Be Excellent To Each Other

Right, I'm at the massive headache stage of my PC buying, I'm going to get a Cyberpower Systems machine, as i like the cut of their jib. Plus their website tells me about 300% more than the likes of Dell.

I'm confused though - I've a range of peripherals such as my Dazzle video thinger which I need to know will run - basically everything I've got worked perfectly on my last Vista (32-bit) machine and I need to retain that compatibility. But mopst of the processors and so on I'm seeing as available are set for 64-bit windows, which will obviously be the standard in a couple of years.

So - if I get the 32-bit windows so all my current stuff works, can I upgrade it easily to 64-bit by chucking some money at Microsoft and downloading the update? It seems to be so, though there's no straight answer to this on the site.

Also - 3 gig max ram on 32-bit, isn't it?

And are there any processors there's no point at all getting if I'm on a 32-bit Vista?

Finally, no, I'm not getting a mac

Cheers for input. I suspect I'm buying at a crossroads where either all my existing stuff will be obsolete in light of my new system, or my new system will be obsolescent in a couple of years. Gah, etc.

Retail vista gives you both versions, with OEM you have to choose, you'll be paying full (OEM) rate when you switch.

No probs with the processor, RAM on 32-bit will probably top out somewhere around 3.25.

ProTip, you can't inplace update from 32 to 64 bit. You'll need to reinstall Windows should you Choose to upgrade. My Windows has been 64bit since XP64 was released and it's been good to me.

Reading deeper into it, I've come up with two issues

1: My dazzle video capture box is not supported, as are things like my old scanner and printer. If normal things are just flat out not going to work, why not just get Ubuntu for free?

2: Microsoft have final say over whether something has a driver or not, everything must apparently be certified by them to run, which is funny, because Peugeot don't tell me which stations to fill up at or what roads to drive upon. If Microsoft are going to start doing all my decision making for me, why not move over to Apple?

I'm not looking to play crysis, I want to play Football Manager, the odd RTS and use FLStudio or Pinnacle Studio. 32-bit will be fine, and actually works with other things I own.

Only kernal mode drivers need to be certified.

And Peugeot DO insist you don't fill your car with diesel if it's a petrol one, which is a much better metaphor.

<sigh> that's not what the rest of the universe has been telling me. Any wonder people just pirate whichever version they need at the time?

Is there a list anywhere that tells me what Vista 64 won't run, hardware or software? I've been looking for one.

Fucking Vista and the 64 bit driver mess was the whole reason, after 14 years of using PC's, I upped sticks to a Mac. Vista really is an appalling travesty of an operating system and all my other PC's (3 of them) and both my Macs (via Parallels and Bootcamp) will be sticking with XP until Microsoft launch their next OS. It's basically Windows ME all over again and really really sucks.

Because the Macs can run XP so well, I have few software or hardware issues. I've not tried any XP games under Bootcamp but I'm guessing they should function just dandy. And the hardware is cheap as well as a Mac Pro 8 core works out cheaper than the equivelent pimped Dell (but don't buy any extra RAM etc from Apple).

When I investigated this *fucking everything*. This was only 3 months ago and there were severe problems with so many cards and pieces of software that it was easier just to jump ship. I needed 64 for the increased RAM for editing (I wanted 4 gig +). Mind you, some of my software and hardware was also not Vista 32 compatable!

Microsoft run what's called the WHQL programme (Windows Hardware Quality Logo). What that means is that they've tested the drivers and certify that they'll work without fucking up windows. If drivers aren't WHQL certified, you'll get prompted warning you, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you going right ahead and installing them anyway.

Except on Vista 64.

Where it won't let you do that with kernal mode drivers.

Got any examples of kernel mode drivers?

Anything that isn't a USB driver.

Actually, USB drivers might be kernel-mode as well.

Lenovo are fucking cocks, they irreversibly disable the CPU's PAE feature (and more stupidly Data Execution Prevention) on non-Thinkpads, deliberately limiting them to 3GB, even on 64bit Windows. This makes the laptop faulty by design, but I can't be arsed hitting them with the SoGA because for the money it's otherwise super (and I don't need that much RAM, I was just annoyed when I found 1GB of the 4GB kit I bought was entirely useless, instead of only 60% useless, on my 32bit Vista).

Sorry - I meant at the comment from 'other people' saying it wasn't just kernel mode stuff.

You used to be able to force Vista64 to use the drivers without signing, but it needed you to tap a key on bootup every single time. I think they might have even taken that out. I haven't used Vista64 since I decided it was rubbish and went back to XP64/Linux64 dualboot.

Goodness no. Most device drivers are user mode, and have been since the advent of Win2K.

Kernel mode drivers are usually ones that enforce settings and insist on priorities over and above those that are running in user mode. Starforce, for example, installs a kernel mode CD driver. Lots of DRM solutions are kernel mode, in fact, because they're designed to stop you getting around them.

So they are pretty much all going to be signed, then?

Firewalls and Antivirus are the main ones, I believe. It's basically anything that runs in Ring 0, and could potentially take the machine down if it crashed. As I'm sure you know, WinXP is a hell of a lot more stable than the older versions, mainly because drivers don't take it down any more. Because they aren't in Ring 0.

Having drivers have to be GOOD drivers in Ring 0 is a GOOD THING. It'd be nice to be given the choice, though.

Basically, if you've got something that installs to kernel mode, and they haven't got it signed by MS, you'd want to be thinking very carefully whether it's something you want to install. All the main hardware manufacturers will get their drivers signed by default.

EDIT - what Sheepeh said. Trying to keep NT4 print servers alive teaches the evils of having random code running in Kernel mode.

OK, here's a proposition:

What if I get a new PC with Vista64 and two hard drives?

One as a supposed data drive, the main one with Vista64 on it. Then, once I've got it, I get hold of a 'surprisingly cheap' version of XP32 and install it on the second drive, booting into that when somehtihng doesn't run in Vista64 (thus ensuring the best of both worlds?

How much of an arseache would it be to have two windows sustems running off two hard drives in one machine? I've only ever dual-booted to Linux, and I know how much that can vary between being a doddle and a fucking cunting bastard piece of buggering shit.

It'd *work*, but then I would have to ask why you were bothering with Vista in the first place.

If you can give a detailed breakdown of exactly what you think won't work we can probably suggest something better. After getting an XP64 install to work perfectly 100% with everything I own, and getting a 64 bit Linux to install all the gubbins to run 32 bit stuff in a chroot, I have more useless trivia about 64 bit stuff in my head than any person really should have.

I'd be wanting Vista for the future, as it will be a current thing when XP is not, plus XP looks like shit and vista is pleasing to my eye.

My Dazzle video input thing won't work on Vista64, I've spent ages trawling the net for news to the contrary, and I'm not budging on my system having to work out-of-the-box with this piece of hardware I bought not six months ago and was manufactured well after Vista came out. In fact pinnacle studio 11 is alleged to run slower on 64-bit OSes for some reason, which makes the whole thing a bit of a joke really.

If I can dual-boot to XP32 on a second drive, how do I do it, because that's the set-up that will suit me.

I partitioned my HDD because my XP install got very flaky. The second partition has Vista 64 bit and it runs perfectly. You got a boot menu at load time. The only thing that doesn't, and this is pretty bloody major, is there are no ODBC drivers for Access if you have 64-bit Vista. An absolute *twat* if you are developing apps.

I find Vista to be much quicker on the PC (Quad Core, 4Gb RAM) than the XP install as well. Admittedly there is a fair bit of cruft in the XP install, but at the end of the day I suspect XP simply isn't using bits of the hardware.

The only downside to doing it this way is that the Primary Partition is still the XP install, so I've got to faff with Partition Magic at some point.

Right, so assuming I stick my xp disc into the machine, switch it on, and tell it to install to the second drive, how do I make my machine ask me for vista or xp from boot?

Vista isn't the future. It's Windows ME all over again. Corporate customers aren't jumping to it, the likes of Dell are still selling XP pre-installed in huge numbers because that's what the corporates want. Microsoft only get it right with every other OS and Vista is a donkey. With Windows 7 potentially only a year away (the code is already with Microsoft key partners and the first public Beta due in a couple of months) Vista is dead in the water. I'd lay money on Dell and other companies still selling significant amounts of XP machines until Windows 7 is out.

Cool I'll get 32bit vista which works with evedrything and then get windows 7 when it comes out, in 64 bit mode, for my 64 bit machine.

I agree with everything you say apart from the "Vista is a donkey" bit. I immediately felt comfortable with it (see blog for more), it is a lot better to place to work than XP does. It isn't as good as OS X, but it is a heck of a lot nicer than XP.

*writes massive tangent, blinks, splits it into new topic to be nice*

So, in short - Goatboy, don't for fuck's sake get Vista! Just get 32-bit XP and you'll be reet. edit : yeah, do exactly as you said above.

But nothing works! The irony is that I can happily run Premiere 1.5 on my Mac desktop in order to edit legacy projects, but no bloody chance in Vista. There's also alot of emphasis on the eye candy. OSX may be abit Mickey Mouse in appearance but Vista ain't even Betty Boop! It's also patronising. I realise much of it is well intentioned but they need to reign in the clutter and write an OS, not a bloody computer nanny!

Make the jump with 7 and keep the 32 bit machine to run old stuff on for 12 months. Or perhaps some clever bean could come up with some virtualisation software that would let you run 32 bit XP on a Windows 7 desktop? If it can be done under OSX, why not Windows? Eh? Eh? Eh?

I *think* it's something to do with the BIOS. And there's a successor to BIOS along the way which would eliminate this.

I know this is a crap answer, but I'm half-remembering a Mac forum from two years ago

Possibly. I do know Parallels has to alter the OS before it can run so it must be doing something deep down. But I still am amazed every time I fire up XP on either my laptop or desktop that I have a full PC running within another OS and on the 8 core there is no performence hit (well it nicks a core and abit of memory but it's hardly like I'm short on a 6 gig 8 core machine is it?).

At work, I have Microsoft Virtual PC had me running Win2K3 on XP Pro. Right now I'm using VMWare to run a Win2k3 Server in a Vista VM.

Yes, you are a git and I am very, very jealous sir. I'd love a desktop Mac. It's my ideal OS - basically UNIX, but you can get Civilization IV for it. As it is, it's XP for me at home and work, besides on my lovely linux netbook.

So if you get Vista 64 you could run XP32 within the OS?

It would be within the OS though, not able to just directly access the underlying system, which is I think what Parallels does. Plissken?

That said, <Windows-Key>+Tabbing is much nicer* than old-fashioned Alt-Tabbing.

* no more or less nice.

Yes. It is what I am doing. Both bits of software are free.

FYI, Windows 7 is effectively Vista R2.

Virtualbox happily runs XP32 on Linux64. It can go fullscreen and you cant tell the difference, it can go in a window, or it can go Seamless which is an XP bar on the top of the screen and a Linux one on the bottom, and Windows and Linux apps live together in perfect harmony.

It also runs on Windows, due to being open source, and can take and resources you give it.

Doesn't do 3D acceleration mind, so it's still WINE for gaming duties.

WINE can run Lordy Lordy Online and EVE 100% grand though, so that does me.

I run Vista 64 and XP MCE as a dual boot. I installed XP first, and then Vista on a new HDD I'd just bought. It was really simple, a menu comes up on screen with the choice of Vista or 'earlier version of windows'. I didn't have to do anything, this was done automatically.

Only issue I had was the countdown timer was set too short and the menu would flash up and disppear after a second before going straight into vista. It was easy to extend this time (it was in system properties).

It really was very easy. So far I quite like Vista, and haven't had any problems with it.

Of course, the choice is yours. It's not miles and miles ahead of XP, but I do prefer it.

I'm another one with a Vista 64 and XP 32 dual-boot system, on one HDD. I partioned the HDD, then installed XP on the first partition. With this up and running, I then installed Vista 64 on the other partition. At boot time, I get a menu asking me which Windows I want to boot into - Vista does that automatically as it detected the presence of XP on the other partition whilst I was installing it. Or something like that.

As it stands, I pretty much exclusively use Vista on this PC. It looks reasonably pretty and I've had no real issues with it, but then I do nothing more complex than some web-surfing, a bit of typing, a little bit of Photoshop and some gaming. It's fine for all of that. Certainly I've gone from a Mac-evangelist in recent years to never bothering to fire up the Powerbook I recently fixed up and instead doing everything on this PC and my dinky Acer Aspire One.

Although, if I could afford it then I'd happily chuck my PC for a decent Mac, for the 2 or 3 Windows programs I actually need. See also: my thought on why You're Computer's Rubbish elsewhere, totally related I want a Mac in the same way that I don't have or need a car, but I'd fucking love a Porsche.

Heh heh, very much !

INSIDER INFORMATION: WHQL testing is a massive joke. Just because you pass WHQL, doesn't mean your driver can run an application well. Hell, sometimes you're not even sure what the whql tests are testing.

Also: Graphics drivers have to be kernel mode in vista as well. (google for "LDDM"). I believe lots of others do as well, or at least require a "part" of it to reside in kernel mode. And no, I really don't know why.

Yeah, but looks at Windows 98 v Windows 95. People said 98 was only a minor upgrade but it was significantly more stable and had better performence on every PC I used it on.

I wouldn't be using a Mac (or rather two Macs) if it wasn't for Final Cut Pro. Apple have got the pricing and licencing spot on which was enough to swing it.

Ironically I probably could have lived with Vista, but I'd happily stab everyone who works for Adobe in the eyes with rusty spoons. One way to really piss me off is to not only charge fucking stupid prices for your shitty software, but to charge people in the UK 40% more than US customers. Apple seem to have worked out that this is unacceptable while Adobe get away with it.

Oh, absolutely. 2003 R2 is a real improvement over the released version - just don't expect a completely new OS, that's all.

Everyone has already said what I would about 32bit vs 64bit Windows; suffice it to say, my last two workstations ran XP64 and now Vista64 and it would have been fiddly if they'd anything beyond pure work machines (Office/Visual Studio/Eclipse/etc). Driver support on Windows64 is still weak, I think.

I'd like to put a +1 in for Cyberpower though. My current work bought four Cyberpower systems the week I started, one of which is my workstation, and they are awesome: well built, cheap, and (I'm told) the support is good too.