EVE Search - New computer

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

New computer - OS advice

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
WredStorm Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:15:00 - [1] Hello all, I'm about to build a new computer that will be primarily for game playing. It'll probably be an Intel quadcore (I know not a lot games support multiple cores but I like to be able to play poker and fiddle around at times while also running Eve). I plan on picking up an nVidia 8800GT video card (just one, not SLI). Where I'm stuck is trying to figure out whether I want to stick with Windows XP or if I want to move to Vista (most likely the Home Premium edition as I don't see anything in the Ultimate version that I'd really need). My questions are: 1) Does one have to be running Vista in order to use the premium graphics in Eve? 2) Will Eve run okay on the 64 bit version of Vista? 3) Is there a difference between the retail vs. system builder (OEM) versions of Vista other than the fact that the OEM version has different licensing and support (e.g.: do they have all the same drivers, etc.)? 4) If you have personal experience with both operating systems, which would you recommend for a gaming computer? Thanks for any help/insights, WredStorm
RaTTuS BIG Ka-Tet	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:16:00 - [2] Go with XP though nothing really wrong with vista .. [well apart from the usual ] -- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve [Now Verified] & Recruiting
Kirao	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:19:00 - [3] 1) No. Eve is DX9 not DX10 2) 64 bit vista = driver nightmare :P Also a waste of time. How many 64 bit apps do you have ? 3) Retail gives 32 and 64 bit versions, oem is either 32 OR 64 4) Xp seems to perform faster than Vista. (i dual boot both) On 3dmark06 i get an increased score with XP. Eve's in game frame rate shows a few frames faster with xp Overall XP seems far more suited to gaming than vista.
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:23:00 - [4] Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:24:00 - [5] Edited by: Alowishus on 16/01/2008 17:24:39 XP for games. Vista for...? When Microsoft stops supporting XP in two years I am going to cry. And since I'm head of IT here at work and all our machines currently run XP, I'm probably also going to drink a bucket of Clorox. /makes fart noise
Kirao	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:27:00 - [6] Vista is XP pre servicepack. We will all be using Vista eventually. Just like we all moved over to XP despite all the cries of how bad it was when it was first released. Saying this though, your a monkey if you dont wait a long while for vista to stabilise :P

CCP Wrangler	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:28:00 - [7] Eventually you probably have to move over to Vista, but having both, right now I'd recommend XP. Wrangler Community Manager CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."

Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Kirao Just like we all moved over to XP despite all the cries of how bad it was when it was first released. Pre SP1 XP was still far better than ME. Those switching from 2000 may have cried but anyone switching from ME was probably in heaven. ME was, by far, the worst MS OS ever. Here it is as PC World's #4 (of 25) worst tech products of all time. ME made me homicidal. /makes fart noise
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:38:00 - [9] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eventually you probably have to move over to Vista, but having both, right now I'd recommend XP. We can always hope vista goes the way of ME. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Kirao	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:38:00 - [10] Originally by: Alowishus Originally by: Kirao Just like we all moved over to XP despite all the cries of how bad it was when it was first released. Pre SP1 XP was still far better than ME. Those switching from 2000 may have cried but anyone switching from ME was probably in heaven. ME was, by far, the worst MS OS ever. Here it is as PC World's #4 (of 25) worst tech products of all time. ME made me homicidal. People actually installed ME ??
BritBullet R.U.S.T. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:39:00 - [11] I never really had any problems with ME. ______________________________________________
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:40:00 - [12] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eventually you probably have to move over to Vista Yes, once MS stops supporting XP, every hacker in the galaxy will exploit it and there will be no patches coming out to seal up the holes. You'll have to switch to Vista to be secure (I can practically hear all the Linux users rolling their eyes at this). If you want to stick with MS, that is. Linux and Mac are inherently secure because MS operating systems are the low hanging fruit for hackers. I'm not sure what I'll do at home. At work dealing with Vista is inevitable. I'm not worried about dealing with Vista day-to-day so much, it's the upgrade/migration I am concerned with. We have a very delicate production system and it has really limited our ability to upgrade software, let alone operating systems. It's going to be hell for me. /makes fart noise
Khanid Kutie I R Teh Poasting Alt Corp	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:41:00 - [13] Originally by: RaTTuS Go with XP though nothing really wrong with vista .. [well apart from the usual ] nothing wrong with vista?? you're kidding, right?
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:44:00 - [14] Edited by: Alowishus on 16/01/2008 17:44:44 Frug, I've already been speculating about that. ME didn't last long because it was so terrible. It's too early to tell if Vista is as bad, but if it is then hopefully Microsoft pulls an ME. Originally by: Kirao People actually installed ME ?? No. But it seems that moms, sisters and grandparents bought billions of HP Pavilions and Compaq Presarios preloaded with it and it was a nightmare for every "computer guy" in a family. /makes fart noise
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:49:00 - [15] XP was pretty bloated and slow compared to Windows 98, and I hated the file structure tampering too. Getting your hardware to work was a pain and a lot of your old programs had repeatability issues. Vista is the same, and I guarantee you the only reason every gamer isn't using Vista right now is because DX10 is a load of crap. Virtually every advantage it gives is from the development side, and so far I haven't seen a single game pull off even a mediocre advantage in graphics that couldn't be made to work under DX9. Failing that, every person would still be on Vista if it were faster than XP, and it isn't. Eventually that's going to happen, but most likely because of new hardware and XP's lack of support - same way 98 died. Microsoft needs to start making two versions of windows only - Client and Server, with both being configurable for home or business environments. Client should sell for maybe 100 bucks tops and Server should sell for maybe 500. Both need to have amazingly intuitive and efficient UIs. _______________________________ Complex Fullerene Shards; why God? :\|
Neamus	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:51:00 - [16] I've been running 64bit Vista Home Premium on my newer machine for some time now and bar one or two minor issues it's been a very reliable and capable games machine OS. Providing you have the hardware to back it up (you'll want 4GB RAM for x64) you should be fine. XP is a good OS, especially for older hardware but if you are buying new components I cant think of any good reason not to at least try Vista.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Cult of Rawr	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:56:00 - [17] I miss Win98se best MS OS ever imo. I only stopped using it mid-2006 and only because nothing supported it anymore. WTS Moros
Kirao	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:58:00 - [18] Originally by: Neamus I cant think of any good reason not to at least try Vista. Compared to XP its slower Driver support isnt great Cost Doesnt offer anything new Application compatibility isnt that great DRM (TPM)
Richard Phallus	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:59:00 - [19] Vista is the new Microsoft Bob --
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 18:04:00 - [20] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Microsoft needs to start making two versions of windows only - Client and Server, with both being configurable for home or business environments. Client should sell for maybe 100 bucks tops and Server should sell for maybe 500. Both need to have amazingly intuitive and efficient UIs. Microsoft doesn't have the billion or so tech support people that would be needed when all the moms/sisters/grandparents call in when they changed something in their totally configurable OS and had an undesirable result. The answer is to get Linux and do whatever you want, or if you're incapable for any number of reasons, get Microsoft, eat your **** and ask for seconds. Microsoft isn't about being good, it's about being universal. It's directed at the laymen because there are more of them. It's a vicious cycle because most development is geared toward the OS that is geared toward the most people. It has been and always will be Microsoft. I've pretty much accepted it and haven't even messed with Linux in eight years. /makes fart noise
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.16 18:34:00 - [21] Originally by: Rawr Cristina I miss Win98se best MS OS ever imo. I only stopped using it mid-2006 and only because nothing supported it anymore. I used to think that too, but XP has now proven itself as the best OS available in my opinion. And it's very painful for me to acknowledge something like that. It hurts my soul. But the people who are comparing Vista to XP by saying "well XP sucked when it first came out too" are generalizing in a silly way. Just because it's newer doesn't mean its better, and it doesn't mean it ever will be better. XP introduced some significant changes that users needed. USEFUL changes. What does vista do aside from consume more memory and run slower? For 98 users you could say "well XP does this and this, and 98 can't." What does vista have? DX10? - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2008.01.16 18:55:00 - [22] Originally by: Alowishus Originally by: DigitalCommunist Microsoft needs to start making two versions of windows only - Client and Server, with both being configurable for home or business environments. Client should sell for maybe 100 bucks tops and Server should sell for maybe 500. Both need to have amazingly intuitive and efficient UIs. Microsoft doesn't have the billion or so tech support people that would be needed when all the moms/sisters/grandparents call in when they changed something in their totally configurable OS and had an undesirable result. The answer is to get Linux and do whatever you want, or if you're incapable for any number of reasons, get Microsoft, eat your **** and ask for seconds. Microsoft isn't about being good, it's about being universal. It's directed at the laymen because there are more of them. It's a vicious cycle because most development is geared toward the OS that is geared toward the most people. It has been and always will be Microsoft. I've pretty much accepted it and haven't even messed with Linux in eight years. I run both, and I've got extensive experience with different OS. What you've just given me is the party line that everyone's come to believe. Ubuntu isn't any more difficult to the layman whose using Windows 98 for the first time. Slackware on the other hand, is what the Linux geek would use. If I'm experienced with various operating systems, and I can only navigate my way around Vista because of my experiences with other MS products, doesn't it stand to reason that Microsoft is no longer targeting the PC newbie? Rather, they've begun focusing on people who grew up with their stuff and are looking for something with more depth than Windows 98. They have the largest installed user base in the desktop market, and they can afford to do that. But don't think for one second that what Microsoft is focusing on is somehow the broadest form of PC use. _______________________________ Complex Fullerene Shards; why God? :\|
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:28:00 - [23] Originally by: Alowishus Edited by: Alowishus on 16/01/2008 17:44:44 Frug, I've already been speculating about that. ME didn't last long because it was so terrible. It's too early to tell if Vista is as bad, but if it is then hopefully Microsoft pulls an ME. Originally by: Kirao People actually installed ME ?? No. But it seems that moms, sisters and grandparents bought billions of HP Pavilions and Compaq Presarios preloaded with it and it was a nightmare for every "computer guy" in a family. This. OP, if you can pull it off cheaply, you might consider dual booting. There's nothing too horrendously wrong with Vista right now, but it just doesn't seem to add much over XP. I'm personally waiting until Microsoft puts out SP1 at least, then I'll probably buy a second hard drive and install Vista on that (student discount ftw). But in all likelihood, I'll use XP SP2 primarily (and occasionally Linux variants) until this computer dies on me somehow. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Grimm Myn Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:36:00 - [24] 1. No 2. Should yea 3. OEM = no support from microsoft, you gotta bring it back to the place you got it instead. thats all 4. Stick with XP until atleast SP1 for Vista. Personally, i loved 2000, that was the best OS imo. 98se was awesome too. ME was a laugh. And now im running XP on all my machines and love it, if i configure the menu and windows to look like 98/2000 style [404] Signature not found.
Zuko Droner	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:42:00 - [25] How about you just buy Vista, and install XP. When the time comes, move to Vista. Might have to find someone with a copy to install, and talk to some outsourced guy for actiavation but they never give a crap anyway.
MenanceWhite Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:47:00 - [26] XP. Test build of SP3 has been released, I'm currently using it and it's stable and has'nt crashed on me yet. Try it, it runs slightly faster than previous XP. --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
Damneia Achernius Northen Breeze	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:47:00 - [27] Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. only for ppl whit sucky pcs :P my laptop acctually runs vista premium better than xp pro whit sp2 only place where vista kest pwned hard is copying alot of stuff. from drive to drive and through netowork(lot slower than whit xp) overall i love vista even tho i run xp on my PC still :P
Fenderson Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:51:00 - [28] i will probably be flamed for saying this but i think vista will never see universal adoption. i know people compare the XP->Vista transition to previous transitions like win2k-->XP but that is just not a valid comparison imo. heres why: 1) win2k just plain sucked. there was a real need for the switch to the faaar more stable XP 2) competition from mac. altho i think this is the least important factor, macs are gaining market share fast. when XP came out, macs were basically a joke in the home computing market. 3) Linux. the latest versions of linux (especially ubuntu) are easy to use, easy to install, and are starting to be offered on alot more platforms. dell is now offering OEM ubuntu, for example. Linux is going to see very widespread adoption in the markets of developing nations, and therefore will eventually take over as the universal standard. bottom line: stick with XP for now, and dual-boot linux if you want to look toward the future. DO YOU PLAY POKER???? Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em"
Cassandra Beckinsale	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:53:00 - [29] Originally by: WredStorm Hello all, I'm about to build a new computer that will be primarily for game playing. It'll probably be an Intel quadcore (I know not a lot games support multiple cores but I like to be able to play poker and fiddle around at times while also running Eve). I plan on picking up an nVidia 8800GT video card (just one, not SLI). Where I'm stuck is trying to figure out whether I want to stick with Windows XP or if I want to move to Vista (most likely the Home Premium edition as I don't see anything in the Ultimate version that I'd really need). My questions are: 1) Does one have to be running Vista in order to use the premium graphics in Eve? 2) Will Eve run okay on the 64 bit version of Vista? 3) Is there a difference between the retail vs. system builder (OEM) versions of Vista other than the fact that the OEM version has different licensing and support (e.g.: do they have all the same drivers, etc.)? 4) If you have personal experience with both operating systems, which would you recommend for a gaming computer? Thanks for any help/insights, WredStorm Put OpenSuse 10.3 64 bit and reserve a 50 GB space for a windows XP system for gaming purposes. Microsoft OS suck totally and deserve only to be used for play games, like a console.
Fehz Combat and Mining Utility Inc. Brotherhood Of Steel	Posted - 2008.01.16 20:02:00 - [30] Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. spoken like a true "i'm terrified of change" zealot.. but seriously.. I have vista 64.. It was horrible in the first 3 months.. Drivers mainly, not Microsoft's fault that 3rd party hardware manufacturers didn't fix their drivers when RC1 or beta was out.. But go with Vista 32 bit IMHO. I'd like to see the 64-bit windows era be ushered in, but people also need their performance. In a lot of cases, 64-bit apps run slower from what I see. 64-bit was not supposed to be for increased performance though -- it was mainly to support more system resource for huge programs and databases and such. But with my core 2 duo overclocked to 3.2 ghz and an 8800gtx, I can run 2 eve clients @ 50-90 fps each while using the flip-3d feature of vista.. XP with SP3 is supposed to be nice though.. But if you want to run anything in DX10 like Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Bioshock.. You'll need Vista.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.