I have had zero problems with Vista 64. It installed with no problems and my 5 year old printer worked. The only issue I have is with the boot up that is very slow and there are tons of posts about this. Once it is running everything is extremely fast (the 4 gig helps) and I have all the eye candy running even while playing AoC.

As far as 32 bit applications go Vista 64 knows the difference between the 2 so 32 bit apps get installed in folder "Program Files (x86)" and 64 bit go in "Program Files". I installed a few of my old 32 bit tools and all of them worked fine. I feel people are crying wolf when it comes to software compatibility.

The operating system took a few days to get used to from the standpoint of finding what I wanted but after using it for a week everything made more sense and I don't regret getting it.

I mainly choose Vista 64 for my latest build for DX10 and I figured in a year or 2 it will be more common so why not just take the plunge now. I just read M$ is stopping sales on XP in June so it is going to die eventually no matter how much people complain.

edit:

Oh another bonus is I wanted Vista 64 because XP only supports up to around 3.5 gig memory. I currently have 4 gig but for another $100 I can easily jump up to 8 gig. One thing I have read about Vista is it knows how much extra memory you are not using so it loads more of the OS in memory to make things faster then if apps need more it scales back. Right now with just Firefox open I am using 1.4 gig memory and with AoC running it is around 3.2 gig. A lower ram setup using Vista 64 supposedly would not use as much so I suppose this is why Vista is "slower" as some complain about. Everything I read is get 4 gig or more and then it flies.

After reading this I might just make the switch. I have been thinking about doing this for a while now, but your info might just put me over the edge.

Thanks

The only reason i held out on the 64-bit OS was because i knew some games using punkbuster had major issues (Call of Duty 4 for example). But once I started reading about poeple in beta playing on 64 in aoC without problem, I payed the $11 for microsoft to upgrade mine to 64. Should be here next week . But I made sure all my devices and components had 64-bit support prior to purchasing the 64-bit. One other thing i heard was some routers had probelms, it made no sense to me but when i was in sales a customer was complaining saysing that. Do you use a router kohr and if so, is it old(mine is about 6 years now but does the job well!).

Edit:
Hectiaz if your thinking of doing the switching, go on your manufactures website and double check for 64-bit drivers. You'd kick yourself after spending the money and not being able to use it. Unless you mean your just making an entirely new machine.

Vir Umbra wrote:The only reason i held out on the 64-bit OS was because i knew some games using punkbuster had major issues (Call of Duty 4 for example). But once I started reading about poeple in beta playing on 64 in aoC without problem, I payed the $11 for microsoft to upgrade mine to 64. Should be here next week . But I made sure all my devices and components had 64-bit support prior to purchasing the 64-bit. One other thing i heard was some routers had probelms, it made no sense to me but when i was in sales a customer was complaining saysing that. Do you use a router kohr and if so, is it old(mine is about 6 years now but does the job well!).

Edit:
Hectiaz if your thinking of doing the switching, go on your manufactures website and double check for 64-bit drivers. You'd kick yourself after spending the money and not being able to use it. Unless you mean your just making an entirely new machine.

I have whatever router AT&T game me. I believe it is a 2Wire. I also use Vonage for my home phone and no issues there either. The "only" hardware that I have not tried is an old gps unit that I use at the deer lease that connects using the com port.

Kohr, thanks for the good information. I've been steering most away from Vista because they are not computer/windows savvy enough to work through some of the difficulties out there. I've also read that SP1 has taken care of a lot of issues.

Also, Athlon systems tend to like Vista where Intel systems choke. Intel chip sets make you only install 2g of ram for installation (on my of their chip sets). Once installed, you need to run SP1 update, then open your box and install the rest of your ram (totally bogus if you ask me).

Based on your review, I'm now leaning towards V64 again. I really want a 64 bit OS!

Glad to help. I have used AMD for so long I don't even look at Intel chips anymore. The only real issue I had with my build was I wanted an AMD processor but a single PCIE 2.0 slot with AMD chipset. Well I could not find that kind of motherboard so I went with Nvidia chipset (some say don't do this).

I believe I read somewhere that this is only a concern if you plan to use 2 or more graphic cards (SLI or Crossfire). I like a good and fast PC but I just cannot justify getting 2 cards when I can just spend the same money on a single card. Plus I use dual monitors at home/work and I believe you cannot do SLI/Crossfire with dual monitors easily (if at all).

Card prices have fallen...

You can get to 8800GT OC for under 200. One 9800 is still around the 500 mark and still a lot slower than 2 8800GT's. It's amazing how fast the 8800 series fell in price. But interesting point on the Duel's... I'll have to research that. As a programmer it would be suicide to go back to one monitor!

Excuse me while I go to Toms to look up the Phenom info. You've peeked my interest!

Well, my new PC is on the way... I tweaked a few things especially the memory/processor/mb to get a bit more performance... The processor dropped $100 in the last week and made it irresistable. It's still the QUAD but it's based of the extreme and has the same 12MB L2. Reports have this OC'd up to 3.6... WOOT! Anyway, here it is:

Antec Nine Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
Antec TPQ-850 ATX12V / EPS12V 850W Power Supply
XFX MB-N780-ISH9 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 780i SLI
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Yorkfield 2.66GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core
OCZ Reaper HPC 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
2 EVGA 512-P3-N802-AR GeForce 8800GT Superclocked 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI
Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM SATA 1.5Gb/s Hard Drive
Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD4000AAKS 400GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
Pioneer 20X DVD±R DVD Burner Black IDE Model DVR-115DBK
ZALMAN CNPS9700 LED 110mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler

After our vent meeting, I'm going for Vista 64... Everything in my being is saying not too, but how can I have a 64 bit processor running at 32bit? It's just not right!

If I could offer a word of advice: most games are not really optimized to run on quad-core processors at the moment, so a strong dual-core processor will generally outperform a quad. I apologize that I can't post a link (because I'm not at my home computer), but I read an extensive review that compared a Q6600 against an E8500 (E8400 too, I think), and the E8500 easily outperformed the quad-core in every simulation. Now, it may be that this is different in a few years' time, but for the near future expect lower performance from quad-core chipsets.

Also, from what I read around the internet, the general consensus is that a strong single video card will outperform two weaker cards in SLI. Now, if you're looking at two 8800GTs versus a GTX, that's probably a crapshoot, because the GT is a such a solid card. But if you were looking at a x600 or something, or even a GS model card, you'd probably be better off with a single GT. (If I'm wrong on this, please correct me!)

I'm also doing a system upgrade, but I'm not going as balls out as you playa's. I'm getting a PNY 8800GT card, an Asrock Penryn N1600SLI board, an E8400 processor, and a 500GB 32mb cache Seagate drive. I'm also tossing in 4 gigs of RAM and reusing the case, power and DVD drive of my current box. The nice thing about all that was that it ought to run AoC pretty well (not max, but med-high settings I'm hoping), and it only cost me $750. I could have saved a few bucks if I had shopped around for the video card, instead of just picking one up for $230.

For people considering upgrading for AoC, but not sure of what they would want to buy, I might recommend two of the items I purchased:

1. The Intel E8400 3.0GHz dual-core processor. Very affordable ($199.00 on Newegg), and scores very highly on almost comparison chart it measures against. In tests it outperformed the Q6600 quad-core, and comes in about $30 lower than that chip. Additionally, it makes use of the newer 45mm Wolfdale chip architecture, which reduces power consumption and increases efficiency. Its bigger brother, the E8500, is $100 more expensive but not significantly faster (3.16GHz as opposed to 3.0). This chip qualifies as "exceeds recommended specifications" for AoC (the recommendation being a 2.4GHz dual-core processor).

2. The nVidia 8800GT 512mb video card. Another bargain, this card ranks high on Tomshardware.com's "best bang for the buck" charts (several months running). It performs respectably against cards that cost twice as much, and is kind of the nVidia "flagship card" for the time being. Not the most powerful on the market, but like the E8400, it's a great marriage of power and price (this card will cost around $180-250; more if you buy it overclocked). Also like the E8400, this card beats the "recommended specs" for video cards in AoC (the recommendation here being the 7900GTX). This card is also PCIe 2.0 and Dx10 ready.

That's just my two cents. I try to be a fairly informed consumer, and I also don't like spending $500 for 100% of what I want when I can drop $200 for 80% of what I want.

Dao Jones wrote:If I could offer a word of advice: most games are not really optimized to run on quad-core processors at the moment, so a strong dual-core processor will generally outperform a quad. I apologize that I can't post a link (because I'm not at my home computer), but I read an extensive review that compared a Q6600 against an E8500 (E8400 too, I think), and the E8500 easily outperformed the quad-core in every simulation. Now, it may be that this is different in a few years' time, but for the near future expect lower performance from quad-core chipsets.

Dao... very good information and all correct. I know I labeled this thread in regards to blowing AoC out of the water, but the truth of the matter is, it will be used 90% of the time for my work. The E8500 is an awesome chip and I almost considered buying it, but because we are only talking $50 difference, I opted for the quad core. Games perform slightly less at stock for the Q6600, but when comparing other applications the Q6600 starts to pull away from the duel core.

The SLI statement you made is true to a point. nVidia made a great solid foundation in the 8800 series. So much so, that the difference between just a normal GT and GTX are very slight. Now price wise there is no comparison... GTX = $350. The GT OC version I just got for $179. So for the price of 1 GTX, I got two GT OC's. Chart wise, the GT OC SLI outperforms the GTX most of the time. In some cases by 50 to 100%. So price wise and performance wise, this was a no brainer.

However, I agree with you that being informed is the only way to go. Once you know all your options and how they fit into your plans, you can make the decisions right for you.

Also, for those reading this, you might want to rethink the Q6600 vs Q9450. I just read an article (too late for me) that says the Q6600 for overclockers is a better all around chip than the Q9450. Even tho the L2 on the Q9450 is huge, they tuned the multiplier down to 8. The Q6600 has a 9 multiplier meaning you will get higher more stable overclocks.

I'm hoping this build last me another 4 years...

Thanks again for the info Dao...