My Computer Geek: "Don't get Vista 64. wait for Windows 7"

[ed_beagleman]

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? As much as I value his opinion, I think I

value the

opinons of those on this forum even more.

[ronald_moravec1]

Go to an Apple store and brouse. The better computers are loaded with pictures and Photoshop Cs3.

 

Microsoft vs Apple has be discussed many times so use the search. At least you will make an informed decision.

 

To help you along, all the graphic arts specialists I know use Mac.

 

If you still want Microsoft, I would wait.

[joshroot]

One would hope that Windows 7 would be an improvement. That's the whole point of releasing a new version of a product, to improve on the old one. And given Vista's track record, it should be easy to improve on it. However, the first versions of anything typically have problems, I doubt Windows 7 will be any different.

 

If you can hold off, hold off. Check out Apple while you are waiting and see if Macs could be the answer. If you can't wait, get Vista. I know plenty of people who are using it just fine.

[colin_mattson1]

<p>You'll be holding off a while: Microsoft's latest target is Christmas '09. </p>

<p>Vista is working and working well <i>today</i>. If you want a stable platform with decent color management right this

instant, Vista with SP1 is it. If it's just a matter of whether to buy a new 64-bit edition or use a 32-bit edition you already

have, sure, hold off -- the benefits aren't that great.</p>

<p>If you don't already have an OS for your new computer, it's Vista or bust unless you want to have a useless box for 10

or 11 more months. (Although you may still be able to scrounge up a copy of XP, but honestly, Vista's considerably

better... especially for our purposes as photographers.)</p>

[don_cooper]

Windows 7 in a couple of months? That will probably be a very long couple of months if past windows releases are any indication.

[james_lai]

You're probably going to have to wait 'til 2010 for Windows 7. If you can't wait, go with Vista (or XP).

[kelly_flanigan1]

waiting will always bring one a new upgrade. Here we got XP 64 bit two years ago to deal with slightly more ram than plain XP.

[tibz]

To quote a famous apple ad: Get a macintosh.

 

Unless you're poor. Linux is always an option.

 

Vista does nothing more than slowing down a computer. A computer that runs fine on XP may take 30 minutes to start up running vista. It's a hog. It doesn't distribute the processes like macintosh, it dumps them all onto the CPU instead of using the graphics card to handle the useless shiny graphics. It's crap.

[bangengeman]

As a geek myself, I'd rather skip Vista. I've been told by some people inside MS that it will be much better than Vista and wait for it instead. I've read the Developer Guides that they hand out before any major release, and it seems to me that they've made a few changes that would hopefully be not just "looks good on paper".

 

It looks really neat, and they've carried over the Office 2007 interface more into the overall interface (not necessarily a good thing, since the Office 2007 interface has been a love it/hate it affair). As a developer, it just makes better sense compared to the Vista Developer Guide.

 

Of course, if it came with your PC, then by all means, use it. Don't bother going back to XP if you have it pre-installed.

[kyle_mahaney]

As someone using Windows 7 M3 as my main OS right now, I can say it's a big improvement over Vista 64 (the

current pre-beta M3 built is quite stable) but Vista 64 SP1 is also a fine OS, if you can't wait 6-9 months go for Vista.

Most of the differences with Windows 7 are user interface related, plus Vista SP2 is right around the corner. As a

Photographer with access to MS beta apps, I currently use the PDC build of Win 7 64 on my desktop, dual booting

Vista SP2 beta 32 just in case, and I use Leopard on my Mac laptop. All work great with Lightroom, 64bit CS4, etc.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The reason some of us got a 64bitOS is to handle more ram. Thus using XP 64 bit allowed us to have 8 gigs of ram two years ago; the extra 4gigs above the base 4 gigs helped a tad with larger giant files; but still is not used directly with cs2 or cs3. But thats what CS4 is now for; to bust thru and allow more ram useage with a 64bit windows OS; but macs will have to wait for CS5. Thus if your ram you use is just a few gigs; just get a mac or plain non 64 bit Xp or Vista. The whole point of using a 64 bit windows OS with photoshop is to allow gobs of ram,

[tomwatt]

Ronald, all the graphics specialists who work for us have been switched, kicking and screaming, from Mac to PC. After they got over it, they don't see any real differences, since the software they're running looks the same and works the same and almost anyone with a little sense can convert from "Option" to "Alt". Kyle, is that built on the same base as Windows Server 2008? We've got that running for some of our graphics servers, and it's very nice. As I left the office tonight, I had the Vista upgrade install running per my supervisor's instructions. We'll see if my computer works tomorrow! It was running CS4 just fine in XP with a Quad-core and 4gb RAM. Don't know what that will translate to in Vista (seems kind of like saying that's "x number of years in dog years").

[bangengeman]

PS.

 

Windows 7 is slated for a December 2009 release. That's about a year from now. Given that MS has a history of having a screwed up initial release product, I would suggest that you wait for at least the first Service Pack. That would take another year. By then, Vista would *probably* be as stable and as reliable as XP is now. And by then, rumors of a new version of Windows would be popping around -- if not already in the works. If you upgrade now, you're getting an OS that has: 1. better support for future hardware 2. Is inherently more secure 3. a commitment by MS to provide continuous support for at least a few more years and 4. an interface that would allow a smoother transition to the next generation product (a shorter learning curve by the time Windows 7 comes out). Can you wait until 2010? It's really a now or never deal with most tech upgrades -- be it computers, cameras, phones etc. By the time Product X's price has gotten to the point that you can afford it, Product Y comes out with better features. Playing the waiting game for these kinds of questions only ends up in a lot of waiting.

 

XP was an aberration. MS never really had an OS last this long (is it really almost 8 years?), mainly because of delays to Vista and mainly because of the support MS received from Software and Hardware companies. Vista was not received well by developers because of the security model that they implemented (see Symantec and McAfee). They had to change the way programs are being developed to reduce security issues that made MS a joke in Enterprise security. They've managed to start that with Vista, which, if anyone forgot, was something similar to what Apple did with Mac OSX.

 

If this post sounds contradicting to what I posted earlier, there's no need to tell me I'm an idiot. I already know and I've accepted that fact already -- the first road to recovery is acceptance. ;)

[kelly_flanigan1]

With my XP 64 bit one often sees this with a download; driver; or upgrade : "Microsoft Windows Server 2003 SP2 64-bit Edition or Windows XP Professional 64-bit Edition only"; thus sever 2003 and XP 64 bit have alot of the same DNA.

[benny_spinoza]

If Vista has done one thing for me, it is to convince me to never buy another Windows machine!

[garrison_k.]

I'm running Server 2008 x64 with Vista mods. I've used every MS OS since 3.11 and this one is the best

yet. I understand that this kernel will be the Windows 7 kernel? I'll try the first build. I doubt MS will play Windows 7

like

they did Vista. Windows 7 also goes with gpu acceleration, aka WARP. Old news to Mac'rs, but great

news over here. Windows 7, 24 gigs of ram, i7, and two decent gpu's for under $1500...yummy. I think

finally, photoshop will be waiting for me.

[bgelfand]

Hi Ed,

 

I suggest you find a new "Computer Geek".

 

First, as others have posted, Windows 7 is not scheduled to be released for a year - December 2009 or January 2010. I would not characterize 12 or 13 months as "a couple of months". I would say your "geek" has lost touch with time.

 

I cannot write about Vista-64. I built my Significant Other a computer and installed Vista-32 (Ultimate) in July 2007. It has been running error free ever since. Do your homework, insure all your critical software will run and you should have no problems with Vista. From my point of view, it is a rock solid operating system.

[twmeyer]

XP Pro... t

[garrison_k.]

A great Vista link to keep bookmarked.

 

http://www.howtogeek.com/tag/windows-vista/

[dawn_kelly]

As stated before, Windows 7 release date is still scheduled in December 2009, but Microsoft will probably push that date in 2010. they will also probably drop features for the initial release. They do claim that there should not be the same driver problem that Vista had when it first came out, because it is supposed to use Vista device drivers.

[lilserenity]

I've been using Vista now for quite some time on a new PC and haven't had a single complaint. I find using XP at work a bit of a chore, the only down-side is the slightly jumbly control panel but apart from that I think it's great. I probably enjoy using it more than my Mac (which is running 10.4 Tiger still after no end of troubles with Leopard when it came out, though those may now have been resolved with subsequent fixes) -- I also use OpenSUSE (linux) 11 on my notebook (what I'm using now) which I find is fine for the things I want out of it.

 

Personally I don't see what the fuss with Vista is, my machine boots incredibly quickly and it's nothing outrageous, just a bottom end Core2Duo with a couple of gigs of RAM and a basic hard disk.

 

For Photoshop it really doesn't matter what you use, Mac or Windows.

 

I recommend trying each in person yourself and making your own decision from that.

[bill_tuthill]

You thought the recession was caused by a mortgage meltdown: NO.

It was caused by people not buying new computers because they didn't want Vista.

[tyler_bertrand]

I think the "wait for Windows 7" suggestion is ridiculous. Not only is it at least a year off, but we're talking a software

upgrade here. Assuming you get anything now that is capable of running Vista x64 you will be fine when Win7 comes

around and just upgrade then. I've used both Windows and Mac for my photography, and I'm using a Windows box

right now (Vista x64). For photography purposes (unless you're dead set on Aperture instead of LR) you won't find any

difference. In fact, I have a 64 bit version of Photoshop CS4 something not available on the mac. All the negative

press Vista received was simply people trying to run it on old hardware. My system is just under a year old with 8gb

or ram and a quad core and I haven't had a single blue screen or anything, it's been as solid as a rock. You can

always go with a Mac but they're more expensive, pound for pound. Fire your computer geek pronto.

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

MS is promising a stable and secure Windows for its next release already since 3.1 (15 years ago!) or even

before. If MS is still not able to provide a stable release for Vista, they will never be able to do that. If you

still believe the next release will solve these problems, I think you're a bit, lets say, naive.

 

Look for an other OS, take GNU/Linux and get rid of these vendors lock-ins. Or, eventually, pick up a Mac OS-X at

least.

 

During my 20 years experiences of different Unix (like) systems (HP, SUN, BSD, GNU/Linux), stability was never

such a big issue. Maybe a specific applications crashes, but hardly never the entire OS. Just because Unix and

its dervatives are very well considered, modularized and configurable and has proven its philosophy already since

the '70-ties and '80-ties. Just my thought.

[ilkka_nissila]

Windows 2000 and XP are stable; Vista is pretty much a disaster. You can always purchase XP and get going with your work.