Vista32 vs 64

theheyes · 7 Apr 2008 at 20:07

Hi guys,

Bit of a quandary I hope someone can help with. I've decided to stick with Vista running 2 VMs on the folding box, however I'm wondering which version to lay down the cash on.

Vista 32

Better driver compatibility
Will only let me use 3GB of my 4GB RAM

Vista 64

Requires signed drivers
Will give me access to the full 4GB RAM

Ideally I'd like full access to the hardware but I'm concerned about how fickle Vista 64 is. Is anyone running VMWare on Vista 64 and have they had any issues?

I just wanted to put the feelers out before I spent 50 quid.

Thanks.

Cob · 7 Apr 2008 at 20:11

I've never had any issues running VMWare Server on x64 Vista. You do have to disable the driver signing from the Safe Mode menu on boot (tho the next version of Server is meant to have signed drivers, but it's still in beta).

I've never had any issues with drivers either, tho ofcourse it will depend on your own hardware. But if there's a stable x86 Vista driver, then there should a stable x64 vista driver.

theheyes · 7 Apr 2008 at 20:51

Cheers for that. So you can actually disable enforcing signed drivers? That sounds like it will solve any potential problem. I think I'll get the 64bit version then. I've only ever used 32bit Vista and wanted to avoid setting myself up for a headache.

Thanks.

Mattus · 7 Apr 2008 at 21:24

I thought Microsoft had disabled the ability to turn off the signature check in recent updates?

Either way, I never got v1 of VMWare server to work properly on Vista, so I'm using v2 beta 2. I posted a bit about it here.

Cob · 7 Apr 2008 at 21:51

They disabled the registry hack, but the Safe Mode menu option hasn't been dumped. It's now survived SP1, so I can't see them ever disabling it.

Have you tried v1.5 with signing disabled from the SM menu?

theheyes · 7 Apr 2008 at 22:44

Ah I knew I'd read it somewhere, thanks for posting that link Mattus. Doesn't matter to me what version of VMWare I use, just so long as it works.

I see you're running Ubuntu server. I might give that a go since it must be lighter on resources than running the gui as well.

Cob · 7 Apr 2008 at 22:56

Yeah there's no need for a GUI unless you're really scared of the CLI.

And there's plenty of help available if you do run into problems running text-only.

Mine looks like this 24/7

Mattus · 7 Apr 2008 at 23:42

theheyes said:
I see you're running Ubuntu server. I might give that a go since it must be lighter on resources than running the gui as well.

Yeah... it's probably worth about 50ppd extra per instance, but the main benefits are that it starts up faster and uses less memory. I'm not brilliant with Linux command-line stuff, but I know enough to get F@H and a Samba share set up, and from there I can do a lot of stuff by accessing the shared folder in Windows.

shadowscotland · 7 Apr 2008 at 23:55

Even I can use Ubuntu server

worth about 250ppd on my rig as I just run one VM - have it running as a service within a VM service (don't even need to log into windows)

theheyes · 8 Apr 2008 at 00:15

Nice. I'm not amazing at CLI stuff but I'm sure I'll figure it out. tbh once the actual SMP package is downloaded its mostly CLI anyway so thats the only thing I'll have to learn how to do. It'll be good for me. I'm not too concerned about monitoring options because I mainly use EOC stats to keep an eye on things.

I'll order Vista this week and probably set the thing up once and for all over the weekend. The box has gone through a few iterations in its short life with various combinations of vista/ubuntu/notfred etc. so hopefully now I can nail it down.

Thanks for the help and I'll be back with questions if I need them answering.

Cob · 8 Apr 2008 at 06:44

SirusB's SMP guide has step-by-step instructions for installing a client via the CLI. The only thing you'll have to work out is how to install and set up Samba, but the Ubuntu wiki again has step-by-step instructions on how to do so.

Yeggstry · 8 Apr 2008 at 11:27

Is there any particular reason why you're not sticking with the notfred diskless version? I know it was originally designed for use with machines that have the bare minimum hardware wise, but I found it very easy to setup and use in the VMWare instance.

With regards to the original question, I've heard that Vista 64 is quite good for drivers now, and I would recommend that if you're machine will run it to get that and not the 32 bit version.

theheyes · 8 Apr 2008 at 20:27

Yeggstry said:
Is there any particular reason why you're not sticking with the notfred diskless version?

I know, I still might, but my frame times were no different than my Ubuntu instances and I couldn't get it to back up to USB. I'm also going to want to be able to shut down the VMs to free up the cores for the video encoding I need to do in Windows. notfred is great for machines that are fire&forget but I think I'm going to be doing too much faffing around for it to be ideal.