This is a ridiculous question to ask, because it should be on their webpage under technical requirements, but I can't find it.
So does anyone know:
What versions of Windows are supported for this database?
RAM requirements
Anything else that would prevent it from working on a vanilla install of Windows (server or otherwise)?
Thanks.
All that information can be found in the "Installation Guide Adaptive Server Enterprise 15.7 for Windows", under System Requirements. From that documentation:
Windows Requirements
Windows X86 and X64 System Requirements Operating System Hardware Supported Protocols
Windows 2008 R2
•Intel Xeon EM64T
•AMD Opteron
•TCP
•Named pipes (not supported for LDAP server connections)
Windows XP Professional SP1 or higher
•Intel Xeon EM64T
•AMD Opteron
•TCP
•Named pipes (not supported for LDAP server connections)
Windows Vista
•Intel Xeon EM64T
•AMD Opteron
•TCP
•Named pipes (not supported for LDAP server connections)
Windows 7 •Intel Xeon EM64T
•AMD Opteron
•TCP
•Named pipes (not supported for LDAP server connections)
Windows X86 memory requirements are:
•Minimum RAM for Adaptive Server – 80MB
•Minimum RAM per additional user, with default stack size, packet size, and user log cache size – 156KB
•Default user stack size – 41KB
Windows X64 memory requirements are:
•Minimum RAM for Adaptive Server – 127MB
•Minimum RAM per additional user, with default stack size, packet size, and user log cache size – 83KB
•Default user stack size – 73KB
The value of minimum RAM per additional user depends on the connection needs. See the System Administration Guide for information about configuring memory.
Use either of the following patches for both X86 and X64:
•Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Service Pack 1 Redistributable Package and KB973544
•Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1 and KB971090
Windows Disk Space Requirements Product Windows X86 Windows 64
Adaptive Server typical installation 502MB 500MB
Default databases created during installation, with Adaptive Server using a 4K page size 306MB 306MB
Total
Related
Title says it. There are not strong enough words in the English language that can express my hatred of Windows 8. I will not install it on my personal machine.
I was hoping to create an Azure VM and do my development there. But Windows 8 was not an option for a VM. So on a whim I created a 2012 Server VM and downloaded and installed the Windows 8 SDK. It installed fine.
I created a Hello World application and tried to run it. I got an error saying that Hyper-V was required. I used Coreinfo.exe to check and it says Hyper-V is not supported. So am I SOL?
The Windows Phone 8 emulator requires Client Hyper-V, which is a new feature of Windows 8. The emulator is an x86 virtual machine, which runs an x86 build of Windows Phone 8, and makes use of the RemoteFX technology for hardware virtual GPU support. It's so it runs at a high percentage of real device performance, and is very closely compatible.
Unfortunately, for hardware reasons, Hyper-V cannot be nested. In the Intel and AMD processor virtualization models, a guest operating system cannot itself be a nested hypervisor.
RemoteFX requires Second Level Address Translation. How to check if your processor supports it.
If you want to use the emulator, I'm afraid you have to install Windows 8. You can always dual-boot. Alternatively, get a phone developer-unlocked so you can debug on real hardware.
I am playing with window azure SDK and would like to set up my instance as 32 bit system, there are so many option available in "configure OS", so anyone know that by which combination I can set up 32 bit system on Window Azure?
Microsoft does support 32 bits OS in Azure, just as long as you upload the image yourself and provides no support for it. Which makes sense. Details on the page Support for 32-bit operating systems in Azure virtual machines:
Microsoft Azure now allows users to bring in their 32-bit Windows Operating systems over to Azure
You can't: currently Azure is only configured with 64-bit versions of Windows Server. I would expect this will not change.
If you need a 32-bit operating system you may be better looking for alternative ways to host your application.
I am pricing a new software development machine and looking at the dell precision series.
When I get to this screen:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/reftopic.aspx/pub/products/precn_kat?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~section=T7400
The first choice is: Buy a Precision WorkStation T7400 32bit Now!
and the second choice is: Buy a Precision WorkStation T7400 64bit Now!
am I really at that point just deciding which software I want installed? or is there actually a different chipset depending on the choice.
I don't want to limit my options down the road by picking the wrong one - I can always upgrade the software - but I don't want to have to replace hardware.
BTW: This will be for SD of a Microsoft stack, asp.net, vs 2008, sql server etc and I would like to start using virtualization (probably from MS) with this machine purchase.
Both options give you the same choice of processors, they are all 64-bit capable. It's just a matter of whether a 32-bit or 64-bit version of the OS is preinstalled on it.
I would go with the 64-bit option simply because, in my experience, you can easily run both 32-bit and 64-bit VMs on a 64-bit platform, but are limited to 32-bit VMs on a 32-bit platform.
64-Bit, but just not XP64 (Which Dell offers as a downgrade). Driver situation is quite awful, and there are some incompatibilities in Software. If you need/want to stick to XP, go 32-Bit, if you want to use Vista or Windows Server 2008, 64-Bit is fine.
The only difference is the operating system anyway, so you can freely switch between installing 32 or 64 Bit Windows, you may just need to buy another License.
100% 64bit. RAM is cheap and you'll eventually want to use more than 4GB of it, especially if you've going to be running virtual machines.
64bit all the way. Vista64 is mature at this point, I haven't run into any issues. If you need 32bit for any older peripherals you might have, install XP32 as a VM.
As far as I know you can't really buy a 32-bit PC nowadays. I think the OS is the only different between the 32bit and 64bit version.
For .NET development it doesn't matter whether you're using a 64-bit OS or not. However 64-bit SQL Server maybe running faster.
And you'll also need more than 4GB RAM (especially if you run virtual machines), so I don't really see any reason to choose a 32-bit OS over a 64-bit one.
I would go for 64bit with 64bit Operating System. Only problem i encountered so far is that 32bit apps cannot access 64-dlls -> For example the context menu of TotalCommander won't show 64bit apps (e.g subversion) which might be inconvenient for development.
It can be difficult to get 64bit drivers for exotic or very new hardware, so if that's a concern for you, you might want to stick to the 32bit OS.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've got a Dell XPS M1330 with a 2.2ghz processor, 4gig ram, GeForce 8400M, and a 64GB SSD disk.
I'm primarily doing web-development, sharepoint development, integration (Microsoft BI tools) and biztalk. I use virtual machines for these purposes. I've been using Vista 32Bit up until now but I'm considering moving to 64bit to squeeze that little extra ram out of the box.
I'd like to hear if anyone has been using 64bit vista under the same circumstances and if anything should hold me back. Have in mind that this is the laptop I use at work.
I have recently switched from a Vista 32 bit development machine to a Vista 64 bit development machine, with a quad-core intel processor, and 6gb of ram. THe performance improvements have been quite impressive, and thus far, no "issues" with any development tools that I have been using.
Skipped Vista x64 and moved straight to Win2k8 with 8gb RAM and a handful of disks. Smaller memory footprint with less crap preinstalled. RAM is cheap these days too - more you throw at the problem the fast it runs.
Hyper-V is pretty good too - use it host instances of Win2k8 and Win2k3, some larger VMs (>3Gb RAM) with tools, some smaller (1Gb RAM) ones with services.
I have a fully-loaded Thinkpad W500 with Vista 64 and it runs flawlessly, especially since VMWare Workstation now supports both 32-bit and 64-bit host workstations. The only issue I encountered was with Python. I simply could not get a 64-bit version working and ended up using the 32-bit version under WOW.
I'm running a custom Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 # 2.40GHz, 8.00 GB, NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT, with a 300gb raid 0 with 15mb cache on Vista 64. Only been on it a month, but it is fast and stable, with no compatibility issues.
I'm running a Dell XPS 1730 with Vista 64 (4GB Ram, 2x512Mb Graphics). Runs Vista64 very nicely! I can have 4 or 5 instances of VS2005 up and notice no degradation. I had no issues with 64bit drivers either. Personally, I can't think of a reason not to use Vista64 on a dev machine if your hardware is new...
Vista x64 SP1, HP Quad Core with 4GB RAM. Works flawlessly. Any apps not available in 64-bit ofcourse work fine under WoW64. My only complain is IE has to run in 32-bit because of the missing 64-bit Flash plugin. And if you are a Developer, you should know that Visual Studio also is not available in 64-bit.
http://www.basicinstructions.net/images/basic081009.gif http://www.basicinstructions.net/images/basic081009.gif
Sorry about that.
I am looking to purchase a new development PC. My budget is not more than $1,000 USD (including monitor). I am open to laptop (desktop replacement type) or the traditional desktop PC would do just fine.
My primary development environment will be Microsoft, Visual Studio 2008 (and support of older Visual Studio 6 code as well). SQL Server 2005, 2008 as well as legacy support of SQL Server 2000. Microsoft Office 2003, potential to install 2007 but support as far back as Office 2000. The software I will wrote and support will be Windows XP mostly, but some Vista. I am going to have to assume there are 64-bit implementations out there to install to.
My first confusion begins with choosing AMD or Intel. My concern is that there is a compatibility issue with building software using Visual Studio in an AMD environment. I dont have any evidence, its just a concern that hopefully someone will clear up for me.
Last, I am confused about 32-bit and 64-bit installations. Should I stick with the least common denominator (32-bit) even though 64-bit is steadily gaining ground? I am aware that the 64-bit operating systems will address over 4G of RAM and that I like because I would like to set up as many Virtual Machines for test environments as possible, and may have many active at once..
I am not looking for the dream machine, just a machine with a monitor and the best processor for about $1000 that will allow me to write software for the majority of machines out there.
There are some instruction level differences between AMD and Intel but nothing that Visual Studio is going to uncover. Perhaps if you were developing with Sun Studio you might run into them (I have!).
I would go for a 64 bit machine and run 32 bit VMs on it if you feel the need to do testing in that environment. The common feeling around here seems to be that the highest level of Vista you can afford is the platform on which to develop.
With 32-bit XP and Vista, you might not have access to much more than 3GB or RAM, but possibly quite less (My home machine could only access 2.25GB with Vista 32). If you can afford getting a machine with 4GB of RAM, I would recommend using Vista-64 (Home Premium or Ultimate).
Depending on what kind of development you are doing hard drive speed can make a big difference in compile times. Get 10,000 RPM hard drives if possible for a desktop machine and 7200 RPM drives for a laptop, but they do cost more.
AMD smoothed out their incompatibilities long ago. Your decision on that should simply be which brand you feel has better performance/features. I would definitely go with 64 bit because you can always emulate 32 bit for VM's and apps and so on. The ability to use extra memory will pay dividends later when you're just spending $100 for another 2-4 gigs instead of another $1000 to finally buy a 64 bit machine.
Given you're interested in running multiple VM's RAM is going to be key, as is the CPU.
Currently Intel are ahead on performance for dollar (especially if you are interested in overclocking) however AMD's options are acceptable and the batch of phenoms seem to be better at true quad core applications than the Intel quads.
The quality and speed of the RAM is largely unimportant. Generic DDRII 800mhz will be fine, just make sure you've got 4 or 8 GB of it.
In terms of operating systems, xp 64bit is fairly wanting on driver support even though it's been around for a while. Vista 64bit however has almost all the driver support of Vista 32bit. While this means that some of your older devices wont work, you should have much less hassles with Vista than XP. In terms of versioning, I recommend premium, however you'd need to look into the added feature list to determine if it's worth it or not (to me, it's not worth it at all).
In terms of issues that may occur due to specific processors? I agree with stimms that while there may be slight differences, it's not something you'd encounter in VS development. However my experience in that arena is by no means extensive.
If you look for a not-too-expensive dev machine, AMD should be better.
AMD 780G/790G mainboard has on-board integrated VGA, out-perform most nvidia/intel video integrated mainboard at a reasonable price. AMD Phenom CPU's performance is not as good as those of Intel. But considering you can get a AMD 3-core CPU at the price that Intel offers you only 2-core, it's a good deal.
Intel's CPU has great overclock potential. However as a developer, I suppose you like a solid-as-a-rock machine and not like to take risk geting a blue death screen while compiling your code.
Hardware virtualization is important if you like to paly with X64 virutal machine for testing. Most modern AMD CPUs have hardware virtualization feature built in, while Intel cut this feature from its low-end CPUs.
Get 4 gigs rams minimum equal that you need a system that can handle more than 3 gigs (so 64bits OS). Rams is cheap and IDE with all others software (debugging, testing, database client, etc) will require you some rams if you want something fast.
For the cpu, you can get a Quad Core for less than 190$, with a board that can handle it (about 125$) you have a strong start. You do not need to have the latest video card...
A lot of already build PC can be nice for you under your budget (under 720$). See this example:
Vista Home Premium 64-bit
320 gig hard drive
3 gig rams
GeForce 7100 graphics
22" Acer LCD included
Core 2 Duo E4700