Some comments in line... > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Winterlight > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 12:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [H] XP64 verses Vista64 > > 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.
UAC is annoying, yes, but it -does- work. There have been a good number of vulnerabilities mitigated by UAC. Symantec makes an add-on that uses the UAC system but provides the ability to always allow certain programs, etc...but I don't run it on my systems (either UAC native or Symantec's UAC hooks). Windows 7 will provide more flexible native UAC options that I think will really make those of us that have disabled it completely look to turning it on again in a more limited fashion. > 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. I do find that with all of the high-color icons, it can occasionally be more challenging to identify a particular icon when you're looking for it. Other than that, I find the eye candy fairly appealing...it just adds a modern flair to Windows that it was lacking. > Vista Explorer is really written for the novice and I really > struggled with it, but I have always used OPUS as a file manager. I've found several of the enhancements very useful--the clickable address bar, for one. The built-in "in-directory" search has been immensely useful. I use "Copy as Path" on a fairly regular basis as well. Renaming a file selects up to the extension--which saves a second here and there. > Vista does something with the MBR that renders my imaging and > partitioning software unsupported. I don't know that it does anything to the MBR, but I do know that all VSS-type operations are radically different in Vista...that may be what your older software is choking on. It probably also increments the NTFS version, but that's been true of most NT-derived releases over the years. Software that is worth a damn won't work on volumes with an NTFS version it doesn't recognize, and that's a good thing. > 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. The BCD and BCDEdit aren't very user friendly, but I haven't found any limitations I couldn't work around after finding appropriate documentation...but I also don't have desire or need to dual boot and such. > 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. Titles are coming, but it has been slow to emerge as a useful benefit. > 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. Windows Backup is actually a very nice offering when you don't have anything existing. One feature that I find especially interesting is that the full-drive backup file uses Microsoft's VHD specification, meaning you can mount it natively under Virtual PC or Hyper-V. That being said, I love Acronis products as well. :) > > 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? GUI notwithstanding, I think that a lot of people fail to realize that Vista is more of an architectural release than anything else. The installation sequence was completely re-written to be image based. Search capabilities are integrated into practically everything. Backup/Restore functionality has been improved to a useful level. Windows Update is more feature-rich and more reliable. Vista is better able to identify issues with drivers and programs, frequently able to identify the problem source in an easy-to-consume format after crashes. The networking (or TCP/IP specifically) subsystem was re-written for performance and security in mind (and it's worked--not only has Vista suffered surprisingly few vulnerabilities in the TCP/IP stack proper given it is a new implementation, it's done better than XP has during the same time period--with XP's stack far more mature). The Windows file-sharing protocol was re-written (SMB 2.0) and provides vastly improved throughput--I regularly get full-wire speeds in file copies on my gbit network (>115MB/s). That alone is a killer must-have feature for me. File operations in general are vastly improved, with the ability to specify what action to take when something occurs (file in use, missing, etc) instead of killing the entire transfer or waiting on user input. The printer spooler was also (supposedly) re-written, but I'm hoping not as I don't find printing any more reliable in Vista than it was in previous releases. Technologies such as UAC, Kernel PatchGuard, ASLR, etc have had a marked effect when those features are enabled. The built-in firewall has become fairly robust as well. Greg
