I used to use Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit edition and found it to be somewhat slow and containing alot of overhead (graphics/effects/etc). I have always been kind of curious about the x86_64 version of it, and today I decided to give it a try.
First off, everything seems EXACTLY the same during the installation, there is no reference to anything 64-bit and offers no visible difference from the 32-bit setup. It even seemed to setup at around the same speed as the 32-bit one, so not much can be said about the installation procedure. I am pleased to find that it detected my striped NVidia raid without the need of my drivers disk.
Once into the GUI, I still failed to see any obvious difference. To ensure that it truely was a 64-bit installation, I zoomed over to the properties and found a little label that said: "System Type: 64-bit Operating System". So yay, I found one scrap of evidence that it was really a 64-bit OS, woohoo.
Now, onto the real testing. I rebooted the computer and found it to startup in about half the time its 32-bit counterpartner. Also, just about all my drivers were immediately found (except for my Diamond GT Audio Card). It even found the AHCI 64 driver which was previously an unknown device in the 32-bit version.
The 64-bit version of Internet Explorer is AMAZING. The speed difference is monumental. Startup times are almost non-existant and loading times are fast (I'm not referring to page download times, but display times).
Well that is more core reivew of the main install and bare OS.
Speed: 10
New Features: 2
Overall: 7
I would recommend this OS version to just about any windows user, its fast, and not much different from the regular 32-bit Vista.
Review: Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Edition
I also forgot to mention that the 64-bit NVidia GFX Driver is awesome as well. I used to be skeptical about using 64-bit anything as there were mass driver issues or rather, lack of development in general. But now, it seems to not be an issue at all. Oh, I found my soundcard driver straight from the manufacturer's website, so no big deal.
Website: https://joscor.com
I've also just installed Vista x64, though I tried the Home Premium edition. Bonus points for MS because the same product key works for both 32 bit and 64 bit, which is really nice.
I find it much faster as well, especially using IE7. Startup times were quick anyway, since I disable pretty much everything that I don't need. I like the fact I can now USE the processor I paid for; instead of just half of it.
In terms of drivers, I was a bit disappointed to find out that the driver CD for my linksys wireless card didn't have 64 bit drivers (I had to use an ethernet cable to activate and then search for drivers). My audio card (an ESI Juli@) also comes with no 64 bit drivers. None of those are MS's fault though...
It's a good step up.
I find it much faster as well, especially using IE7. Startup times were quick anyway, since I disable pretty much everything that I don't need. I like the fact I can now USE the processor I paid for; instead of just half of it.
In terms of drivers, I was a bit disappointed to find out that the driver CD for my linksys wireless card didn't have 64 bit drivers (I had to use an ethernet cable to activate and then search for drivers). My audio card (an ESI Juli@) also comes with no 64 bit drivers. None of those are MS's fault though...
It's a good step up.
Just a question. What systems are you testing these reviews on. Here's my review on Vista running on the following (Note this was going from Linux to Vista):
Laptop Brand: HP Pavilion dv6000
Processor: Core Duo 2Ghz
Memory: 1 GB DDR2 Ram
Hard drive: 120 GB
When I first got this laptop, it was pre-installed with Vista. While I was creating the System Restore DVDs(which took 3 hours, If I remember it took 2 hours to create the images and 1 hour to burn), I had a look at Vista. To be honest, the some of the features that Windows XP was lacking are now in Vista (i.e the RSS reader) although still not on par with other OSes like Mac OS X 10 or Linux, but it's a start. One of the things I didn't like was the new start menu(to hard to find things). Also during course of the 3 hours I got a change to see, not only some bugs (like trying to connect to a Wireless network (like when it's the first time you've used a wireless device), even someone with you that does know how to set it up in vista, beside you (make sure you type the SSID as is including case)), but also the command prompt, after 4 thousand pop-ups to make sure you want to open up the command prompt. The command prompt really hasn't changed. It still has no power.
The new file explorer was good, but again it was to hard to find things (but I'm sure if I had of used it for more time I would of got use to it).
Speed was an issue for me. I spent most of my time loading applications. From what I remember (this is going back November last year). At boot, the amount of resources it was using was disappointing to say the least. 700 MB at boot before I started the System Restore CDs (compare that with my current system, that's been up for 2 days. 476.8 MB memory in use on Ubuntu 8.04 beta with the following running, Apache Server, Mysql Server, mpd Server, SSH Server, Zim, Firefox, Liferea, Update manager, Kopete, Compiz, Evolution and Gnome-terminal).
After the recovery disks were finished, I quickly installed Ubuntu 7.10 and every thing worked out of the box. Including the multimedia buttons both on the keyboard and the remote control (which I must admit I was surprised that it worked out of the box).
Speed: 4
Security: 4
Features: 5
Overall: 6 (above average for compared to other windows versions)
If the person had a decent computer, I would recommend it. And I say that because although Linux is far superior to windows. Linux is still complicated to use for the average user (whether that due to Windows dumbing them down, I don't know) and it's not Linux's fault. But the average user doesn't have such a computer, so I would still recommend XP.
Laptop Brand: HP Pavilion dv6000
Processor: Core Duo 2Ghz
Memory: 1 GB DDR2 Ram
Hard drive: 120 GB
When I first got this laptop, it was pre-installed with Vista. While I was creating the System Restore DVDs(which took 3 hours, If I remember it took 2 hours to create the images and 1 hour to burn), I had a look at Vista. To be honest, the some of the features that Windows XP was lacking are now in Vista (i.e the RSS reader) although still not on par with other OSes like Mac OS X 10 or Linux, but it's a start. One of the things I didn't like was the new start menu(to hard to find things). Also during course of the 3 hours I got a change to see, not only some bugs (like trying to connect to a Wireless network (like when it's the first time you've used a wireless device), even someone with you that does know how to set it up in vista, beside you (make sure you type the SSID as is including case)), but also the command prompt, after 4 thousand pop-ups to make sure you want to open up the command prompt. The command prompt really hasn't changed. It still has no power.
The new file explorer was good, but again it was to hard to find things (but I'm sure if I had of used it for more time I would of got use to it).
Speed was an issue for me. I spent most of my time loading applications. From what I remember (this is going back November last year). At boot, the amount of resources it was using was disappointing to say the least. 700 MB at boot before I started the System Restore CDs (compare that with my current system, that's been up for 2 days. 476.8 MB memory in use on Ubuntu 8.04 beta with the following running, Apache Server, Mysql Server, mpd Server, SSH Server, Zim, Firefox, Liferea, Update manager, Kopete, Compiz, Evolution and Gnome-terminal).
After the recovery disks were finished, I quickly installed Ubuntu 7.10 and every thing worked out of the box. Including the multimedia buttons both on the keyboard and the remote control (which I must admit I was surprised that it worked out of the box).
Speed: 4
Security: 4
Features: 5
Overall: 6 (above average for compared to other windows versions)
If the person had a decent computer, I would recommend it. And I say that because although Linux is far superior to windows. Linux is still complicated to use for the average user (whether that due to Windows dumbing them down, I don't know) and it's not Linux's fault. But the average user doesn't have such a computer, so I would still recommend XP.
Microsoft: "let everyone run after us. We'll just INNOV~1"
http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 217#122217
My development PC is the one with Vista x64.
My development PC is the one with Vista x64.
it sound like Dave Cutler's brainchild,
IMHO, without him, vista64 could be nothing.
and vista is nothing ;p
FYI
IMHO, without him, vista64 could be nothing.
and vista is nothing ;p
FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler_(software_engineer) wrote:Windows NT
Cutler left Digital for Microsoft in October 1988 and led the development of Windows NT. Later, he worked on targeting Windows NT to Digital's 64-bit Alpha computer (itself based on the Prism design), then on Windows 2000. After the demise of Windows on Alpha (and DEC, itself), Cutler was instrumental in porting Windows to AMD's new 64-bit AMD64 architecture. He was involved with the Windows XP Pro 64-bit and Windows Server 2003 SP1 64-bit releases, as well as Windows Vista. He moved to working on Microsoft's Live Platform in August 2006. Dave Cutler was awarded the prestigious status of Senior Technical fellow in Microsoft
Gartner Analysts Warn That Windows Is Collapsing wrote:vainov wrote: There never was a Windows OS! (Score:5, Informative)
Windows NT was developed by Dave Cuttler (of DEC VMS team) based on a operating system specification developed by IBM. (It was supposed to be released under the name OS/2 version 3).
Microsoft implemented the Windowing API on top of that operating system.
The fact is that Microsoft has never developed a commercial operating system from scratch!!!
They have only incremented the original Windows NT (a.k.a. OS/2 v3.0) code base, for example by:
- replacing the OS/2 file system delivered in Windows NT with the more modern NTFS
- re-writing the OS/2 deveice driver layer of Windows NT with a new, 32-bit and C-based API [the original NT device driver model was 16-bit and assembler-based]
- moving the implementation of the graphics API into the ring-0 kernel [big mistake!]
- replacing the OS/2 multitaskin DOS compatibility (i.e. the text window of Windows) with a less DOS-compatible one, which was supposed to run on multiple processor architectures.
The effort to create a new operating system core for Vista failed because of lack of in-house knowlege.
The task of writing a new core OS (under the Windows API) seems to be too difficult for a company run by marketing people and lawyers.
While it may not "be their fault" it's still disappointing. Just as the lack of hardware support for Linux. Vista x64 is still not mature enough, for me, to be used in a production environment. But I expect that to change as time goes on.Yayyak wrote:In terms of drivers, I was a bit disappointed to find out that the driver CD for my linksys wireless card didn't have 64 bit drivers (I had to use an ethernet cable to activate and then search for drivers). My audio card (an ESI Juli@) also comes with no 64 bit drivers. None of those are MS's fault though...
My PC specs are the following:
CPU: Intel Core2Duo e6600 OC'd to 3.0Ghz
Mobo: ASUS p5n-e SLI @ 1333 fsb
Mem: 2gb Super Talent @ 1000Mhz w/ 4-4-3-8 CAS timings
HDD: 2x 250GB WD in striping RAID
Right now, with VirtualPC eating 128mb of mem, I'm utilizing 650mb of memory, so my stats are a little different than yours for mem consumption. Also, I'm able to use all the adobe cs3 suite programs just fine and without any issues, so im not even close to maxing my memory usage. I also use VS2008 on here.
CPU: Intel Core2Duo e6600 OC'd to 3.0Ghz
Mobo: ASUS p5n-e SLI @ 1333 fsb
Mem: 2gb Super Talent @ 1000Mhz w/ 4-4-3-8 CAS timings
HDD: 2x 250GB WD in striping RAID
Right now, with VirtualPC eating 128mb of mem, I'm utilizing 650mb of memory, so my stats are a little different than yours for mem consumption. Also, I'm able to use all the adobe cs3 suite programs just fine and without any issues, so im not even close to maxing my memory usage. I also use VS2008 on here.
Website: https://joscor.com
-
xyzzy
- Member
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:45 am
- Libera.chat IRC: aejsmith
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
I upgraded (well, actually I did a clean install) my Windows XP install to Vista Ultimate SP1 32-bit yesterday. I actually found it to be quite fast and stable. It didn't annoy me once, whereas XP annoys me on average every 20 minutes
SP1 certainly is an improvement over the original release, which was dreadfully slow and unstable when I used it a while back on an Athlon 64 X2 3800+. The box I've got it on now is:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz
Mobo: ASUS P5KC, 1333MHz FSB
Mem: 2GB Kingston DDRII PC-6400
HDD: 250GB SATA-300
Overall I prefer Vista SP1 to XP, as it annoys me less, looks nicer and is more stable (for now
)
SP1 certainly is an improvement over the original release, which was dreadfully slow and unstable when I used it a while back on an Athlon 64 X2 3800+. The box I've got it on now is:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz
Mobo: ASUS P5KC, 1333MHz FSB
Mem: 2GB Kingston DDRII PC-6400
HDD: 250GB SATA-300
Overall I prefer Vista SP1 to XP, as it annoys me less, looks nicer and is more stable (for now
)I used to use s2k3 to host a few websites, but quickly switched to s2k8 when I heard about ISS7 which is btw, WAY BETTER!!! =)
it depends on what you want to do, if you are going to be using it for personal use, go with s2k8, if you are using for a company or something of that nature, go with 2k3 as it has been tested more and is actually released non-beta =).
it depends on what you want to do, if you are going to be using it for personal use, go with s2k8, if you are using for a company or something of that nature, go with 2k3 as it has been tested more and is actually released non-beta =).
Website: https://joscor.com