4sysops » Popular

Vista x64 contra Vista x86? Does 64-bit offer better performance than 32-bit?

Michael Pietroforte — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:18:45 +0000

I already discussed the Vista x64 vs. Vista x86 question a year ago. Vista was just released and for the early adopters, the first decision to be made was which edition, i.e. 32-bit or 64-bit, would be the better choice. At this time, I was skeptical regarding Vista x64, mostly because the advantages didn’t outweigh the downsides. It is time now to reconsider this question since the main disadvantages of the 64-bit version (hardware and software compatibility) might not be such an issue anymore.

I was planning to do some research already for some time, but fortunately the German print magazine C’t (8/2008) just published a couple of comprehensive reports about this topic. So I will summarize some of their findings garnished with my own views. Today, I will focus on performance and in my next posts in this series, I will discuss software compatibility and hardware compatibility.

First of all, why would one prefer Vista x64? I outlined some of the reasons in my earlier post. What I said about security and reliability is still valid. However, a year later things might have changed regarding performance. There are two ways of improving 64-bit operating system’s performance. It utilizes the 64-bit specific computational advantages of the processor and it allows you to use more memory which is often the best way to improve performance.

Computational performance

I suppose that many think that a 64-bit processor performs better than the 32-bit CPU. This might be due to the fact that the transitions from 8-bit to 16 and from 16 to 32 brought some performance gains indeed. At least, this is how I remember it. There are essentially two reasons why a 64-bit Windows should be faster: Compilers have more options for code optimization and all 64-bit CPUs support the so-called SSEx-instructions, a command set that is supposed to be more efficient.

Some 32-bit CPUs support SSEx, too, but most 32-bit apps don’t use them because that would prevent them from working on older 32-bit processors. Hence it follows that only applications which were optimized for 64-bit will show performance gains. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case for most Windows programs, nowadays.

C’t ran a couple of benchmark tests with applications that should most likely benefit from a 64-bit CPU. Such apps are mathematical apps and graphics programs. Their tests show that in most cases Vista x64 isn’t really faster than Vista x86. Sometimes it is even slower. But all in all, the differences are not worth mentioning.

So better CPU performance can hardly be the reason why one would want to move to Vista x64. However, if you have an application that was optimized for 64-bit things look different. Although, Vista has been released more than a year ago, optimized 64-bit apps are still very rare. Note that if your software vendor offers a 64-bit edition, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will also perform better than the 32-bit app. This just guarantees that it will work under Vista x64.

Memory

Even though CPU performance is not an issue here, performance in general certainly is the main reason that speaks for 64 bit. However, it is not CPU power, but the option to use more memory. In theory, a 32-bit CPU supports 2³²Byte = 4GB RAM. Unfortunately, Vista x86 supports only up to 3.12 GB. For compatibility reasons Vista has to reserve some of its memory for device drivers. So putting more than 3GB in a computer that runs Vista x86 doesn’t make sense.

Also, Vista’s kernel will reserve at least 2GB of the 4GB for its own utilization (including the above mentioned reserve for drivers). That means that you only have 2GB for applications at the most. In most cases that will be enough. Only if you have to run many memory hungry apps simultaneously will you need more.

A disadvantage of 64-bit apps is that they usually need more memory due to 64-bit pointers. Thus, running Vistax64 on a computer with 3GB or less only makes sense if you run applications that were optimized for 64-bit.

The most common reason nowadays why you might need more RAM than 3GB is that you want to run a virtualization solution such as VMware Workstation or Virtual PC on your PC. As long as you run only one guest OS, 3GB might be sufficient. But if you test software where you need a couple of guest systems simultaneously, you certainly have a good reason to move to Vista x64.

Modern laptops with 64-bit CPU support up 4GB and desktops usually allow you to use 8GB. RAM is very cheap now. 4GB sell for less than €100 ($150). So money isn’t a reason anymore for refraining from putting more RAM in your PC. Of course, if you have hundreds or thousands PCs in your organizations that is something different. But then you certainly don’t need a 64-bit OS on all of them. For those PCs that would benefit from Vista x64 the only question is if the notorious software and hardware compatibility problems of Vista x64 are still an issue. I will explore this topic in my next posts.

Related

Why Windows Vista only sees 3GB memory in a PC with 4GB RAM and how Vista SP1 fools its users

Michael Pietroforte — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:17:32 +0000

Memory is getting cheaper every day. This is one reason why more and more people are equipping their PCs with 4GB RAM or more. Modern desktops often support up to 8GB. So it happens quite often these days that a proud owner of a new a PC wonders why Vista only reports about 3GB RAM even though he bought 4GB. I have been asked this question by several people within the last weeks. Some of them were IT pros, so I thought I should post something about it here. The things I say in this post mostly apply to Windows XP as well.

In theory, a 32-bit operating system should be able to support 2³² bytes = 4GB memory. Thus the first reaction usually is that the memory chips or with the mainboard has a hardware defect. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Vista can indeed address 4GB of memory. However, the maximum amount of RAM that can be used by the system and applications is 3.12 GB.

The cause for this is the so-called memory-mapped I/O (MMIO). Some devices need a dedicated space in memory. A typical example is a video card that utilizes the system memory. Now, you might object that your video card has its own memory and you didn’t install any additional devices that could occupy so much RAM.

Well, for compatibility reasons Vista reserves memory for devices even if they don’t exist in your computer. That means that if you have 4GB RAM in your computer and Vista displays only 3.12 GB available memory, about 1GB is indeed not used by the OS. You might as well remove it. That is quite strange, isn’t it? I am not a system programmer, but for me that seems to be a design error, probably one that is very old.

There is a KB article about this issue which offers a “workaround” though. All you have to do is to install Vista x64 instead of Vista x86. Vista’s 64-bit edition is indeed capable of handling more memory. Note that it is not possible to upgrade Vista x86 to Vista x64. That’s why I find it somehow funny that they sell this solution as a workaround. I will post some articles about the Vista x86 vs. Vista x64 issue very soon. So if you think of going this route, you might as well wait some more days before you make up your mind. In the meantime you can read a former article about the Vista x86 vs. Vista x64 issue.

You might think that Microsoft found an even better workaround, though. It is Service Pack 1. I have read about this before, but today I tried it myself. I installed Vista on a brand new HP PC with 4GB RAM. As expected Vista’s System Properties only displayed about 3 GB RAM. After I installed SP1, the amount of RAM was increased as if by a miracle (see screenshots) to 4GB. You might think that Microsoft corrected this design error, but unfortunately that is not the case.

All they did is to change what is displayed in the System Properties. I guess this problem kept the support personal of PC vendors around the globe busy. And since RAM is getting cheaper every day, the situation would have become worse soon. So Microsoft decided to solve this issue the easy way. System Properties and also the Welcome Center, which is the first place you go to check the amount of memory, simply displays 4GB and so everyone is happy now.

The only problem is that those who are unaware of Vista’s 3.12 GB limit just wasted their money. If you really want to know how much memory Vista actually uses, you have to use Vista’s System Information tool. To do so, go to Vista’s Start prompt and type Msinfo32. The new System Information tool in Vista SP1 distinguishes between “Installed Physical Memory (RAM)” and “Total Physical Memory”. The latter one is the amount of memory you can really use, and the first one indicates how much money you just have wasted if you put 4GB in your PC. You can read more about this issue in this KB article.

Related

RSAT, the Adminpak replacement, is finally available

Michael Pietroforte — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:47:32 +0000

The articles I wrote here on 4sysops about the Adminpak-Vista issue were accessed about 150,000 times. Obviously, Microsoft has managed to frustrate quite a few admins this way. It took them more than a year to finally solve this problem. And the solution is the Remote Server Administration Tools (RSAT).

In my opinion, it was one of their biggest mistakes with regards to Vista. IT pros are certainly the ones who have to be persuaded first when a new operating system is released. When I realized that Adminpak tools don’t work on Vista reliably, my first thought was that this operating system can hardly be ready for prime time if even Microsoft is unable to make their own software work on it. I never believed that it would have taken them this long to come up with a new version. Well, I have to say thanks for the many new readers they brought to my blog this way.

Even though I installed SP1 for Vista on several test PCs without problems, I was a bit hesitant to update my own PC to SP1 at work because of the many horror stories I have read about the update. But the release of RSAT was reason enough for me to make this move now. RSAT was installed without problems, too. I am not sure what happened to the Adminpak tools. I think they were just replaced. I didn’t use them for some time because they were too unreliable enough for my taste.

Unlike Adminpak, RSAT has to be enabled as a Windows feature after the installation. This is quite similar as under Windows Server 2008. I wonder why they didn’t just include them in SP1 then? Anyway, to enable the tools you need for your work, you have to go to the Control Panel, click Programs, and then click Turn Windows features on or off under Programs and Features. Only then will they show up in the Administrative Tools folder in the Start menu. There are two groups of tools:

Role Administration Tools

Active Directory Certificate Services Tools
Active Directory Domain Services (AD DS) Tools
Active Directory Lightweight Directory Services (AD LDS) Tools
DHCP Server Tools
DNS Server Tools
File Services Tools
Network Policy and Access Services Tools
Terminal Services Tools
Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI) Services Tools

Feature Administration Tools

BitLocker Drive Encryption Tools
Failover Clustering Tools
Group Policy Management Tools
Network Load Balancing Tools
SMTP Server Tools
Storage Manager for SANs Tools
Windows System Resource Manager Tools

I must admit, I do not fully understand the logic behind this division. What makes GPMC so different from the other Active Directory tools? Well, but that doesn’t mean much. To this day, I didn’t understand the difference between a feature and a role. I guess, it is just my lack of imagination. Anyway, I should stop grumbling. We should be happy that Vista can finally be used to manage Windows servers.

You can download RSAT here:

Related

List of Vista SP1 problems – be careful with Service Pack 1

Michael Pietroforte — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:11:16 +0000

Update: I posted a small guide of how to solve problems with Service Sack 1 for Windows Vista

Vista SP1 is officially only available for enterprise customers, but the reports about problems caused by this service pack are piling up. This post contains a list of all SP1 issues I am aware of.

I have discussed some of them before, but I thought it might be a good idea to create a list of all known Vista SP1 issues to keep track of them. I will update this post whenever I encounter new ones.

Device driver problems

This issue was the reason why Microsoft postponed the general release of SP1 to mid-march. It seems not to be a big problem for tech savvy Vista users. This article (KB 948187) has more.

Programs that have problems with Vista SP1

I mentioned before that Vista SP1 doesn’t solve compatibility problems, but it causes new ones. This article (KB935796) lists all known programs that don’t work properly with Vista SP1. I suggest you check them out before you install this service pack. Please, let us know if you experienced troubles with other apps that are not in this list.

The endless reboot issue

This problem of Vista SP1 is causing a lot of stir. A pre-requisite update (KB937287) triggers endless reboots on some machines. Microsoft suspended the automatic distribution of this update. I installed this update before, but I didn’t experience this problem. I just checked Windows Update and it was available again. Before that, I was able to install Vista SP1 without this patch anyway. So it seems like this issue is not as bad as it seemed at first. KB949358 has details on how to solve this problem if you are affected.

The sleep mode problem

Milo reports that some systems with SP1 crash when attempting to wake up their PC from sleep mode. I have experienced the same problem on some Vista machine without SP1. A BIOS update might be of help in such cases. However, I don’t know if the problem described by Milo is a new one. He thinks that it might be related to the reboot issue. However, I think it must be something different because the reboot problem isn’t about sleep mode.

The Windows Mobile Device Center issue

There are reports that Vista x64 SP1 has been released accidentally to Windows Update. ITWire received emails from users who experienced problems after installing SP1. One is that the memory and performance rating is not displayed anymore, and the other one is about the Windows Mobile Device Center. Based on the screenshot they published, the latter one looks familiar to me. I got the same meaningless error message sometimes when I connected my Windows Mobile 6 device to different desktops running the Windows Mobile Device Center. The only solution I found was to reset Windows Mobile. I don’t know if this is really the same problem, but it could be that SP1 causes an authentication problem which probably was the reason for the error message in my case.

GPMC (Group Policy Management Console) will be uninstalled

If you manage Group Polices for Vista machines in your PC, then I wouldn’t install SP1 because GPMC will be removed after the installation. Microsoft plans to release a new version, but as far as I know, this is not yet the case.

The sound problem

The German Windows Vista blog and Aaron discovered a problem with the sound system. It seems that this is related to the driver problem discussed above. However, Microsoft dedicated a particular article (KB948481) to it.

Even though some media are making a big deal out of this SP1 issues, I don’t think that they are really serious so far. Of course, those who are affected might have a different view about it. But do you remember about the troubles that service pack 2 for Windows XP caused? Well, XP is everybody’s darling now.

Are you aware of other Vista SP1 problems? Please, let us know.

Related

New features in Windows Server 2008

Michael Pietroforte — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:53:03 +0000

Windows Server 2008 RTM has been out out for some days now. I suppose only the adventurous are running it already in a productive environment. Even if you’re not planning to deploy Windows Server 2008 in the near future, I recommend having a look at its new features now. Who knows, maybe there are one or two features that might convince you to install Microsoft’s latest server OS earlier than planned.

I’ve been blogging about Server 2008 for quite some time now. Below you’ll find a list of those posts discussing new features. I also recommend skimming over Microsoft’s new white paper: Changes in Functionality from Windows Server 2003 with SP1 to Windows Server 2008. The word file has 341 pages. So you could say it is a free e-book about Windows Server 2008. Of course, you won’t find any critical comments there.

German speaking readers might also have a look at the comprehensive article about Windows Server 2008 I wrote for Computerwoche. I added another chapter about the Terminal Services recently. You will find even more critical words there than in my blog posts.

All in all, I think that Server 2008 is a more interesting product than Windows Vista. Particularly, the consequent modularization, the new Terminal Services, Network Access Protection and Server Core are new functionalities that convinced me, even though I found a couple of shortcomings, too.

Related

Three ways to reset a Windows Vista admin password

Michael Pietroforte — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:43:06 +0000

Of course, you can always reset a password if you have another admin account for this machine. However, if this isn’t the case, things can get a bit tricky. As a sys admin you are usually confronted with this problem if users have laptops where you don’t have an admin account. Even if you don’t have to reset a password now, you should get acquainted with this issue. Rest assured that sooner or later a user will bug you with this problem. I must admit that I managed to forget my own password more than once.

Option 1: Create a password reset disk
Vista allows you to create a password reset disk which enables you to reset your password without much hassle. The problem with this option is that you have to create the reset disk before the password is lost. If you have many Windows machines where users logon locally, this might be a daunting task. You can find a description of how to create a password reset disk here.

Option 2: Get Petter Nordhal-Hagen’s NT Password & Registry Editor
With this option you have to boot from a CD and then manipulate the SAM database. Manipulating the SAM database is always a bit risky. But if you have no password reset disk, this is the only way. Note that this tool comes without any warranty. I’ve been using it quite a few times on Windows 2000 and had never any problem with it, though. The latest version also supports Windows Vista. The download link of the tool is a bit hidden. Search for “download” on this page, if you can’t find it.

Option 3: Get the commercial Password Changer
Password Changer essentially works like the NT Password & Registy Editor. An advantage of this tool is that you’ll get support if any problem arises. Based on Joseph Fiber’s description of the tool it might be a bit easier to use than Petter Nordhal-Hagen’s solution. This especially applies if you are not familiar with Linux. Prices start at $39.99.

Update (10/29/08):
Option 4: Use Microsoft Diagnostics and Recovery Toolset
MSDaRT is a toolset from Microsoft that allows you to repair a Windows installation. With its Locksmith tool you can reset an admin password easily. Please check out my review about MSDaRT for more information.

Update (11/10/08):
Option 5: Use the Trinity Rescue Kit (TRK)
Some readers have recommended TRK. Please read my review of the Trinity Rescue Kit for more information.

Please let me know if you’ve heard of another option.

Related

Vista x64 vs. Vista x86 – 32 bit or 64 bit Vista edition?

Michael Pietroforte — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:17:39 +0000

Update: I am working on a new series about the Vista x86 vs. Vista x64 issue. The first one covers the speed issue. The other article in this series will follow soon. You might also be interested in my post about the 3GB barrier. The discussion there is interesting. But now go ahead and read this one first.

Sometime ago, I published an article about a performance comparison between 64-bit and 32-bit editions of Windows. This post got quite a few hits, recently. Meanwhile, it has rank 8 of all posts here on 4sysops (see right sidebar). Obviously, many seem to be undecided which Vista edition they would like to use. In this post, I summarized the pros and cons of Vista x64 and Vista x86.

Vista x64 Pros

Security: Kernel Patch Protection (PatchGuard) is probably the most interesting security-related feature of Vista x64. It prevents unauthorized software from modifying the kernel. This reduces the risk that malware, especially rootkits, infects your system.

Reliability: In Vista x64 only signed drivers can be installed (Mandatory Kernel Module and Driver Signing). This means that kernel mode software requires a digital signature from Microsoft. Buggy drivers can make a system very unstable. But what’s the use of a reliable OS , in the face of a third party driver crashing your PC once a day? I had this experience with Vista x86, already.

Performance: A computer with a 64-bit CPU is supposed to be more powerful than one with a 32-bit processor. Of course, you need a 64-bit OS to utilize its 64-bit capabilities. The problem is, not only that the OS, but also the applications must support 64 bit to improve performance. Since 32-bit is still predominant in the Windows area, Vista x64 won’t speed up your system in most cases. Here are some benchmark tests comparing Vista x64 and Vista x86: [1] [2] [3].

Memory: The 32 bit editions of Vista only support 4 GB RAM. With Vista x64, you can use up to 128 GB , if your hardware supports it. However, there are differences between the different editions of Vista x64. Check out this comparison table for more information. Note that many applications have limitations with respect to the amount of RAM they can use. Hence, you usually only need more than 4 GB RAM, if you are using many apps with high memory consumption, simultaneously. If you are working with VMware Workstation, you might be interested to know that version 6.0 supports Vista x64, and that’s up to 8 GB RAM.

Vista x64 Cons

Hardware compatibility: This certainly is the number one caveat in using a 64-bit Vista edition. 32-bit drivers don’t work. Therefore, hardware manufacturers have to produce new ones for every piece of hardware. The fact that drivers have to be signed can also be a disadvantage since it is more time-consuming for hardware vendors to deliver new drivers. Thus, before you can move to Vista x64, you have to check if your hardware is supported. Don’t forget your peripheral devices like printers and scanners.

Software compatibility: Most 32-bit software should be running on Vista x64. However, 16-bit programs are not supported, anymore. Note that some 32 apps still use 16-bit installers. Even though the program itself might work under Vista x64, you might not be able to install it. Another problem is that Vista x64 doesn’t support registry and folder virtualization. Some legacy apps need to write in security sensitive areas like C:\Windows or C:\Programs and Files. Vista x86 can present a virtual version of these folders to apps for compatibility reasons. Essentially, this means that some 32-bit apps might not work properly if you run them with standard user rights in Vista x64. There are workarounds, though. By the way, even 64-bit apps that were developed for the 64-bit version of Windows XP might have problems under Vista x64 if they have conflicts with Vista standards.

Price: You can only upgrade the Windows XP x64 edition to Vista x64, but not from the 32 bit version of Windows XP. So moving to Vista x64 might cost you more if you have already Windows XP licenses with an upgrade option.

Deployment: Vista images are hardware independent, which probably is the most important new feature from a system administrator’s point of view. However, this doesn’t apply to 32 and 64 bit images, i.e. you’ll need different images for Vista x86 and Vista x64. If you can’t move entirely to the 64 bit edition, then this might double your workload.

Problem diagnosis: Even though, all your hardware and software supports Vista x64, you’ll always ask yourself if a certain problem is 64-bit-related. After all, Vista x64 is a different OS than Vista x86. The same applies to applications which were specifically developed for the 64-bit editions. Thus, solving a problem might often be more time-consuming.

Conclusion: In my view, for the overall majority Vista x86 is the better choice. Even Microsoft writes that “the 64-bit editions are not for everyone.” Only if you have very high security demands or work in fields like engineering (CAD/CAM) or digital content creation, then Vista x64 might be an option for you. I suppose that 64-bit will only play a major role when Vienna, the next Windows version, comes out. There are even rumors that Windows Vienna will only support 64-bit. So perhaps it makes sense to wait a few more years before jumping into the 64-bit bandwagon.

Did I miss a point? Please, let me know!

Related

How to disable Vista’s desktop search indexing (Windows Search)

Michael Pietroforte — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:08:58 +0000

Vista comes with a new indexing service which improves desktop search. It not only makes search faster, but also adds some nice features. The one I like most is that it allows you to search very fast for mails in Outlook. There are, however, cases where you might want to disable Vista’s search indexing.

Good desktop search tools index your hard disk only whenever the PC is idle. This seems to be different with Vista. I often saw the corresponding processes (SearchProtocolHost, SearchFilterHost, SearchIndexer) active even though my computer was quite busy with other tasks. This can decrease the overall performance tremendously.

Another reason why you might want to disable Vista search indexing is, if you are using another desktop search solution. Or perhaps you only rarely search for files on your PC. If it is not the reduced performance, then it could be the constant activity of your hard disk, whenever indexing starts, that might get on your nerves. And if you install Vista in a virtual environment, for example, VMware Workstation or Virtual PC, I recommend disabling it anyway since it will slow down your VM significantly.

I know of three ways to turn off Vista’s search indexing:

~~Navigate to Control Panel, choose “Uninstall a Program” under “Programs” and then click on “Turn Windows features on or off“. There you can disable the Indexing Service~~ Navigate to Control Panel/System and Maintenance/Indexing Options. There you can remove all locations or only those you use rarely.
It is also possible to disable indexing for a certain drive or enable it only for selected folders. You can do this by changing the Properties of a drive or folder (right click on drive letter in Windows Explorer).
The fasted way is to simply disable the Windows Search service. Run Services (just type “Services” at the Start Search bar), right click on the Windows Search service and select “Properties”. Then choose “Disabled” for the start type. Afterwards, you have to stop this service by right clicking on it and selecting “Stop”.

The first option is the one you will quite often find on the Web. But I found out that Windows Search remains active after disabling it this way. The second option works, however, it takes quite long time until all files in all subfolders have been excluded from indexing. Thus, the third option is the best one. You don’t have to reboot, as with the first option, and if your want to enable it again later, it will cost you just a couple of mouse clicks.

Update: If you installed Vista SP1 there are other ways to disable indexing.

Related

Install Windows Server 2003 Adminpak (Administration Tools Pack) on Vista

Michael Pietroforte — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:59:46 +0000

Update: The Remote Server Administration Tools (RSAT) for Vista SP1 replace the Adminpak.

A while ago , I liked to an article that explains how to install the Adminpak on Windows Vista. Meanwhile I found out that there is a much easier way.

After downloading the Adminpak (Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 Administration Tools Pack or Windows Server 2003 R2 Administration Tools Pack), you have to register the DLLs properly. Just copy the list below to a command prompt, you opened with Administrator privileges. (Right click and select “Run as Administrator”.)
regsvr32 /s adprop.dll
regsvr32 /s azroles.dll
regsvr32 /s azroleui.dll
regsvr32 /s ccfg95.dll
regsvr32 /s certadm.dll
regsvr32 /s certmmc.dll
regsvr32 /s certpdef.dll
regsvr32 /s certtmpl.dll
regsvr32 /s certxds.dll
regsvr32 /s cladmwiz.dll
regsvr32 /s clcfgsrv.dll
regsvr32 /s clnetrex.dll
regsvr32 /s cluadmex.dll
regsvr32 /s cluadmmc.dll
regsvr32 /s cmproxy.dll
regsvr32 /s cmroute.dll
regsvr32 /s cmutoa.dll
regsvr32 /s cnet16.dll
regsvr32 /s debugex.dll
regsvr32 /s dfscore.dll
regsvr32 /s dfsgui.dll
regsvr32 /s dhcpsnap.dll
regsvr32 /s dnsmgr.dll
regsvr32 /s domadmin.dll
regsvr32 /s dsadmin.dll
regsvr32 /s dsuiwiz.dll
regsvr32 /s imadmui.dll
regsvr32 /s lrwizdll.dll
regsvr32 /s mprsnap.dll
regsvr32 /s msclus.dll
regsvr32 /s mstsmhst.dll
regsvr32 /s mstsmmc.dll
regsvr32 /s nntpadm.dll
regsvr32 /s nntpapi.dll
regsvr32 /s nntpsnap.dll
regsvr32 /s ntdsbsrv.dll
regsvr32 /s ntfrsapi.dll
regsvr32 /s rasuser.dll
regsvr32 /s rigpsnap.dll
regsvr32 /s rsadmin.dll
regsvr32 /s rscommon.dll
regsvr32 /s rsconn.dll
regsvr32 /s rsengps.dll
regsvr32 /s rsjob.dll
regsvr32 /s rsservps.dll
regsvr32 /s rsshell.dll
regsvr32 /s rssubps.dll
regsvr32 /s rtrfiltr.dll
regsvr32 /s schmmgmt.dll
regsvr32 /s tapisnap.dll
regsvr32 /s tsuserex.dll
regsvr32 /s uddi.mmc.dll
regsvr32 /s vsstskex.dll
regsvr32 /s w95inf16.dll
regsvr32 /s w95inf32.dll
regsvr32 /s winsevnt.dll
regsvr32 /s winsmon.dll
regsvr32 /s winsrpc.dll
regsvr32 /s winssnap.dll
regsvr32 /s ws03res.dll

Related

P2V for VMware: six ways to convert physical to virtual

Michael Pietroforte — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:05:38 +0000

Update: Please read this review about VMware’s free P2V solution, VMware Converter 3.0 and check out my first impressions about VMware Converter 3.0 final.
We are currently setting up a new VMware server and want to migrate several physical Windows servers to virtual machines. So far, I know six different ways doing this.

1. VMware P2V Assistant
VMware offers a tool for this purpose. The only problem with this option is that the VMware P2V Assistant is quite expensive. Prices start at about $2,500 for the VMware P2V Assistant Starter Edition which allows 25 migrations. The VMware P2V Assistant Enterprise Edition costs more than $6,100.

2. PlateSpin PowerConvert
Platespin PowerConvert seems to be a more sophisticated tool since it allows any kind of conversion. It not only supports VMware but also Microsoft’s format. Prices start at 2,619 Euro.

3. Ultimate-P2V plug-in for BartPE
BartPE helps you to boot Windows XP/2003 from CD-ROM. It is similar to Microsoft’s Windows Preinstallation Environment. Ultimate-P2V, a plug-in for BartPE, allows you to clone a physical machine to a virtual machine. BartPE and Ultimate-P2V are free, but you need a cloning tool like Symantec’s Ghost which is not free. Compared to solution 1 and 2, it is much cheaper though. I didn’t try Ultimate-P2V. At first glance, this option seems to be only for advanced system administrators.

4. Use a cloning tool with boot CD
This option is quite similar to 3, however, you need a cloning tool that supports creating boot CDs, where you can store the image. Using an imaging solution means that you have to exchange the HAL with one that suits the new “hardware” environment. This site has a detailed description.

5. Microsoft’s Virtual Server 2005 Migration Toolkit
The Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 Migration Toolkit is free, but it only helps you to convert physical machines to Microsoft’s virtual machine format. However, you can import this format in VMware Server or VMware Workstation. The problem with this solution is that the Migration toolkit requires Windows Server 2003 Automated Deployment Services (ADS), although for free, only runs on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition. The whole procedure to migrate a physical server to a virtual machine is quite complicated. Check out this white paper to learn how it works.

6. Install a new virtual server and restore a backup
If you only have a few physical servers that you want to convert to virtual machines then this might be the fastest way. Of course, you don’t have to install Windows for every new virtual machine. If you have VMware Workstation you can clone them and if you only have VMware Server you can just copy the folder containing the virtual machine of your master server. Don’t forget to run sysprep afterwards to get a unique Windows Server, then restore a backup of the physical server to the new virtual machine. Don’t restore the hardware specific settings of your physical server.

Related

Expanding a virtual VMware disk

Michael Pietroforte — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:04:44 +0000

Update: There is a much easier way now to resize a virtual disk: Expand a virtual VMware disk with VMware Converter. Also check out this article about my first impressions of VMware Converter 3.0 final.

Today, my Windows XP test system running in a virtual machine under VMware Workstation 5.5 complained that there is not enough space anymore on the system partition. I thought it can’t be too complicated to resize a virtual disk. After all, it is only virtual. I hoped to solve this problem within 5 minutes or so. Well, here’s how it went:

I was disappointed the first time when I realized that one can’t change the size of a virtual disk with the VMware user interface. So I googled this problem, hoping to find an easy-to-use tool. What I found out was that the virtual disk can be resized on the command line using the VMware Virtual Disk Manager Utility. The documentation about this feature on the web is for VMware Workstation 4.5, but it also works with version 5.5 and also for VMware GSX Server.

The command to expand a virtual disk looks like this:

vmware-vdiskmanager -x 10GB myDisk.vmdk

The new size of the virtual Disk will be 10 GB in this example. myDisk.vmdk is the file of the virtual disk on the host system. Usually this file won’t be located in the same folder as vmware.exe. Thus, you have to specify the full path to the vmdk file. Don’t forget to enclose the path in quotation marks, if the folder names contain spaces. You can find vmware.exe in the VMware installation folder.

My second disappointment was that one can’t expand a virtual disk if it contains snapshots. With a heavy heart, I deleted all my snapshots of this virtual machine. I was surprised how much time VMware needed for this. The size of the disk was 4 GB and I had three snapshots. I didn’t measure the time, but it must have taken at least 15 minutes. This is amazing considering that it only takes a few seconds to create a snapshot.

Finally, I was able to expand the virtual disk. The virtual disk manager needed several minutes to enlarge the virtual disk to a size of 10 GB. Of course, you can only do this after you shut down the virtual machine. It is recommended that you backup the vmdk file first, just in case something goes wrong.

I was disappointed the third time when the Virtual Disk Management Utility eventually finished its task. Expanding the virtual disk was successful, but the tool suggested using a third-party tool to resize the partitions within the virtual disk. So basically I was back to where I started. I, now, had a bigger virtual disk, but the system partition of my virtual machine still remained the same size.

Luckily, I remembered that I have an old version of Partition Magic. Since my virtual disk was full, I had to create a second virtual disk on this virtual machine first to get some free space for Partition Magic. I suppose, you know that one can add a new virtual disk by changing the virtual machine settings. Partition Magic 7.0 had no problems enlarging the system partition on my VMware virtual disk.

All in all, it took me about an hour to resize my virtual disk, including the search for a solution for my problem and the time to find my old Partition Magic. I guess I was a bit too optimistic with my five minutes estimation. I hope that future versions of VMware will offer more comfort here.

Related