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

[dylan_green]

I think regardless of what you choose, you will not regret your decision. Vista, XP, or Leopard are all comparable in my mind. If you are building a PC, and building it with reasonably recent components, I doubt you will have any problem with Vista. I just built my PC with Vista 64 and have had no problems for about 8 months. I never crash, don't have any other issues with it either. Sure, most of my games or programs from 1995 don't work, but it doesn't bother me.

 

As far as speed goes, as long as you don't cut corners where it counts with your components, you can have a very fast system. I have a dual core 45nm processor and 4gb of 1066 ram and this is by far the fastest computer I've ever used. Start up takes about 30 or 45 seconds before I'm opening programs, listening to music, browsing the web, gaming, etc.

 

I would say build your PC now with vista. If you think you can wait another year, or year and a half to build it with windows 7 then do that. If you think that is possible, maybe you shouldn't even be interested in building a computer now at all, because it doesn't sound that urgent. Of course the longer you wait, faster processors and memory will become cheaper. The computer I built 8 months ago for 1100 usd could be had now for 700.

 

Compared to apple, IMO you get much more computer for your buck with a PC. Also, with a PC you get many more paths for upgrades with all the possible component platforms, provided you choose your motherboard wisely.

 

My 2 cents...

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>Did you read that off of a blog, IILka? </i>

<p>

It would be nice if you'd attribute sentences that you quote to the right person. I didn't say what you quoted me

to have said. I don't read blogs. I have had few problems using Windows since 1990 or so when I was writing code

for it. 2000 and XP were very reliable. I purchased a laptop with Vista and the software would crash several

times per hour. I upgrade software, works moderately stably after days of loading updates and not being able to

do any work with the computer. After a couple days, the system won't allow me to install any new programs. I try

to install SP1, the system won't boot after that attempt. I cannot downgrade to the reliable XP SP2, as such an

option is not provided. So I have paid for the Vista license but to obtain XP, I'd have to pay over 300€ extra.

And what exactly should I say about Vista, then? When I have had numerous computers with Windows 2000, XP, and

Linux and none of them gave me a hard time.

<p>

I contacted Microsoft, they say that they only give customer support for OEM Windows for 80€/h or so.They told me

to contact the laptop manufacturer, Sony. I call Sony, they claim it's a software problem and they're not

responsible for it. On the net, "experts" claim that I have poor quality hardware. Yet then I installed Linux

(Ubuntu) on the same laptop, and it has not given me a hint of a problem. I can't run PS or Capture on it, so

it's useless to me for photography, but it's extremely reliable for other work.

<p>

I maintain, Vista is Microsoft's history's biggest blunder, and they have shown extreme arrogance in not

providing proper support for their product, yet give the user no viable options to continue to use the computer.

300€ is not a viable option when considering that the laptop cost 1000€ including a license to the non-functional

Vista.

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

Hi, I am trying here to reply on some comments from my previous post. Of course, I respect anyones opinion and it

is definitely not my intention to put a pun to somebody.

 

To Garrison K.:

No I did not read this off of a blog. Its just common sense. A company that already writes Operating Systems

since about 25 years and still has issues concerning stability and security, has, to my opinion, lost all its

credits. Stability has improved in XP quite a lot, indeed, but not sufficiently. Try to run you computer,

connected to the Internet, without a viruss canner. Because the OS sucks, you need to load your RAM memory and

CPU cycles with such a viruss canner. Using a good OS, there is no need for that and so you will use the CPU and

RAM for your own work.

 

To John Henneberger:

GNU/Linux, (Open)BSD and MAC OS-X are able to run most, if not all, Open Source programs like Gimp (image

manipulation) and Sane (for scanning). I am using only one propietary program, which is Vuescan, because Nikon

refuses to issue the communication protocol for the 9000 scanner to get it work properly in Sane. I do not know

if its by accident, but its the only program that regularly blows out on my GNU/Debian Linux system. Other Unixes

I mentioned in my previous post, though, do or did not have much software for a photog. I used these systems for

long running computer simulations, that have nothing to do with photography. However, I wanted to express that

these sytems are already a long time here, are of excellent quality and a few of them are now even free.

 

Concerning propietary formats and protocols to communicate with the hardware, like scanners, printers and

cameras: I hope they will become open or disappear. Only in that case it is possible that high-quality,

competitive programs will be written, instead of having a choice between one or two products that dominate the

market and condition its users. We, as photogs, should be very aware on that. Because it will hit us in the face,

sooner or later. For example by buying hardware that support open protocols (like OpenRaw) and insist to

manufacturers. I think this is a key item. Photos are often increasing in (emotional) value over time. You want

to have access to your images by the software of your choice at any time, now and after 20 years. Imagine a

company will stop its production or will change its format without giving backward compatibility to its products!

Then, your own photos you stored on a digital medium will be inaccessible in the future!

 

Its not my intention to spread any fear here, just to express my concerns. There are other ways to do it, better

ones. The control of the computer is given back to the user, where it belongs, by using Open Source Software and

its belonging open data formats.

 

Gerber

[bgelfand]

Hi Ilkka,

 

I do not know what laptop you bought, but I suspect the problems you are having are with either the drivers the laptop manufacturer wrote or the "bloatware" the manufacturer loaded. It is not with Vista as as it was shipped from Microsoft.

 

Of course Ubantu is not giving you any problems; you wiped the disk of all the "bloatware". If you try a cold install of Vista, you will not have any problems either, assuming the laptop manufacturer wrote the drivers correctly.

[andrevallejo]

I run Vista 64 ans Xp 32 in dual boot. My Vista x64 is VERY stable,better then the Xp. Boots faster and CS4 filters run much faster in x64 (I have 4gb ram only). The only drawback is that some filters do not run in x64.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>If you try a cold install of Vista, you will not have any problems either</i>

<p>

The system didn't come with a Vista install disk, but the OEM Vista in a partition of its own with all the

"extras". I would have to purchase a full license to Vista to get rid of this stuff. I would do that if I could

trust that it would

work, but I feel that a purchase of XP is a safer option. I will consider these options though for 300€ I could have

gotten a better laptop in the first place, with XP. I guess I am cooled down by now enough to consider the

purchase of a full license.

[garrison_k.]

"A company that already writes Operating Systems since about 25 years and still has issues concerning stability

and

security, has, to my opinion, lost all its credits. Stability has improved in XP quite a lot, indeed, but not sufficiently.

Try

to run you computer, connected to the Internet, without a viruss canner. Because the OS sucks, you need to load

your

RAM memory and CPU cycles with such a viruss canner. "

 

Gerber, you're missing something. Windows has a huge task. They have to write an OS for a million pieces of

hardware

and make sure any combination of it works together. The fact that anyone can write a piece of software and bring it to

market also makes applications, and the choices of applications, extremely good for windows users. The downfall is

that anyone can write viruses.

 

If you want a water tight OS that you can't do a single tweak to while having very little choice of hardware and

software,

buy a Mac.

 

Sorry, Ilkka.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many of the OEM installs also load up alot of extra crap to get folks to buy the cute computer. The same box if formated and a full install without the monkey poop with often boot quicker; have less processes running.

[tomwatt]

I'm pleased to report in that the Vista build on the corporate laptop went flawlessly, runs smoothly, and all is well there. Boots smoothly, shuts down in a wink (try that with XP... don't know how many times I've gone to shut down, and come back an hour or so later to discover that some program was hung and it didn't shut down!) The Vista build for my desktop did not install... turns out the network guys only have the laptop build ready to install, and I was told I have to wait until January for my Vista install... although it may well be only 32 bit. For those that care, PS CS4 Extended is the 64 bit build that you want on Vista 64 bit. It will also make use of the graphics GPU.

[bgelfand]

Hi Thomas,

 

How does CS4 use the GPU - just for display or is it using the parallel processing capability of the the graphics card to do actual calculations and run Photoshop code? If the latter, what chips/cards does it work with? Do you have a link to any discussions of this so I can read about it, please?

[jautey]

"I have never liked Macs, that platform is never going anywhere if Apple maintains the same closed platform they always have. At least with Windows and Linux you have the option of using what hardware and software you want, for ALOT less money."

 

Really, that's the funniest line in this whole thread. People have been saying the same thing for what, 20 years now. But I see Apple is still selling computers. Go figure...

[dmanthree]

Eric,

 

I think what that statment means is that Apple/Mac won't gain much market share until they open the system. If you buy

into the Mac OS, you're stuck (and I mean stuck) with Apple hardware. Little choice, and if you want a laptop, it's a hyper-

glossy screen or nothing. Love the Mac OS, hate the fact that you're stuck (outside of x86 hacks) with Apple hardware.

[jautey]

"If you buy into the Mac OS, you're stuck (and I mean stuck) with Apple hardware."

 

I've got third party RAM.

 

I've got third party HD's.

 

I've got third party DVD/CD Reader/Writers.

 

I've got third party Firewire/USB2 cards.

 

I've got third party Graphic Cards.

 

I've got a third party monitor.

 

I've got a third party router.

 

My only complaint with Apple is that I can't swap the processors for faster ones. Like I could with the x86's.

 

What hardware are you talking about?

[lovcom_photo]

John Kelly wrote: "I've noticed that most complaints about Vista involve upgraded XP machines or "custom built." IMO "experts" who build custom machines are less competent than factory production lines, which benefit by quality control systems.

 

I don't find Vista 32 any better than XP except for the additional RAM. Both have been rock steady (as was Win 98 and 3.1 in my experience).

 

If you scan or print you may find PC a better bet than Mac since most of those apps are initially designed for PC and then adapted to Mac.

 

Browse application troubles and you'll mostly find Mac, especially when new OS are introduced (PC moves from one to the next more smoothly). Graphic designers have preferred Mac forever, but photographers know graphic designers aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer :-)"

 

John, having been an IT developer on Macs and PC's since the mid 1980's I have to say that what you wrote is about 95% all wrong. Sorry, but it is wrong.

 

I manage client PC's and Macs, and the Mac has less troubles by a factor of 1/10th what we get on the PC side. In addition, the biggest reason Vista users have so many problems is for the massive number of incompatible drivers. This was true more so when Vista first came out then today. Driver issues aside, I have found Vista to be no less stable then XP, which we found to be another great OS.

 

As to your comments on Windows95, 3.1, and 98, those OS's were profoundly buggy and unstable.

[ned1]

There seems to be a theme here. The people who like Vista are all running Vista64. That doesn't surprise me because it overcomes the memory bottlenecks that Vista32 has due to its big footprint.

[steve_mareno]

Why do you need to wait? Just build it w/ Windows XP and change it when the newer one comes out. I hate to tell you, but we run Windows 98 on one of our computers at home and it still works great. As long as your operating system has drivers for your gear, who cares?

[don_harper_the_edge]

I would go with Windows XP. Waiting for a new OS or app is a waste of time. They are always late and the first release is buggy.

Why not Vista 64 instead of XP.

The only benefit I"ve seen from Vista 64 is the ability to address more memory.

The problems for a photographer are huge. One of the real NO's is color management. MIcrosoft knows and refuses to fix the tendency of Vista to disable your ICC color profile when the computer goes into suspend or screen saver mode. This sort of thing makes it a pain bordering on useless for color management of images which is pretty critical for a serious photographer.

The fact that you will find you need to buy new versions of almost any software app's which is an expensive undertaking and fraught with fraud and fog with some companies advertising their app's work with VISTA but not stating they mean Vista32 not 64.

Check every piece of hardware for working drivers. You will find many periperals wont' work such as many Palm pilots, external drives, etc.

Windows IE on VISTA will lock up on my machine at many sites unlike any problem I had with XP.

I have to press the reset switch on my machine several times each week, with XP I very rarely had the machine lockup. XP was a very stable platform.

My VISTA machine even locks when Microsoft pushes patches down to my PC.

 

Apple's commercial about Microsoft not wanting to use the word VISTA is really right on the money.

They should be ashamed and embarassed of this product. Why should I expect the next OS to be any better if they won't confess to or fix the current OS problems?

 

 

Everyday I regret leaving XP for Vista.

[dan_b.4]

I've been using Windows and Mac systems for more than 20 years. My advice: Never, ever upgrade to a new Windows

system on your computer. If you're looking to buy a new PC, then, by all means, go with the newest Windows system. If

you try to upgrade, you will invest countless hours trying to deal with problems with modems, printers, scanners and all

kinds of hardware. Microsoft support is virtually worthless. You'll get canned answers from low-paid techs who will make

such brilliant suggestions as updating your drivers -- DUH! -- and if they can't fix it with one or two answers, they'll simply

stop communicating with you. Macs aren't perfect, but in my experience they always have had far more stable operating

systems compared to their Windows contemporaries. When I've had to use Windows-based computers (at various jobs), I

look for better second-party applications if and whenever an employer's IT department allows such changes. Recent examples: Even

Apple's Safari browser and the Eudora e-mail program run better on Windows than Microsoft's comparable applications.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Don; there is also XP 64 bit that many of us have already used for 2 years. We got it to address more memory; its NOT something new just with Vista 64. Its in win2003 server 64 bit too XP and XP 64 bit are two different products; plain XP is not 64 bit. Here XP 64 bit has not been a real problem at all; it allowed more ram; saved time; paid off.. Folks have done this with the newer Vista 64 bit OS too. The 64 bit variants of XP and VISTA are built on a different core; thus woes with 32 bit variants are abit not related to the radically different 64 bit OS's.

[Mike D]

I burned up a 4 year old IDE C drive over Thanksgiving and had a local PC store install a new 500 GB HD, Intel mother board, Intel 3 gigahertz dual core chip, and 4 GB ram, and reloaded my old Microsoft XP Pro operating system for under $600 labor included. The reason for staying with the tried and true is that it works and I own several thousand dollars worth of software that all work together seamlessly. For me, the value of the software and the fact that is all works together far exceeds the value of the hardware.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The whole point of this thread was asking about two different 64 bit windows OS's for photoshop. Its like on saw,net if some chap asked about 240 volts saws. Then there is all this chatter about 32 bit versions; that have NO bearing on the answer. Its like if on saw.net somebodya asked about 240 volts saws; and the peanut gallery adss useless info about 120 volt saws!.

[carlwakefield]

Keep it simple, Use your XP Pro on a box with 4Gig RAM, and wait. If you have vista instead of XP your RAM is going to the OS and not the apps. Most pre installations have a restore to XP recovery disk. My XP works fine and when Windows7 comes it will for sure be good. MS messed up a bit with Vista, to much use of hardware resources and to many possibilites. (They are to good they will not do that twice). We only want email, internet, lightroom and PS I could not care if its Petrol or Deisel it must just work and XP runs like a dream thats why Vista is having such a hard time. The problem by MS was more that XP was to good and not that Vista is really bad. It also works fine just needs more resources and has more security that is shouting its there all time. Just IMHO

[darko_vrsic]

"the open source such as linux however might be best suited to the computer geek who like play with and modify his computer more then he actually uses it..."

 

This was true years ago. Today I install Ubuntu in less than an hour with all the software one needs (Firefox, Thunderbird, Skype, Openoffice.org, Gimp, Picasa, Digikam, ...) I don't have to search for any drivers because Linux usually works with all the hardware out of the box. With Windows I have to search for drivers, installing updates, language pack, antivirus, downloading and installing other software, for hours.

With windows I usually have to reinstall the OS every year or something like that because no matter what, it became slow, bloated and catches viruses and other malware. Linux just works, years after installation the speed is the same, no viruses, system and all the software can be upgraded over the internet and all the programs get regular updates from repositories. On servers I saw uptime more than a year. If you don't restart Windows for a while (days) it starts to behave strangely.

 

For Windows users the easiest way to try Ubuntu is to start it from the live CD, so you can check if all the hardware works (which usually does) or to install it inside the Windows with Wubi http://wubi-installer.org It installs Ubuntu as Windows application so you can uninstall it as any other Windows application.

About PS CS2 in Linux - I think the simplest way to install is with Codeweavers CrossOver Linux. It costs $39.95 but you can use it to very easy install many of Windows applications if you need them (Including MS Office 2007). If you want you can do it for free with Wine but you will have to put some effort in that.

If you really can't live without Windows (applications that runs only with Windows) you can use dual boot or virtual Windows machine inside Linux.

BTW here are the few reasons why Linux is better :-) http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/

[User_4136860]

I just got a new computer with Vista home Premium already installed, and I like it much better than my previous Windows XP pro. O.S., I find it much more user friendly for a person like me who is a computer illiterate.

[jore_puusa]

This might seem offtopic but I really would like to help with the decision about Vista.

 

I teach photojournalism in Helsinki / Finland in a school that is thankfully slowly moving to Macs.

I have also been teaching photography in several schools which are stuck in different Win OS systems.

 

When students go to internet using the PC:s,-- the machines are instantly full of viruses etc and start to malfunction.

Those classes using Mac have no such problems, so we are able to use the web as a source for conversations about

photography. PC classes are told to keep away from net cause the whole internal network might collapse when just one

troijan, spyware etc hits the servers.

Macs are safe then.

 

When I teach Photoshop ( CS3 ) the difference between OS:es grows.

Mac screens are PostScript and PC:s are just something. It`s also much easier to calibrate a Mac than a Pc.

PC fonts are truetype and Macs mostly PS.

 

Try to use lasso + alt and click to make a selection in Photoshop, zoom in and look what happens. When You go near

the edge of picture in mac, the scrolling happens smooth and easy but in PC:s the picture jumps like crazy and the

movement of cursor is jerking compared to mac.

 

Alla PC:s in these schools go broken a couple of times per a year, Macs just keep going.

Good reasons for switching to mac are too many to mention here (specially for a photographer.)

Those Mac laptops we have are cheaper than PC:s of the same level.

 

I know, that sounded like a lot, but...I´m a photojournalist myself and would not even touch a PC when working for a

client, just don´t want to get in troubles because of an unstable OS whether Vista or XP.

 

 

Jore Puusa

Head of photojournalism department / HEO, Helsinki