Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

[Guest Borg Vomit]

I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I

do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-

install the OS.

 

Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?

 

Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a

couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is

XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

 

Will Visual Studio work the same?

 

What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find

anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I

switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

 

Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server

utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out

of my price range.

 

I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).

 

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

Have you checked the websites for the products you are using to see if they

are supported on XP Pro x64? You certainly do need to check for device

drivers. However, in general you will find wider driver support for Vista

x64 than for XP Pro x64. As for the mobo mfgs you need to check those

websites also. There are a number of anti-virus programs that run fine on

x64. Do your homework before you jump into XP Pro x64.

 

"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:559d7676-1111-49c5-b596-3e76a27fb8a5@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I

> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-

> install the OS.

>

> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?

>

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a

> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is

> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

>

> Will Visual Studio work the same?

>

> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find

> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I

> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

>

> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server

> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out

> of my price range.

>

> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).

>

>

> Borg Vomit

>

>

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

You already posted this in the 64bit.general ng. Stick to one ng. You need

to do your homework before deciding. It is a bit much to ask volunteers in

the newsgroups to do it for you.

 

"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:559d7676-1111-49c5-b596-3e76a27fb8a5@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I

> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-

> install the OS.

>

> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?

>

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a

> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is

> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

>

> Will Visual Studio work the same?

>

> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find

> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I

> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

>

> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server

> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out

> of my price range.

>

> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).

>

>

> Borg Vomit

>

>

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Apr 7, 2:01 pm, Borg Vomit <not_phrynic...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?

 

"the same applications" - I do not know every single application you

run. XP64 is highly compatible with 32-bit Windows apps, and does so

with no speed penalty. The only problem apps will be things that

directly access the OS itself (ie. your anti-virus software) and

things that install drivers. Also, shell extensions would need to be

64-bit. Ask your anti-virus software maker about a 64-bit version.

 

XP64, like Vista64, cannot run 16-bit apps. No DOS or crazy Win3.1

apps allowed!

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a

> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is

> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

 

XP64 is based on the Server 2003 codebase. As such, "servery" stuff,

like RAID, has a high chance of support, and quality support. Check

with your manufacturer! Note that XP64 is a little older than AHCI,

and will require drivers to boot to AHCI SATA drives, which need to

either be slipstreamed or installed from floppy. Hey it's still XP.

Driver support otherwise is fairly strong, though may require some

hunting. I have run XP64 on laptops, and haven't had too much trouble

getting drivers for most devices. The only one I am missing now is a

webcam driver on my Sager, tho it's not a big loss.

> Will Visual Studio work the same?

 

I'm not aware of any problems with this.

> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find

> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I

> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

 

Server 2000 would need to use PAE to access 4GB+ RAM, and PAE is kinda

ewww.. So 64-bit is a better choice, and a more modern one. Give

up? I have all the functionality I had with XP32 (and Vista64) but I

also have access to 64-bit apps and more RAM. I play games, browse

the web, download stuff, watch movies, etc., without any "giving up"

involved. I don't know what YOU do, so I can't say for sure if you

need to adapt in some special way.

> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server

> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out

> of my price range.

 

If you *need* a server, buy a server OS. XP64 is still a workstation

OS. It's based on server code, but is a workstation. It has

connection limitations and tweaking consistent with a workstation.

 

I run XP64 on a few machines and it runs smooth and fast.

[Guest db ´¯`·.. >]

Re: happiness is relative

 

Re: happiness is relative

 

based on your questions

maybe you should see if

you can master checkers

first.

 

 

--

 

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

 

"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:559d7676-1111-49c5-b596-3e76a27fb8a5@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I

> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-

> install the OS.

>

> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?

>

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a

> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is

> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

>

> Will Visual Studio work the same?

>

> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find

> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I

> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

>

> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server

> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out

> of my price range.

>

> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).

>

>

> Borg Vomit

>

>

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit

<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I want to use more ram (8 gig)

 

 

First, be sure there's a benefit for you to do so. Although you often

hear the mantra repeated that more RAM is always better. It's only

true up to a point, and for the great majority of people, 8GB is well

past that point. More RAM is better only if keeps you from using the

page file.

 

> so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I

> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-

> install the OS.

 

 

Right.

 

> Can I use the same applications,

 

 

In the great majority of cases yes, but you should check each one with

its vendor to be sure. Be aware that unless the applications is a

64-bit application (and the ones you already have obviously are not),

or it can make effective use of so much memory (very few can), there

will be *no* performance difference

 

> the same anti-virus?

 

 

There it is more likely *not* to be usable. Check with the vendor.

 

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista?

 

 

It has nothing to do with Vista. You need device drivers for your

hardware, and those drivers may or may not be available. Again, check

with the vendor to be sure. Especially if you have a laptop or an

older printer or scanner, there is a potential for issues.

 

> I noticed a

> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box.

 

 

 

Need? Why? Which version of RAID? Except for large companies, very few

individuals need any form of RAID, and in fact it isn't even a good

idea for the great majority of them.

 

 

> Is

> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

 

 

As far as I know, if it takes a 64-bit CPU, yes, but again, the place

to check is with the vendor.

 

 

> Will Visual Studio work the same?

 

 

Sorry, I can't help there. I have no idea.

 

> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find

> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I

> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

>

> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server

> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out

> of my price range.

>

> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).

>

>

> Borg Vomit

>

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

I would take a chance and guess that you will 'very much' like it. I am not

aware of any issues about the software you name - drivers will have to be

investigated. BIOS RAID is well supported - but then, you are bound to find

something that isn't. For anti-virus, I use Avast. The Home version is free

and very, very good - the Pro version has extended capabilities and did cost

40 bucks (not ducks) the last time I checked.

 

You know what you have - go visit the sites that will be involved and check

them out. I am still running Win2K on one machine out of sentimentality, XP

x64 is easily the nicest and the best running OS I have ever come across -

and I very much like Linux's too!

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

 

"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:559d7676-1111-49c5-b596-3e76a27fb8a5@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I

> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-

> install the OS.

>

> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?

>

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a

> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is

> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

>

> Will Visual Studio work the same?

>

> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find

> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I

> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

>

> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server

> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out

> of my price range.

>

> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).

>

>

> Borg Vomit

>

>

[Guest Scrat]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

I haven't paid much attention to paging in XP64, so this may be slightly

off-topic, but... I've noticed in Vista HP that the page file gets used no

matter how much ram is free. You can have 2gb of free main and still see

relatively high usage of the page file. Clearly Window 6.x's memory

management practices are not quite as--shall we say "intuitive"?--as, say,

the Linuces.

 

\s

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

news:bn5lv3dhq846k5t1kcgqm54dsdbcgetspi@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit

> <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> I want to use more ram (8 gig)

>

>

> First, be sure there's a benefit for you to do so. Although you often

> hear the mantra repeated that more RAM is always better. It's only

> true up to a point, and for the great majority of people, 8GB is well

> past that point. More RAM is better only if keeps you from using the

> page file.

>

>

>> so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I

>> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-

>> install the OS.

>

>

> Right.

>

>

>> Can I use the same applications,

>

>

> In the great majority of cases yes, but you should check each one with

> its vendor to be sure. Be aware that unless the applications is a

> 64-bit application (and the ones you already have obviously are not),

> or it can make effective use of so much memory (very few can), there

> will be *no* performance difference

>

>

>> the same anti-virus?

>

>

> There it is more likely *not* to be usable. Check with the vendor.

>

>

>> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista?

>

>

> It has nothing to do with Vista. You need device drivers for your

> hardware, and those drivers may or may not be available. Again, check

> with the vendor to be sure. Especially if you have a laptop or an

> older printer or scanner, there is a potential for issues.

>

>

>> I noticed a

>> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box.

>

>

>

> Need? Why? Which version of RAID? Except for large companies, very few

> individuals need any form of RAID, and in fact it isn't even a good

> idea for the great majority of them.

>

>

>

>> Is

>> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

>

>

> As far as I know, if it takes a 64-bit CPU, yes, but again, the place

> to check is with the vendor.

>

>

>

>> Will Visual Studio work the same?

>

>

> Sorry, I can't help there. I have no idea.

>

>

>> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find

>> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I

>> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

>>

>> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server

>> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out

>> of my price range.

>>

>> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).

>>

>>

>> Borg Vomit

>>

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Zootal]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

> XP64, like Vista64, cannot run 16-bit apps. No DOS or crazy Win3.1

> apps allowed!

 

16 bit apps can be easily ran in either a virtual machine, or if it's a DOS

app by using DosBox or a similar product. I was about to trash XP64 and go

back to XP32 when I discovered how easy it is to use a virtual machine for

16 bit stuff.

[Guest Borg Vomit]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

Tks SubZero. Very helpful. I think I'm ready to reload Windows 3.11;

all I need do is get a 5.25" drive from Ebay (hey, I've got lots of

old games I can play).

 

As far as pain, how would you compare your experience (or hearsay)

with Vista 64 to XP64?

 

I really want to believe in Vista. None of my PNY card readers work

with Vista (I'm done with PNY products anyway). But more importantly

it doesn't work with our expensive RAID cards, or our expensive

scanners (no Twain on Vista?) or our other expensive peripherals which

aren't that old and not at all obsolete with regard to their

performance. Vista doesn't transfer files quickly, it doesn't

display thumbnails, and the search is too weird to even use (on at

least one of the 3 machines)... I've never seen a retail OS test that

poorly.

 

So what is your opinion of Vista? If you had a big budget and your

goal was to build game box (just for the sake of argument) or a turn

key media center for your dad (something that you wouldn't have to fix

all the time), what OS would you invest in, here in 2008?

> If you *need* a server, buy a server OS. XP64 is still a workstation

> OS. It's based on server code, but is a workstation. It has

> connection limitations and tweaking consistent with a workstation.

 

That's just it, we don't need a server for connection limitations, but

we do need the fault tolerance, (RAID), backup and many other features

that (MS) servers offer. Some of the MS products I need to work with,

work 'better' on a server. I will end up having a server box running

enterprise scale apps, there's no doubt. It sounds like I may have to

run 2008 server with no antivirus, but have XP VPC's that have their

own anti-virus. The problem there is the free MS VPC's don't access

USB devices.

 

I just need to speed up the over all process of getting things done,

and keeping the footprint and the cost as small as possible, although

today, cost is not as much of a problem as finding a 24/7 uptime

configuration (IMHO).

 

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Borg Vomit]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Apr 7, 5:57 pm, "Zootal" <msn...@zootal.nospam.com> wrote:

> > XP64, like Vista64, cannot run 16-bit apps.  No DOS or crazy Win3.1

> > apps allowed!

>

> 16 bit apps can be easily ran in either a virtual machine, or if it's a DOS

> app by using DosBox or a similar product. I was about to trash XP64 and go

> back to XP32 when I discovered how easy it is to use a virtual machine for

> 16 bit stuff.

 

 

BINGO!

 

Yeah, VPC's are most definitely going to play a big role in making

this work. I just wish they had USB support.

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Borg Vomit]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Apr 7, 5:54 pm, "Scrat" <sc...@acorn.biz> wrote:

> I haven't paid much attention to paging in XP64, so this may be slightly

> off-topic, but... I've noticed in Vista HP that the page file gets used no

> matter how much ram is free. You can have 2gb of free main and still see

> relatively high usage of the page file. Clearly Window 6.x's memory

> management practices are not quite as--shall we say "intuitive"?--as, say,

> the Linuces.

 

I'm not sure where I heard it or which OS it referred to, but it was

something about not having a page file to force the system to use

ram. I gave up trying to understand and optimize my page file the

same time I gave up on hard drive block sizes. But I love the idea of

a ram drive--still a viable option for ephemeral 'scratch' disks and

page files.

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Borg Vomit]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

Hi Ken,

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista?

 

It has nothing to do with Vista. You need device drivers for your

hardware, and those drivers may or may not be available. Again, check

with the vendor to be sure. Especially if you have a laptop or an

older printer or scanner, there is a potential for issues.

 

The reason I mentioned Vista is that we built 3 PC's (and purchased an

HP with Vista installed). Except for the HP, none of the PC's

functioned correctly with Vista, all had some issues with the drivers.

Asus had (has?) boards that are sold as Vista Mobo's but they still

have issues with Vista. I really wanted to be a fan of Vista (still

do) but we couldn't get them to work right. The HP worked much better

than the custom PC's but there were still some hardware issues, most

of them with USB if I recall.

> I noticed a

> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box.

 

Need? Why? Which version of RAID? Except for large companies, very

few

individuals need any form of RAID, and in fact it isn't even a good

idea for the great majority of them.

 

We need RAID because none of our hard drives seem to last more than 2

years and it's very disruptive to what we do to have to replace a hard

drive. We also need to speed things up. The 10k drives cost too

much. We use RAID O for the OS and RAID 5 for the data. Backing

things up doesn't seem to be a skill we've master either.

 

Next we will move to a NAS for the files and I don't know what for the

SQL database--but that's a whole new headache.

 

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit

<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

 

> We need RAID because none of our hard drives seem to last more than 2

> years

 

 

That's an incredible number. I have never had a hard drive last such a

short time.

 

I think you should find out why that's the case and address the issue,

not try to patch it with RAID.

 

> and it's very disruptive to what we do to have to replace a hard

> drive. We also need to speed things up. The 10k drives cost too

> much. We use RAID O for the OS and RAID 5 for the data.

 

If "it's very disruptive to what [you] do to have to replace a hard

drive," and, as you say below "Backing things up doesn't seem to be a

skill we've master either," RAID 0 is the last thing you should be

considering. It greatly increases the risk to whatever is on the

drive.

 

> and RAID 5 for the data. Backing

> things up doesn't seem to be a skill we've master either.

 

 

In that case, my view is that you badly need to acquire that skill.

 

Also note that in most people's experience, including mine, the

speedup provided by RAID 0 is so small as to be unnoticeable.

>

> Next we will move to a NAS for the files and I don't know what for the

> SQL database--but that's a whole new headache.

>

>

> Borg Vomit

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit

<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure where I heard it or which OS it referred to, but it was

> something about not having a page file to force the system to use

> ram.

 

 

Not having a page file does *not* force the system to use RAM. In fact

it's a very bad idea, since it forces the system to waste RAM.

 

You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory

you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you

have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in

anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that

pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases

if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and

never actually gets used.

 

But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in

real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that

pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not

available for any other use.

 

There is never a benefit in not having a page file. If it isn't

needed, it won't be used. Don't confuse allocated memory with used

memory.

 

Read here for more information: http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

 

 

> I gave up trying to understand and optimize my page file the

> same time I gave up on hard drive block sizes. But I love the idea of

> a ram drive--still a viable option for ephemeral 'scratch' disks and

> page files.

 

 

It makes no sense to use a RAM drive for the page file.

 

It would hurt performance. It's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

You'd be taking memory away from Windows use, then giving it back in

the form of a page file in a RAM drive. Since you would create extra

need for paging in exactly the same amount as the size of the RAM

drive page file, you would accomplish nothing except the extra

overhead associated with the RAM drive.

 

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Borg Vomit]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

Hi Tony,

> For anti-virus, I use Avast. The Home version is free

> and very, very good - the Pro version has extended capabilities and did cost

> 40 bucks (not ducks) the last time I checked.

 

You use Avast for 64bit? What do you use for a (64bit) firewall?

 

I've got one last PC that still has Vista on it, I was saving it to

test the first Vista service pack, but I think I've heard enough good

things to go ahead with an XP64 test! It doesn't sound as if it'll be

as bogus as trying to get Vista 64 to work.

 

Tks guys

 

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Borg Vomit]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Apr 7, 6:42 pm, Borg Vomit <not_phrynic...@hotmail.com> wrote:

 

> Hi Ken,

 

 

Hmmm, I'm not sure what happened to the >> in my reply to Ken....

odd.

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Borg Vomit]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

> > We need RAID because none of our hard drives seem to last more than 2

> > years

 

My guess is, we're getting reconditioned drives being sold as new.

Most if not all of them are Western Digital drives. We're having

much better luck with Maxtor.

> I think you should find out why that's the case and address the issue,

> not try to patch it with RAID.

 

I just don't have the time to sit on the phone with a HD tech unless

I'm trying to recover important data. And I this is the first time

I've heard an argument against raid. I guess I've given up on trying

to make the manufacturers backup their claims--the quality's just not

there anymore.

> Ø RAID 0 is the last thing you should be

> considering. It greatly increases the risk to whatever is on the

> drive.

 

Oh, sorry Ken, I meant RAID 1 (whichever one is the mirror)--yeah, I

remember using NT 4 to "blend" 2 drives together... that was a very big

mistake.

 

"Backing things up doesn't seem to be a skill we've master either,"

> In that case, my view is that you badly need to acquire that skill.

 

Backing up large amounts of our data would be very complex, well, I

should say restoring it is very complex. The best we can do is to

mirror it.

 

I don't mean to turn this into a hardware thread, but if you look at

posts about external hard-drives you will find a fair amount of

complaints about their reliability. As far as odds are concerned, I

don't know what the failure rates are, but I have a feeling that

having 2 or 3 out of 5 RAID members fail is much less likely than

having an external backup drive fail.

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Borg Vomit]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

> Read here for more information:http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

> > I gave up trying to understand and optimize my page file the

> > same time I gave up on hard drive block sizes.  But I love the idea of

> > a ram drive--still a viable option for ephemeral 'scratch' disks and

> > page files.

>

> It makes no sense to use a RAM drive for the page file.

 

What about for things like the Photoshop scratch file?

 

Borg Vomit

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit

<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > We need RAID because none of our hard drives seem to last more than 2

> > > years

>

> My guess is, we're getting reconditioned drives being sold as new.

> Most if not all of them are Western Digital drives. We're having

> much better luck with Maxtor.

>

> > I think you should find out why that's the case and address the issue,

> > not try to patch it with RAID.

>

> I just don't have the time to sit on the phone with a HD tech unless

> I'm trying to recover important data.

 

 

 

Then don't buy reconditioned drives.

 

> And I this is the first time

> I've heard an argument against raid. I guess I've given up on trying

> to make the manufacturers backup their claims--the quality's just not

> there anymore.

>

> > Ø RAID 0 is the last thing you should be

> > considering. It greatly increases the risk to whatever is on the

> > drive.

>

> Oh, sorry Ken, I meant RAID 1 (whichever one is the mirror)--yeah, I

> remember using NT 4 to "blend" 2 drives together... that was a very big

> mistake.

>

> "Backing things up doesn't seem to be a skill we've master either,"

>

> > In that case, my view is that you badly need to acquire that skill.

>

> Backing up large amounts of our data would be very complex, well, I

> should say restoring it is very complex.

 

 

 

Then you need to look at some of the better backup programs out there,

like Acronis True Image. It's very easy.

 

> The best we can do is to

> mirror it.

 

 

 

Mirroring is not a substitute for backup. It provides redundancy,

not backup. It's used in situations (almost always within

corporations, not in homes) where any downtown can't be tolerated,

because the way it works is that if one drive fails the other takes

over seamlessly.

 

Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan

in place. If you just rely on RAID1, you remain vulnerable to losing

both drives simultaneously to things like severe power glitches,

nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the

computer). If your data is important to you, you *need* to perform

regularly scheduled backup to external media.

 

 

 

 

> I don't mean to turn this into a hardware thread, but if you look at

> posts about external hard-drives you will find a fair amount of

> complaints about their reliability.

 

 

No hard drive is perfect, and they all fail sooner or later.

 

> As far as odds are concerned, I

> don't know what the failure rates are, but I have a feeling that

> having 2 or 3 out of 5 RAID members fail is much less likely than

> having an external backup drive fail.

 

 

 

Drive failure is only one of many possible dangers to your data.

 

In my view, you're playing with fire, and are very likely to get

burnt.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Apr 7, 4:18 pm, Borg Vomit <not_phrynic...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As far as pain, how would you compare your experience (or hearsay)

> with Vista 64 to XP64?

 

Drivers are the only rough part. Not many laptop vendors have an XP64

section. For pretty much everything on my two laptops I had to poke

around and Google most of the drivers. Mind you they are all recent,

functional drivers, so it's not like I got subpar stuff. I just

picked up the latest beta nVidia drivers for XP64 recently, for

example.

> So what is your opinion of Vista?  If you had a big budget and your

> goal was to build game box (just for the sake of argument) or a turn

> key media center for your dad (something that you wouldn't have to fix

> all the time), what OS would you invest in, here in 2008?

 

It was a noble effort, but I think they lost focus. The interface is

almost cool, the glassy windows are nice and it does feel 2007ish.

However, the huge amount of resources it takes compared to XP64 is

just unforgivable. 800MB RAM used at idle (superfetch disabled)?

Ultimate takes about 14GB of disk space? This is completely

unacceptable. The lack of any noticeable way to remove components

completely off the machine means I'm stuck with freakin' Purble Place

whether I want it or not. I do have some issues with the GUI too,

specifically how inefficient and wasteful parts of it are. If Vista

was just a more secure XP with Aero, I'd use it, simple as that. But

they did something horrific under the hood that I can't rationalize

and I refuse to accept it.

 

Unfortunately Vista seems to be inevitable, with MS's big push to get

it on every possible new PC regardless of it actually being usable on

them. I'm lucky in that I have a fairly narrow application set, and I

can live without DX10. I do some virtualization stuff, and the

resources Vista 64 uses over XP64 is equal to one less VM I can run.

That won't work.

 

I did arrange one alternate bailout.. I tinkered with OSx86, Mac OS X

on non-Apple hardware. After a decent but not perfect experience with

that, I broke down and bought a Mac. If Windows manages to become

such a cluster that even *I* get sick of it, I can always just boot up

Leopard and forget about it.

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

Oh yes, it's still a 32bit program but the tricky bits have been put in a

64bit *.DLL as far as I can tell. That's all it takes and Avast was among

the very first to use the method, I think. No need to rewrite the whole app,

specifically not with something as lean and unobtrusive as Avast..

 

My Firewall requirements are modest, perhaps, I use Windows Firewall in

combination with the built-in FW in my Switch/Hub. I've had no issues, and I

want nothing more for the moment.

 

I was hanging on to the Vista public trials for as long as that was running

but I found too much change that didn't do any good - and the 'Cool' stuff

it 'pioneered' was too-little-too-late and allready far, far cooler on

Linux. So I thought that I was simply too old to jump on to that train and I

skipped the conversion entirely.

 

Statistics say that the next Windows version will appeal to me - as it

stands, Vista is Windows ME all over, but I may not be widely supported here

for that specific remark, many are growing fond of it!

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1ff36d79-aa8b-4a3c-b68f-e1db1f59d1ee@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> Hi Tony,

>

> > For anti-virus, I use Avast. The Home version is free

> > and very, very good - the Pro version has extended capabilities and did

cost

> > 40 bucks (not ducks) the last time I checked.

>

> You use Avast for 64bit? What do you use for a (64bit) firewall?

>

> I've got one last PC that still has Vista on it, I was saving it to

> test the first Vista service pack, but I think I've heard enough good

> things to go ahead with an XP64 test! It doesn't sound as if it'll be

> as bogus as trying to get Vista 64 to work.

>

> Tks guys

>

>

> Borg Vomit

[Guest Carlos]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

 

 

"Borg Vomit" wrote:

> On Apr 7, 5:57 pm, "Zootal" <msn...@zootal.nospam.com> wrote:

> > > XP64, like Vista64, cannot run 16-bit apps. No DOS or crazy Win3.1

> > > apps allowed!

> >

> > 16 bit apps can be easily ran in either a virtual machine, or if it's a DOS

> > app by using DosBox or a similar product. I was about to trash XP64 and go

> > back to XP32 when I discovered how easy it is to use a virtual machine for

> > 16 bit stuff.

>

>

> BINGO!

>

> Yeah, VPC's are most definitely going to play a big role in making

> this work. I just wish they had USB support.

>

> Borg Vomit

>

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Apr 7, 4:34 pm, Borg Vomit <not_phrynic...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah,  VPC's are most definitely going to play a big role in making

> this work.  I just wish they had USB support.

 

FYI - Virtualbox (http://www.virtualbox.org) supports USB for guests.

[Guest Carlos]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

Hi,

My former answer didn't get through and matches the one from S.SubZero.

The freeware Virtual PC program Virtualbox (http://www.virtualbox) runs x86 guests

on XP x64 hosts, with USB support.

Carlos

 

"Borg Vomit" wrote:

> On Apr 7, 5:57 pm, "Zootal" <msn...@zootal.nospam.com> wrote:

> > > XP64, like Vista64, cannot run 16-bit apps. No DOS or crazy Win3.1

> > > apps allowed!

> >

> > 16 bit apps can be easily ran in either a virtual machine, or if it's a DOS

> > app by using DosBox or a similar product. I was about to trash XP64 and go

> > back to XP32 when I discovered how easy it is to use a virtual machine for

> > 16 bit stuff.

>

>

> BINGO!

>

> Yeah, VPC's are most definitely going to play a big role in making

> this work. I just wish they had USB support.

>

> Borg Vomit

>