When I began preparing my Windows Vista review one year ago this month, I wasn’t sure how it was all going to turn out. But after looking at Vista with what I hoped were fresh eyes, I discovered that the new OS was quite good in fact; not perfect, no, but a dramatic and worthy upgrade for Windows XP users. I still like Vista quite a bit, and I could never return to XP, which seems antiquated and slightly dysfunctional to me now. In that review of a year ago, I had one major qualm about Vista. While Microsoft had gone to great effort to the make 64-bit x64 variants of Vista the functional peers of the more mainstream 32-bit versions, I discovered that life in 64-bit lane circa late 2006 wasn’t so hospitable. Yes, the hardware and software compatibility of Vista x64 was much better than I had anticipated, and certainly much better than that of Windows XP x64 Professional Edition. But there were niggling issues. A fairly unscientific run-through of the applications, games, and hardware I used regularly found a number of incompatible stumbling blocks. The problem with this sort of thing is that it only takes a single important incompatibility to ruin an OS. If you can’t get your most-often-needed application or game to work, why even bother upgrading? And if it can’t configure half your hardware devices, how could you even use such a system? Vista x64, I opined, just wasn’t ready for prime time, despite the many advances Microsoft had made. My, what a difference a year makes. Whereas the x64 versions of Vista were essentially non-starters a year ago for all but the most technical users, a huge amount of compatibility issues have since been fixed, making it far more of a mainstream solution. Well, not quite mainstream. But certainly something that’s applicable to a much broader audience than I was comfortable recommending a year ago. To test Vista x64, I first wiped out my main desktop, a system that had been running the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Ultimate since early December 2006 without a hitch. During most of that time, this PC performed double-duty as a Media Center PC, connected to a cable box here in the home office and remotely serving content to an Xbox 360 Media Center Extender in the den. It was, therefore, my family’s primary television interface for about 9 months and it worked wonderfully. In early October 2007, I installed Vista Home Premium on an extra PC, tossed in a TV card, and pushed the Media Center duties over to this machine. I then backed up all my important data, wiped it out, and installed Vista Ultimate x64. My experiences with x64 on this PC have been fantastic overall. By the end of the first run of Windows Updates after installing the OS, every single hardware device attached to the system had been correctly identified and supplied with the appropriate driver: A perfectly clean Device Manager that is the goal of every Windows install. Heartened by this early success, I then began running through my list of “always install” applications, which I’ll document below. The result, again, was excellent: Virtually everything installed and runs perfectly. Very impressive. So impressive, in fact, that I decided to wipe out my main notebook, a beloved widescreen Lenovo ThinkPad T61, and install Vista x64 on there as well. The process was a bit more troublesome, but still satisfactory, barring one huge problem that I’m not quite ready to blame on x64 quite yet. Here’s what happened: First, I installed Vista Ultimate x64 and discovered a number of hardware devices that needed drivers. Fortunately, Lenovo supplies a System Update application, which you can download from their Web site, which will install these drivers as well as related ThinkPad-specific utilities. System Update works perfectly on x64 and installed all the appropriate drivers, as well as the few utilities I wanted (things like Access Connections for networking, an Easy Eject utility for the drive bay, Power Manager, and a few others). The early prognosis was excellent, so I began installing applications and once again ran into the same success as I had witnessed on the desktop: Everything seemed to work just fine. There was just one problem: The ThinkPad started crashing, hard, when coming out of sleep. After mucking around with the power management settings and even testing the memory just in case, I decided to turn off Sleep mode and see if using Hibernation would fix the problem. Nope. The thing would randomly crash–often with a blue screen, which is actually quite rare on Vista in my experience–almost every time it returned from a power management state. Concerned because I was taking the ThinkPad on a long weekend trip to Washington D.C., I tried to isolate the issue. To this date, I never have. I’m not sure if it’s machine-specific, driver-specific, or literally confined to x64. The blue screen says that the culprit is clfs.sys, a new component in Vista called the Common Log File System Driver. (More info here.) I never did figure it out, and for the record, the notebook did survive the trip to DC without suffering any major mishaps. I recently installed Vista in a dual-boot with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard on my Macbook and was hoping to test the x64 install there as well, but Apple only supports 32-bit versions of Vista. I’m kind of running out of machines here, though I do have another ThinkPad I could probably press into service. I will definitely test x64 on at least one other notebook, but for now I’m not sure how to attribute the problems I’ve had on the ThinkPad. On a traditional 32-bit Windows Vista system, the root of your C: drive will be divided into three main folders: Program Files, Users, and Windows. The 64-bit variants add a fourth folder, Program Files (x86), which is used to house any 32-bit applications you install–most of them these days–while Program Files is reserved for true 64-bit applications. Aside from the built-in applications, which are mostly 64-bit (Vista x64 does, however, include 32-bit versions of Windows Media Player 11 and Internet Explorer 7 for compatibility reasons), precious little got installed in the Program Files folder on either system. Some notable exceptions include RealPlayer 11 Beta (which is actually a 32-bit application), and some bits of Office 2007 and Visual Studio 2008 Beta 2. WinRAR 3.70YesThis one surprised me, as 32-bit applications that provide shell extensions often don’t work properly in 64-bit environments. However, WinRAR works perfectly.
...|
Microsoft future brightens - still challenging
Meanwhile, it was pouring enormous resources into a revamped operating system, hoping to deliver a solid Windows 7 release that would put the Vista
|
|
How to Free Space on Your Windows 7, Vista & XP PC
On Windows 7 and Vista click start, right-click my computer, click properties and then in the top right hand corner click “system protection”,
|
|
Luxand Automates Windows Logon with Blink! Luxand, Inc. releases the Pro version of Blink!, an innovative webcam-based biometric login system for 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Vista. |
|
Microsoft mocks Apple in new 'PC and Mac' ad
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been, so I have a problem understanding why I'm expected to spend another $150 to "upgrade" to 7 to get rid of the
|
|
Windows 7 migration: The technical case
It's official: Windows 7 is a lot quicker and more reliable than both XP and Vista, as validated by numerous independent benchmarks.
|