Vista - Am I Crazy?

Every 3 or 4 years I get the opportunity and authorization (from spousal
unit) to build a new computer. So when I do so I try to get the best of what
I can get in the hopes that it isn't too totally outdated in 3 years. With
that in mind I have been reading up on Vista 32 bit vs. Vista 64 bit. It
seems to be somewhat of a consensus that there isn't any current need to go
to 64 bit but it is the wave of the future. I want this machine to be a
powerful game machine but also usable for my development and business needs.
So this is what I was thinking of doing. Please provide any comments if this
isn't doable, or just plain silly.

I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk array
that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's. I was
thinking of partitioning this into three logical drives. One drive would be
used to install 32 bit Vista and be roughly 30GB. The second partition would
be used for Vista 64bit and be roughly 30GB. The third drive would be used
to house all program and data files.

My thought is to install the OS only on the first 2 partitions and then use
the third partition as a shared resource for all of the program files. This
way I could install programs in both operatijg systems using the same
location and then be able to use whichever OS works best for the application.
Obviously this only applies to 32 bit programs.

Based off of the research I have done I would have to install my OEM Vista
Home Premium 32 bit first. Then install the Vista Ultimate 64 bit upgrade,
then come back and reinstall the 32 bit Ultimate from the 64 bit partition in
order to retain drive mappings.

So does this sound doable or have I been eating too many mushrooms? Can you
think of any issues or gatcha's that I need to be on the lookout for?

Thanks,

Bob

=?Utf-8?B?Qm9i?= <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com:

> I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk
> array that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's.

Raid 0 is not a good choice no matter what OS you are using. You are
essentially doubling the chances of a hardware HD issue causing a lot of
headaches.

If I were you I would wait for AMD's quad core to be released later this year.
Their architecture, to me, seems superior to Intel's, and I would wait for
benchmark tests.

And I would use the third partition only for data files. There is no advantage
in using a separate partition for program files and imaging your system drives
would be useless.



"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com...
> Every 3 or 4 years I get the opportunity and authorization (from spousal
> unit) to build a new computer. So when I do so I try to get the best of what
> I can get in the hopes that it isn't too totally outdated in 3 years. With
> that in mind I have been reading up on Vista 32 bit vs. Vista 64 bit. It
> seems to be somewhat of a consensus that there isn't any current need to go
> to 64 bit but it is the wave of the future. I want this machine to be a
> powerful game machine but also usable for my development and business needs.
> So this is what I was thinking of doing. Please provide any comments if this
> isn't doable, or just plain silly.
>
> I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk array
> that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's. I was
> thinking of partitioning this into three logical drives. One drive would be
> used to install 32 bit Vista and be roughly 30GB. The second partition would
> be used for Vista 64bit and be roughly 30GB. The third drive would be used
> to house all program and data files.
>
> My thought is to install the OS only on the first 2 partitions and then use
> the third partition as a shared resource for all of the program files. This
> way I could install programs in both operatijg systems using the same
> location and then be able to use whichever OS works best for the application.
> Obviously this only applies to 32 bit programs.
>
> Based off of the research I have done I would have to install my OEM Vista
> Home Premium 32 bit first. Then install the Vista Ultimate 64 bit upgrade,
> then come back and reinstall the 32 bit Ultimate from the 64 bit partition in
> order to retain drive mappings.
>
> So does this sound doable or have I been eating too many mushrooms? Can you
> think of any issues or gatcha's that I need to be on the lookout for?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob

Bob - I have not "absorbed" all of your post, however keep in mind that
programs must be written to use 64 bit capability (and multi -core
processors), also 64 bit is much more security enabled than 32 and is very
"touchy" about drivers - in fact all drivers for 64 bit must be signed and
certified - may or not be a problem for games.

DanS's comments about Raid - Microsoft in Bet testing of the new Windows
Home Server recommends using multiple hDs but not in a Raid configuration.


"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns99419ABC43B64thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
> =?Utf-8?B?Qm9i?= <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com:
>
>> I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk
>> array that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's.
>
> Raid 0 is not a good choice no matter what OS you are using. You are
> essentially doubling the chances of a hardware HD issue causing a lot of
> headaches.

You bring up a valid point. I may have to consider going to a RAID 0 + 1
approach.

"DanS" wrote:

> =?Utf-8?B?Qm9i?= <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com:
>
> > I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk
> > array that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's.
>
> Raid 0 is not a good choice no matter what OS you are using. You are
> essentially doubling the chances of a hardware HD issue causing a lot of
> headaches.
>

I understand that programs will perform better if written specifically for 64
bit applications. But some 32 bit programs perform better in 64 bit and at
the very least perform the same as in 32 bit when run in a 64 bit
environment. I know that drivers are an issue as well, this is why I am
trying to dream up an hybrid approach that will allow me to easily get back
to 32 bit for those circumstances where 64 bit just plain doesn't work.
Since this is a new build I will have to insure that 64 bit drivers are
available for any of the hardware components I plan on using such as
graphics, sound, etc... Fortunatly the nVidia 8800 series graphic cards from
some of the manufacturers have 64 bit drivers available so I can feed that
gamer craving...

"AJR" wrote:

> Bob - I have not "absorbed" all of your post, however keep in mind that
> programs must be written to use 64 bit capability (and multi -core
> processors), also 64 bit is much more security enabled than 32 and is very
> "touchy" about drivers - in fact all drivers for 64 bit must be signed and
> certified - may or not be a problem for games.
>
> DanS's comments about Raid - Microsoft in Bet testing of the new Windows
> Home Server recommends using multiple hDs but not in a Raid configuration.
>
>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
> news:Xns99419ABC43B64thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
> > =?Utf-8?B?Qm9i?= <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com:
> >
> >> I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk
> >> array that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's.
> >
> > Raid 0 is not a good choice no matter what OS you are using. You are
> > essentially doubling the chances of a hardware HD issue causing a lot of
> > headaches.
>
>
>

Unfortunatly time is a bit of an enemy here. I have the money to do this
now, I may not in a few months. So I have to make the best choices I can
with the currently available technologies.

I am considering putting actual data files onto a separate hard drive that
is not in a RAID configuration. This way if I do lose my OS drives I at
least have my data and can reinstall software to get back to where I was
before the crash. Not quite sure what you mean by imaging my drives. A RAID
0 approach just uses two drives in an interleaved fashion to increase the IO
rate on reads and writes. The full capacity of both drives is still
available. This is the concern that DanS brought to light that now if either
of the two drives fail I lose my entire system.

My thinking on the separate partition for program files is that both OS's
could use the same directory structure and hence the same configuration
information used for a program. This would, in theory, allow me to run any
32 bit program that I need to run from either OS without losing config
information.

"Cal Bear '66" wrote:

> If I were you I would wait for AMD's quad core to be released later this year.
> Their architecture, to me, seems superior to Intel's, and I would wait for
> benchmark tests.
>
> And I would use the third partition only for data files. There is no advantage
> in using a separate partition for program files and imaging your system drives
> would be useless.
>
>
>
> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com...
> > Every 3 or 4 years I get the opportunity and authorization (from spousal
> > unit) to build a new computer. So when I do so I try to get the best of what
> > I can get in the hopes that it isn't too totally outdated in 3 years. With
> > that in mind I have been reading up on Vista 32 bit vs. Vista 64 bit. It
> > seems to be somewhat of a consensus that there isn't any current need to go
> > to 64 bit but it is the wave of the future. I want this machine to be a
> > powerful game machine but also usable for my development and business needs.
> > So this is what I was thinking of doing. Please provide any comments if this
> > isn't doable, or just plain silly.
> >
> > I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk array
> > that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's. I was
> > thinking of partitioning this into three logical drives. One drive would be
> > used to install 32 bit Vista and be roughly 30GB. The second partition would
> > be used for Vista 64bit and be roughly 30GB. The third drive would be used
> > to house all program and data files.
> >
> > My thought is to install the OS only on the first 2 partitions and then use
> > the third partition as a shared resource for all of the program files. This
> > way I could install programs in both operatijg systems using the same
> > location and then be able to use whichever OS works best for the application.
> > Obviously this only applies to 32 bit programs.
> >
> > Based off of the research I have done I would have to install my OEM Vista
> > Home Premium 32 bit first. Then install the Vista Ultimate 64 bit upgrade,
> > then come back and reinstall the 32 bit Ultimate from the 64 bit partition in
> > order to retain drive mappings.
> >
> > So does this sound doable or have I been eating too many mushrooms? Can you
> > think of any issues or gatcha's that I need to be on the lookout for?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
>

Imaging your hard drives is the best and easiest way to recover a system that
has gone so far south that even System Restore can not recover your system. An
image of your hard drive creates an "image" of your drive: the OS, your
programs and all your settings. One of the best things that Vista Ultimate
includes is an imaging program "Complete PC Backup". If you were to image a 3
disk setup as you propose the file would be huge and you would have to restore
both OSs to recover. Imaging saves hours and hours of work restoring a system
and should be used by everyone. There are other imaging programs that people in
here highly recommend.

Also, the current Intel quad core is just two dual cores glued on one die.
Their next generation will be a big advancement, much the same way that the Core
2 Duo was a great advancement over the old Intel dual core processor.


"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F23681DB-FE0F-413B-9C73-11ACE72F10C4@microsoft.com...
> Unfortunatly time is a bit of an enemy here. I have the money to do this
> now, I may not in a few months. So I have to make the best choices I can
> with the currently available technologies.
>
> I am considering putting actual data files onto a separate hard drive that
> is not in a RAID configuration. This way if I do lose my OS drives I at
> least have my data and can reinstall software to get back to where I was
> before the crash. Not quite sure what you mean by imaging my drives. A RAID
> 0 approach just uses two drives in an interleaved fashion to increase the IO
> rate on reads and writes. The full capacity of both drives is still
> available. This is the concern that DanS brought to light that now if either
> of the two drives fail I lose my entire system.
>
> My thinking on the separate partition for program files is that both OS's
> could use the same directory structure and hence the same configuration
> information used for a program. This would, in theory, allow me to run any
> 32 bit program that I need to run from either OS without losing config
> information.
>
> "Cal Bear '66" wrote:
>
>> If I were you I would wait for AMD's quad core to be released later this
>> year.
>> Their architecture, to me, seems superior to Intel's, and I would wait for
>> benchmark tests.
>>
>> And I would use the third partition only for data files. There is no
>> advantage
>> in using a separate partition for program files and imaging your system
>> drives
>> would be useless.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com...
>> > Every 3 or 4 years I get the opportunity and authorization (from spousal
>> > unit) to build a new computer. So when I do so I try to get the best of
>> > what
>> > I can get in the hopes that it isn't too totally outdated in 3 years. With
>> > that in mind I have been reading up on Vista 32 bit vs. Vista 64 bit. It
>> > seems to be somewhat of a consensus that there isn't any current need to go
>> > to 64 bit but it is the wave of the future. I want this machine to be a
>> > powerful game machine but also usable for my development and business
>> > needs.
>> > So this is what I was thinking of doing. Please provide any comments if
>> > this
>> > isn't doable, or just plain silly.
>> >
>> > I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk
>> > array
>> > that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's. I was
>> > thinking of partitioning this into three logical drives. One drive would
>> > be
>> > used to install 32 bit Vista and be roughly 30GB. The second partition
>> > would
>> > be used for Vista 64bit and be roughly 30GB. The third drive would be used
>> > to house all program and data files.
>> >
>> > My thought is to install the OS only on the first 2 partitions and then use
>> > the third partition as a shared resource for all of the program files.
>> > This
>> > way I could install programs in both operatijg systems using the same
>> > location and then be able to use whichever OS works best for the
>> > application.
>> > Obviously this only applies to 32 bit programs.
>> >
>> > Based off of the research I have done I would have to install my OEM Vista
>> > Home Premium 32 bit first. Then install the Vista Ultimate 64 bit upgrade,
>> > then come back and reinstall the 32 bit Ultimate from the 64 bit partition
>> > in
>> > order to retain drive mappings.
>> >
>> > So does this sound doable or have I been eating too many mushrooms? Can
>> > you
>> > think of any issues or gatcha's that I need to be on the lookout for?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Bob
>>
>>

I see what your saying now, thanks for the clarification. So which would be
better, going to RAID 0+1 or using disk imaging?

Any idea when these new quad cores are going to be released? Are the AMD
quad cores that AJR mentioned going to be equivelent or better? i have
noticed with the introduction of the Duo chips AMD has been steadily losing
market share in the gaming market that they have dominated for some time. I
wonder if the AMD quad core will reverse that trend.

So outside of the imaging issue, are there other points of concern in this
proposed approach?

"Cal Bear '66" wrote:

> Imaging your hard drives is the best and easiest way to recover a system that
> has gone so far south that even System Restore can not recover your system. An
> image of your hard drive creates an "image" of your drive: the OS, your
> programs and all your settings. One of the best things that Vista Ultimate
> includes is an imaging program "Complete PC Backup". If you were to image a 3
> disk setup as you propose the file would be huge and you would have to restore
> both OSs to recover. Imaging saves hours and hours of work restoring a system
> and should be used by everyone. There are other imaging programs that people in
> here highly recommend.
>
> Also, the current Intel quad core is just two dual cores glued on one die.
> Their next generation will be a big advancement, much the same way that the Core
> 2 Duo was a great advancement over the old Intel dual core processor.
>
>
> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F23681DB-FE0F-413B-9C73-11ACE72F10C4@microsoft.com...
> > Unfortunatly time is a bit of an enemy here. I have the money to do this
> > now, I may not in a few months. So I have to make the best choices I can
> > with the currently available technologies.
> >
> > I am considering putting actual data files onto a separate hard drive that
> > is not in a RAID configuration. This way if I do lose my OS drives I at
> > least have my data and can reinstall software to get back to where I was
> > before the crash. Not quite sure what you mean by imaging my drives. A RAID
> > 0 approach just uses two drives in an interleaved fashion to increase the IO
> > rate on reads and writes. The full capacity of both drives is still
> > available. This is the concern that DanS brought to light that now if either
> > of the two drives fail I lose my entire system.
> >
> > My thinking on the separate partition for program files is that both OS's
> > could use the same directory structure and hence the same configuration
> > information used for a program. This would, in theory, allow me to run any
> > 32 bit program that I need to run from either OS without losing config
> > information.
> >
> > "Cal Bear '66" wrote:
> >
> >> If I were you I would wait for AMD's quad core to be released later this
> >> year.
> >> Their architecture, to me, seems superior to Intel's, and I would wait for
> >> benchmark tests.
> >>
> >> And I would use the third partition only for data files. There is no
> >> advantage
> >> in using a separate partition for program files and imaging your system
> >> drives
> >> would be useless.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com...
> >> > Every 3 or 4 years I get the opportunity and authorization (from spousal
> >> > unit) to build a new computer. So when I do so I try to get the best of
> >> > what
> >> > I can get in the hopes that it isn't too totally outdated in 3 years. With
> >> > that in mind I have been reading up on Vista 32 bit vs. Vista 64 bit. It
> >> > seems to be somewhat of a consensus that there isn't any current need to go
> >> > to 64 bit but it is the wave of the future. I want this machine to be a
> >> > powerful game machine but also usable for my development and business
> >> > needs.
> >> > So this is what I was thinking of doing. Please provide any comments if
> >> > this
> >> > isn't doable, or just plain silly.
> >> >
> >> > I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk
> >> > array
> >> > that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's. I was
> >> > thinking of partitioning this into three logical drives. One drive would
> >> > be
> >> > used to install 32 bit Vista and be roughly 30GB. The second partition
> >> > would
> >> > be used for Vista 64bit and be roughly 30GB. The third drive would be used
> >> > to house all program and data files.
> >> >
> >> > My thought is to install the OS only on the first 2 partitions and then use
> >> > the third partition as a shared resource for all of the program files.
> >> > This
> >> > way I could install programs in both operatijg systems using the same
> >> > location and then be able to use whichever OS works best for the
> >> > application.
> >> > Obviously this only applies to 32 bit programs.
> >> >
> >> > Based off of the research I have done I would have to install my OEM Vista
> >> > Home Premium 32 bit first. Then install the Vista Ultimate 64 bit upgrade,
> >> > then come back and reinstall the 32 bit Ultimate from the 64 bit partition
> >> > in
> >> > order to retain drive mappings.
> >> >
> >> > So does this sound doable or have I been eating too many mushrooms? Can
> >> > you
> >> > think of any issues or gatcha's that I need to be on the lookout for?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Bob
> >>
> >>
>
>

No problems here. Vista is installed on two smallish (and cheap) SATAII
drives using RAID 0. Acronis True Image takes care of the hardware failure
worries. Of the dozens of hard drives I've owned only one or two have had bad
spots that I could work around. RAID 0 is smokin' fast.

"DanS" wrote:

> =?Utf-8?B?Qm9i?= <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> news:441418CB-9168-4EB9-A0F0-EEB9FF5F7B48@microsoft.com:
>
> > I will be buying a quad core 64 bit Intel chip and using a RAID 0 disk
> > array that will have a total capacity of 300GB using 2 Raptor 150's.
>
> Raid 0 is not a good choice no matter what OS you are using. You are
> essentially doubling the chances of a hardware HD issue causing a lot of
> headaches.
>