Vista Ultimate 64, how stable is it and is it worth getting?

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Rebel44

Originally posted by: Modelworks
.
.
.
.
Yeah I know, seems weird that aero is using d3d but the applications didn't like d3d in windows with it on, but with OpenGL they work okay.
I have turned off prefetch and indexing as I have no use for either one.
I'll give this workstation a few more weeks before I make it the full time OS for everything.

You turned off SuperFetch?? Why?

Because my applications can go from using 300MB one second to 3GB the next second.
I need that memory right then and don't want to wait for windows to swap it out.
Program loading times is the least of my performance problems.

Ugh. Windows DOESNT swap it out, superfetch memory uses the memory priority system and is instantly made available to apps that need it (no swapping occurs).

OK, how does vista get those programs into memory ? How long does vista wait before it uses free memory for superfetch?
I did the comparisons before turning it off.
Superfetch on , rendering times increased 11 minutes per 30 frames.

I get so sick of explaining running a vfx workstation to people who use a pc for playing games. They can't grasp the two are totally different .

 

[Frodolives]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne

As it is, Ultimate is WAY overpriced and over-restricted (OEM edition that I can't use after I replace a motherboard? Give me a break!).

Ughh. I've been pondering a new OS, and that's good to know.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: Frodolives

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne

As it is, Ultimate is WAY overpriced and over-restricted (OEM edition that I can't use after I replace a motherboard? Give me a break!).

Ughh. I've been pondering a new OS, and that's good to know.

...except that it's BS - The Licence agreement is exactly the same as XP's. If you activate copy protection by making 'repairs', the most that will happen is you'll have to call Microsoft for another licence key.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: AmineD
My friend told me I should get server 2003 instead of Vista 64. Im not sure what to do honestly. anyone have any suggestions? My new computer is

4g ddr2 ram
hd4850
640g hd
22 inch acer lcd monitor

Don't run server 2003 unless you know why you must have it.

You could run either Vista x86 or x64. It would be the difference of about 250-500megs of memory depending on your devices.

Vista x64 is more strict about using signed drivers. That's both bad and good. Verify that your devices have 64bit drivers before you go down that path. If you can that is definately the better path. The strictness about signed drivers theoretically produces a more stable system.

Home Premium is a good alternative to Ultimate. It has nearly everything. Backup is the only biggy that I really dig from Ultimate. Dreamscene rocks but the final version doesn't run on multiple monitors.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Rebel44

Originally posted by: Modelworks
.
.
.
.
Yeah I know, seems weird that aero is using d3d but the applications didn't like d3d in windows with it on, but with OpenGL they work okay.
I have turned off prefetch and indexing as I have no use for either one.
I'll give this workstation a few more weeks before I make it the full time OS for everything.

You turned off SuperFetch?? Why?

Because my applications can go from using 300MB one second to 3GB the next second.
I need that memory right then and don't want to wait for windows to swap it out.
Program loading times is the least of my performance problems.

Ugh. Windows DOESNT swap it out, superfetch memory uses the memory priority system and is instantly made available to apps that need it (no swapping occurs).

OK, how does vista get those programs into memory ? How long does vista wait before it uses free memory for superfetch?
I did the comparisons before turning it off.
Superfetch on , rendering times increased 11 minutes per 30 frames.

I get so sick of explaining running a vfx workstation to people who use a pc for playing games. They can't grasp the two are totally different .

Interesting. Does your rendering program run at a very low cpu priority by chance?
Leave it on for a few days then benchmark again.

 

[Nitemare]

Every since updating to update 1, Vista Ultimate 64 has been very stable. My only beefs are the nag messages when you try to install/uninstall/anything that the OS doesn't want you to do...and also Foobar 2000 doesn't really work under Vista 64.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Rebel44

Originally posted by: Modelworks
.
.
.
.
Yeah I know, seems weird that aero is using d3d but the applications didn't like d3d in windows with it on, but with OpenGL they work okay.
I have turned off prefetch and indexing as I have no use for either one.
I'll give this workstation a few more weeks before I make it the full time OS for everything.

You turned off SuperFetch?? Why?

Because my applications can go from using 300MB one second to 3GB the next second.
I need that memory right then and don't want to wait for windows to swap it out.
Program loading times is the least of my performance problems.

Ugh. Windows DOESNT swap it out, superfetch memory uses the memory priority system and is instantly made available to apps that need it (no swapping occurs).

OK, how does vista get those programs into memory ? How long does vista wait before it uses free memory for superfetch?
I did the comparisons before turning it off.
Superfetch on , rendering times increased 11 minutes per 30 frames.

I get so sick of explaining running a vfx workstation to people who use a pc for playing games. They can't grasp the two are totally different .

Interesting. Does your rendering program run at a very low cpu priority by chance?
Leave it on for a few days then benchmark again.

The problem with the rendering program is that it does not allocate all the memory it needs when it starts. It uses a small amount of memory while it prepares, then a whole lot of memory while it renders the frame. Then it releases that memory and the usage goes back to what it was before the frame started rendering while it prepares for the next frame. Then its back to full usage.

The time between frames can be seconds to minutes.
That is why I asked how long does vista wait when it sees extra memory before it starts using it.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Every since updating to update 1, Vista Ultimate 64 has been very stable. My only beefs are the nag messages when you try to install/uninstall/anything that the OS doesn't want you to do...and also Foobar 2000 doesn't really work under Vista 64.

To answer the question that got you redirected here from the other thread...

The easiest way to disable UAC that comes to mind. Start | Run | msconfig.
Run the "Disable UAC" in the tools menu.

Note: helping you load the gun does not mean I'm suggesting you shoot yourself. I'm about as much of a power user as you can get and I deliberately leave UAC on for good reason.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Smilin
Interesting. Does your rendering program run at a very low cpu priority by chance?
Leave it on for a few days then benchmark again.

The problem with the rendering program is that it does not allocate all the memory it needs when it starts. It uses a small amount of memory while it prepares, then a whole lot of memory while it renders the frame. Then it releases that memory and the usage goes back to what it was before the frame started rendering while it prepares for the next frame. Then its back to full usage.

The time between frames can be seconds to minutes.
That is why I asked how long does vista wait when it sees extra memory before it starts using it.

That's not really unusual behavior by an application.

The balance set manager is woken up by events in the system. Low memory as an example. If no events wake it up then it will wake up on it's own periodically and see if any working sets need trimmed (fairly complex algorithm).

I'm not sure about Vista (the internals book comes out this fall) but in XP/2003 the balance set manager wakes up once per second. I expect Vista will be fairly similar.



The reason I asked about CPU priority: disk defrag, superfetch and others run at a very low priority, so low that nothing should normally be competing with them for CPU cycles. If you have some other app (say winrar placed in background mode) that deliberately runs low priority then it *might* have to compete. Being a heavy rendering program I'm wondering if it doesn't have such an option to stop it from crushing your UI or other tasks while it works.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Scotteq

Originally posted by: Frodolives

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne

As it is, Ultimate is WAY overpriced and over-restricted (OEM edition that I can't use after I replace a motherboard? Give me a break!).

Ughh. I've been pondering a new OS, and that's good to know.

...except that it's BS - The Licence agreement is exactly the same as XP's. If you activate copy protection by making 'repairs', the most that will happen is you'll have to call Microsoft for another licence key.

The crux of the issue is that Microsoft is under no obligation to reactivate Windows for you if you are transferring it to a new computer (in this case, replacing the mobo) for non-repair situations. If you buy an OEM copy, you may be causing yourself problems further down the road.

And claiming "repairs" when it's not a real repair is fraud; this is widely regarded as being a bad idea.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Every since updating to update 1, Vista Ultimate 64 has been very stable. My only beefs are the nag messages when you try to install/uninstall/anything that the OS doesn't want you to do...and also Foobar 2000 doesn't really work under Vista 64.

Yes it does. I've been using Foobar 2K for months now under Vista 64. Do you have the newest release?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
I would get Vista64. It may be faster/slower depending on exactly what you're using, but it isn't enough to make a difference either way. I used Vista32 for 10 months, then switched to 64. If somebody had done that while I was at work, I wouldn't have known the difference. My experience has been identical with both versions.

Compatability is no reason to use a 32-bit version rather than a 64-bit version.

 

[mancunian]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Vista x64 is more strict about using signed drivers.

This is true, it didn't like my graphics drivers or tv tuner drivers. One way to get around this is too press F8 when booting and select 'allow unsigned drivers'*.

*not the exact message but words to that effect.

However, the easiest way around this is to install Vista Boot Pro and force the OS to allow unsigned drivers every reboot.

No more pressing F8, and a very fast and stable system.

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
64 is the best unless you have incompatible hardware / software. Mostly 64 is good. If you have 4GB using
64 is the natural thing to do.

I'm going to order the 64 bit DVD from M$. When it comes do I have to install Vista from scratch again, or can I upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit?

N/M: found it

No. If you are currently running a 32-bit version of Windows, you can only perform an upgrade to another 32-bit version of Windows. Similarly, if you are running a 64-bit version of Windows Vista, you can only perform an upgrade to another 64-bit version of Windows Vista.

Ugh that means I will have to reinstall everything again...

 

[Rubycon]

I see no difference in application load speed with superfetch on or off however the programs are loading from a very fast SAS array with lots of cache so that probably is the exception than the rule.