# Which operating system?



## bigdaddy486 (Oct 20, 2007)

Should i use xp or vista? If vista, which edition? My signature is my Rig........


----------



## Cool G5 (Oct 20, 2007)

I suggest you use XP pro.
You can upgrade to Vista later.


----------



## alsiladka (Oct 20, 2007)

You should go for Windows XP.
For Windows Vista, you should upgrade your Graphix Card, Ram and Hard Disk.


----------



## Pathik (Oct 20, 2007)

U can easily run vista.. Btw i think u shd trash ur gfx card.. The onboard x3000 ll perform just as good


----------



## praka123 (Oct 20, 2007)

I will recommend you Ubuntu Linux


----------



## QwertyManiac (Oct 20, 2007)

Vista will work fine but its better to stick with XP for now. Wait till more and more Vista exclusive bull crap flows in and then shift on to it.


----------



## bikdel (Oct 21, 2007)

I suggest you to sell away your gaphics card, add some money and go for >160 GB SATA II HDD with 16 MB buffer....

trust  me!

in Windows Vista Experience Test; your card gives an overall 2.0 out of 5.0!!!

whereas the inbuilt G965 gives 3.1 out of 5.0

also it is hell lot better in gaming than ur crappy(sorry) card...
The TC(turbo cache) version resembles integrated graphix in the way that when inbuilt Video RAM becomes inadequate, Main memory is used as VRAM...

so all in all , get a new HDD, sell ur card to add up some money required for ur HDD purchase..

and go for vista... i think you are an average user and Vista upgrade wont be troublesome for you 

Ur system will SMOOTHLY run vista....

you can later go for 1 GB RAM more and configure them in dual channel for performance boost...


----------



## ravi_9793 (Oct 21, 2007)

Vista will work fine on your system.But for best performance and aero theme of vista you need to upgrade to 1Gb RAM and get a decent graphics card.

I will recommend you to buy vista home premium.
I will not recommend you to use XP..as its age will soon over.Go for XP only if you have money problem..else buying Vista will be a cleaver idea.


----------



## gxsaurav (Oct 21, 2007)

bigdaddy486 said:
			
		

> Should i use xp or vista? If vista, which edition? My signature is my Rig........



Judging by your rig, & assuming u don't play games much, upgrade to Windows Vista Home premium. You can get it in market for as low as Rs 5,000 depending on where u r.

With a Rig like that, using XP means u r seriously limiting the hardware capability of your rig.

You CPU, motherboard, RAM & harddisk are fine.

Don't replace your geforce 6200 TC, although it uses shared RAM but still it is a dedicated GPU something the onboard GPU can never match.

If you can spend some money get another 1 GB RAM & a GeForce 8 series graphics card.



> But for best performance and aero theme of vista you need to upgrade to 1Gb RAM and get a decent graphics card.



He already has these 2 requirments fullfilled


----------



## bikdel (Oct 21, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Judging by your rig, & assuming u don't play games much, upgrade to Windows Vista Home premium. You can get it in market for as low as Rs 5,000 depending on where u r.
> 
> With a Rig like that, using XP means u r seriously limiting the hardware capability of your rig.
> 
> ...




Please clarify why the 6200 TC is surprisingly BETTER than g965 and in which scenario can the G965 NOT reach/cross the performance of 6200 TC??

One thing should be taken care of.... here TC - Turbo Cache means a lot...
i mean its not one great technical advancement..., its actually BIT OF A BOTTLENECK!!!

By the way, the G965 is also a Dedicatdd

BTW, 

the GMA x3000 is also a dedicated GPU... its just ibuilt into the MOBO, that doesnt mean its not a DEDICATED GPU... only the RAM is shared... similar to 6200 TC...
and FYI the GMA x300 has a core clock speed of 667 MHZ!! whereas the 6200 TC passes out at some ~300 odd number...
so all in all, i still stand by the fact that 6200 TC will be a greater bottleneck in his PC than GMA x 3000!!


----------



## gxsaurav (Oct 21, 2007)

bikdel said:
			
		

> Please clarify why the 6200 TC is surprisingly BETTER than g965 and in which scenario can the G965 NOT reach/cross the performance of 6200 TC??
> 
> One thing should be taken care of.... here TC - Turbo Cache means a lot...
> i mean its not one great technical advancement..., its actually BIT OF A BOTTLENECK!!!



So? The GeForce 6200 TC does uses shared memory, but there are many models with 128 MB Memory + shared memory. both use shared memory, so shared memory performance isn't much different. But the GPU of 6200TC does more work then Onboard intel 965G



			
				bikdel said:
			
		

> and FYI the GMA x300 has a core clock speed of 667 MHZ!! whereas the 6200 TC passes out at some ~300 odd number...



Lolz...that combined with a software vertex shader engine, which does vertex shader processing in software compared to hardware in case of 6200 GPU, along with less number of pipelines compared to 6200 & less overall texel & pixel throughoutput /bandwidth

When compared GPU to GPU, 6200TC is better then GMA X3000 for gaming.

Just for running Windows Vista, there is hardly any difference in these 2. So why sale the GFX card when u can play games on it better then what u can play on GMA X3000


----------



## bikdel (Oct 21, 2007)

please post some benchmark results...
what kinda performance are you talking about?

core performance, shader performance???


try the windws vista experience test for yourslef with both GFX and u'll see the difference...

a score of 2.0 out of 5.0 for 6200 TC
AND 3.1 out of 5.0 for gma x3000... are they false??

they do mean a lot dude.....

a difference of 1.1 means huge performance difference and no benchmark tool, test will have that great inaccuracy!


----------



## gxsaurav (Oct 21, 2007)

bikdel said:
			
		

> please post some benchmark results...


 Sorry, don't have time, money & hardware for this. Check on the net yourself.



> what kinda performance are you talking about? core performance, shader performance???


Yup



> try the windws vista experience test for yourslef with both GFX and u'll see the difference...
> 
> a score of 2.0 out of 5.0 for 6200 TC
> AND 3.1 out of 5.0 for gma x3000... are they false??


Thats for running Windows Vista boy, try running a game on both (See benchmarks on net) & u will see that a 6200TC is outperforming GMA X3000 by a slim margin


----------



## bikdel (Oct 21, 2007)

okay.. according to u 6200 TC is better........

but consider the fact...
hes gonna hav to upgrade the card sooner or later, and he can get some money by selling it off and can get a new HDD which is, more important to him, i guess!

i mean 

6200TC to GMA X3000 = 80 GB to 80+160 GB

good enough!

and there is no difference in performance as such...

i am just giving him a new angle, 
I HAVE NOT YET ACCEPTED THAT 6200 TC IS SUPERIOR TO GMA X3000!!

lolz,
we are talking about running Windows Vista here and not gaming...

he was asking about running windows vista in his PC and i just have to say that i recommend GMA x3000


----------



## gxsaurav (Oct 21, 2007)

bikdel said:
			
		

> but consider the fact...hes gonna hav to upgrade the card sooner or later


 
Yup, then buy when u need it.

Your suggestion is good & does makes sense but why sale it if he doesn't need a new HD? Right now he can game on the PC better then what he can game with GMA X3000


> I HAVE NOT YET ACCEPTED THAT 6200 TC IS SUPERIOR TO GMA X3000!!


 
Fine, don't, whether u accept it or not hardly matters to me.


----------



## The_Devil_Himself (Oct 21, 2007)

IMO X3000 is one of the best onboard graphic chip available and easily beats 6200tc.And it is vista premium ready I think.<<This is what he needs.

see THIS thread for more info.


----------



## Ponmayilal (Oct 21, 2007)

Go for Vista Home Premium. I will have no second thoughts on it.


----------



## bikdel (Oct 21, 2007)

^^^ Yep, Fully Windows Vista


----------



## Pathik (Oct 21, 2007)

The driver upgrade from intel makes x3000 the best intel onboard gfx soln and it does beat 6200tc in gaming performance as well


----------



## bikdel (Oct 21, 2007)

GMA X3000 is Fully Vista compatible and perhaps more than that... the earlier GMA 950 is also fully comaptible and even older GMA 900 should also have worked out AERO but something went wrong and even though the hardware supported it, the drivers utilising those features were never made!

@ pathiks... 
yeah...

intel was planning DX 10 support as well with its final drivers but i dunno...
maybe the intel guys are too farsighted


----------



## Krazy_About_Technology (Oct 21, 2007)

I'll recommend Vista Home Premium, the best you can buy for your system. Your system will run all the premium features nicely. Whether you want to keep ur card, or sell ur card and buy a hdd or keep ur card and buy a hdd or whatever... its up to you, what you need. It wont affect your Vista experience by noticeble margins.


----------



## bigdaddy486 (Oct 21, 2007)

So, if i switch to x3000 and 160GB HDD, can i run vista smoothly? Does x3000 support DX10?


----------



## fun2sh (Oct 21, 2007)

NO X3000 doesnt support directX10 but it support DX9 which is equally gud. i heard that intel wil release a driver which will enable the DX10 support on it. n dont think vista is bad. i m now enjoyin vista more than xp. in beginnin every new things feels a bit crap but wen u get used to it then u will know vista is lots more better than all other OS


----------



## The_Devil_Himself (Oct 21, 2007)

Guys Windows aero effect makes use of DX9 not DX10.


----------



## bikdel (Oct 21, 2007)

Well @bigdaddy486

as i said in my earilier post INTEL planned to include DX10 support with their final drivers... In their own words "If Everything goes Okay"

but as final drivers have been released, i dont think intels gonna work again to update the drivers of an IGP released 1.5 yrs ago...

the new X3500 is to succed x3000...

But DX 10 or not DX10, doesnt make much difference when you are using a mediocore/low-end GPU.... 

at last, Bon Voyage for Vista

@ The Devil Himself...

then why is it generally hyped that DX 10 cards are made for performance in windows Vista, when the main engine itself works on DX 9?


----------



## gxsaurav (Oct 21, 2007)

bikdel said:
			
		

> then why is it generally hyped that DX 10 cards are made for performance in windows Vista, when the main engine itself works on DX 9?


 
Windows Aero engine uses DirectX 9 to work, but if u have a directX 10 card it makes use of DirectX engine using which results in more work being done in less clock cycles of the GPU.

DirectX brings other features to the table which were not in DirectX 9 like geometry shader, WDDM, Unified shader, GPU virtualisation, ability to use the GPU as a GPGPU etc etc


----------



## Tech_Wiz (Oct 22, 2007)

Well My Rig is in my siggie. I know its more than enough to Run any Vista Version but I am sticking with XP till all the software / hardware support issues gets smoothened up a bit.


----------

