Vista X64...........Worth Moving To?

[gunsmokingman]

I just wanted to repeat what I said before, what are you and Pete Guttman smoking.

DID YOU KNOW THAT VISTA CHECKS THE OUTPUT PORTS 60 TIMES A SECOND TO SEE IF YOU RE STEALING premium content?

The only time my older machine get near 100% cpu processing is when I load UT 2004 and that lasts only a couple of seconds.

Here is a print screen on Vista on my newer computer, I have 82 process and 0 percent CPU usage. From what you said my

cpu`s should be at a 100 percent.

You are clearly lying when you say a cpu uses 5% of total power usage.What is using the the other remaining 95%?

I would assume that Harddrives would use some of that 95% left. Or the cooling fan on the CPU and the fan in

the power supply would also use electricity. What about your video card it uses electricity.

And if your Vista machine is consistently at 100% CPU, either your hardware is VASTLY underpowered for Vista or you have a problem with your install. This is not normal behavior.

I agree with cluberti

[GrofLuigi]

Please, if we want to compare two confronted authors, we first must establish their credibility. I did not know much about any of them before, so I googled about them with various terms and queries. What I have found (not necessarily the whole truth):

Ed Bott - spent 2 decades writing about Microsoft software. Here you can see some of his books. I haven't read any of them, but their level looks to me like "for dummies" or slightly above. Some criticize him even harder.

Peter Gutmann, Ph.D. - His biography can be found more easily. On many places. Professional Paranoid, according to himself. Has devised one more or less famous algorithm for wiping hard disks.

Guess who I'd trust more about Vista's in-depth security?

And something more about the discussed topic...

GL

[CoffeeFiend]

More extremely irrational, unthinking, paranoia-fulled, asinine claims! How thoroughly un-surprising of you.

You are wrong again.

Because you can't understand what others write doesn't make me wrong. CPUs use use more power with load indeed, which still won't double your computer's power usage (lots of it is coming from other devices in the first place), which won't nearly double your houses' total electricity usage, clearer now? You talk like running Vista is going to cost me $3000 in power a year. Whereas my CPU still idles at like < %1, and CPU consuming tasks, like watching 1080p H.264 movies (all decoded in software no less) still take no extra CPU power. Funny, but my electrical bill hasn't gone up by a single dollar. If anything, it's gone down, thanks to actually working power management! There's thousands more people that would say exactly the same.

I have defeated you again.

You only managed to make yourself look like a nutcase yet again.

Your attacks on Pete Guttman are based on jealousy.

:lol: :lol: :lol: x 10^6 trillion

Is there any need to even reply to this? Jealous of a guy who's proven his incompetence publicly? Am I supposed to be into self-humiliation or something? The fact this guy still has a job is nothing short of unbelievable...

Don't let facts get in your way this year either, it's quite entertaining reading about all your half-baked conspiracy theories and feebleminded delusions. Do you also believe in the time cube by any chance?

Edited January 1, 2009 by crahak

[knowitall_wannabe]

I did try Vista Ultimate 64 for a couple of days and was kind of disappointed. It was a little quicker compared to 32 but the apps I use while they claim they are now 64-compatible still aren't ready for prime time even though they are steps further than around this time last year.

Now I'm back to Ultimate 32 and even though I'm only registering 3.5GB of RAM with 4GB it still does the job quite nicely for the crap that I use.

Edited January 2, 2009 by knowitall_wannabe

[spacesurfer]

I did try Vista Ultimate 64 for a couple of days and was kind of disappointed. It was a little quicker compared to 32 but the apps I use while they claim they are now 64-compatible still aren't ready for prime time even though they are steps further than around this time last year.

Now I'm back to Ultimate 32 and even though I'm only registering 3.5GB of RAM with 4GB it still does the job quite nicely for the crap that I use.

To set the record straight, it's not really VISTA. It's the other apps that aren't ready from prime time, according to you.

64-bit is the future and you can either adapt now or later. Many apps are available and many will be coming.

Many 32-bit apps work in 64-bit OS as fast as in 64-bit OS.

[cluberti]

I have access to a reliable source as well, and Peter Gutmann, on this anyway, IS a raving lunatic. And yes, this source is about as accurate as it gets.

[GrofLuigi]

I have access to a reliable source as well, and Peter Gutmann, on this anyway, IS a raving lunatic. And yes, this source is about as accurate as it gets.

With all due respect, this is no argument at all. If you couldn't say more, you had better said nothing.

Gutmann speaks in general terms. And I agree, his 'slides' are not organized well. Bott is a trained journalist and uses the language (inserting implications) very cleverly. But what's most important, his 'rebuttal' is based on individual cases. If something isn't implemented or activated yet (or is circumvented by hardware vendors) doesn't mean it isn't there.

In his own words:

The reason I emphasize the word “potential” is because all of the movie studios have put a moratorium on turning on the ICT flag because HDCP market penetration is still low and there’s no way they can implement ICT without generating a massive user backlash and killing any chance of HD DVD or Blu-ray adoption.

- so it isn't activated yet, and then he proceeds to criticize Gutmann for not proving increased CPU usage?!

And so on...

From what I have seen from the outside, if this isn't 'tilt bit' (albeit in another form and for another purpose, but still related), I don't know what is. I find it outrageous (as a principle/method of operation) and was surprised when it did not get much more attention in the media (passed by as one-off story). And yet many try to persuade me that the tilt bit doesn't exist. Sure, there is no need to, if it can be achieved in many different ways.

Incidently, here's Ed Bott's response on this. I agree with him, but here's what happens in the real world when you try to excercise your right.

* This is my last comment for now on this * - as I realise neither 'side' will change its mind. But, again, I had to start commenting above when too many beliefs started being passed on as facts.

GL

*Edit* - sorry I misattributed the quote, it's from here, but I think it doesn't change much.

Edited January 2, 2009 by GrofLuigi

[cluberti]

With all due respect, this is no argument at all. If you couldn't say more, you had better said nothing.

Check your PM.

[esecallum]

More extremely irrational, unthinking, paranoia-fulled, asinine claims! How thoroughly un-surprising of you.

You are wrong again.

Because you can't understand what others write doesn't make me wrong. CPUs use use more power with load indeed, which still won't double your computer's power usage (lots of it is coming from other devices in the first place), which won't nearly double your houses' total electricity usage, clearer now? You talk like running Vista is going to cost me $3000 in power a year. Whereas my CPU still idles at like < %1, and CPU consuming tasks, like watching 1080p H.264 movies (all decoded in software no less) still take no extra CPU power. Funny, but my electrical bill hasn't gone up by a single dollar. If anything, it's gone down, thanks to actually working power management! There's thousands more people that would say exactly the same.

I have defeated you again.

Your attacks on Pete Guttman are based on jealousy.

Once again you have evaded the question put to you.why can you not answer?

You claimed the cpu uses only 5%.

I asked you what happened to the other 95%...?

now you evaded this question...again....your back is against the ropes and now you try to obfuscate badly by posting cpu figures which don't work on vista with any accuracy.

your claim vista uses 1% while decoding h264 movie is impossible without using a cpu is suspect.

this implies i can watch 100 movies at 100%.

no system exists which would allow a 100 xh264 movies to be played simultaneously on a home pc... again your are being suspect in your claims.

why is that we ask you?

it is well known that xp tools misreport on vista.

gunsmokers picture of processes proves nothing.it just shows some graph from any where.i can duplicate that graph too.

your petty insults only confirm your fears against me.

also i have been vindicated by the other poster grof luigi who confirms tilt bits and content protection by enable flags.

i think you have had a case of blows with pete guttman which is why you hate him and besmirch his character without reason

why are so chummy with ed bott?

what has he done for you?

if ed bott saw you lying in the gutter would he help you?

do you know him?...have you met him?...do you visit him?

you seem very fond of ed bott...why is that?

i saw his picture...i saw that smirk on his face...he knows he has you.

Edited January 4, 2009 by esecallum

[CoffeeFiend]

Once again you have evaded the question put to you.

Once again you have evaded trying to understand what others wrote. Try working on your reading comprehension skills instead of your trolling skills (which are also laughable)

your claim vista uses 1% while decoding h264 movie is impossible without using a cpu is suspect.

It only further shows your ignorance towards the technology. And no, it doesn't imply anything weird like you just said.

it is well known that xp tools misreport on vista.

Nobody talked about xp tool in here besides you, and no, there are no such things "known" either. Of course, like always, you have nothing to back this up.

And as always, you'll expect to put the burden of proof onto others, when you can't backup any of your wildly inaccurate claims and other fabrications of your imagination (besides "but, but! one crazy guy on the web says so!", of course)

your petty insults only confirm your fears against me.

You keep telling yourself that. You are a VERY funny man, I'll give you that. Very entertaining. The only fear I have here, is to die from laughter.

Edited January 4, 2009 by crahak

[JatinBeniwal]

Launching of programs in x64 is fast as compared to Windows Vista as Vista x86 Only uses a maximum of 3 GB Ram but memory footprint in x64 is 16 GB in my system but for other functions x86 is better.

[gunsmokingman]

You claimed the cpu uses only 5%.

I asked you what happened to the other 95%...?

I guess maybe the art of reading is really lost to you. Maybe you should have your eyes check I posted a reply to your

question.

I would assume that Harddrives would use some of that 95% left. Or the cooling fan on the CPU and the fan in

the power supply would also use electricity. What about your video card it uses electricity.

gunsmokers picture of processes proves nothing.it just shows some graph from any where.i can duplicate that graph too.

your petty insults only confirm your fears against me.

Man you got to stop smoking what ever it is, you are starting to show the classic signs of paranoid delusions.

Here is a large image of my desktop 1680x1050 x 2 I have my second desktop on my 40 inch flat screen.

In this image I have 82 process run streaming media on a little hta player I made, my average CPU cycle is 1 to 3 percent.

This show both sides of my desktop and it a large image My Desktop

[MrCobra]

So is there any way to get rid off this media licensing crap completely, say, using vLite perhaps?

Yes, vLite can remove the DRM from the media player component; I'm not sure if it just removes that or other things with it. Please note that if you remove it, you will no longer be able to play protected content. Normal, as is non-protected content will still play as usual.

[MrCobra]

vista will double your electricity and contribute towards global warming.a cpu running at high l;oad will consume more electric current.

LMAO!

no hacking is reqiured at all to get server 2003 as desktop...a forum exists.control panel adjustments take 10 minutes.

Until you run into software that WILL NOT install because it's a server OS.

renowned vista expert pete guttman confirms what i said about how single subsystem can slow vista if it cannot keep up with non-stop encrypting/decrypting of all bytes passing to and from it....

The DRM system in Vista is ONLY activated IF AND ONLY IF protected content is opened. In the headers of protected content exists a flag that tells whether it's protected or not. If it's not, the DRM never kicks in. This behavior can be seen by running a kernel level debugger and attaching to Media Player and then opening protected content. I don't know how to write an OS, nor would I want to, but I know how debug and trace code and your claims are false.

vista is huge 15gb in size

I thought that at one point as well. Me and crahak had a bit of discussion on it. See quote at the bottom.

Technically, it's not. It only seems to be that large because all the files in the WinSxS folder are hard links to the files already in the System32 folder. Explorer or any other file manager sees those hard links as actual files and reports what it sees. But, you can rest assured that that 15GIGS you complain about is in fact not 15GIGS of used space.

your claim vista uses 1% while decoding h264 movie is impossible without using a cpu is suspect.

I can watch a full 1080p h264 movie (decoded with CoreAVC which is software ONLY) and barely hit 1% CPU usage. I can encode h264 content and barely even hit 5% CPU usage. I can hit 90+% usage (never hits 100%) on a single core and have the other 3 cores free to do other work. It's nice to do some 3D rendering, a movie encode, compiling a large project in Visual Studio, and be playing COD5, or some other game, and never once have my PC even hint at getting slowed down. I do it all the time. It's wonderful.

We definitely get a lot of questions about the new (to Vista) Windows SxS directory (%System Root%\winsxs) and many folks believe this is a big consumer of disk space as just bringing up the properties on a newly installed system shows over 3000 files and over 3.5 GB of disk consumed. Over time this directory grows to even higher numbers.

“Modularizing” the operating system was an engineering goal in Windows Vista. This was to solve a number of issues in legacy Windows related to installation, servicing and reliability. The Windows SxS directory represents the “installation and servicing state” of all system components. But in reality it doesn’t actually consume as much disk space as it appears when using the built-in tools (DIR and Explorer) to measure disk space used. The fact that we make it tricky for you to know how much space is actually consumed in a directory is definitely a fair point!

In practice, nearly every file in the WinSxS directory is a “hard link” to the physical files elsewhere on the system—meaning that the files are not actually in this directory. For instance in the WinSxS there might be a file called advapi32.dll that takes up >700K however what’s being reported is a hard link to the actual file that lives in the Windows\System32, and it will be counted twice (or more) when simply looking at the individual directories from Windows Explorer.

The value of this is that the servicing platform (the tools that deliver patches and service packs) in Windows can query the WinSxS directory to determine a number of key details about the state of the system, like what’s installed, or available to be installed (optional components, more on those later), what versions, and what updates are on the system to help determine applicability of Windows patches to your specific system. This functionality gives us increased servicing reliability and performance, and supports future engineering efforts providing additional system layering and great configurability.

The WinSxS directory also enables offline servicing, and makes Windows Vista “safe for imaging”. Prior to Windows Vista, inbox deployment support was through “Setup” only. IT professionals would install a single system, and then leverage any number of 3rd party tools to capture the installed state as a general image they then deployed to multiple systems. Windows wasn’t built to be “image aware”. This meant that greater than 80% of systems were deployed and serviced using a technology that wasn’t supported natively, and required IT departments to create custom solutions to deploy and manage Windows effectively. In addition, state stored in the WinSxS directory can be queried “offline”, meaning the image doesn’t have to be booted or running, and patches can be applied to it. These two features of WinSxS give great flexibility and cost reductions to IT departments who deploy Windows Vista, making it easier to create and then service standard corporate images offline.

While it’s true that WinSxS does consume some disk space by simply existing, and there are a number of metadata files, folders, manifests, and catalogs in it, it’s significantly smaller than reported. The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a typical system it is about 400MB. While that is not small, we think the robustness provided for servicing is a reasonable tradeoff.

So why does the shell report hard links the way it does? Hard links work to optimize disk footprint for duplicate files all over the system. Application developers can use this functionality to optimize the disk consumption of their applications as well. It’s critical that any path expected by an application appear as a physical file in the file system to support the appropriate loading of the actual file. In this case, the shell is just another application reporting on the files it sees. As a result of this confusion and a desire to reduce disk footprint, many folks have endeavored to just delete this directory to save space.

There have been several blogs and even some “underground” tools that tell you it’s ok to delete the WinSxS directory, and it’s certainly true that after installation, you can remove it from the system and it will appear that the system boots and runs fine. But as described above, this is a very bad practice, as you’re removing the ability to reliably service, all operating system components and the ability to update or configure optional components on your system. Windows Vista only supports the WinSxS directory on the physical drive in its originally installed location. The risks far outweigh the gains removing it or relocating it from the system, given the data described above.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx

Edited January 4, 2009 by MrCobra

[midiman]

I,m using Vista Ult sp1 X64.

I quite like it and find it very stable. The only problem that I seem to have is with certain components in 64bit version of IE. So to get around this I use the 32bit version of IE.

I decided to take the step when I built my new PC last month. All I would say is make sure your machine can handle it and you should be ok.

Here are my pc specs

Intel i7 920

Gigabyte UD5 MB

6GB Corsair Tri Channel DDR3 RAM

1TB Samsung Drive

ATI HD 4800 Series

My CPU load sits at about 3% and RAM 40%