Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: SteveZ on December 01, 2008, 05:33:28 pm
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Vista is fine. (Now.)
How is there any more "DRM" in vista than Xp?
-
No complaints with Vista 64bit here.
-
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 . . .
-
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.
-
I m fine with my Vista 64 too, both on a laptop and a new desktop
-
Besides, if you worry too much about Windows' stability, go Linux!
*waits for the stunned silence to stop and the flames to start*
-
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.
-
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!
-
I fixed my Vista OS problems... I bought a MacPro running Leopard. Awesome.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
(http://www.vistax64.com/attachments/tutorials/2223d1222620961-user-account-control-uac-blacking-out-screen-example.jpg)
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 (http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/117448-user-account-control-uac-blacking-out-screen.html)
-
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?
I have no issue with that. I am using a LaCie with their Blue Eye system, and it is seamless and problem-free.
-
Who here is using Vista 64 on a Mac?
And how do they find it?
-
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/appl...owsvista64.html (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/application_updates/bootcampupdate21forwindowsvista64.html)
I was fully intending to, but the Macbook I ordered shipped with the glossy screen - back it went . . . .
-
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?
At work (soon to be EX-work), I run 32 bit Vista, because for the particular machine model we ordered, Windows XP was not stable. I kinda dreaded running Vista, but in fact it's been (for me) more stable than OS X.
In your shoes I would be going with Vista now (and whatever service pack is current, and NOT the one that's about to release) and adopt "wait and see" about Windows 7. Like most others, I'd expect Windows 7 to be late and not as stable as the version of Vista that precedes it until it's had time to shake down and a service pack or two appear. Additionally, software suppliers will be more familiar with Vista for a while to come than they will be with Windows 7.
Cheers,
Giles
-
Yeah zero problems with Vista 64 Ultimate. Profiling of two Eizo's is fine, performance of PS 64bit and LR2 64 is great.
I'm looking forward to a new i7 system and more RAM (have 8 - will move to 12 initially) and intend to use Vista.
W7 does look like it'll be quite good, but it's more than a few months off at least and things like PS are optimised for Vista (doesn't support XP64 officially, for example) and they haven't tested on W7. So I'd go Vista and then if you like upgrade to W7 in the future.
-
I have 2 laptops, a Sony Vaio running Vista and a 13" Macbook, so I've gotten an opportunity to do my own first-hand comparisons. Both OSs are pretty stable, though Leopard has an annoying habit of locking up when the machine goes into screensaver lock or goes to sleep. The Vaio does this occasionally when I put it to sleep, but only about 1/3 as often. The driver availability issues for Vista have mostly been rectified, though Canon hasn't added 1Ds (the original one) support for Vista yet in their EOS Utility. The Mac version works, but with a retarded kludgy workaround requiring you to have the camera displaying the menu when you connect or the app will shut itself down. The Mac has major issues with the built-in Bluetooth hardware refusing to connect with headsets or dropping connections periodically that the Windows machine doesn't have. Overall both machines work pretty reliably; sufficiently so to be productive professional tools. Which one works best for a particular task depends on the individual quirks of the machine. But claiming one is significantly better than the other is nothing more than religious fanboyism.
I'd strongly recommend going with Vista now rather than waiting for the next version of Windows, which will probably be behind schedule, require updated versions of your applications, and need a service pack or two before it is ready for prime time.