32-bit or 64-bit Windows?
-
I believe on a 64 bit OS you can host 32 bit VPCs, but on a 32 bit machine you cannot host 64 bit VPCs. The only time I tried to install 64 bit OS turned out to be a disastrous failure and since then I have never attempted to install it.
You have, what I would term, a very formal turn of phrase not seen in these isles since the old King passed from this world to the next. martin_hughes on VDK
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I believe on a 64 bit OS you can host 32 bit VPCs, but on a 32 bit machine you cannot host 64 bit VPCs. The only time I tried to install 64 bit OS turned out to be a disastrous failure and since then I have never attempted to install it.
You can run a 32bit machine, and a 64bit virtual machine. You need to set the virtualization setting in the bios to on, and use VMWare Server. VMWare server is the only virtual machine application that can run 64bit applications. We are doing this at work currently so I know it works. Dell PC we are using.
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I believe on a 64 bit OS you can host 32 bit VPCs, but on a 32 bit machine you cannot host 64 bit VPCs. The only time I tried to install 64 bit OS turned out to be a disastrous failure and since then I have never attempted to install it.
You can run a 32bit machine, and a 64bit virtual machine. You need to set the virtualization setting in the bios to on, and use VMWare Server. VMWare server is the only virtual machine application that can run 64bit applications. We are doing this at work currently so I know it works. Dell PC we are using.
-
First things first, it depends on what you're planning on doing and secondly are we talking Vista or XP here? I'll assume Vista since XPx64 has a bad enough reputation that you wouldn't even contemplate it. I'm only using Vista x64 on my desktop and it's pretty much the only OS that I use at the moment. I have got to say though that on my setup Vista (whether this is just the x64 edition or not) does run faster than XP did (in the things that matter anyway such as responsiveness). I am using VS2008 at the moment although on my previous trial of Vista did have VS2005 running side-by-side with the Orcas Beta, make sure that before you attempt anything with VS2005 though install SP1 and SP1 for Vista. Running IIS7 and SQL 2005 Express as well in the background. Am doing C#, Windows Forms, WPF and ASP.NET development, the odd bit of C++ stuff quite happily on it. Specs for my machine are sufficient for me: AMD Athlon X2 3800+ 2GB DDR2-6400 nVidia 8800GTS 320MB 1x120GB E-IDE for OS 1x500GB SATA II for data 1x500GB USB / IDE for backups Have been very tempted to double my RAM up but what with spending £1550 on a second gun will hold off for the moment since the RAM is not essential. What I suggest if at all possible is to get a second hard drive and try out the x64 edition first, I ran mine for 90days (the maximum allowed under the Vista trial) and had a few kinks to iron out with the drivers but all were fixed pretty sharpish. In fact most things just ran out of the box, I do remember having to download the drivers for the MoBo on a seperate computer and transfer them because the disc that came didn't have x64 drivers on it and therefore couldn't use the ethernet port to download the drivers. I don't know whether it has any effect but perhaps by having a top-end graphics card Vista can offload some of it's workload to the card rather than hogging the processor. One thing I have noticed is that Vista is faster to boot than XP (with all the same antivirus etc) however recently it takes much longer but that's because I haven't been rebooting it very frequently (last time was at least 2 weeks ago) and thus when it has to reboot it usually has to install updates etc. So in summary, for me, running the x64 version of Vista has been nothing but joy (much prefer it to XP, even the start menu makes it completely worthwhile). Currently the only issue I have is with my wirel
> I'll assume Vista since XPx64 has a bad enough reputation that you wouldn't even contemplate it. Says who? First time I hear this. I use XP x64 on my primary machine at home (used for dev/games/whatever I can throw at it), and I think it kicks ass. Given a choice between XP x86, XP x64, and Vista (any flavor), I'll choose XP x64 every single time. I think it's the best Windows version short of using Server 2003 for a dev OS. I can't think of any single piece of hardware I own that doesn't have proper drivers. Well, maybe some ancient video cards, but if I really have to use such old hardware, it'll be used in another box anyway and I'll carry on with my life instead of antagonizing over such things.
-
> I'll assume Vista since XPx64 has a bad enough reputation that you wouldn't even contemplate it. Says who? First time I hear this. I use XP x64 on my primary machine at home (used for dev/games/whatever I can throw at it), and I think it kicks ass. Given a choice between XP x86, XP x64, and Vista (any flavor), I'll choose XP x64 every single time. I think it's the best Windows version short of using Server 2003 for a dev OS. I can't think of any single piece of hardware I own that doesn't have proper drivers. Well, maybe some ancient video cards, but if I really have to use such old hardware, it'll be used in another box anyway and I'll carry on with my life instead of antagonizing over such things.
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I've maxed out my hardware with 8GB and quad core (lowly Q6600 but 4 cores all the same) - now I have each dev environment in a Virtual machine (I am using VMWare Server free version) and the hosting OS is Win 2003 Server 64bit. I stuck to XP 32bit as guest OS - giving each VM one core and 1GB mem - VMWare seems to work well like that - each VM seems to hit the single core so it gets best out of the 4 cores if you have more than 1 VM running at a time - it seems quite happy with 3 or 4 running at the same time. This is working really well so far - the good things are: 1. No more MS issues where you install newer version of IDE and it breaks something in the old (I had 2005 broke the help in 2003 etc) 2. No more leaving old dev envs installed to support those older bit of code you only work on now and again - just turn off the VM's for the older dev env's only powering them up if needed 3. Setup my VM's on a IcyBox caddy that takes a 2.5" SATA disk and has a slot for 3.5" bay that is SATA but pop the disk out of that slot and it becomes a USB or eSATA external drive - popped in a 250GB WD disk and now I can get full SATA disk speed on the desktop but still run all my VM's on the notebook when I am out and about (though it is a bit slower on the notebook) 4. Upgrading PC in the future - no need to reinstall all the dev env's you may or may not need - just copy the VM's over to the new box My Win2k3 host is a real minimal install - nice and fast. Bad things are: 1. MS's stupid method of delivering updates and there petty closing down of AutoPatcher - this means I end up having to install updates many times - I am thinking of making the "mothership" an update server to deal with this 2. MS's stupid activation rubbish - initially whenever I ran the VM's on the notebook it wanted to reactivate as it saw a CPU type change - I have since managed to avoid this by carefully configuring the VM's so that the "change count" is not exceeded when moved from desktop to notebook (or back again)
-
I believe on a 64 bit OS you can host 32 bit VPCs, but on a 32 bit machine you cannot host 64 bit VPCs. The only time I tried to install 64 bit OS turned out to be a disastrous failure and since then I have never attempted to install it.
You have, what I would term, a very formal turn of phrase not seen in these isles since the old King passed from this world to the next. martin_hughes on VDK
on xp it is very very big difference between 32bit and 64bit, xp 64bit runs much faster than 32bit on vista i found that 64bit is faster but not so much like the difference on xp, but, it's better to use 64bit, because you'll be safer from viruses, i even used 64bit without anti-virus for months, and never got infected, and i think that everyone knows how computers perform without antiviruses!!!
-
> I'll assume Vista since XPx64 has a bad enough reputation that you wouldn't even contemplate it. Says who? First time I hear this. I use XP x64 on my primary machine at home (used for dev/games/whatever I can throw at it), and I think it kicks ass. Given a choice between XP x86, XP x64, and Vista (any flavor), I'll choose XP x64 every single time. I think it's the best Windows version short of using Server 2003 for a dev OS. I can't think of any single piece of hardware I own that doesn't have proper drivers. Well, maybe some ancient video cards, but if I really have to use such old hardware, it'll be used in another box anyway and I'll carry on with my life instead of antagonizing over such things.
Daniel Desormeaux wrote:
> I'll assume Vista since XPx64 has a bad enough reputation that you wouldn't even contemplate it. Says who? First time I hear this. I use XP x64 on my primary machine at home (used for dev/games/whatever I can throw at it), and I think it kicks ass. Given a choice between XP x86, XP x64, and Vista (any flavor), I'll choose XP x64 every single time. I think it's the best Windows version short of using Server 2003 for a dev OS. I can't think of any single piece of hardware I own that doesn't have proper drivers. Well, maybe some ancient video cards, but if I really have to use such old hardware, it'll be used in another box anyway and I'll carry on with my life instead of antagonizing over such things.
A whole-hearted Hazzah to you! XP x64 is the best OS I have used and I have tried Vista (32 and 64 bit). Driver issues are beat by shopping smart and doing your research. By the way XP 64 bit is Server 2k3. at least the kernal. I will say it again. It is the most stable and fastest OS from the MS Windows shelf.
-
First things first, it depends on what you're planning on doing and secondly are we talking Vista or XP here? I'll assume Vista since XPx64 has a bad enough reputation that you wouldn't even contemplate it. I'm only using Vista x64 on my desktop and it's pretty much the only OS that I use at the moment. I have got to say though that on my setup Vista (whether this is just the x64 edition or not) does run faster than XP did (in the things that matter anyway such as responsiveness). I am using VS2008 at the moment although on my previous trial of Vista did have VS2005 running side-by-side with the Orcas Beta, make sure that before you attempt anything with VS2005 though install SP1 and SP1 for Vista. Running IIS7 and SQL 2005 Express as well in the background. Am doing C#, Windows Forms, WPF and ASP.NET development, the odd bit of C++ stuff quite happily on it. Specs for my machine are sufficient for me: AMD Athlon X2 3800+ 2GB DDR2-6400 nVidia 8800GTS 320MB 1x120GB E-IDE for OS 1x500GB SATA II for data 1x500GB USB / IDE for backups Have been very tempted to double my RAM up but what with spending £1550 on a second gun will hold off for the moment since the RAM is not essential. What I suggest if at all possible is to get a second hard drive and try out the x64 edition first, I ran mine for 90days (the maximum allowed under the Vista trial) and had a few kinks to iron out with the drivers but all were fixed pretty sharpish. In fact most things just ran out of the box, I do remember having to download the drivers for the MoBo on a seperate computer and transfer them because the disc that came didn't have x64 drivers on it and therefore couldn't use the ethernet port to download the drivers. I don't know whether it has any effect but perhaps by having a top-end graphics card Vista can offload some of it's workload to the card rather than hogging the processor. One thing I have noticed is that Vista is faster to boot than XP (with all the same antivirus etc) however recently it takes much longer but that's because I haven't been rebooting it very frequently (last time was at least 2 weeks ago) and thus when it has to reboot it usually has to install updates etc. So in summary, for me, running the x64 version of Vista has been nothing but joy (much prefer it to XP, even the start menu makes it completely worthwhile). Currently the only issue I have is with my wirel
Ed.Poore wrote:
even the start menu makes it completely worthwhile
The Start Menu search feature is killer! Just a couple letters and there is the app to launch, not more digging through the menues for those nested apps. I also am sold out on the new Explorer. I hate the issue with it reverting its listing style, but that "Favorite Links" pane is wonderful! I seldom have to navigate folders for common things, simple select it from my Favorite Links. Also, the path bar in Explorer. When I first started using it I was a bit thrown off, but after a while, I love it, really simply to bounce around folders. Anyway, had to throw my few pennys worth in :)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Moving on up with Windows Live stuff and Plus!
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001While the 64 bit apps (if you have them) run much faster, most software is still 32 bit, but hey, they work just fine. That said though, it really depends on how long you plan to keep the machine without upgrading again. I know that some of Microsoft's server software will go 64 bit soon with no 32 bit versions. If you do development where you will need to test on them, you would be another box for testing. Also, if you are using a 64 bit machine we stick with a 32 bit OS? Visual Studio and most of the development tools are still 32 bit, but I think we will see a 64 bit version offered in the next version. The only catch is to make sure your hardware is compatbile and has comptable drivers. Prior to installing Vista 64, I heard all kinds of horror stories of drivers not working, but my install work find with only one driver (Graphire Tablet Driver) that had issues which is supposed to be fixed.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Moving on up with Windows Live stuff and Plus!
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Visual Studio (all versions) are 32-bit apps. They run on Vista 64 in the WOW (Windows32 on Windows64). So Visual Studio can address only 2GB (or 3GB max), even though the OS and other native 64 bit apps can address 64 bits.
Even though a 32-bit app can only address the 3Gb, when it swaps Windows will actually try to use all available memory (more then 4Gb) first as 'virtual' swap in stead of disk, thus improving performance of even 32-bit apps. I've seen a review of Photoshop (32-bit) running much faster on Win64...
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I have 2 seperate boxes each with 4Gb RAM running Vista and they work well (as well as Vista can work I suppose :). Although sometimes 32 bit apps can run quicker under WOW64 environment, sometimes not, you still have added benefit of more system RAM in your box, which is always a good thing. That RAM is used for other things besides just VS, so it keeps the rest of the system running nicer. FYI - I haven't had any trouble with drivers apart from a really old Logitech camera (like 8 years old) which I didn't expect to work anyway. I was anticipating lots more pain in the driver department, but it's actually been really good.
-
Daniel Desormeaux wrote:
> I'll assume Vista since XPx64 has a bad enough reputation that you wouldn't even contemplate it. Says who? First time I hear this. I use XP x64 on my primary machine at home (used for dev/games/whatever I can throw at it), and I think it kicks ass. Given a choice between XP x86, XP x64, and Vista (any flavor), I'll choose XP x64 every single time. I think it's the best Windows version short of using Server 2003 for a dev OS. I can't think of any single piece of hardware I own that doesn't have proper drivers. Well, maybe some ancient video cards, but if I really have to use such old hardware, it'll be used in another box anyway and I'll carry on with my life instead of antagonizing over such things.
A whole-hearted Hazzah to you! XP x64 is the best OS I have used and I have tried Vista (32 and 64 bit). Driver issues are beat by shopping smart and doing your research. By the way XP 64 bit is Server 2k3. at least the kernal. I will say it again. It is the most stable and fastest OS from the MS Windows shelf.
> By the way XP 64 bit is Server 2k3. at least the kernal. I will say it again. It is the most stable > and fastest OS from the MS Windows shelf. As a bonus, since it's so closely tied to Server 2003 x64 (remember that SP2 was distributed as the same file for both OSes), Microsoft's intent is to continue support for XP x64 alongside Server 2003--XP x86's lifetime, if I remember correctly, is somewhat shorter... But nobody quote me on that--just something I read a while back. And no, I don't have a link.
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
even the start menu makes it completely worthwhile
The Start Menu search feature is killer! Just a couple letters and there is the app to launch, not more digging through the menues for those nested apps. I also am sold out on the new Explorer. I hate the issue with it reverting its listing style, but that "Favorite Links" pane is wonderful! I seldom have to navigate folders for common things, simple select it from my Favorite Links. Also, the path bar in Explorer. When I first started using it I was a bit thrown off, but after a while, I love it, really simply to bounce around folders. Anyway, had to throw my few pennys worth in :)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Moving on up with Windows Live stuff and Plus!
-
> but that "Favorite Links" pane is wonderful To each his own. Personally, I think this Favorite Links window pane is always in the way, and I wish there was a way to remove it permanently...
Well, do you know that you can hold down your left ALT key and drag the folders window all the way to the top, covering the "Favorite Links" pane? EDIT: Excuse the bone-headed remark, I had a brain... fluf.. You do not have to hold down the ALT key to resize it, just move slowly over the top line of the Folders and stretch it to the top, covering the Favorites Links area completely. If you should want to see the Favorte Links pane, again, you use the down arrow to the right of Folders.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Moving on up with Windows Live stuff and Plus!
modified on Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:08:05 PM
-
Well, do you know that you can hold down your left ALT key and drag the folders window all the way to the top, covering the "Favorite Links" pane? EDIT: Excuse the bone-headed remark, I had a brain... fluf.. You do not have to hold down the ALT key to resize it, just move slowly over the top line of the Folders and stretch it to the top, covering the Favorites Links area completely. If you should want to see the Favorte Links pane, again, you use the down arrow to the right of Folders.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Moving on up with Windows Live stuff and Plus!
modified on Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:08:05 PM
I realize that you can resize the window pane so it's not in the way, but I don't want to have to do that every single time I fire up Explorer--which happens typically at least 25 times a day. That's why to me it's such an unwanted feature. If you've found a way to make Explorer come up with the folder tree, but without the Favorite Links pane showing, then please, share it...
-
I realize that you can resize the window pane so it's not in the way, but I don't want to have to do that every single time I fire up Explorer--which happens typically at least 25 times a day. That's why to me it's such an unwanted feature. If you've found a way to make Explorer come up with the folder tree, but without the Favorite Links pane showing, then please, share it...
Daniel Desormeaux wrote:
please, share it...
Actually, on my system (Vista 64 Ultimate), when I adjust the pane, it remembers it and comes up every time that way. In applications where it using the Explorer view to open files, for example, in MS Word 2007, it does not pickup the change, but if you make the change in it's open window, it seems to remember it too.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Moving on up with Windows Live stuff and Plus!
-
Daniel Desormeaux wrote:
please, share it...
Actually, on my system (Vista 64 Ultimate), when I adjust the pane, it remembers it and comes up every time that way. In applications where it using the Explorer view to open files, for example, in MS Word 2007, it does not pickup the change, but if you make the change in it's open window, it seems to remember it too.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Moving on up with Windows Live stuff and Plus!
Interesting...I remember that was nagging the hell out of me when I used the betas and the RCs, but I haven't spent enough time with the RTM version of Vista to notice whether it remembers the setting. Maybe that's something they've only implemented in the RTM. Next time I happen to use a Vista machine, I'll have to take another look...
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001with 64-bit Vista you can also address bigger hard disks. And the handling with really big files as databases or movies could be faster. It will show when there are special 64-bit programs available. I decided to install 64-bit Vista for myself by knowing that I dont use older hardware (biggest risk). Maybe the virus risk is also lower. :-O I think in a couple of year the move 32=>64 bit will come.:cool:
Greetings from Germany
-
I believe on a 64 bit OS you can host 32 bit VPCs, but on a 32 bit machine you cannot host 64 bit VPCs. The only time I tried to install 64 bit OS turned out to be a disastrous failure and since then I have never attempted to install it.
You have, what I would term, a very formal turn of phrase not seen in these isles since the old King passed from this world to the next. martin_hughes on VDK
VPC doesn't support 64-bit guests under any OS. It is a known limitation and one of the big reasons why VMWare is still doing really good business. VPC 2007 does support running under a 64 bit host but it technically is still a 32-bit app that uses a 64-bit driver. You should refer to the VPC site for the details about 64-bit support as it gives a better explanation. From the site I'd say 64-bit support is a low priority but it is inevitable. Given that it took 3 years to release the next version of VPC and that it didn't add any major new functionality a 64-bit guest edition is probably going to be a while.