Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Vista 64-bit and Lightroom  (Read 17094 times)
witwald
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: February 10, 2008, 02:18:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Is anyone using a 64-bit edition of Vista with Lightroom? What are your experiences, both good and bad? How much RAM is in your PC? What graphics card do you use, and why? Are your printers and/or scanners supported by stable and reliable 64-bit drivers? Is anyone using a quad-core Intel processor?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, as I'm planning to upgrade my old 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 system.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2008, 02:35:24 AM by witwald » Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1907



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2008, 04:34:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is anyone using a 64-bit edition of Vista with Lightroom? What are your experiences, both good and bad? How much RAM is in your PC? What graphics card do you use, and why? Are your printers and/or scanners supported by stable and reliable 64-bit drivers? Is anyone using a quad-core Intel processor?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, as I'm planning to upgrade my old 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Using Quad Core - but Vista 32 bit - 4 Gig RAM with Lightroom. Lightroom library stored externally on 2 Terrabyte RAID1 NAS server. Connected via USB2.

No issues to speak of.

Very happy with speed.

Did notice a little slow down with 1DS MKIII files compared to 5D - but given they are 21 mp. v. 12 - thats understandable.
Logged

genemcc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2008, 07:12:07 AM »
ReplyReply

There are very very few reasons to upgrade to Vista 64. Unless you have really stringent security requirements or are running servers I would stick with the 32 bit version. You are asking for a very large headache with 64 since many vendors have not implemented 64 bit versions of their drivers yet and many don't intend to since Vista 64 enforces driver signing and they don't want the extra expense. Really... stay away unless you have to.

That being said... LR and Vista 32 play nicely together.
Logged

Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2008, 08:19:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I've just built a Vista 64 machine with 2 quad core Xeon 2.8 processors, 16 gigs of ram Raid 5 and SAS Raid 0 15000rpm drives built with a Tyan Tempest i5400XT server board. Photoshop shows 3.5megs of usable memory at 100%. I can work on 1gig files with no effort at all. All programs work with Vista 64 except those with 16bit loaders, these are mostly very old programs. I can run Photoshop, Lightroom and any other combination of programs at the same time with no loss in performance. Lightroom runs much better than on xp with 4gigs of ram.  The SAS drives are used for my work drive and save a 130meg file in about 1 second. With this machine Vista shows none of the problems that plagued the OS at first. I now can just barely use my XP studio machine, it seems so old. I hope Adobe releases a 64bit version soon, it should be amazing. I use Canon 64bit printer drivers for my iPF5000 and NEC Spectraview2 with eye one 2 calibrator to tune my 2690WUXI monitors. My old Epson scanner won't work but all printers do. Most drivers are installed automatically with Vista. I found if the machine is built with Vista 64 in mind it is a great solution that will last some years as more and more vendors write 64bit software. As an example a file manager called Directory Opus 9 is written in 64 bit and is just great. It has built in FTP and image viewing along with dual pane file management.

Dennis
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 08:33:46 PM by Dennishh » Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2008, 08:52:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Photoshop shows 3.5megs of usable memory at 100%.
Dennis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Oooh, impressive!   LOL
Logged

John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2008, 11:33:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Oooh, impressive!   LOL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually it *is*, when you consider that under a 64Bit memory address space, Lightroom and Photshop no longer need share that 3.5GB!  Each app get's it's own . . .
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2008, 11:38:33 PM »
ReplyReply

LOL uh...you didn't get it   Read more carefully
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3382



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2008, 04:28:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As an example a file manager called Directory Opus 9 is written in 64 bit and is just great. It has built in FTP and image viewing along with dual pane file management.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A quite exceptional programme too. It puts many of Adobe's products to shame, especially when they cite lack of resources as reasons for LR/Bridge problems as Opus is a two man band and yet they do a brilliant job.
When you use a bit of software and think wouldn't it be cool if it did 'blah-blah', you normally discover Opus already does  'blah-blah' and usually even better than you'd imagined.
One of the best programmes ever.  

[a href=\"http://nudel.dopus.com/opus9/]http://nudel.dopus.com/opus9/[/url] for info

I just wish they did a Mac version too as Finder really sucks and none of the Mac alternatives to 'Founder' can hold a candle to Opus.  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2008, 01:45:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are very very few reasons to upgrade to Vista 64. Unless you have really stringent security requirements or are running servers I would stick with the 32 bit version. You are asking for a very large headache with 64 since many vendors have not implemented 64 bit versions of their drivers yet and many don't intend to since Vista 64 enforces driver signing and they don't want the extra expense. Really... stay away unless you have to.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Spoken like someone who hasn't actually used Vista x64. I have signed drivers for all of my hardware, including both printers, my tablet, my raid firewire-800 controllers, my spectrophotometer and colorimeter, and my phone. Abosolutely ZERO driver issues, and the system is more stable than any 32-bit OS I've ever run. There may be some older hardware that doesn't have drivers, especially if it's cheap stuff made by no-name companies. But the major hardward vendors have gotten their act together and most modern hardware should work just fine.

What's more, even with 4GB of ram there's a noticeable performance improvement from runing x64 because you can actually use the full 4GB of ram. Bump it to 8GB of ram and things really start to hum along nicely. I can allocated a full 3GB or ram to Photoshop and still have plenty left over the the OS and disk cache, as well as other programs such as Bridge, Lightzone, Outlook, IE, etc. On a 4GB system running x86 OS you can give PS at most 2GB of RAM and even then you have to be careful about what else you run at the same time or performance suffers.
Logged

Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2009, 02:06:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm running Vista x64 with 8Gb RAM.

At the moment, I'm running ACR via Bridge or PS.

My problem is that, when I'm working on large files in Bridge and ACR, I constantly run into memory leakage problems.

As has been pointed out to me, this is probably because Bridge is still 32bit. So, if I use ACR via PS, I get 64bit capability and can use all my memory. But, hosting ACR via PS is cumbersome, particularly when working on TIFFs.

My question is this:

I note that Lightroom is 64bit. Do others ever have memory problems when working on large files in it?

Also, does it have all the bells and whistles that ACR has? (I've never even seen LR on a screen.)

Thanks.

D.
Logged
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2009, 07:34:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dinarius
I'm running Vista x64 with 8Gb RAM.

At the moment, I'm running ACR via Bridge or PS.

My problem is that, when I'm working on large files in Bridge and ACR, I constantly run into memory leakage problems.

As has been pointed out to me, this is probably because Bridge is still 32bit. So, if I use ACR via PS, I get 64bit capability and can use all my memory. But, hosting ACR via PS is cumbersome, particularly when working on TIFFs.

My question is this:

I note that Lightroom is 64bit. Do others ever have memory problems when working on large files in it?

Also, does it have all the bells and whistles that ACR has? (I've never even seen LR on a screen.)

Thanks.

D.


I've got LR 2.4 (64 bit) running on Windows 7 RC and it seems absolutely fine, it actually "seems" a little snappier than the 32 bit vers on my old Win XP. I find LR to be a much better solution than Bridge/ACR. It certainly has plenty of bells and whistles too !
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2009, 06:03:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pete_G
I've got LR 2.4 (64 bit) running on Windows 7 RC and it seems absolutely fine, it actually "seems" a little snappier than the 32 bit vers on my old Win XP. I find LR to be a much better solution than Bridge/ACR. It certainly has plenty of bells and whistles too !

Intel Quad
8GB ram
Win Vista 64

I wouldn't want to go back to a 32bit System. It's just great to be able to use all this memory
Logged

dfarkas
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2009, 06:09:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm running Lightroom 2.4 on a Quad core 2.53 with 8GB RAM under Windows 7 RC 64-bit. It is smooth, fast, and totally bug-free.

If you haven't upgraded to Win 7 64-bit, you should. Very well designed OS and zero problems so far in C1, LR, CS4, etc.

David
Logged

David Farkas
Leica Store Miami
www.leicastoremiami.com

Check out Red Dot Forum for Leica news, reviews, blogs and discussion
Jack Varney
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 392


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2009, 07:21:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I am running Vista 64 bit on Intel Core i7 920, 8 cores  at 2.67 GHz  with 6 GB of memory. No problems with drivers for eye one, Epson 4870 and 1280.
Runs like a scalded dog compared to my Pentium 4, 2.8 Ghz with 4 GB memory. My files are from a P45+ and generally run from 230MB to 1.6 GB each depending the number of layers.

No problems with Vista 64 bit, I highly recommend it.
Logged

Jack Varney
joedecker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2009, 08:57:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: witwald
Is anyone using a 64-bit edition of Vista with Lightroom? What are your experiences, both good and bad? How much RAM is in your PC? What graphics card do you use, and why? Are your printers and/or scanners supported by stable and reliable 64-bit drivers? Is anyone using a quad-core Intel processor?

LR 2.3 and 2.4 have been stable and happy on Vista x64, given how loudly and how often I complained about 2.2 you might want to consider that a strong recommendation.

My ancient HP laser printer driver was a hassle but only in terms of getting it working across a cross-platform network. I don't have a fine art printer at home (I use Calypso Imaging for my work), so I can't speak to that.  I'm using an i7 940, and it is tasty fast, but see DigLloyd for some suggestions on working around the single-processor bottleneck on some LR operations (e.g., JPEG export.)!  My graphics card is an nVidia-based  GeForce250, it's worked great with Lightroom but I had some early problems with Photoshop painting being weird, updating the driver and turning OpenGL back on seems to have (mostly? entirely? solved the problem.)

--Joe
Logged

Joe Decker
Rock Slide Photography
http://www.rockslidephoto.com/
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 654


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2009, 11:04:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm running all the latest Adobe products with Windows 7 on several computers. Definitely performs better than Vista. My best machine is a dual core AMD rig with 8G ram and Windows 7 64 bit. Works great. But, Lightroom 2.4 also does ok on an Atom netbook with only 1G in W7 32 bit, and is very usable on an old P4 laptop with 4G in W7 32 bit.

Skip Vista entirely and head straight for Windows 7. You won't be dissapointed.
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2009, 02:34:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Cheers guys.

I think you've persuaded me.

A switch to LR would improve my workflow over ACR via PS.

I'm sure that if they made Bridge 64bit, I wouldn't be having any problems, but that's another story.

D.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2009, 05:37:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I recently went through all this.

I had been running XP32 for years, because there were always issues with first Vista, then 64 bit.  I still run into 64 bit issues, but they are getting fewer and fewer as time goes by and now, finally, they were few enough that I could switch.

I would periodically do a dual boot and test everything out for evaluation, but it wasn't until this spring that I even went to Vista, and just 32.

I recently installed Win7 64, and tried that out - for the most part no problems, however the speed was identical for me, and I don't care for the look.  For me, most of it's changes are simply cosmetic, and I don't use the features anyway.  I know how to tweak Vista for optimization, and doing back to back tests and benchmarkings confirmed that both systems were awesome performance wise.  I don't plan on going to Win 7 anytime soon, since it has no new features I need/want.  Out of the box though there is no comparison - Win 7 whips Vista's ass - you MUST spend time configuring Vista to get it where it should have been to begin with.  So I definitely recommend Win 7 to anyone because it's easy and works - I just don't need to spend the money on it over what I have.

Anyway, I switched to Vista 64, put in 8 GB and am running a 3.4GHz Intel quad.  Everything freaking flies - the bottleneck by FAR is the disc system, and I use Raid 0 arrays for speed.  I'd really love to plug in some SSDs, dedicate some for the swap discs...maybe later.  My biggest improvement was running Lightroom and PS at the same time, with a bunch of images open.  On 3GB I would max out with just a few files and sometimes need to reopen Photoshop to get speed back.  Now, SO much faster with more going on!

64 bit is NOT without problems though.  The OS itself is great, the 64 bit apps are great - but it's the little stuff that's lacking.

Some flash apps don't work in Win7 64, like AOL radio for example.  They so far all work fine in Vista though.

There is no 64 bit Jet DB, so nothing working with Access databases can work.  So not only no MS Access, but I have things like my Cigar Registry that uses a Jet library - no go.  MS is rumored to be releasing a new DB app using SQL to work with the next Office and dropping Access - but plenty of apps use Jet.

Lots of NON-current version apps don't work, or will even install in 32-bit mode.  Quickbooks for example - I had to get the latest version to even install it.  Not happy about that.

Lots of NON-current version Photoshop plugins either don't work in Photoshop 64, requiring you to launch Photoshop 32 defeating the purpose, or don't install on a 64 bit OS.  Some have beta versions, most require you to purcahse new versions.  I had to upgrade Noise Ninja, my old PK Shapener didn't work, and none of the Nik tools work in PS 64.

SO it really depends on what you need to do, if it will work for you in the end.  If you require use of plugins that don't yet have 64 versions, there is no point since you can't run PS64 to take advantage of the 64 bit differences like extra ram.

Luckily what I do is run both versions of photoshop, changing when I need to since I only need plugins for some parts of my work and can run 64 bit for the others where I can really use the extra ram like large prints.  I only use the filters on my wedding shots, and they don't get large.
Logged

Per Zangenberg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2009, 06:37:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: genemcc
There are very very few reasons to upgrade to Vista 64. Unless you have really stringent security requirements or are running servers I would stick with the 32 bit version. You are asking for a very large headache with 64 since many vendors have not implemented 64 bit versions of their drivers yet and many don't intend to since Vista 64 enforces driver signing and they don't want the extra expense. Really... stay away unless you have to.

That being said... LR and Vista 32 play nicely together.

I am sorry but your statement about "asking for trouble" is IMO very outdated. This is from the old XP 64 days when there really WAS problems finding drivers ect. Since switching to Vista64 I have had NO problems finding drivers for any hardware at all. I have also not had any problems running software. In fact I find Vista 64 to be very smooth and stable.

The only reason I upgraded from XP32 was to use 8GB RAM for Lightroom 64-bit version. I will never run 32-bit OS again  
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2009, 09:16:22 AM »
ReplyReply

+1 that the above, the guy is WAY off base and clearly doesn't actually run what he's talking about.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad