Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
Thank you Colin for the explanations and info, truly, much appreciated. Since I only try to get updated I would never see this as a bug, but rather I would argue that perhaps in a better designed effort, one might have been able to predict there might be a cadre of users who would like to use both OS' in the same box, especially in light of the fact it can take a period of time before drivers and software updates mature and catch up to the requirements of the next OS version. A cadre of users may not seem like a very high prevalence of dual booters, but certainly 0.1% let's say of 200,000,000 copies of XP (a number picked out of thin air) is still 200,000 users, and this isn't a bad audience to consider when developing a product line. I know, it's all about profitability and viability. This is pretty much a given though: people will want to keep the old for a while, unless of course the next OS version is so robust it can handle ANY prior driver or software, and of course, that isn't very practical for obvious reasons. Anyway, it's a moot point since as you say, this is the reality and is ain't gonna change. If I were MS, I wouldn't bother changing at this point, for sure. I don't know much about OS development, so if this idea that perhaps more intelligent designing in the first place might have obviated the current scenario with dual booting XP n Vista then I'm just out of touch with those realities. Now, this is where I may still be ok. Plz humor me and see the issues from the perspective of my historical and predicted future use patterns. What exactly disappears in the way of files in this situation? Can I live without restore points, I have so far? I use Win2K currently. To deal with problems in the way of data loss, I just make backups periodically of important data to a separate drive, and also to DVDs. In fact, I keep copies of only those items in every installation of software that are critical like registry key codes, .ini files, and even ALL of my digital audio and photos, on an isolated drive, and again, make the occasional DVD should I have to reinstall the OS. So, again, can I live without restore points? Is it worse than just this, as in an OS will become unbootable, even using the various boot tools. Just how ugly is the issue in real terms? As you can see, I'm ignorant on this . . . but this is how I learn. I could read endless posts on these issues and spend days, but you can't beat targeted high quality info! So, thanks for your responses Colin, and everyone else. I think if the vss issue is so problematic that I won't go there, then I think I'll just hold off on Vista 64 until perhaps someone figures out some sort of friendly workaround, or until there is no reason to run XP any longer. This would greatly decrease all issues I have brought up, in which case I'll raid 0 the two 7200.11 drives I have for XP and call it good, then wholesale switch to Vista when it is a better fit. Giga still runs fine for me in XP, so we're good to go, and from what I read so far, DX10 is really nothing to make a wholesale OS switch for. I use quite a few older products that will not run in Vista without upgrading them so again, I can wait if it's such a bad deal now. -- Noel |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
How does XP run, performance-wise, in a VM environment? Is this just a simple way to do it, or do things bog down a bit, ie, for gaming performance? Noel -- Noel |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
You're welcome.
The figures are closer to tens of thousands, though, not hundreds of thousands. MS has known from the beginning about the technology enthusiasts who like to multiboot and values them as a group because their influence among other users is far out of proportion to their numbers. They have known from the beginning of the deveopment of the program to enhance the usefullness of VSS to users that technology enthusiasts would be the ones whose ox is getting gored here. But this kind of rewrite to XP VSS would not be like preparing a hotfix or changing a feature. It would necessitate a beta program and extensive work with partners and enterprises. That is not in the cards when the partners and enterprises would not themselves be affected users and the OS is being superceded. If I fault MS in this it is for not taking a longer look at how the boot technologies might be modified to implement hiding of Vista volumes from other operating systems. As it stands that will come through a third party solution. NeoWin has an alpha out now for testing. In some cases, the multiboot solution is indeed to use W2k instead of XP because W2k does not have VSS and therefore cannot cause the same effect. Of course, the usefulness of that solution depends on the user's software and devices and his reasons for maintaining an alternate OS in the first place. In your case it works out. As to what is affected, it goes well beyond system restore points. Those are simply the most familiar to folks so they notice their loss right away. But file recovery or reversion using Vista's new Previous Versions tab on the file properties page is wiped out as well. So are the full and incremental backups using the Backup and Restore Center and Window Live OneCare. Unless CompletePC Backup (Business and Ultimate only) images are offline at the time XP is booted they are lost too. Further some third party backup solutions leverage VSS to take the snapshots for their software so they would affected as well. These things are unacceptible to anyone who makes his living with his computer and that is why recommending multibooting without first determining how another person is using his computer is such a bad thing to do. That's why my first response to a poster is not to do it. It is the safest response. "Noel" wrote in message ... Thank you Colin for the explanations and info, truly, much appreciated. Since I only try to get updated I would never see this as a bug, but rather I would argue that perhaps in a better designed effort, one might have been able to predict there might be a cadre of users who would like to use both OS' in the same box, especially in light of the fact it can take a period of time before drivers and software updates mature and catch up to the requirements of the next OS version. A cadre of users may not seem like a very high prevalence of dual booters, but certainly 0.1% let's say of 200,000,000 copies of XP (a number picked out of thin air) is still 200,000 users, and this isn't a bad audience to consider when developing a product line. I know, it's all about profitability and viability. This is pretty much a given though: people will want to keep the old for a while, unless of course the next OS version is so robust it can handle ANY prior driver or software, and of course, that isn't very practical for obvious reasons. Anyway, it's a moot point since as you say, this is the reality and is ain't gonna change. If I were MS, I wouldn't bother changing at this point, for sure. I don't know much about OS development, so if this idea that perhaps more intelligent designing in the first place might have obviated the current scenario with dual booting XP n Vista then I'm just out of touch with those realities. Now, this is where I may still be ok. Plz humor me and see the issues from the perspective of my historical and predicted future use patterns. What exactly disappears in the way of files in this situation? Can I live without restore points, I have so far? I use Win2K currently. To deal with problems in the way of data loss, I just make backups periodically of important data to a separate drive, and also to DVDs. In fact, I keep copies of only those items in every installation of software that are critical like registry key codes, .ini files, and even ALL of my digital audio and photos, on an isolated drive, and again, make the occasional DVD should I have to reinstall the OS. So, again, can I live without restore points? Is it worse than just this, as in an OS will become unbootable, even using the various boot tools. Just how ugly is the issue in real terms? As you can see, I'm ignorant on this . . . but this is how I learn. I could read endless posts on these issues and spend days, but you can't beat targeted high quality info! So, thanks for your responses Colin, and everyone else. I think if the vss issue is so problematic that I won't go there, then I think I'll just hold off on Vista 64 until perhaps someone figures out some sort of friendly workaround, or until there is no reason to run XP any longer. This would greatly decrease all issues I have brought up, in which case I'll raid 0 the two 7200.11 drives I have for XP and call it good, then wholesale switch to Vista when it is a better fit. Giga still runs fine for me in XP, so we're good to go, and from what I read so far, DX10 is really nothing to make a wholesale OS switch for. I use quite a few older products that will not run in Vista without upgrading them so again, I can wait if it's such a bad deal now. -- Noel |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
Post back with your test findings. There would be great interest.
"Jawade" wrote in message ... In article , Colin Barnhorst says... I don't know how yours works but all the ones tried could hide a volume from user programs but could not hide the volume from XP's volsnap.sys. Be sure you have verified that Vista VSS files persist after booting into XP in other than safe mode (the problem does not occur if booting XP in safe mode because volsnap.sys is one of the drivers not loaded in safe mode). OK, i did't know that. Mine hide the other partition in the MBR, the type byte. And it happens before any thing is started. If Windows works fair (!) it cannot look at the hidden volume. I have an virtual machine with Vista & XP with my bootmanager and had never problems. But I didnt check all the points. -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd! http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/ Bootmanager (+Vista), ClrMBR, DiskEditors, POP3lezer, Filebrowser, Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, Linux-Diskeditor, USB-stick tester |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
Colin Barnhorst;580093 Wrote: If I fault MS in this it is for not taking a longer look at how the boot technologies might be modified to implement hiding of Vista volumes from other operating systems. As it stands that will come through a third party solution. NeoWin has an alpha out now for testing. I like safe, so thank you for that. I think this was my point as I realized from what you said a fix from MS wouldn't be worth it [for them] and isn't going to happen. Were it designed better from the start, this again is how I might fault them. But alas, it's their company . . . Neowin has a potential solution to this issue you're saying? Wonderful! I know I DID have troubles doing a dual boot with Win2K and XP. Worked for awhile but then something got corrupted in the MBR (I guess, cuz I'm not really sure) and I had to delete the XP installation, which was on a different drive than W2K. -- Noel |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
In article , Colin Barnhorst
says... Post back with your test findings. There would be great interest. I have had 2 restore-point on Vista, and startup with XP without hide the Vista partition. Back in Vista, the restorepoints were removed. I made a new point, close Vista an startup in XP with the Vista partition hide. Back in Vista, the restore-point was ok. Hide the partitions is a simple possibility from my HWBOOT bootmanager. Are there more points to test? -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd! http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/ Bootmanager (+Vista), ClrMBR, DiskEditors, POP3lezer, Filebrowser, Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, Linux-Diskeditor, USB-stick tester |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
Since the problem is not caused by System Restore but by the VSS driver,
test other types of files created by VSS such as Vista's Previous Versions (Previous Versions tab on the file properties page). "Jawade" wrote in message ... In article , Colin Barnhorst says... Post back with your test findings. There would be great interest. I have had 2 restore-point on Vista, and startup with XP without hide the Vista partition. Back in Vista, the restorepoints were removed. I made a new point, close Vista an startup in XP with the Vista partition hide. Back in Vista, the restore-point was ok. Hide the partitions is a simple possibility from my HWBOOT bootmanager. Are there more points to test? -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd! http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/ Bootmanager (+Vista), ClrMBR, DiskEditors, POP3lezer, Filebrowser, Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, Linux-Diskeditor, USB-stick tester |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
In message Noel
wrote: Colin Barnhorst;579100 Wrote: Like I said, try it with pc5300, not pc6400. By the way, dual booting XP and Vista on a production or primary home computer is not a good idea. All of the VSS files used by Vista's recovery facilities are wiped out on each boot into XP. That means restore points, previous versions files, CompletePC Backup images, and backup files made by the new file backup program just vanish. Ouch, how evil is that?! That is truly an awful design plan, and how could that not be intentional? Obviously I know very little about the whole issue, but from what you say Colin I can't of a more aweful design behavior to force people into Vista to stay. Sick! It's an unintended side effect of some huge performance benefits. Vista's shadow copy feature and backup feature rely on knowing the state of the entire disk. If anything on the disk changes, Vista needs to know about it. The upside of using copy-on-write is that backups are naturally incremental at the cluster level, rather then having to rely on date stamps, or manually comparing the entire file system. This also allows shadow copies, which in Business, Enterprise and Ultimate, means you can right click on any file or folder and access it as it existed at a time in the past, with the only wasted space being that which contains actually changed files. Since nothing can touch the disk directly while Vista is running without going through an API that Vista can monitor, this is a reliable process. When you mount the filesystem with a non-shadow-copy-aware driver, changes can no longer be monitored. This means, for example, if you changed a file today, the shadow copy feature wouldn't know about it, so when restoring a previous version of the file, you'd end up with the current version. worse, on files larger then your cluster size (4KB in most cases), you could end up with changes being partially recovered, but not completely, resulting in a completely destroyed file. Shadow Copies are a huge overall to the NTFS implementation and it would non-trivial to back-port the entire Shadow Copy feature to XP. However, it would be closer to trivial to modify XP's volsnap to not touch drives unless it plans on actually mounting them (making it possible to "hide" volumes using a book manager, or by not assigning a drive letter in XP -- You might lose your restore points once when you install XP, but that's better then on every dualboot) Another (far better, in my opinion) option would be to add a "read-only" mount option to XP, enabled by default for any shadow copy monitored drive. I keep reading all over the place of people dual booting this, but I haven't dug deep enough to discover what the pitfalls are. I HAVE a loosely formed impression that this issue occurs when you install Vista first. Is there anything to this? If what you say is true then I guess I will not be dual booting, and will just do the build with XP, and wait until XP is no longer EVER required. Guess I'll park my other 4gb of PC-6400 in a cool dry place until happier days. That's pathetic . . . With regards to this issue, it makes no difference which OS is installed first. However, I would suggest it might be easier to address your desire to go back to XP entirely *or* that you simply turn off system restore in Vista and create your own backups instead. XP and Vista can use the same amount of RAM on the same hardware. If you intend to stick with XP, you can always grab a 64 bit version of XP and use all your RAM. |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
In message "Colin
Barnhorst" wrote: The decision I made was to run XP on a different box. Another alternative I use is to run XP in a virtual machine using Virtual PC 2007 on my Vista machine. It just depends of what I want to do in XP as to which alternative I use to do it. A third option occurs to me... If you really have your heart set on doing this, see if your motherboard has two drive controllers, many do (in fact, all of my home built desktops do) If so, you could put Vista on one, XP on the other, and disable the drive controller for the Vista drive in XP's device manager. This is just a guess, but it should happen before any volumes are mounted (you can't mount a volume if the physical drive isn't available) It *might* even work just disabling hard drives in Device Manager, although something tells me that won't work. I don't have any dual-boot machines here, nor the inclination to set one up, but I'd appreciate someone who has a dual-boot trying it, I'm betting at least one reader of this newsgroup has an existing dual-boot setup with XP and Vista on separate physical drives, if not controllers. |
|
|||
Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?
DevilsPGD;581238 Wrote: In message DE29A352-A668-4982-B8F4-EBF8103455C4@xxxxxx "Colin Barnhorst" c.barnhorst@xxxxxx wrote: The decision I made was to run XP on a different box. Another alternative I use is to run XP in a virtual machine using Virtual PC 2007 on my Vista machine. It just depends of what I want to do in XP as to which alternative I use to do it. A third option occurs to me... If you really have your heart set on doing this, see if your motherboard has two drive controllers, many do (in fact, all of my home built desktops do) If so, you could put Vista on one, XP on the other, and disable the drive controller for the Vista drive in XP's device manager. Now those are some wonderful solutions--thinking outside the box. I use windows Hardware Profiles and it's a wonder it didn't occur to me to do this. Moreover, I have three drive controllers: SATA/ATA/SCSI, so geez, how cool is that? The only issue now is that I just bought 2 7200.11 Seagate Sata 2 drives and had kinda given up the fight after dialoguing with Colin and others in favor of just stickin with XP for now and use raid 0, holding off on Vista 64 for a brighter day. I might consider doing a Vista 64 on one 73gb 15K Cheetah drive, which I was going to save for a data drive, but perhaps I still will be able to do this. Anyone know how Vista handles booting to SCSI drives? Will I still need driver floppy? Thanks for that--what a very simple solution and I see no downside to it except perhaps this: How will I get a dual boot screen, if there are in effect 100% isolated? Gotta be a soln for this silly issue! -- Noel |