Vista comes in both a 32 bit, transition version, or a native 64 bit
version:
http://pubs.vmware.com/guestnotes/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm?context=GOS_Install&file=guestos_winvista.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/yajweo
Regards,
LelandJ
Kevin Cully wrote:
>I haven't been running Vista but I was just looking at the latest PC
>Magazine. I'm reading the “Vista: The Essential Guide” (January 2007)
>and it's full of confusing contradictory information. BTW, this is a
>“double issue” but somehow, it still feels light compared to what it was
>historically.
>
>We start with the “First Word” by Jim Louderback. He starts his article
>off with the statement “Our long,national nightmare is over!” I'm sure
>he had a grin on when he wrote that.
>
>Louderback was interviewing Jim Allchin about Vista. Allchin stated
>“It's preordained that we are moving to 64 bits. I cannot predict how
>long it will take, but we will get there.” Louderback reports that
>Allchin believes “that with Vista, the time is now.” Okay. I'm confused.
>Are we now at 64 bits or not with Vista? Are all of the driver
>manufacturers delivering 64 bit versions? We'll have to see what kind of
>fallout this is going to have in the public sector.
>
>Louderback goes on speaking with Allchin about IPv6. Louderback states
>“Why go IPv6? Better quality of service, better connectivity, and the
>death of NAT.” Is the death of NAT a good thing? I wouldn't want all of
>my machines to have a public IP address and be addressable from the
>outside world. This puts too great a of a burden on my firewall. NAT is
>a great tool (one of many) in protecting my machines from attack. Is
>there something that is going to take it's place?
>
>Looking deeper into the magazine we have to differing opinions from
>Michael J. Miller and Bill Machrone. Miller states “Though long overdue,
>Vista offers some impressive features. The graphics finally takes
>advantage of the hardware that most PCs have had for quite some time.”
>The very next page (after the Matrox advertisement) Machrone states
>“Don't upgrade to Vista – Buy a new computer instead. To get all the
>performance that Vista has to offer, chances are somewhere between good
>and excellent that the system now on your desk isn't going to deliver.”
>He goes on later to state “... opt for the gut-level improvements” “That
>means hardware that can deliver more than a new graphics card and an
>additional gig of RAM”
>
>I think Machrone is more on the mark on this subject. Don't bother
>upgrading an old machine. It's time for a brand new one, even a machine
>that might not exist yet. It feels like Vista is targeted for a machine
>that isn't on the mass market. Who wants to run Vista on a machine that
>was designed for high-end gamers?
>
>It feels like we're in a “tweener” stage here. We're moving away from XP
>and the $1K hardware, and moving into an area where we're not going to
>be happy with hardware and OS performance for a year or so to come.
>
>-Kevin
>
>Kevin Cully
>CULLY Technologies, LLC
>
>Sponsor of Fox Forward 2006!
>http://foxforward.net
>
>
>john harvey wrote:
>
>
>>Has anyone been running Vista? If so, what are your experiences? What
>>version should a developer be using? I am going ahead with enrollment in the
>>empower program, so I guess I'll just use the Vista that comes with the MSDN
>>Universal subscription.
>>
>>John Harvey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2006 Leland Jackson |
