Probably the best anti-root kit and malware feature in Vista is Patchguard and it's available in 64-bit XP as well.
Aside from that, ditto on what Greg said. --------------------------- Brian Weeden Technical Consultant Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundtion.org> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada +1 (202) 683-8534 US On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Acronis Echo's universal restore and convert backup to vhd are genius. > While ms does backup in that format, its not really bootable (crash etc). > But do it with acronis and it boots everytime. Lifesaver. I've taken > antient .tib backups and made workable vhds brilliant. > > XP64s codebase is tied to 64 bit server 2003. Uses same service packs, same > driver base, etc. > Sent via BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Greg Sevart" <[email protected]> > > Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:54:51 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [H] XP64 verses Vista64 > > > 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 > > > > > > > >
