Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: My Computer Geek: "Don't get Vista 64. wait for Windows 7"  (Read 9460 times)
SteveZ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« on: December 01, 2008, 04:33:28 PM »
ReplyReply

This is what's been suggested to me by the guy that's going to be building my new PC. He's saying if I can hold on for couple more months I'm better off with Windows 7 because it's going to be more stabler platform. This is news to me, I was wondering if anyone else shares the same opinion?
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2008, 05:04:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: SteveZ
This is what's been suggested to me by the guy that's going to be building my new PC. He's saying if I can hold on for couple more months I'm better off with Windows 7 because it's going to be more stabler platform. This is news to me, I was wondering if anyone else shares the same opinion?

I'm in the same boat. I'm sticking with XP and forgoing Vista altogether. Too much DRM and eating up resources for little or no ROI.

I think Windows 7 is at least a year away, though.
Logged

walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1328


« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2008, 06:03:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: SteveZ
This is what's been suggested to me by the guy that's going to be building my new PC. He's saying if I can hold on for couple more months I'm better off with Windows 7 because it's going to be more stabler platform. This is news to me, I was wondering if anyone else shares the same opinion?

I recently got a pretty fast computer from Dell, and I chose to have Windows XPPro installed, with the option to install Vista from an included disk.  After all the problems I've heard about using Vista for photographic work, I decided to stick with XP.


Logged
JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2008, 06:32:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Either you'll be waiting longer than you expect, or you'll get a problem-laden operating system. Or both. Likely both.

I have been using Vista Home Premium 64-bit for a couple months, and have zero problems and am actually enjoying the interface. I wonder what the problems are supposed to be?
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2008, 06:52:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Vista is fine.  (Now.)

How is there any more "DRM" in vista than Xp?
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 805


« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2008, 10:19:36 PM »
ReplyReply

No complaints with Vista 64bit here.
Logged

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

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2008, 11:03:06 PM »
ReplyReply

No complaints at this end either - I've been running Vista since RTM (Nov 8th, 2006).  Other than being frustrated by device driver and application support, Vista has been very stable.

A *lot* of press regarding "Windows 7" is seem to be short on facts:

1) Vista is based on the Windows Server 2003 codebase.  MS made a pretty painfull decision to bypass the XP codebase (at the time SP1) and restart all development efforts based on the soon to be released Server 2003 kernel.  This has been called by some, the "Longhorn Reset"  - it added at least 18 months to the effort.  During this period XP-64 was released (XP SP2):  minimal application and hardware support, based on the older XP driver model.

2)  Vista at SP1 is "aligned" at the kernel level with Windows Server 2008.  I'm running Vista 64 on my home and work desktops, my laptop is running Server 2008 (32-bit).  All applications run fine, CS4, LR2 . . .

3) Windows "7" will actually be an incremental release of Vista (and Server 2008) - the kernel will have a major version of "6", meaning driver and software compatibility with Vista.  Most of the important changes are under the hood; consolidation, continuing to eliminate internal dependencies between major subsystems . . .  

4) DRM or Digital Rights Management is left to 3rd parties to actually implement.  In the Windows world, this began as early Media Player 9 running under Windows 2000/XP.  Vista expanded the concept to the O/S API level for good reason - DRM serves more than one purpose, media content is only one possible DRM implemtation.  Trusted or signed code at the device driver level would be another . . .
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 11:39:09 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

Alistair
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2008, 03:26:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: SteveZ
This is what's been suggested to me by the guy that's going to be building my new PC. He's saying if I can hold on for couple more months I'm better off with Windows 7 because it's going to be more stabler platform. This is news to me, I was wondering if anyone else shares the same opinion?

Vista 64 is already very very stable. Only time I turn of my Vista 64 machine is when a software update mandates it. It is rock solid and I see no reason to wait for the next OS which will probably be less stable than its predecessor until the first service pack is released.
Logged

geotzo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2008, 04:01:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I m fine with my Vista 64 too, both on a laptop and a new desktop
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2008, 04:14:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Besides, if you worry too much about Windows' stability, go Linux!

*waits for the stunned silence to stop and the flames to start*
Logged

Jan
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7898



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2008, 10:33:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
Besides, if you worry too much about Windows' stability, go Linux!

*waits for the stunned silence to stop and the flames to start*
Yeah, but I understand it's hard to run Photoshop or Lightroom under Linux.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2008, 02:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricM
Yeah, but I understand it's hard to run Photoshop or Lightroom under Linux.
Was that in the class of "stunned silence" or "flames"? It's hard to say.

Back in the old days, jokes like that wouldn't be met with mere plaid mockery, oh no, there would be cussing and swearing and hookers and gambling and booze. Aw, screw the hole thing!
Logged

Jan
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2008, 06:30:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I fixed my Vista OS problems... I bought a MacPro running Leopard. Awesome.
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 724


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2008, 06:42:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I made the successful move 11 months ago from Win XP Pro 64 to Vista Ultimate 64 and have had a very stable computer.  I also have a small travel laptop that has Vista Ultimate (32bit) which as been very stable as well.

don

edit:

Just wanted to add that I am also successfully running both C1.4.5 and CS4.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 06:46:38 PM by Iron Creek » Logged

pindman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2008, 06:45:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Iron Creek
I made the successful move 11 months ago from Win XP Pro 64 to Vista Ultimate 64 and have had a very stable computer.  I also have a small travel laptop that has Vista Ultimate (32bit) which as been very stable as well.

don

I'm running Win XP Pro 64 without any problems.  I have the Vista disks, but would want to know that there would be a noticeable speed improvement before moving to Vista -- otherewise why mess with something that works.  Did you notice that Photoshop can access more memory or is faster with the move to Vista?

Tlhanks.

Paul
Logged
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 724


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2008, 06:57:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pindman
I'm running Win XP Pro 64 without any problems.  I have the Vista disks, but would want to know that there would be a noticeable speed improvement before moving to Vista -- otherewise why mess with something that works.  Did you notice that Photoshop can access more memory or is faster with the move to Vista?

Tlhanks.

Paul


Hi Paul

I made the move as I was having problems with XP Pro 64 (running slow, way too many blue screens, etc) last December.  Since loading Vista Ultimate 64 I’ve not had one crash or other computer problem (I have had a couple problems with Epson however I think they just might be my own).  The only caveat is to make sure you have done your research on the drivers you’ll need for your printers, monitors, etc.

Now have I seen speed improvement since combining both Vista and CS4 and the answer for me is yes.  I’m running 8 GB RAM and CS4 see just about all of it (I also have a 180 GB scratch disk).  I haven’t put a stopwatch to it however I “feel” that my image files (2GB and larger) just open and run faster.

don
Logged

Kagetsu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2008, 04:50:24 AM »
ReplyReply

If it's a new computer, don't 'wait' for anything. Just go with it.

Personally, I made the early upgrade too to 64bit Vista. Best thing I could have done. Stability is much improved, and general useability is much nicer.
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2008, 09:04:59 AM »
ReplyReply

The only issue I had with Vista 32 (other than the constant pop up warnings on boot) was with my Waacom tablet - it's improved over time as they upgraded the drivers, but I still occasionally loose the customized settings.
Logged
Paul Wright
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5



« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2008, 05:14:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I see quite a few posters in this thread are running Vista 64. I've been getting feedback from a few photographers and designers that they have had issues with Vista not "holding" a custom monitor profile. They calibrate with X Rite Eye One Display2 or similar, and save the new profile. Trouble is, next time they start up the computer, the profile has GONE and the system has reverted to the generic default. This may have been pre-service pack.

I want to upgrade my disappointing XP64 to Vista 64 to get the best out of  CS4 and LR2. Is this bug a thing of the past, or are you guys running Vista 64 having no problems with disappearing profiles?

Huge thanks,
Paul Wright
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2008, 09:58:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Although I'm using an EyeOne Pro, a display profile is a disply profile . . .

The UAC prompts that you'll get when installing new apps, etc nails the custom profile after the "screen dim" (MS calls this Secure Desktop).  



You can either reload your profile after a UAC prompt (in your case, All Programs | Startup | Logo Calibration Loader, or disable the Secure Desktop:

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/117448-u...out-screen.html
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 10:37:32 AM by Joh.Murray » Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad