OS Decision

[Fadingz]

(I'm used to Windows, so I guess Linux and MacOS are not really in my selection range...)

I'm debating between:
1. XP Pro 32bit
2. XP Pro 64bit
3. Vista 32bit
4. Vista 64bit
[Think I'm getting Ultimate on Vista]

I think I'm going to get the 64bit version since I'm planing to get 8GB of mem, but then it still comes down to
XP 64: less buggy and driver issues
Vista 64: direct 10 support

This is the OS for the computer I'm going to build in a month, it's a workstation and is not for gaming purpose, so game speed doesn't really matter to me. Plus, I'm getting a workstation GFX, which sucks for gaming anyway @@". (well, might run some games I have currently just for the hell of it, but I'm reserving all HD space for rendering)
The GFX I'm getting does have DirectX10 support

I'm going to do heavy Maya and 3ds Max work on it, so will DirectX 10 support on Vista for me better? or will the stability of XP do the job? [Plus, XP is cheaper...]

I heard that Vista 64 has issue with Visual Studio 2008, does that also happen with the 2005 version?

Thank you so much for any help and suggestion in advance~

[gnrathon]

XP!!!!!!!!!!

vista sucks
it will crash often!!!!!!!!!!
but if u wannna go for it then i hope u have a really good computer

[DoktorSeven]

Vista is, unfortunately, a very poorly done OS -- even Microsoft has indirectly admitted so several times and is already quickly preparing a replacement to be released in the next couple of years (Windows 7). The lack of DirectX 10 won't be a significant factor since not many games really require it.

Go with XP, it's far and away the best choice.

[Xtreme2damax]

Originally Posted by gnrathon

XP!!!!!!!!!!

vista sucks
------------->it will crash often!!!!!!!!!!<---------------
but if u wannna go for it then i hope u have a really good computer

Vista usually crashes because of faulty drivers and/or applications which is hardly the fault of the operating system.

In fact with the proper drivers Vista is more stable than XP, I haven't blue screened yet.

Also when a problem occurs with your display driver in Vista, you don't have to worry about a blue screen and your PC rebooting in Vista. The display driver will reinitialize itself without ever blue screening your PC and restarting it unlike XP and previous Windows iterations.

[Fadingz]

Originally Posted by gnrathon

XP!!!!!!!!!!

vista sucks
it will crash often!!!!!!!!!!
but if u wannna go for it then i hope u have a really good computer

I'm getting: (or plan to get)

CPU: Yorkfield (currently waiting price to drop when the Yorkfield is out on the Q-series @@")
GPU: Quadro or FireGL
Mobo: EVGA 780i if I'm getting Quadro
RAM: 8G 1066

Do the drivers from these conflict with the 64bit system or XP/Vista?

Originally Posted by DoktorSeven

Vista is, unfortunately, a very poorly done OS -- even Microsoft has indirectly admitted so several times and is already quickly preparing a replacement to be released in the next couple of years (Windows 7). The lack of DirectX 10 won't be a significant factor since not many games really require it.

Go with XP, it's far and away the best choice.

Really? when will that come out?

Originally Posted by Xtreme2damax

Vista usually crashes because of faulty drivers and/or applications which is hardly the fault of the operating system.

In fact with the proper drivers Vista is more stable than XP, I haven't blue screened yet.

Also when a problem occurs with your display driver in Vista, you don't have to worry about a blue screen and your PC rebooting in Vista. The display driver will reinitialize itself without ever blue screening your PC and restarting it unlike XP and previous Windows iterations.

Will Vista have conflict with the drivers I listed above? and with Maya, 3Ds MAX, or Visial Studio 2005


I also heard that Vista has some issues with tablet and Photoshop PS3, or is it fixed in SP1?

[Chrono Archangel]

I bought Vista and I've been using it for a while. Very stable. (And I have yet to install SP1)
No issues with VS2005... dunno about the other software you mentionned though. I personnaly recommand to the people aorund me to get Vista if they plan on upgrading.

Some people make it seem bad just because they have a crappy computer or they've never tried it.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by Chrono Archangel

Some people make it seem bad just because they have a crappy computer or they've never tried it.

Neither of these apply to me. I still say Vista is trash.

[Chrono Archangel]

Originally Posted by Spyhop

Neither of these apply to me. I still say Vista is trash.

That's why I said *some*, please don't turn this into a Vista vs XP thread. (its not Neowin here)
You should reply to the thread starter, not me.

[mudlord]

Some people make it seem bad just because they have a crappy computer or they've never tried it.

is a core2duo e4500 and 2gb ram crappy ?
Yet Vista still lags..:P

Neither of these apply to me. I still say Vista is trash.

From what I experienced of it, I have to agree.

[Coolsvilleman]

Originally Posted by Xtreme2damax

Vista usually crashes because of faulty drivers and/or applications which is hardly the fault of the operating system.

In fact with the proper drivers Vista is more stable than XP, I haven't blue screened yet.

Also when a problem occurs with your display driver in Vista, you don't have to worry about a blue screen and your PC rebooting in Vista. The display driver will reinitialize itself without ever blue screening your PC and restarting it unlike XP and previous Windows iterations.

Thats cause vista tries not to blue screen and does a kinda software reset most of the time. When you get into a loop of vista constantly saying it has saved itself from a critical error or something I would count that as crash/instability.

Though you are right, I think it is probably a driver problem.

[runawayprisoner]

Vista Ultimate 64-bit. For multitasking and graphics works, you will find that a perfect choice. If you are worried about drivers, maybe... go with a regular GPU. They are more than enough for normal 3Ds Max and Maya modelling works, anyway. Workstation graphics processors are only useful for when you want to do really insane animation scenes...

[Fadingz]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Vista Ultimate 64-bit. For multitasking and graphics works, you will find that a perfect choice. If you are worried about drivers, maybe... go with a regular GPU. They are more than enough for normal 3Ds Max and Maya modelling works, anyway. Workstation graphics processors are only useful for when you want to do really insane animation scenes...

Thanks, than I think I'll get Vista 64 if graphic work works well with it, since that will be the main job of the workstation.
and I do plan to do scene rendering with full terrain ><.

However, is 3-way SLI better than FX4600? (but 3-way SLI means Vista for sure)

If Vista really sux, then I'll downgrade it to XP mediacenter 32 bit that I'm currently using, but that will drop 4G of mem and 64 edition Maya @@"

[runawayprisoner]

Well, current casual graphics processors are still good enough for full terrain rendering. Sincerely, static scenes wouldn't need workstation processors. Only animations, as in... a lot of stuffs, would need workstation processors for faster rendering. If the scenes you are doing require a lot of ray-tracing then I think you're going to have to shell out the cash for a really good overclocking board, and I don't think any board with a 780i chipset in it is "it" for overclocking. I could be wrong, though.

Back to the OS choice, I still think Vista 64-bit will be good enough. It's just that XP 64-bit is a bigger unoptimized mess... (yeah, go figured... Microsoft's first try at a 64-bit OS) and 32-bit OSes obviously don't have the capacity for heavy graphics works.

[Fadingz]

I'm planing to get this mobo:

EVGA 132-CK-NF78-A1 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 780i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail

I am trying to do animation, hence the reason I'm building this comp instead of using my lab computer. I smell something burning and the comp lags when ever I do something big on maya there. I think it has some GeForce card, but I'm not really sure, with a 2.8G Core 2 duo processor. (not to mention the super long rendering time)
So basically, I am starting to work on animation once I build the system.

I'm not really sure about over-clocking though, since I don't really want to void the warranty on the GPU :/

[mudlord]

Well, current casual graphics processors are still good enough for full terrain rendering. Sincerely, static scenes wouldn't need workstation processors. Only animations, as in... a lot of stuffs, would need workstation processors for faster rendering. If the scenes you are doing require a lot of ray-tracing then I think you're going to have to shell out the cash for a really good overclocking board, and I don't think any board with a 780i chipset in it is "it" for overclocking. I could be wrong, though.

Still, if your doing professional level graphics work, it doesn't hurt to use professional grade components like GeForce Quadro's.....

[runawayprisoner]

Quadro's can handle for times (hence the name "quadro") as much a workload as the most casual processor can, I guess. But hhmmm... I'm still thinking that a dual 9800GX2 SLI setup MIGHT just be able to come close to the performance of a workstation processor at the same price. And of course it's gotten more shading and texturing power. Professional-level graphics cards tend to be monsters at high-poly works most of the time. When it comes to shading or texturing, they may lag behind their GeForce counter-parts... and heck, since a SLI 8800Ultra setup can handle about half the amount of workload a Quadro FX 4600 can, I think SLI 9800GX2 can at least handle 3/4 the workload of that Quadro FX 4600. Not to mention bigger memory capacity for more textures and stuffs, too. Doesn't the Quadro FX 4600 have only 768MB of VRAM? And I think it's based on the G80?

Edit: I know. How does a QX9650 at 4.2GHz and SLI 9800GX2 sound? That'd probably be almost as good as a quad Xeon rig with single FX 4600.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by Chrono Archangel

please don't turn this into a Vista vs XP thread. (its not Neowin here)

This IS a Vista vs. XP thread.

[Cheesus]

Right now I'm using XP on my laptop, and Vista on my main PC (both 32bit). Personally, I've had no problems with Vista, actually I've had much less problems than with XP. For me. At one point I removed Vista, and put XP... 3 days later I went back. Sure Vista isn't 'the perfect OS' everyone was hoping for, but, for me at least, the overall experience is much more enjoyable with Vista than with XP.

IIWY Vista 64bit. Definitely.

[d0x!]

according to these benchmarks, vista 64bit is faster than 32bit.

as far as i know xp 64 bit isnt supported as greatly as vista 64bit, so i think u may as well cross that off ur list (again i may be incorrect on this).

personnally i would choose between xp 32bit/vista 64bit

[SCHUMI-4-EVA]

If you are going to go 64bit (as you want to) it might aswell be Vista Ultimate.