RAM that can be used, and, more relevantly, they're saying SLI won't be available (at least for a while). But hey, if you use two graphics cards fuck you anyway, SAVE SUM FOR DA WAHLES.
As a result, caching and hard drive access becomes an issue of central importance.
For this reason putting a little bit of thought into your choice of drive for main storage (SSD versus platter-based) might be a good step towards future-proofing. I kinda was thinking about going for one of the crazy 15K RPM drives myself; always wanted one back in SCSI times and now that SATA 3.0 GB/sec transfer is out there it seems interesting. No idea if those are affordable, or what their noise / energy usage / assorted characteristics are, though.
First thing: They aren't going to move that aggressively that suddenly you'll find yourself unable to play any new games; they might just look worse and/or have less efficient engines than they would on DX10. If the requirement is what you want to avoid, by all means get a graphics card that's DX 10 compliant (note: the latest nVidia chips don't have DX10.1 support, but the ATI ones do and so you see how the whole "omg are yew DXten-ready" argument isn't even bought by the #1 graphics chip maker!); likewise I think only nVidia has the nifty but of limited use computing solutions like haxing wifi or running Cellfactor: Revolution or some other 2005-2006 era game with all the doodads on and at an acceptable framerate.FatCobra wrote:Basically you're telling to stick with XP then. But how long will it be until games REQUIRE DX10?
The thing about DX10 is this: Some games (Bioshock I guess) have some sort of enhancement in looks with DX10, but going after it for performance upgrades isn't really a factor yet - devs are conscientious about what sort of hardware most people have available for running their games. With a good new video card like one of the new HD 4870 (or 4850X2 right), you won't need to worry about it.
But to make it simple - ATI seems to have the bonus here, although if you were going to wait for Nehalem / Core i7, be aware that Intel is limiting the RAM that can be used, and, more relevantly, they're saying SLI won't be available (at least for a while). But hey, if you use two graphics cards fuck you anyway, SAVE SUM FOR DA WAHLES.
I think that Vista, as well as XP, both limit the addressing space of any single program to 2 GB. Total addressing space for 32-bit OSes is something like 3.1 GB, so you have some overhead over the max modern PC games can use. I read some specifics a while back, but didn't quite remember what was said exactly, and don't have a link handy - but be aware that issue is out there. You can theoretically have tons of RAM for Vista boxes, but like in the old days there's little use for it. Maybe this will be a Windows 7 issue, or not; we'll see.Plus, eventually 4GBs of RAM won't be enough.
As a result, caching and hard drive access becomes an issue of central importance.
For this reason putting a little bit of thought into your choice of drive for main storage (SSD versus platter-based) might be a good step towards future-proofing. I kinda was thinking about going for one of the crazy 15K RPM drives myself; always wanted one back in SCSI times and now that SATA 3.0 GB/sec transfer is out there it seems interesting. No idea if those are affordable, or what their noise / energy usage / assorted characteristics are, though.
There's really no such thing as futureproofing, unfortunately, but it doesn't really matter given what I've written: My home-built Core 2 Duo E6600 with 2 GB (only!) of RAM and GeForce 8800GTS is still going strong, and I can play Call of Duty 4 at 1600x1200@75Hz just fine; don't even need to sacrifice detail settings. You can more or less build the PC today and add on Windows 7 when you need it (I think I'll wait, myself, but we'll see come later this year how enticing it looks - I'll try out the Holidays season crop of game demos to see if it's necessary.That being said, the technology is rather new, and it might be a couple years, but hey, I want to futureproof my machine.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Window ... ,6472.htmlkengou wrote:The smart thing to do would be to skip Vista and go straight to windows 7, but until it's out (which should be a couple years) go with XP.
This estimate hasn't changed since the last Win7 news I saw a couple months ago (god, time seems to crawl when I think of it in terms like "When Will IE8 be out?")
Win7 will be better than XP and Vista, and should be out in a reasonable amount of time, as promised; Microsoft is under the gun this time and hopefully they're pulling people off some of the asinine R&D projects that make no sense (and which even MS employees complain about for siphoning off company resources).
Re: Building a gaming computer, need help with OS.
Retail technology is changing so rapidly that the only way is to upgrade as you go along-todays cutting edge gfx and hdd will be almost laughable in a year's time.This means making sure your mobo is going to be viable with upcoming developements more than anything else.FatCobra wrote: I want to futureproof my machine
If anything,it pays to stay 6-months behind the cutting edge because then many bugs will have been ironed out and the hardware is half its original cost...
...and Vista is definitely NOT the future
-
Stormwatch
- Posts: 2327
- Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Brazil
- Contact:
I'm probably going to go with my copy of XP, which is a 32-bit OS. Eventually I will want a 64-bit OS, so I'll need 64-bit parts.
Might be a dumb question, but will installing a 32-bit OS on a computer made for a 64 one cause conflicts?
I'd get the 64-bit version of XP, but I've heard rumors that it was garbage. Is that true?
Might be a dumb question, but will installing a 32-bit OS on a computer made for a 64 one cause conflicts?
I'd get the 64-bit version of XP, but I've heard rumors that it was garbage. Is that true?
Shmups: It's all about blowing stuff up!
There are no "64-bit parts" except CPUs with an updated instruction set and an ability to page and use more memory. These CPUs have been mainstream for about 4 or more years already, starting with Athlon 64.
Basically, you have two choices at this point.
1. Run 64-bit Windows on a 64-bit CPU. Disadvantages: all drivers must be compiled for 64-bit OS. Some (few) 32-bit programs may experience problems. There will be no way to run DOS and 16-bit Windows applications. Advantages: native 64-bit applications may run faster. You can install and use more memory.
2. Run 32-bit Windows on a 64-bit CPU. Disadvantages: none yet, except inability to install more than 4 GB of RAM. Advantages: no software conflicts, except the inability to run that ~0.000001% of software that has no 32-bit version (nothing remotely important at this point, to my knowledge). Somewhat better memory management compared to 32-bit Windows on a 32-bit CPU.
If you honestly don't know why would you need so many bits at this point, don't install a 64-bit OS yet. You likely won't notice or take advantage of the potential performance increases, but will likely experience problems with the fact that 64-bit software isn't yet mature as a whole, except a small number of professional applications you likely don't even use.
Basically, you have two choices at this point.
1. Run 64-bit Windows on a 64-bit CPU. Disadvantages: all drivers must be compiled for 64-bit OS. Some (few) 32-bit programs may experience problems. There will be no way to run DOS and 16-bit Windows applications. Advantages: native 64-bit applications may run faster. You can install and use more memory.
2. Run 32-bit Windows on a 64-bit CPU. Disadvantages: none yet, except inability to install more than 4 GB of RAM. Advantages: no software conflicts, except the inability to run that ~0.000001% of software that has no 32-bit version (nothing remotely important at this point, to my knowledge). Somewhat better memory management compared to 32-bit Windows on a 32-bit CPU.
If you honestly don't know why would you need so many bits at this point, don't install a 64-bit OS yet. You likely won't notice or take advantage of the potential performance increases, but will likely experience problems with the fact that 64-bit software isn't yet mature as a whole, except a small number of professional applications you likely don't even use.
Matskat wrote:This neighborhood USED to be nice...until that family of emulators moved in across the street....
On the system I'm building now, I'm planning to run Vista X64, mostly because it's going to have 8GB of RAM. I might set up a dual-boot for XP MCE as well, depending on whether or not I end up needing it. There is also an XP 64-bit edition out there, but in my limited experience with it I've found driver support to be poor to nonexistent for a lot of things, and I don't even know where you'd find a copy right now.
A) Because consoles are more expensive when you factor in the HDTV, you pretty need one to make the games look good and the text to not be tiny. See Dead Rising and how Capcom screwed over Low-Def owners.jpj wrote:why on earth would you want a pc to play games on?
B) I have no room for an HDTV, and playing a 360/PS3 on an SDTV would be a no-go.
C) Because my computer is crappy and I'm sick of running games like Half-Life 2 on 640x480 and on minimum graphic settings just to get a decent framerate. Everything looks like it's smeared in vaseline and the jaggies poke my eyes out.
D) I want to learn how to build a PC, I'm fascinated by hardware and how everything works.
E) None of the current-gen consoles interest me.
F) You can use a computer for things other than games. I know a computer doesn't need to be powerful for mundane tasks such as browsing the internet or typing a Word document, but I crave speed and performance!
Shmups: It's all about blowing stuff up!
And coming from a guy so fed up with modern gaming. Sure you're feeling alright FatCobra?
I built up a computer one or two months ago, and I sure didn't learn anything about how it actually works. Just plugged things into the proper sockets and powered it up to load the OS and drivers, but there is nothing I learned about how things worked that I didn't know from taking a few courses in computer architecture. I had never built a computer before but it seemed pretty hard to get things wrong. Well, it was fun and worth the experience anyway.
Still, like jpj has said, make sure you are doing it for the right reasons. Current-gen consoles not interesting? Why not just keep playing old-gen, then? I don't see why you're even complaining about needing HDTV to play console games or not having space for one when you're not interested in current-gen consoles. A and B cannot be valid reasons if E holds.
It's a good thing that you are slowly saving money instead of rushing out to buy the parts. Take a bit of time to step back and think about your reasons again. C and D are fair enough, though you might be a tad misguided on the latter.
I built up a computer one or two months ago, and I sure didn't learn anything about how it actually works. Just plugged things into the proper sockets and powered it up to load the OS and drivers, but there is nothing I learned about how things worked that I didn't know from taking a few courses in computer architecture. I had never built a computer before but it seemed pretty hard to get things wrong. Well, it was fun and worth the experience anyway.
Still, like jpj has said, make sure you are doing it for the right reasons. Current-gen consoles not interesting? Why not just keep playing old-gen, then? I don't see why you're even complaining about needing HDTV to play console games or not having space for one when you're not interested in current-gen consoles. A and B cannot be valid reasons if E holds.
It's a good thing that you are slowly saving money instead of rushing out to buy the parts. Take a bit of time to step back and think about your reasons again. C and D are fair enough, though you might be a tad misguided on the latter.
-
Never_Scurred
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 1:09 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
The question I have is, other than maybe CoD and Crysis, what games does the PC have coming out for it that would warrant such an investment?
"It's a joke how the Xbox platform has caught shit for years for only having shooters, but now it's taken on an entirely different meaning."-somebody on NeoGAF
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
I'm not completely fed up with modern gaming, it's just I never had the money for it. And when I can't afford it, I start to resent it altogether.iatneH wrote:And coming from a guy so fed up with modern gaming. Sure you're feeling alright FatCobra?
I was constantly broke most of the time until recently, since I got my tech-support job, I can afford a current-gen system or a new computer.
I'm just one of those people who realized that consoles are a waste of time and money. I'm not saying I'm a PC Gaming elitist, I've always had a console and pc computer, so I got the best of both worlds.
Besides being unable to play modern games like Fallout 3, this PC and the laptop my college issued me, there's nothing wrong because they handle the basic stuff just fine (Internet, Word, Diablo, Starcraft, Emulators)
I just want more than that, that's all. There's alot of new pc games coming out that I'd like to play. Fallout 3, Diablo 3, GTA4, Starcraft 2.
My parents think gaming is a waste of time and money, even though my Dad wastes his time playing Neopets and Diablo and the fact they bought me a NES, SNES, N64, and several Gameboys when I was a kid. Hippocrates, don't you think?
Well, now that I'm older, I do think consoles seem a little silly because I have a machine that can play all those games. Emulation is wonderful, the games ascend beyond the system they were restricted to.
Of course, PC gaming is a bit of a pain in the ass at times, such as DRM and stability issues, but that's how it's always been.
None of the current-gen system really interest me now, but there are plenty of PC games coming out that peak my interest.
I know you can play these consoles on a regular TV, but they are really designed for HDTVs. To get the full potental out of these systems, you need an HDTV. And it's more expensive to buy a console who needs an expensive new TV to work correctly, than to buy some PC parts and throw them together.
Also, in before someone says it, I don't do MMOs. Period. (Diablo doesn't count, it's a hack 'n' slash).
Shmups: It's all about blowing stuff up!
you can hook up a 360 to a pc monitor (but you'll need to route the sound through a stereo or similar). which would be pretty cheap these days. so if you are into modern stuff, you could do that *and* buy a half decent pc
obviously it's your money, but i think pc gaming is becoming narrower and narrower. the decent releases are so far apart, the genres supported are so few, the need to upgrade more and more prevalent, and then all the usual shit (patches, drm, incompatibility problems).
($0.02
)
obviously it's your money, but i think pc gaming is becoming narrower and narrower. the decent releases are so far apart, the genres supported are so few, the need to upgrade more and more prevalent, and then all the usual shit (patches, drm, incompatibility problems).
($0.02
)RegalSin wrote:Videogames took my life away like the Natives during colonial times.
-
Never_Scurred
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 1:09 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
I used to be into pc gaming until it got to the point where you had to upgrade to play every good game that came out not too mention all the console ports they had which made the pc pretty much irrelevant as a platform. I mean, it seems like people are upgrading just to say who has the bigger dick. Where are the games? Crysis? Extra sick lulz @ needing all that processing power for an RTS game......FatCobra wrote: I just want more than that, that's all. There's alot of new pc games coming out that I'd like to play. Fallout 3, Diablo 3, GTA4, Starcraft 2.
FatCobra wrote:my Dad wastes his time playing Neopets
FatCobra wrote:Hippocrates, don't you think?
"It's a joke how the Xbox platform has caught shit for years for only having shooters, but now it's taken on an entirely different meaning."-somebody on NeoGAF
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
I feel the "omg PC game are dying" hype is blown way out of proportion. I agree that the number of genres is more limited than the consoles, but I get a far superior experience for the PC games I do buy. No major worries of a breakdown. There's a slew of highly anticipated games coming out this holiday season, and while Fallout 3 may turn out to be a disappointment we've still got Far Cry 2 and a bunch of others.
Other pros for PC gaming: Better controls for the FPS genre, no need to buy multiplayer privileges (unless you're playing The Club, I guess).
FatCobra: Hippocrates what lol
Other pros for PC gaming: Better controls for the FPS genre, no need to buy multiplayer privileges (unless you're playing The Club, I guess).
FatCobra: Hippocrates what lol
Actually, the Hippocrates typo is one of the better ones I've seen, since you spelled it correctly! Also, I believe the term is "to pique one's interest". Don't worry, I'm done being snarky
Personally I built my machine with the intention of watching Blu-ray movies, but I haven't bought a single one yet; However, I picked up some relatively new-ish PC games and plan to grab a couple more, since for the first time ever, not only do I meet the minimum system requirements, but even the recommended specs! So I kind of ended up building a capable gaming rig without even planning to play games on it in the first place.
If you decide to go through with building, I think you'll be happy with it no matter what since there will be all sorts of things you can now do, that you hadn't considered before. Good luck, and choose your parts carefully.
By the way, since the topic is about OS, I went with 32-bit XP Professional, and it's just dandy with 3 GB of RAM.
Personally I built my machine with the intention of watching Blu-ray movies, but I haven't bought a single one yet; However, I picked up some relatively new-ish PC games and plan to grab a couple more, since for the first time ever, not only do I meet the minimum system requirements, but even the recommended specs! So I kind of ended up building a capable gaming rig without even planning to play games on it in the first place.
If you decide to go through with building, I think you'll be happy with it no matter what since there will be all sorts of things you can now do, that you hadn't considered before. Good luck, and choose your parts carefully.
By the way, since the topic is about OS, I went with 32-bit XP Professional, and it's just dandy with 3 GB of RAM.
Re: Building a gaming computer, need help with OS.
Stick to XP, at least until DX10 becomes a bit more mainstream. 64-bit is great and all, but not necessary just yet. Personally, I'd stay away from anything "home premium" because that means the installed product fills your computer with lots of crap that, if you're like me, you will spend hours trying to get rid of. Now if you finally decide on Vista, turn off Windows Aero if you really have problems with resource hogging. Helps a lot.
But I always play really old games anyway, so what do I know?
But I always play really old games anyway, so what do I know?
Re: Building a gaming computer, need help with OS.
That advice is just fine.lgb wrote:Stick to XP, at least until DX10 becomes a bit more mainstream.
However I would say skip Vista entirely, if you can, and if Windows 7 doesn't turn out worse
It shouldn't because they're updating the UAC and fighting bloat significantly (the OS will likely be only a few gigabytes, on par with Windows Server).On Home Premium: this is pretty much the default installation you get at retail, especially in prebuilt machines. Business and Ultimate don't really add all that much except price. Home Basic is the one to avoid at all costs.