XP Pro 64 or Vista Ultimate 64

[BernardStewart]

Having read the threads "what do you like & what do you not like about Vista" the balance is unclear.

If you woere configuring a workstation which OS would you pick and why?

XP Pro 64 or Vista Ultimate 64?

 

[wolluf]

Neither!

It depends what its for. As you're looking at 2 64 bit o/s, you're going to encounter more compatibility issues than with their 32 bit equivalents.

My experience with both suggests 64 bit XP is a lot more responsive on the same hardware - but I've only had both installed on one machine (have had Vista 64 bit on one other as well) which is a test not live use machine. The 64 bit Vista on my live machine I had to abandon (ie, its still there, but I use 32 bit for compatibility reasons).

So if I were configuring a workstation, I'd first check what all the hardware & software used works with (I'm presuming machine spec is comfortably good enough to run XP or Vista).
Is this workstation standalone, workgroup, domain? If networked, what are other machines running?

 

[BernardStewart]

It's a standalone machine:-

Intel Quad 6600, 8Gb ram, Geoforce 8600 Supermicro C2SBA+ii motherboard, Netgear modem router, 2 x 500Gb WD Hard Drives, Gigabyte watercooled case.

 

[linney]

Even a pro-Vista Ultimate fan like me is not that endeared to Vista 64bit operating systems (at the moment), especially when using Intel Chipsets and Boards and Nvidia cards.

On paper you have a super machine, I just hope it lives up to your expectations when using 64bit systems.

I have never tried XP 64bit, but Vista Ultimate 64bit has shown me to be less than perfect using Intel as the main engine, it sort of does the job but seems to stumble from one compatibility issue to another, and if I'm really bored I can spend hours researching strange errors in the Event Viewer.

 

[TonHu]

If you want to use the full 8 GB of ram, then Vista 64 is probably the only decent way to go. XP 64 has for long had a lack of driver support, and Vista 64 has the same problem, but with so many users 'trying Vista 64, hardware vendors are more motivated to release Vista 64 drivers then they ever where to release XP 64 drivers. These beasts are very hard to find!
If you don't know why you need the 8 GB of ram, take out 4, put them in 2 other PC's that have less than 2 GB ram. (Or have the 4 GB returned & refunded by your supplier) Then install Vista 32 on your Q6600 with 4 GB Ram (and it will only use 3 of them max...) That should give you the best compatibility and usability on that hardware.
By the time Windows 7 is around, MS probably wil retry the 64 bit question again, but now with software demanding about 8 GB (or whatever the hardware guys need to sell you by then).

HTH
TonHu

 

[BernardStewart]

Linney,

Thanks for your comments.

What are the issues with Vista 64,Intel chipsets and NVIDIA?

 

[BernardStewart]

So far the issues I have found have not been problems with the drivers for XP Pro 64 but with getting decent security software.
The only decent package is Semantic End Point which is a corporate package which means buying 5 licences!!! They have no near future plans t issue a single workstation version.

More security packages have been released for Vista 64 including Semantic.

 

[wolluf]

AVG free edition runs perfectly well on xp 64 bit as does avast free edition. Its just that you mentioned semantic (symantec?) and decent in the same sentence and I've just never seen anything to justify that! (ie, I won't have any symantec security software anywhere near a machine of mine).

 

[firewolfrl]

I have a an nvidia crosshair motherboard with 8gig of ram and a 8800 gts video card...so far Asus has been great with drivers for the Vista 64 and I use Avast for the antivirus.
for the most part most software run fine and if not I only have one program running in compatibility mode. the biggest benefit is the fact I can run VMWARE very stable.
other than that the biggest issue was setting the ram correct for a stable machine. I called the ram manufacturer and had them walk through every setting to set the ram stable. I also have xp and vista 32 and they run normal with 3.2 as max ram (this is forced so they run stable)

in a nutshell you have to have a quality motherboard that supports the needed settings to run the OS stable at 64 bit

I do for see the next OS will only be 64 bit and more and more software will hit that market

one thing that has a big advantage is the gamers market want fast and they will push to have the 64 bit made fast so they can market the bigger faster games

 

[BernardStewart]

wolluf - why were you so damming about Symantec?
Does your comment also apply to Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0?

 

[firewolfrl]

I have to agree with Wolluf

 

[linney]

What are the issues with Vista 64,Intel chipsets and NVIDIA?"

I am not a hardware expert but I have a feeling that Intel are not so far advanced as AMD when it comes to 64bit technology, but I could be wrong on this.

Nvidia are having problems with Graphic drivers for Vista, especially, my Geforce 7600 GS, and more so in 64 bit, where the driver (updated several times since birth of machine) keeps stopping and restarting. The error I see concerns -

Event ID: 4101
Task Category: None
Level: Warning
Keywords: Classic
User: N/A
Computer: Vista

Description:
Display driver nvlddmkm stopped responding and has successfully recovered.

 

[firewolfrl]

Linney I don't think that issue is related to the 64 bit machines. I run Vista 32bit, XP pro 32, and Vista 64 bit and I have issues with the Nvidia chipset drivers in each OS in different times as those errors pop up. stability does come if you have a quality MB that you can tweak the voltages and settings to customize the card settings. I found stability using a little more voltage to the card then stock. as for voltage....what you read in the Bios and what physically reads on a multimeter can be two separate readings and not in favor of the card...a previous MB there was a 1.5 volt difference and the video card was under-voltage creating unstable video card...brought the voltage up and the system became stable.

even if they say a power supply is sufficient for the system it may be under-power the video card and that will crash the system

I am using the 8800 GTS card and I only have issues once in a while
My son uses the 6650 card and is plagued by memory leaks related to the video card that has made us order the 8600 card.
memory leaks in games and apps are common with the Nvidia chipset before the 8000 series of cards. ATI has its own set of issues. game compatibility is the main reason for staying with Nvidia

sometimes having a supercomputer has super problems

I usually turn most of the startup stuff off that nvidia tosses in at boot and that does help

 

[linney]

I heard that Nvidia's trouble was accessing the new Vista Kernel, not being a full Microsoft Partner, whereas Creative are and they are not having these card/drivers type problems. Probably just rumors without an ounce of truth. I'll leave adjusting voltages to those equipped for such action. Me, I see hardly any problem in Vista x86 but more in 64 bit with the same Nvidia card.

 

[firewolfrl]

Linney what might be your issue is the voltage to the NorthBridge may need to go up a small bit. this does make a machine much more stable. this is especially true if you are using 4gig or more of ram

 

[linney]

Thanks "firewolfrl" I'll keep it in mind, I do have 4GB of RAM, I also run XP x86 with no problems, Vista x86 with not much trouble from Nvidia, and Vista 64bit just with quite a bit of Nvidia misbehaving, all on the same machine, not to mention virtual machines (also) with every Windows system known to man and no problems with the virtual displays.

 

[firewolfrl]

hmmm! this is what I did. I called the manufacurer of my ram and had them walk me through every setting on the MB that pertained to the ram. On the side I did my research and found some of the other settings that others have found to bring stability (this also brought a speed increase). I am running 8 gig OCZ Reaper ram on an Asus Crosshair MB. With the settings I am currently using I have reinstalled fresh Vista 64 and I still have to reinstall my Vista 32 and XP pro as they did not transfer well as I upgraded my motherboard and I previously had a bad stick of ram that corrupted those installs all to heck. those installs do work as they seem way more stable then they were.

I also run VmWare and the virtual machines that I am running are now rock stable.

basicly MB's are set up for a broad range of ram and CPU's so tuning the MB to the specific ram and CPU really does make a difference. each ram set has different voltage requirements and if you go to Newegg you will see that ram voltage really varies. depending on the ram and its CAS setting you could be required to up your voltages to upwards 2.2 + volts an average motherboard defaults as 1.9 to 2.0 some ram (especially if you are running 4 gig) need 2.1 or more for stability. so far as I have seen lower the CAS the higher the voltage need. I am running 4-4-4-15
the Northbridge needs the voltage increase on my board due to the ram load 8 gig is a lot of ram for the mb's northbridge to process (sometimes 4 gig is much if the machine is loaded) and the voltage increase to the Northbridge smooths out the load from the ram and just overall makes the mb run smoother

so far I do not have any heat issues and (if anything it is running cooler) and you do need to have a very good cooling system. The MB I have has an agressive heatsink on the north and south bridges

Linney do your research (I know you love to do that for all the advice you give)


as for the Original question hands down I will stay with Vista 64 as this is the most stable I have ever run an OS
I have not had a single driver error and I have loaded the new Nvidia drivers without a flaw. so far I have just one program that requires compatability mode and it required this in XP too

 

[linney]

Thank you for your wisdom, I have recorded your thoughts, as I have earlier postings on similar matters, for posterity.