Originally Posted by SkimMilk
Purely opinion but go XP your machine will support 64 so go XP64. Vista reminds me to much of ME in the way Microsoft released it. If MS ever did create a pile of junk it was ME. I think we will be saying the same thing about Vista in a few years when MS comes out with Windows 7. Vista is just MS using us as guinea pigs for MS 7 just like ME for XP. Just an opinion.
I agree that Vista wasn 't ready for "prime-time" when released but no Microshaft product ever released has been. That said, I believe you're confused in your ME/ XP analogy as they are two completely different OSes based on entirely different architectures. ME was the last of MS's 16 bit OS that shared more in common with Windows 3.X/Dos than XP which is a 32bit OS that shares a heritage that dates back to Win NT. The inside joke about Win 9.x (which ME was the final version) was, "Windows, a 32bit GUI running on a 16bit OS, originally designed to run on an 8bit processor". In other words the whole thing was kludged together.
XP on the other hand was designed from the ground up to be a 32bit OS with the lessons learned from Win NT/2K. Win2K is actually the most stable/secure and fastest of any Microshaft 32bit OSes. So much so that many still use Win2K including many companies and Gov't agencies (as in Defense and Homeland Security Depts.) that require the utmost in speed, security and stability.
Originally Posted by KalAshlar
I'm a little biased, but until XP gets DX10 support, I am sticking with vista. Yes it takes more resources than an 8 year old OS but it also does more. the arguments I hear torwards staying with XP are the same arguements I heard people using to stay with 98, then 2000 and now XP.
XP is never going to get DX10 support, which by the way is the most overhyped/ underutilized excuse to sell new hardware since the advent of discreet 3D graphic cards. Why do I say that? Look at the dearth of actual software that takes advantage of it fully 2 plus years after its release. This is because of the dramatic shift by software vendors away from writing games for the PC towards game consoles over the last few years.
More and more these vendors aren't even porting to the PC and writing exclusively to consoles. There's just more of an installed base of gaming consoles now vs. that of gaming PC rigs. Heck, you can't even get any of the new EA Sports titles on PC anymore, and that's just one example (bye bye Madden Football).
The costs of porting to multiple platforms/ architectures and the fact that stores no longer want to waste money and valuable floor space carrying 4 or 5 ports of the same title, means that the future of PC gaming is uncertain if not waning. Just my 2 cents.