how did I fubar XP x64 so badly?

[seeker010]

I just upgraded my parents' computer to Vista x64 (my mom gets cheap MS software from her work) because XP x64 had a few issues (java crashes - though fixed, IME pad removed, and Audigy drivers didn't provide hardware mixing, among other things), and many progs are easily 2x faster than XP x64 (especially vmware). The only thing I did was to run O&O defrag. Is it really that good, or did I really fubar XP x64 that badly?

On another note, nwn now requires admin access in Vista, which is kind of annoying. KoToR doesn't, and it works great. Had a slight issue getting SC4 Rush Hour to install, so I can certainly see how some people hate Vista, while others love it. My parents haven't noticed the difference apart from the IME pad existing again. I just told them I updated the skin. I'm not sure how they'll react to the plethora of UAC prompts when all those software update things start going off.

On a side note, DDR @ 184*2 in dual channel, 5-2-3-2.5 @ 2T only gets 4.8 in the memory score?

[Espíritu_de_América]

I just upgraded my parents' computer to Vista x64 (my mom gets cheap MS software from her work) because XP x64 had a few issues (java crashes - though fixed, IME pad removed, and Audigy drivers didn't provide hardware mixing, among other things), and many progs are easily 2x faster than XP x64 (especially vmware). The only thing I did was to run O&O defrag. Is it really that good, or did I really fubar XP x64 that badly?

Not sure what the problem is? Are you asking why Vista x64 runs better?

On another note, nwn now requires admin access in Vista, which is kind of annoying. KoToR doesn't, and it works great. Had a slight issue getting SC4 Rush Hour to install, so I can certainly see how some people hate Vista, while others love it. My parents haven't noticed the difference apart from the IME pad existing again. I just told them I updated the skin. I'm not sure how they'll react to the plethora of UAC prompts when all those software update things start going off.

Just be honest and tell them that UAC is there to protect them from spyware, viruses, etc.

On a side note, DDR @ 184*2 in dual channel, 5-2-3-2.5 @ 2T only gets 4.8 in the memory score?

Yes, I have 2GB (2x1GB) OCZ DDR400 Platinum 2-3-2-5 that gets a 5.1 score.

The DDR2-533 in my Dell Latitude D610 gets a 4.4 score in Vista.

[seeker010]

Not sure what the problem is? Are you asking why Vista x64 runs better?

No, because on my workstation XP x64 is generally more responsive when running VMWare than Vista is. I did something. Probably related to the daily BSODs they got in XP x64.

Just be honest and tell them that UAC is there to protect them from spyware, viruses, etc.

Well how do I explain what is a virus and what isn't, when something has a name of HP Software Update vs HP Software hax0r My parents are the type that wants things to happen in the background. They don't like an in your face computing experience.

Yes, I have 2GB (2x1GB) OCZ DDR400 Platinum 2-3-2-5 that gets a 5.1 score.

The DDR2-533 in my Dell Latitude D610 gets a 4.4 score in Vista.

ok, just making sure something isn't screwy.

[benjy355]

You could just disable UAC... It's in the control panel Hiding.

[Espíritu_de_América]

No, because on my workstation XP x64 is generally more responsive when running VMWare than Vista is. I did something. Probably related to the daily BSODs they got in XP x64.

I never liked VMWare. Always found it to be buggy at best. Try out VirtualBox instead. It runs smooth as silk for me in Vista and has a 64-bit version too.

Well how do I explain what is a virus and what isn't, when something has a name of HP Software Update vs HP Software hax0r My parents are the type that wants things to happen in the background. They don't like an in your face computing experience.

Malware/spyware. I'm sure they are aware of what that is or have heard of it from friends. Just explain that it helps prevent that.

[seeker010]

Malware/spyware. I'm sure they are aware of what that is or have heard of it from friends. Just explain that it helps prevent that.

you guys don't understand. In XP they ran as normal users, so auto update progras would either silently fail or download the update and prompt them to install as administrator. They still run as unprivileged users, but now those same update programs take over the screen and force them to do something while checking for updates. That's what they don't like. It's not like most malware/spyware can cause much damage regardless.

I can't turn off UAC because of the way runas now works in Vista. UAC must be enabled to allow unprivileged users to elevate their rights.

I never liked VMWare. Always found it to be buggy at best. Try out VirtualBox instead. It runs smooth as silk for me in Vista and has a 64-bit version too.

Does virtualbox support SMP per virtual console? VMware offers much easier networking configurations. And VMWare is faster than Virtualbox, especially at file operations.

[caveman-jim]

VMware is the virtualization market leader for a reason. It ain't because its 'buggy'.

[Espíritu_de_América]

Does virtualbox support SMP per virtual console?

Not yet.

VMware offers much easier networking configurations.

What's easier? VB offers host networking (bridged), NAT and even internal network options.

And VMWare is faster than Virtualbox, especially at file operations.

Proof of this?

The major difference? VirtualBox offers a lot of features but is completely free.

[caveman-jim]

VMware Server offers nat, host only, and bridged networking, as is completely free. VMware ESX3i is a full bare metal hypervisor and offers all of the above for free as well.
VMware is faster than virtual box because of the VMware tools drivers and also supports paravirtualized OS'es as well (e.g. ubuntu).

Virtualbox works, after a fashion. Vmware is IMO better, but I'm biased - I'm a VCP.

[Jokerzwild]

Wish I would have known that vmware was better before I went through the trouble of figuring out how to set up virtualbox .

[caveman-jim]

nub

[jimmt]

VMware Server offers nat, host only, and bridged networking, as is completely free. VMware ESX3i is a full bare metal hypervisor and offers all of the above for free as well.
VMware is faster than virtual box because of the VMware tools drivers and also supports paravirtualized OS'es as well (e.g. ubuntu).

Virtualbox works, after a fashion. Vmware is IMO better, but I'm biased - I'm a VCP.

I have to disagree about speed. I have both VMware workstation and Virtualbox installed on my laptop running Linux. Both have a vista virtual machine and Virtualbox is by far faster in all operations. VMware feels sluggish in vista when working on the console. If I RDP into both then I can't tell the difference. Also, Vbox boots vista faster as well and has the seemless desktop feature which rocks.

Each product has their place. I am a huge ESX fan, but for "fat" virtualization I prefer Virtualbox and XEN.

[caveman-jim]

Yeah, the console isn't the best access method for VMware VM's - they state in the docs to use a remote access method perferably. I think thats why they built in VNC access to Server and Workstation.

Seamless desktop is a nice feature. I can't wait for VMware to bring that and Dx9 accleration to Workstation

[SteadVéx]

vmware works in vista?!!?

hrmm last time i tried vmware in vista (last few times) its always crashed badly unless i disabled superfetch, and made sure i had tons of free memory...of course that may be something to do with me disabling the paging file....nevermind...

[seeker010]

so I looked through my image of the XP x64 install. SMP wasn't enabled in the VMWare profile, so that was solved. :embarrased:
the constant BSODs was likely caused by 1) Alcohol 120%, 2) ATITools or 3) remixed nforce drivers. I think 3, because the mirror array would go offline randomly.

Not yet.



What's easier? VB offers host networking (bridged), NAT and even internal network options.

you have to bridge VB's network to allow loopback. VMWare takes care of this.

Proof of this?

copy a 9 gig file.
anyway it was from personal observation. It could be that the vmware image is closer to the outside of the disk than the virtualbox image
some one else had the same observation here http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox/

The major difference? VirtualBox offers a lot of features but is completely free.

Yes, and VMWare offers its own features, and has full SMP support.

I have to disagree about speed. I have both VMware workstation and Virtualbox installed on my laptop running Linux. Both have a vista virtual machine and Virtualbox is by far faster in all operations. VMware feels sluggish in vista when working on the console. If I RDP into both then I can't tell the difference. Also, Vbox boots vista faster as well and has the seemless desktop feature which rocks.

Each product has their place. I am a huge ESX fan, but for "fat" virtualization I prefer Virtualbox and XEN.

Interesting. I find VMWare slower on my linux box, but on all my windows boxes VMWare feels no differently. Of course I never virtualized Vista, so maybe it's true for that. But the huge area of concern isn't really interface speed, it's calculation speed, and for that having 2 cores works much better than 1.

[Espíritu_de_América]

Wish I would have known that vmware was better before I went through the trouble of figuring out how to set up virtualbox .

Yeah, it has perhaps the easiest interface I've seen out of all virtual applications. I've tried VMware, Parallels, VirtualPC and VirtualBox.

I have to disagree about speed. I have both VMware workstation and Virtualbox installed on my laptop running Linux. Both have a vista virtual machine and Virtualbox is by far faster in all operations. VMware feels sluggish in vista when working on the console. If I RDP into both then I can't tell the difference. Also, Vbox boots vista faster as well and has the seemless desktop feature which rocks.

Each product has their place. I am a huge ESX fan, but for "fat" virtualization I prefer Virtualbox and XEN.

I agree. Windows XP boots in seconds in VirtualBox. Amazing performance. Windows Vista scores a 5.9 in VirtualBox as opposed to 5.6 as the host for me. Crazy speed and performance.

Yeah, the console isn't the best access method for VMware VM's - they state in the docs to use a remote access method perferably. I think thats why they built in VNC access to Server and Workstation.

Seamless desktop is a nice feature. I can't wait for VMware to bring that and Dx9 accleration to Workstation

VirtualBox supports RDP out of the box.

Haven't they been working on DX9 acceleration for over a year now?

vmware works in vista?!!?

hrmm last time i tried vmware in vista (last few times) its always crashed badly unless i disabled superfetch, and made sure i had tons of free memory...of course that may be something to do with me disabling the paging file....nevermind...

VMware 6.0.2 worked in Vista x64 for me when I tried it out.

[seeker010]

I agree. Windows XP boots in seconds in VirtualBox. Amazing performance. Windows Vista scores a 5.9 in VirtualBox as opposed to 5.6 as the host for me. Crazy speed and performance.

how does it score 5.9 without 3d support?

Haven't they been working on DX9 acceleration for over a year now?

If you think virtualizing DX9 is so easy, why don't you give it a try? I'm sure VMware, Sun or the FOSS community at large would love your programming talents.

[Espíritu_de_América]

how does it score 5.9 without 3d support?

I don't know what 3D support has to do with the hard drive score at all. That's what I responded to him about. It helps if you follow the quotes.

If you think virtualizing DX9 is so easy, why don't you give it a try? I'm sure VMware, Sun or the FOSS community at large would love your programming talents.

My point is that you said you can't wait for it but they've been trying to do it for well over a year. I wouldn't wait around anytime soon if I were you.

[jimmt]

Yeah, it has perhaps the easiest interface I've seen out of all virtual applications. I've tried VMware, Parallels, VirtualPC and VirtualBox.



I agree. Windows XP boots in seconds in VirtualBox. Amazing performance. Windows Vista scores a 5.9 in VirtualBox as opposed to 5.6 as the host for me. Crazy speed and performance.



VirtualBox supports RDP out of the box.

Haven't they been working on DX9 acceleration for over a year now?




VMware 6.0.2 worked in Vista x64 for me when I tried it out.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant I am virtualizing Vista on Linux and I feel Virtualbox to be more responsive when using the console than VMware. However, if I RDP into both virtual machines running vista I couldn't tell the difference.

I have not copied large amounts of data. I will test that out and see if newer builds have this same issue.

[Espíritu_de_América]

Sorry for the confusion. I meant I am virtualizing Vista on Linux and I feel Virtualbox to be more responsive when using the console than VMware. However, if I RDP into both virtual machines running vista I couldn't tell the difference.

I have not copied large amounts of data. I will test that out and see if newer builds have this same issue.

Yeah, when I used OpenSUSE 10.3 I had VirtualBox as my virtualization application. It took a little configuration but that's Linux for you.