After reading Brian's post last week, I thought I would give XP 64 a
try. I too have drivers for everything although I think it appears
that Vista 64 and XP64 share the same drivers.
XP 64 it has a foot print that is a third the size of Vista 64, it
handles my 8Gigs of RAM just fine, doesn't change the MBR around,
doesn't have any real learning curve, doesn't require special backup
imaging software, seems to be, on first impressions more compatible
with older programs. Supports more hardware without driver signing. I
can't really speak to software support yet.
Vista 64 is more secure then XP, in fact it is so secure it is pretty
much unusable so I had to turn off UAC right away in order to work.
There is a lot more eye candy to Vista, which looks great, but gets
in the way, and eventually I turned if off and went with Windows
Classic mostly so I could find my way around.
Vista Explorer is really written for the novice and I really
struggled with it, but I have always used OPUS as a file manager.
Vista does something with the MBR that renders my imaging and
partitioning software unsupported.
Vista has a new type of boot loader for multiple OSs that I don't
like much and is not very configurable, like NT 2k and XP were.
It does has Direct X 10 but then nobody seems to think this is much
of a big deal as originally anticipated, and there is little software
support for it.
I have Vista Premium 64 so Bit locker and backup aren't available to
me... not that I would use them anyway as I prefer TrueCrypt and Acronis.
So I am thinking why am I struggling with Vista....have I missed a
benefit here some how... Greg, you are the advocate for Vista 64. I
realize, that from a sysadmin point of view Vista offers far greater
user control then XP but from a home office user I don't see an
advantage... or am I missing something?
Winterlight>
- [H] XP64 verses Vista64 Winterlight
-
