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] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
