Windows Vista - Opinions?

A

Abs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Just wanted to get people's opinions on using Vista as part of my new processing suite.

I've been experimenting with the RC2 on my old PC, using Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom, and have found it incredibly, and unusably, slow. I'll accept that at least part of this problem could be down to all the debug code in the RC versions, and the fact that the test machine is only a P4 2.8GHz with 512Mb RAM.

My first intention is to upgrade the laptop, a Centrino Duo 2.16 with 2Gb RAM and 7,200rpm HDD. Currently running Linux with XP in a virtual machine, the performance is fine, but thanks to MS's fantastic activation scheme, I now need to buy a new licence having apparently used the CD key too many times. The question is whether to stick with XP Pro, or to take the plunge and upgrade to Vista Ultimate. Money isn't an issue, but I don't want to waste it on an unusable OS. On the other hand, I don't want to buy a new XP licence and find that I'm soon limited by lack of software/driver availability.

Thanks for any input,

Abs
 
I think you'll find the upgrade from 512MB to 2GB of RAM, and the RC to the final version of Vista, to make a vast, vast amount of difference in terms of performance. I would be surprised if you felt it slow with that spec.
 
Actually I'm not sure that is correct. I just 'upgraded' from RC2 to Ultimate and the new one seems to be a little slower than RC2.:thinking:
 
Yes, Ultimate has more to it than bog standard Vista...

To be honest running Vista with only 512Mb of RAM on a normal PC would be asking a lot - certainly it will crawl when you fire up light room and photoshop!!! That would grind even using XP. And then you go and try and run it as a virtual machine.... (errr why?)

Try at least 2Gb of RAM, should be fine then!
 
BTW, not directly getting at you but why do people with little knowledge of computers even consider trying to use Linux - thats a sure fire way of getting 0wn3d.. (I am an information security person for a job...)
 
im running vista on a sempron with 1gb of ram, with aero on, with cs2 open its fine, i guess it depends on how many piccies you have open at once..
 
Actually I just reread your post, you may not actually need to buy a copy of vista. What do you mean by

but thanks to MS's fantastic activation scheme, I now need to buy a new licence having apparently used the CD key too many times.
Click to expand...

If it is a retail version on just one PC you can reactivate it as many times as you want. If it won't activate over the net just ring up and activate it that way. :)
 
aye ring em, i had a nightmare getting my laptop to work with XP and had to ring as it wouldnt do it over the net, they are good on the phone
 
BTW, not directly getting at you but why do people with little knowledge of computers even consider trying to use Linux - thats a sure fire way of getting 0wn3d.. (I am an information security person for a job...)
Click to expand...

I don't know what makes you think I have 'little knowledge of computers' - I spent the last 6 years of my life running a 24-machine Linux server cluster, and still run a small Linux network. I am simply asking for people's experiences with a relatively new operating system which I have no experience of since the production release, and, judging by the RC versions, am slightly skeptical about. I know the spec. of my test machine isn't great, but it ran CS2 under WinXP without a hitch yet is dying under the weight of Vista. The VM on the Centrino Duo ran CS3 under WinXP like lightning, I'm just trying to make an informed judgement about whether the production release of Vista is likely to be substantially slower in my application than XP is. So far, although not in the context of photo editing, I've heard mixed reports.

I wouldn't bother with Windows at all but for the fact I have yet to find/write a powerful photo library/manipulation suite for Linux that meets my requirements as a photographer - hence the Windows VM which has served me well for the last 4 years and should continue to do so.

As for phoning Microsoft, I tried and failed :(. My XP licence is the OEM one which came with the laptop, which they say is limited to (3?) activations. This will only be the second (as far as I am aware!), but they disagree and want to charge a reduced rate licence fee to activate my 'pirate' copy of Windows. So, if I am going to upgrade this machine to Vista, I may as well do it now!

Abs

Edit: Sorry for the mini-rant, just got out of hospital and the cocktail of drugs is making my psychotic rage worse :cuckoo:
 
I have Vista and CS3 on my Dell laptop P4 3gig 1 gig ram. I previously ran XP and CS2.
I can honestly say I dont notice any speed difference either good or bad!!
All Vista is, it seems is a tarted up version of XP.
TBH If you are going to buy a Op system, you may aswell get Vista. If you go to ebuyer.co.uk you can get a Student copy cheap, and if you use Google checkout you save £10!!
Good luck
 
I run Vista on a dual core 3giger with 2gig of Ram. Runs super quick. Scary !
Lightroom with 5000 pics and CS2 start up almost instantly. Tbh XP did the same :)
 
Puz - how large are those images on average?

I've been running photoshop elements 5.0 on an AMD64 3800 with 2.5GB ram with XP home and rarely, if ever have trouble. same goes for my laptop of similar spec.

i have been contemplating upgrading to vista ultimate, but so far it doesnt play nice when i dual boot with XP home :(
 
sjdc said:
Puz - how large are those images on average?

I've been running photoshop elements 5.0 on an AMD64 3800 with 2.5GB ram with XP home and rarely, if ever have trouble. same goes for my laptop of similar spec.

i have been contemplating upgrading to vista ultimate, but so far it doesnt play nice when i dual boot with XP home :(
Click to expand...

20% of them are RAW so about 7meg, the rest are jpgs around the 3-5meg mark. I'm running Vista Home Premium. Vista is memory hungry as is Lightroom. The more memory you have the better for both the app and the operating system.
 
When a major PC company are forced to start re-selling XP with their machines after they scraped it tells me one thing - stay away from vista!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6575089.stm

I had a new works PC with vista preinstalled and I had to remove it and install XP. I need certain software to run and it didn't even though it was a Microsoft product :shrug: which was my main reason to repair to XP.

My personal opinion would be to wait a bit longer to move to vista until it has been proven and had a service pack or two as some major hardware manufacturers still dont support it fully, however if you know that the software you will be using works with no problems then take the plunge as it does look good just do a bit of research on anything new you get for it (hard or soft).
 
Abs said:
I wouldn't bother with Windows at all but for the fact I have yet to find/write a powerful photo library/manipulation suite for Linux that meets my requirements as a photographer - hence the Windows VM which has served me well for the last 4 years and should continue to do so.
Click to expand...

there are loads. cinepaint is probably the best and does 16bit no problem. think it will even do 32 bit now. gimp is good which i use and has loads of free plugins including all raw formats.
gnome will also thumbnail and view RAW files. Fspot or even digkam for sorting and basic editing of photos and raw files. rawstudio though is the best for quick and dirty edits IMO.

There is really no excuse not to go linux because there is no software available :thumbs:
 
barryj said:
When a major PC company are forced to start re-selling XP with their machines after they scraped it tells me one thing - stay away from vista!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6575089.stm

I had a new works PC with vista preinstalled and I had to remove it and install XP. I need certain software to run and it didn't even though it was a Microsoft product :shrug: which was my main reason to repair to XP.

My personal opinion would be to wait a bit longer to move to vista until it has been proven and had a service pack or two as some major hardware manufacturers still dont support it fully, however if you know that the software you will be using works with no problems then take the plunge as it does look good just do a bit of research on anything new you get for it (hard or soft).
Click to expand...


Dell now ships PC's with Ubuntu linux installed too. The mighty M$ is beginning to show its age. :thumbs:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Z1CtBkIUP20nSh/Dells-Linux-PC-Shop-Opens-for-Business.xhtml
 
I run vista ultimate on a Core duo centrino laptop (1.8GHz) with 2GB RAM. I have no problems with it at all, in fact after using it a while it starts to optimize programs for speed based on your usage of them, so eventually you will notice that commonly used applications open faster. Also, if you are having problems running programs, try running them as administrator (right click on the shortcut/exe file and select run as administrator) this tends to solve alot of problems straight away.
 
donerboy said:
I run vista ultimate on a Core duo centrino laptop (1.8GHz) with 2GB RAM. I have no problems with it at all, in fact after using it a while it starts to optimize programs for speed based on your usage of them, so eventually you will notice that commonly used applications open faster. Also, if you are having problems running programs, try running them as administrator (right click on the shortcut/exe file and select run as administrator) this tends to solve alot of problems straight away.
Click to expand...


errrr XP does that too.
 
they way xp and vista do it are quite different though. The performance improvement that xp provided was marginal. The difference is actually quite noticable in vista due to the code and program data actually being loaded into memory rather than just being arranged on disk better (which is how xp does it). I now use vista both at home and at work and I haven't really had any problems that weren't easily fixed.
 
donerboy said:
they way xp and vista do it are quite different though. The performance improvement that xp provided was marginal. The difference is actually quite noticable in vista due to the code and program data actually being loaded into memory rather than just being arranged on disk better (which is how xp does it). I now use vista both at home and at work and I haven't really had any problems that weren't easily fixed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like vista needs all the help it can get them by preloading files :thinking:
Surely an argument for ditching it and keeping XP or maybe Linux or mac??
 
There is really no excuse not to go linux because there is no software available
Click to expand...

True, but...
In a professional environment we need to get things done quickly, accurately and reliably. Lightroom on a VM is much faster and more powerful for processing and organising RAWs than anything available for Linux. Added to which my printer driver is fully supported under Windows, which is much more flexible/powerful than the Linux open-source driver. Same goes for scanner and camera drivers.

I've been keeping and processing my personal photos on Linux for years, but I think for professional processing and printing, I'll be sticking with the Windows VM a bit longer. Unless, of course, I have time to play with Wine :)
 
Abs said:
True, but...
In a professional environment we need to get things done quickly, accurately and reliably. Lightroom on a VM is much faster and more powerful for processing and organising RAWs than anything available for Linux. Added to which my printer driver is fully supported under Windows, which is much more flexible/powerful than the Linux open-source driver. Same goes for scanner and camera drivers.

I've been keeping and processing my personal photos on Linux for years, but I think for professional processing and printing, I'll be sticking with the Windows VM a bit longer. Unless, of course, I have time to play with Wine :)
Click to expand...

Wine isn't the answer and i have not seen anything better in windows for speed and reliability than what i use in Linux. Let's see Lightroom edit 32bit. That's what a "professional" would want for their image.

As for printer driver, that's not the fault of people developing for Linux. That's down to the inexperience and lack of talent people that make your printer.
 
brummie said:
Wine isn't the answer and i have not seen anything better in windows for speed and reliability than what i use in Linux. Let's see Lightroom edit 32bit. That's what a "professional" would want for their image.
Click to expand...
Certainly wouldn't turn it down, but I'm not sure it's particularly beneficial. Could be wrong here, but does processing in 32bit make a noticeable difference when the output device is usually an inkjet printer or consumer PC monitor? Genuine question, I've never done an A/B comparison.

As for printer driver, that's not the fault of people developing for Linux. That's down to the inexperience and lack of talent people that make your printer.
Click to expand...

True, but in the end if I want those features - or just want to use a device which doesn't have Linux drivers available at all - I have to use an OS that's supported. That said, I always try to buy Linux-friendly hardware when I can.
 
Abs said:
Certainly wouldn't turn it down, but I'm not sure it's particularly beneficial. Could be wrong here, but does processing in 32bit make a noticeable difference when the output device is usually an inkjet printer or consumer PC monitor? Genuine question, I've never done an A/B comparison.
Click to expand...

no i'm pretty sure it wont TBH and certainly doesnt matter all that much to me but the word "professional" is what i was responding to.

True, but in the end if I want those features - or just want to use a device which doesn't have Linux drivers available at all - I have to use an OS that's supported. That said, I always try to buy Linux-friendly hardware when I can.
Click to expand...

Well in a perfect world we would all have driverless hardwareto run on any OS. i tend to only buy hardware thats Linux compatable, mainly because i use Linux but also if it works with Linux someone at that company actually knows what they are doing. :)
By the way, HP printers are fantastic under Linux using HPlip.
 
By the way, HP printers are fantastic under Linux using HPlip.
Click to expand...
I'm considering a new medium-format printer, haven't really looked at HP yet so I'll take that into account, cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top