S.SubZero

That's interesting, since 3DMark06 gave me virtually identical numbers on my XP64 SP2 and Vista x64 SP1 benchmarks, as well as everything I've tried. I do not own Crysis. How do XP64's DX10 benchmarks rank against Vista x64's? As far as 2D, My Aero desktop feels smooth and moves fluidly. Everything I do runs very fast. I played a few rounds in Vista x64, then I fired up a virtual machine in Virtualbox.. I fired up Ubuntu, which is running a flat, plain ol' VESA driver with no acceleration. My time went up slightly, about 10%. From reading the FAQ comments it's no surprise that the type of mouse can play a big role in the score. Mine's a cheap Logitech optical which isn't made for this sort of exercise, the throw of the buttons is long and it's not made for twitch reactions. There's also at least one comment that PS/2 mice may do better, which can be true. My VM gets the worst of both worlds, as it's taking incoming USB mouse input and translating it into PS/2 mouse commands (my VM does not have USB activated). I blame the time increase more on this than anything else. I love XP64, I use it on my gaming rig. I tried it on my laptop, but there are simply no XP64 drivers for the webcam nor the infrared. My laptop also has a very capable DX10 video card (GeForce 8800M GTX) and I wanted to take advantage of that. I've got new parts for my gaming rig on order, including an 8800GT. When it all gets here it's being re-built with Vista x64. XP64 had a place, but I think I can safely say I've outgrown it.

What conclusive benchmarks have you run to show this "slow" behavior?

The article fails to mention that Snow Leopard is being rumored to be Intel-platform only. http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/12/mac-os-x-10...-be-intel-only/ This would mean Snow Leopard is an operating system specifically designed for Apple computers approximately two years old and newer. While this seems crazy, remember that Apple has a history of killing backwards compatiblity utterly, and has changed hardware platforms before, leaving the old platforms out to die slow, painful deaths. That guy that spent $7000 on his multi-CPU Mac G5 in 2005 is abandoned in the name of progress. As cold as that is, MS should have taken this approach with Vista. I argued two years ago that Vista should have been 64-bit exclusive. Even looking at Longhorn screenshots in early 2006 I was like "my P4 3ghz box will NOT run this very well." But MS insists on trying to sell Vista x86, and even makes it the "default" Vista choice. GRRRR WHY?! They should have at least made Vista x86 the limited exception. Vista Starter Edition should be "the x86 version" of Vista. Everything else, 64-bit only, right on the box "you need a 64-bit processor for this" and be done with it. The "3.5GB barrier" is something we'd see talked about on XP forums and we'd chuckle behind our 8GB ubermachines. But hey, I'm sure MS knows what they are doing -.-;

"hay guyz let's make fun of Vista M$ suxxx lol" *yawn* while I'm starting the prep-work getting my gaming rig backed up so when the new parts come I can nuke it and re-do it with Vista Business x64. XP64 served me well, but the times are changing, and it's time to look ahead.

I'm sure there will be upgrades available, and if Windows 7 really does ship in "a year or two" I'm sure it won't be expensive to upgrade. I'm also sure that much like every other OS Microsoft has ever released, it will both be 1. late, and 2. worth waiting for SP1.

My research told me Vista x64 would be a good match for my 4GB laptop with 8800M GTX DX10-capable video card. I also considered the fact that when Windows XP was released in 2001 I ran a P4 1.7Ghz (socket 423) with RDRAM and I had a 3DFx video card, along with PATA hard drives and 10/100 ethernet. When I thought about what XP was designed to run on, and how far I have come, I decided that XP, like the socket 423 CPU and 3DFx video card, was probably ready to be replaced. I haven't run a 32-bit operating system on real hardware since January 2007.

You could probably get answers on Google, or on the websites of the particular software you're curious about. Very little of that has 64-bit specific versions. I use 7zip for my archive needs personally, it's free and looks nicer than WinRAR or WinZIP, and has a native 64-bit version.

My current revolving Newegg wishlist PC: https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishli...FFXI+and+beyond

I've never seen VPC do anything remotely "quick". --- Virtualbox updated to 1.6.2 - they fixed some stuff and got new icons that are actually nice looking.

How does one overlay graphics, such as a Firefox window, over a full-screen text display?

Video, sound drivers, update DirectX.. no specs posted so hard to say much else.

When you define a password for a user in Windows, the password gets hashed and is forgotten by the OS, it does not store your password on the server anywhere. There are of course various "tools" for sniffing the LAN or the server and trying to reverse the hash. If you seriously think a user on your network may try using such a tool, you should first have a way to detect these tools, and second you should make it clear that any unauthorized activity on the network can result in stiff penalties. If you have a database that you need users to have access to, you have to accept that they DO have access to it. If the data is SO sensitive and SO critical that you fear the very users that need to access it, you have to re-think your operations. In the end you will not be able to stop an authorized user from getting to data, whether it's authorized to them or not. The best you can do is track access, determine who is getting to what, and be ready to punish a user that goes where they are not supposed to be able to go.

Once I needed to make a bootable disc out of a directory with the disc files in it.. I ended up using nLite for this task. It automatically whipped up a bootable ISO and I was able to burn it with no problems. Oh and Infrarecorder is awesome cuz it has a 64-bit version, and in Vista it SMOKES when it's burning. SMOKES.

Gotta love corporate priorities... I work in the IT department at my place, and we were asked a few months ago to prep a couple of very powerful workstations for another department. Afterwards these PCs got lost in red tape and ended up stuffed in a closet. We "found" them the other day and set them up in our area. I fully expect someone to walk by, see them, and re-allocate them. They are cool, but I am not getting too attached ; ;

Staying with a pre-2008 level domain makes things easy. Just add the Server 2008 box as a DC. Like I said, there is no "primary" DC, no "main" really. If you want you can throw the master roles on it (I don't recommend global catalog and infrastructure on the same box) and be good to go.

Server 2000+level domains don't have "primary" and "backup" domain controllers. DCs are DCs, there's no differentiating them (other than RODC). The only thing you need to know is where the various "role masters" are (Global Catalog, Infrastructure master, etc.). If you plan to keep your current domain level, there's no "unpromoting" to do. You put the 2008 server in the domain as a DC, move any role master stuff off the 2003 box, then you can just shut it down. You *could* completely remove it from the domain by demoting it but it's never a bad thing to have a DC ready to go in an emergency. 8) Again, if you are keeping the same functional domain level, there's nothing to change. Add the 2008, remove the 2003. The network should not be affected. If you intend to move to a native Server 2008-level domain, then you would need to make a brand new domain. Should you decide to make a brand new Server 2008-level domain then you will have issues getting Server 2003 boxes to do stuff in that domain. Ideally a Server 2008 domain is ALL Server 2008(+) DCs. There are some little things about 2008-level domains (and forests) that make them appealing, but for smaller setups those things aren't very important. There's some network optimizations for the databases and stuff but overall a 2003-level domain is fine for small and even medium-sized domains still.

Nothing is preventing custom installs anywhere you want. The two Program Files directories are more for MS than for you. XP64 ships with 32-bit and 64-bit Internet Explorer. Vista x64 has two versions of Media Player. There are 32-bit and 64-bit pieces that are conveniently separated.

This is against Apple's Terms of Service, and they have code in the OS specifically to prevent this. That being said, if you get around that code, it's installable. As Apple doesn't provide drivers for anything not included in their Macs, it's unlikely everything will work, or work right. I've run "Hackintosh" on a couple of laptops and was not impressed with the results. I ended up buying a Macbook Pro to tinker with OS X to its fullest.

What kinds of things are you missing?

For the autoplay thing, check the service "Shell Hardware Detection" as this is the "autoplay" service. For the USB card reader.. what brand/model reader is it? Have you checked for updated drivers? Also updated drivers for your motherboard?

Note that only retail Ultimate comes with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. If you buy the cheaper OEM discs they do not come with both. MS doesn't put both on one DVD (it would have to be a dual layer) presumably because they assume the user doesn't know which they need, and they wanted to avoid confusion. MS has been sending mixed signals about 64-bit Windows for a while (see: XP64) so this isn't too surprising. The sad thing is it makes it complicated to get the 64-bit disc for the other editions of Vista. I will say that for retail Vista, the key for a particular edition (Home, Business, Ultimate, etc.) will work for both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. As far as compatibility and usability, I have a desktop and a laptop. The desktop has been on XP64 since January 2007. It has run everything I have thrown at it. It's my gaming rig, and while I tend to play just one game (Final Fantasy XI) I have other games like Tribes 2 and the Orange Box stuff and Unreal Tournament 2004 (64-bit edition) and there's no problems with any of it. I know Starcraft also runs fine. My laptop was on XP64 from November 2006 and I also ran Vista x64 for most of 2007. I had no problems with it. People seem to think 64-bit Windows is some strange, new thing when it's really not. There are considerations with regards to certain types of apps and poorly written ones, but the vast majority of 32-bit apps and games will run. I recommend people interested in 64-bit Windows to check out www.start64.com. Just glance through a few pages of apps and see what's out there. It's a lot.

Yesterday I bit the bullet and redid my Sager 5793 laptop, wiping XP64 and putting Vista x64 on it. It's not my first time using Vista, but my first time on this laptop. As far as gaming, I don't have TF2 on this laptop. I put 1701AD, Tribes 2, and a dreamcast emulator on it and they all run great. Mind you Tribes 2 is *seven* years old (it also has a fully working widescreen mode, which was ahead of it's time in 2001!). It not only predates Vista, but it predates 64-bit Windows, AND XP, so the fact that it runs, and runs well, is a testament to Vista's compatibility. Benchmarking is strange. I have another hard drive, which I was using as the test drive for Vista, and on that install my 3DMark06 score came out at just over 9200, which is less than 1% behind XP64. On this install, with the same drivers and configuration, it's only hitting 8800. I'm not sure what could be causing this, but I will put the other drive back in later on and see if it's something with the laptop itself or the installation. I know I did a firmware update at some point, I don't know if it was before or after the previous benchmarks. I also don't know if this is affecting performance outside of 3DMark06. For the record, I used Vista x64 at RTM way back over a year ago, and gaming on it was never bad. At the time it was about 5% off from XP64's scores in 3DMark06, but as above all of my games ran fine. I do know some configurations are known to be problematic, especially SLI setups. I have not had experience with those so I don't have any input on how to deal with it.

My theory is that this is a security thing. They blocked the install on servers, because realistically no sane corporate IT person is installing IM software on servers. XP64 unfortunately got caught up in this since it's based on 2003 Server code. Again, just my theory. Not so much a theory tho is that getting the straight MSI and installing it will bypass this and it works fine. http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Chat...ssenger-8.shtml BAM!

Unless you have some special reason to use AHCI, just disable it. Legacy/IDE mode is just fine.

UAC is a good thing. However, it can be disabled. It's always been able to be disabled. "and stuff" can probably be disabled too. First off, XP64 will be supported for some time, as it's based on Server 2003, which will be around for a while yet. NOBODY at Microsoft is too eager to stop updating Server 2003. Secondly, if MS stops supporting it.. who cares? When's the last time you called Microsoft with an OS problem?