buying new thinkpad - should I go with XP or Vista?

[sputnik611]

I'm about to buy a Thinkpad x300. Should I get it with Vista or XP? And if Vista, do I have a choice between 32bit and 64bit, and if so which one should I go for? Thanks!

[Marin85]

Actually, there is no general answer as to which OS is better. It´s really a matter of preference and it also depends pretty much on what you intend to do with your laptop. For instance, you may want to run programs that have some compatibility or performance issues with Vista, so XP would be the right choice. Or you like the new Aero outfit of windows and you´re tired of the boring poor XP animation
Since X300 is a very special machine (SSD, low-voltage cpu, integrated graphics...) I would suggest you to ask your question right in the X200/X30i subforum where you could find a plenty of shared experience. I think in your case some experience would give you a better idea than just listing theoretical advantages and disadvantages of both OSes.
Regarding 32bit vs 64bit Vista I can tell you following: If you intend to install 4 or more GBs of RAM it´s recommended to install a 64bit OS (many 32bit OSes like diverse Linux distributions or XP SP3 utilize the so called Physical Address Extension (PAE), but AFAIK there are some limitations and even performance issues (due to the limitations or whatsoever) in that case). Also, if you want to run some 64bit programs (mostly for performance reasons) like Matlab 64bit, 3ds Max 64bit, Maya 64bit or Photoshop CS4 64bit, I think you would be better off with Vista x64 (you don´t give Linux as an option ). In general, the x64 architecture provides better computational performance than 32bit, provided you use 64bit programs though. There were some performance issues with Vista x64 and 32bit applications (like M$ Office) reported a few months ago, but after SP1 this Vista flaw seems to have been polished. In theory, the x64 architecture is more stable and reliable than the 32bit one. Again theoretically, there is also less malware (viruses, trojans etc) that can run in a x64 environment. However, the same applies to a plenty of older programs (like in Windows 95) which are 16bit and don´t have a port in Vista x64. I think, basically that´s all that can be said about Vista vs. XP in a general manner.

Hope this helps

Marin

[sputnik611]

thanks marin.

anyone else have an opinion?

unless people think the 32 bit is really flawed or inferior to the 64, i guess i'd go with the 32.

[red bioroid]

Sorry for the lateness, I'm happy I've switched to x64 as

1) I want the newest technology and it seems to run fast.
2) I plan to run Adobe apps in x64
3) I think that is what the Core2 Duo is capable of doing
4) I have at least 4GB RAM installed.


Con:
1) Some, some old games don't install , but not a big issue.
2) I had to replace my old flatbed scanner.

[SnareBeast]

Vista Ultimate 32 bit runs very smooth on these machines.

[Stargate199]

I would go ahead and get Vista. Vista is the new Windows platform with so many changes under the hood. When Windows 7 becomes available, I would most defiantly do that upgrade based on the reviews of build 7000. I will able to download Windows 7 Beta tomorrow and will give my input after I get a chance to play around with it.

If you are getting 4GB of RAM, get 64-bit Vista so you can take advantage to all that memory. Keep in mind that only 32 bit a 64 bit programs will run under Vista 64 so older (like really old early 1990's) programs will not run.

[jdhurst]

I much agree on using 64-bit Vista. I honestly cannot see a reason for 32-bit Vista to even exist. 32-bit XP works every bit as well. 64-bit Vista will take advantage of newer processor technology and additional memory and will just simply work much faster. ... JDH

[bill bolton]

I honestly cannot see a reason for 32-bit Vista to even exist.

Some users still need straightforward (that is non-VM) support for specific purpose 16-bit software.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[mattbiernat]

Vista SP1 works extremly well on my X300. No BSOD, no freezes and hardware issues. I am happy that I moved on. Too bad that Lenovo sent me 32bit instead of 64bit and I weren't willing to exchange a perfectly good machine. I will just have to upgrade later on.

[dr_st]

I think that JDH and Bill pretty much hit the mark.

I too think that 32-bit Vista is a pointless OS, and would much prefer that it did not exist at all. This would push more people to 64-bit in the first place, and would cause all the compatibility/driver issues of the 64-bit to be resolved much faster. Also more people would write 64-bit software this way, and so more programs now would be using the advantages of the 64-bit architecture.

Then again, I agree with Bill that some people might have very specific needs, including old 16-bit software. However, what prevents those people from staying with XP, or dual-booting/emulating? Some people still need to use some DOS software that doesn't run on any NT-based system, but I don't see Microsoft keeping backwards compatibility for the sake of these. And you really cannot maintain compatibility with every little thing ever written.

Is the market of dedicated 16-bit software users so big that Microsoft released a 32-bit version just to not lose this market? I don't think so. I believe that they just did it, because they wanted more people to move to Vista faster, to make their sales, instead of aiming at the optimal long-term solution.

[FrankL]

I don't see why 32-bit Vista is 'bad' in any way! There are plenty computers without 64-bit capable CPUs and/or chipsets that can benefit from all the improvements that Vista brings. Once I tried Vista on my P4 with 4GB RAM (3.5GB usable), I definitely didn't want to switch back. Denying people with non-64bit capable hw this experience feels like a form of elitism.

[dr_st]

I don't see why 32-bit Vista is 'bad' in any way! There are plenty computers without 64-bit capable CPUs and/or chipsets that can benefit from all the improvements that Vista brings. Once I tried Vista on my P4 with 4GB RAM (3.5GB usable), I definitely didn't want to switch back. Denying people with non-64bit capable hw this experience feels like a form of elitism.

No, it just feels like progress. 64-bit CPUs have been available to the masses for more than 4 years now. The number of people who would want to run Vista on a P4 is negligibly small.

[jdhurst]

I don't see why 32-bit Vista is 'bad' in any way! There are plenty computers without 64-bit capable CPUs and/or chipsets that can benefit from all the improvements that Vista brings. Once I tried Vista on my P4 with 4GB RAM (3.5GB usable), I definitely didn't want to switch back. Denying people with non-64bit capable hw this experience feels like a form of elitism.

As always, I say that people should use what fits them, and I am not saying 32-bit is "bad"; merely "passe" in terms of future computing. For me, however, the only two advantages of Vista over XP are (1) the speed provided by 64-bit (big increase) and (2) the ability to have different screen resolutions with good text rendering. There have been no other improvements for me. .... JDH

[FrankL]

I don't see why 32-bit Vista is 'bad' in any way! There are plenty computers without 64-bit capable CPUs and/or chipsets that can benefit from all the improvements that Vista brings. Once I tried Vista on my P4 with 4GB RAM (3.5GB usable), I definitely didn't want to switch back. Denying people with non-64bit capable hw this experience feels like a form of elitism.

No, it just feels like progress. 64-bit CPUs have been available to the masses for more than 4 years now. The number of people who would want to run Vista on a P4 is negligibly small.

contrary to JDHurst, you do not give any reason for your opinion, only to strengthen my opinion that your opinion is solely based on a false sense of elitism.

As for JDHurst: I'd like to see benchmarks results of these so called massive speed increases of 64-bit. Afaik, the cases where 64-bit provides massive speed increases over 32-bit are limited for most usage scenarios, while there are clear disadvantages as well (significantly increased memory usage).

What I'm saying is that Vista 32-bit provides some serious enhancements over XP-x86 that make upgrading (providing there's enough ram in the PC, i.e. 1GB minimum, 2+GB preferably) a compelling option for those that get annoyed by XP's lack of a compositing window manager, piss-poor memory management (minimized programs get swapped to disk regardless of how much ram is free), bitlocker (a must-have for notebook owners that prefer something more userfriendly in use than TrueCrypt and that can encrypt the hibernation file), superprefetch, and countless of other improvements in Vista.

So maybe you do experience the limited amount of usage scenarios where 64-bit will help, but in general there are plenty of reasons for people to use Vista-x86 (especially if they have non-x64 capable hw and enough RAM).

[dr_st]

contrary to JDHurst, you do not give any reason for your opinion, only to strengthen my opinion that your opinion is solely based on a false sense of elitism.

Actually, I did, you just did not read closely enough.

I too think that 32-bit Vista is a pointless OS, and would much prefer that it did not exist at all. This would push more people to 64-bit in the first place, and would cause all the compatibility/driver issues of the 64-bit to be resolved much faster. Also more people would write 64-bit software this way, and so more programs now would be using the advantages of the 64-bit architecture.

[Marin85]

I too think that 32-bit Vista is a pointless OS, and would much prefer that it did not exist at all. This would push more people to 64-bit in the first place, and would cause all the compatibility/driver issues of the 64-bit to be resolved much faster. Also more people would write 64-bit software this way, and so more programs now would be using the advantages of the 64-bit architecture.

By the same argument I wish Windows did not exist at all. M$ pushed back software development by years...

I'd like to see benchmarks results of these so called massive speed increases of 64-bit. Afaik, the cases where 64-bit provides massive speed increases over 32-bit are limited for most usage scenarios, while there are clear disadvantages as well (significantly increased memory usage).

I couldn´t agree more! But the reason fot this is exactly the lack of native x64 applications as dr_st pointed out. If M$ Office was entirely 64bit (e.g. the most simple apps like Word, Excel, PowerPoint...) or CS4 was entirely 64bit incl Acrobat Pro, Vista x64 would be a better choice even for mediocre users. But as of now, Vista x64 offers advantages over x84 only for engineering, computational and design applications with native 64bit support like Matlab, Autocad, 3dsMax or Maya. In this case the performance difference is indeed noticeable.

[jdhurst]

<snip>
As for JDHurst: I'd like to see benchmarks results of these so called massive speed increases of 64-bit. Afaik, the cases where 64-bit provides massive speed increases over 32-bit are limited for most usage scenarios, while there are clear disadvantages as well (significantly increased memory usage).
---------------------
Thank you for your post.

My T61p Vista Business 64-bit starts up in about 2 minutes vs. 4 - 5 minutes for my T41 XP. That is the only comparison I can give.
----------------------
What I'm saying is that Vista 32-bit provides some serious enhancements over XP-x86 that make upgrading (providing there's enough ram in the PC, i.e. 1GB minimum, 2+GB preferably) a compelling option for those that get annoyed by XP's lack of a compositing window manager, piss-poor memory management (minimized programs get swapped to disk regardless of how much ram is free), bitlocker (a must-have for notebook owners that prefer something more userfriendly in use than TrueCrypt and that can encrypt the hibernation file), superprefetch, and countless of other improvements in Vista.
----------------------
My minimized programs in XP do NOT always swap to disk and I find memory management in XP to work well for me. Granted Vista has improved this, but XP does not hamper me in any way. I don't use bitlocker and don't find it a must-have YMMV. Superfetch apparently does not work on my Vista machine. I retreated to the pure classic interface so I could work vastly faster, and I think that took superfetch with it. I did upgrade the search to V4 in XP and find it works well. Vista search is a bit faster but it cannot find OCR text in .TIF files - XP can and this is a negative aspect of Vista.

I am working on this post on my IBM XP Desktop computer, and there is so little compelling in Vista that the next move (replacement) of this XP Desktop will be to an IBM Windows 7 64-bit desktop, and then I will upgrade my T61p to Windows 7 at the same time.

Thank you again for the dialogue - I do appreciate it.

<snip>

... JDH

[Followup] I took a look at Superfetch, and indeed, it is running. It is set (default) to load commonly used programs in memory (along with boot items) for quick access. Since I have been using 7200-rpm drives almost forever, I assumed that quick access in Vista was like my quick access in XP and was related to fast disks. Perhaps superfetch is helping as well. Thanks again. ... JDH