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

[kelly_flanigan1]

The blindness seems to be abit to most all on this thread.< BR><BR> all the references about 32 bit stuff is bizzare; it really has nothing to do with the 64 bit versions of XP and Vista.<br><BR>Go learn some basics things; a 32 bit OS is *boxed in* to a 4 gig world. a 64 bit OS is not. <BR><BR>The thread is about a 64 bit OS; thus all the references to 32 bit versions are childish; lame ; off topic ; crap; noise. <BR><BR>Strife to talk about what the thread is about; ie 64 bit windows OS's. They are not new; they are in windows server 2003 64 bit; XP 64 bit; Vista 64bit; Windows 7 64 bi; and more server versions.

[james_de_h]

Grrrrrrrr. All this hot air. Mac versus PC is daft. 32bit versus 64bit is relevant for those who work their systems hard but most of us will get by just fine with a 32 bit system when using CS4. If the original poster does not know the answer to the question I would think that is part of the answer; fix a budget for a computer. Buy the system that fits that budget. Now go and take some pictures. Ownership of a Mac or PC will not help you take better pics.

 

One final point. If you have not used a computer before, go for a Mac. If you are used to PCs, stick with a PC. If you are used to a Mac, stick with it. I tried converting to a Mac but found the way the system wanted me to work was not compatible with the way I weanted to work. Nothing wrong with Macs. I just do not rewire that easily.

[geo_bal]

Let me throw my 2 cents into the pot...

 

Here's a couple of reasons why you shouldn't wait for the 7 OS:

 

1.It's going to have bugs like all OS's before it at its onset...so that'll be a headache because you'll need to install

appropriate drivers for all your third party software and hardware you use.

 

2. It's honestly not going to be anything radically different then the Vista architecture used today just overall more

efficient with its use of system resources.

 

3. Think about all the productivity you'll be putting off waiting for the new software.

 

4. Vista 64 works great! I installed it in the computer I assembled and it's been solid...no hiccups or freezes! Just

make sure your buddy installs it upon some powerful hardware...i.e. a quad core cpu, at least 4 gigs of ram, and a

minimum of 512 mb dedicated video card to start off with, everything else is secondary. I built my machine for under

$600 including Vista 64 Home Premium OS. Make sure to buy the OEM version of Vista 64 for two reasons: 1. it's

less money, about $90 and 2. it flat out runs more efficiently because its missing all of the third party adware that

retail pc's are usually hindered by.

 

Well...that's it...I hope this helped,

 

Good luck!

[ccommins]

I have both, Vista on my laptop and XP on my desktop. I like both but Vista is much faster and I have no problems with it.

[dmanthree]

Eric

 

While you may have installed third party components, you needed to start with an Apple box, which in this case sounds like a Mac Pro. Pretty much everything else but the mac Pro, and you're stuck.

 

I was able to build my own system and choose every single piece of hardward from the CPU on out to the case. It all works perfectly, and was far less than trying to customize a Mac from Apple, which starts with a Mac Pro. I know you can swap a few components on other Macs, but that's very limited. Don't misunderstand, I love OSX, but can't stand the way Apple sells, configures, and prices their hardware.

[rj russell]

Perhaps Commadore 64 or Icon would save some troubles?

[igor_smirnoff]

Life is what's happening NOW. Unless you have learned now to hybernate you should use whatever is available today. Otherwise, go ahead and wait. For version 7. Or 8, or 9? Your friends who are in the know will always tell you that the next version is going to be substantially 'better'. It is a pointless discussion. Any computer even Windows 95 is capable of doing just about anything you need. All you must to do is configure it properly. Likewise, those "Macs" will not save you if your pictures are crap. Don't listen to anyone. Macs /PCs are only as good as the persons who run them. The more one is passionate about a specific box the less they really know anything. I have used both and I do not care unless your work flow is platform specific. As an individual user you should care less.

 

For the record, I uninstalled the Vista and put back the old XP. (You have also to consider your peripherals! It took HP a year to come up with a reliable Vista driver to run my scanner!). Once set up properly, it runs fast and stable, and you do not even notice it. As long as the computer does what it does I would rather go on shooting.

[kelly_flanigan1]

For those who keep on bring up non 64 bit stuff; thats not what the thread's title is about; it just boxes you into a 4 gig 32bit world forever; thus why even use CS4 then? Just use CS2 or CS3; older 32 bit programs.; ie one can get a Walmart box for just a few hundred. Its not a bad thing; just a value based computer that will be fine for alot of folks.<BR><BR>Buying /bulding up a brand new windows photoshop box for performance and growth today with a 32 bit OS is like really limiting your upgrade path; its like buying an slr with a fixed lens; if the box costs alot more than the Walmart box whats the point; both a constricted to a 32 bit world; thus CS4 will not use more ram. Your have racecar CS4 software with a lawnmower 32 bit engine; ie non 64 bit.<BR><BR>

[kelly_flanigan1]

With all the cheerleading about off topic 32bits OS's one can conclude that most folks on photo.net are happy with the 32 bit window limits of 2 to 3 gigsof ram with photoshop; thus you do not need a 64 bit OS; you do not deal with super giant files and are bumping into ram barriers of the 32bit world; or you have time to wait; ie like folks are retired and have no deadlines; no clients with giant files that bog a 32 bit box. Having a 64 bit box and CS4 is like owning a real tractor and bushhog; one might cut 12 feet of grass in one path. Then the 32 bit cheerleaders will preach; get a weedeater; 18" electric mower; push mower; garden tractor. The 32biters would then have fun cutting 40 or 80 acres!:)-

[lauren_macintosh]

Well: I am Not computer knowledgeable , for me its turn it on let it run and hope it works, I thought I would be smart a get a new Computer with some bells on it like quad core processor 2.66mgz and 3 megs of ram and 500 gig H/D/ and that would hold me thru till I needed more of H/D which maybe fastern than I think when dealing with raw files !

 

If Bill Gates was handing me Vista without any Bugs or anything else , I still think I would stuff it up his Fantail real Fast, Have had nothing but problems with Vista have logged over 50 hours or better with Dell's technical service department , have gotten a new mother board out of them and still hate and dislike VISTA , Give me XP pro I would be happy, Sure I could go out and get a apple for around 779.99 there abouts but that means all new O/S to learn and other programs swap out and upgrade then so as to work with apple O/S :

 

Vista and its Drivers can drive you to drink , Have had problems getting my canon i960 printer to work, on vista tried everything and then was told I need to get an updated canon driver , well I got it and Vista refused to use it or let it work, and I still can not get the prints like I was getting before I went to Vista :

 

And to compound matters more , within a week of getting the new computer , My Monitor went south had to send it out for service, and then even make matters worse my W/D external hard drive quit on me and then they replaced the mother board :

 

I can not make up my mind weather to keep it and down grade the O/S to windows XP Pro , Or get rid of the darn thing :

 

Only Thing Bill Gates cares about is that you buy his product, even when its buggy as Hell:

[don_harper_the_edge]

The problems with XP64 in particular running Photoshop are well documented. The lack of drivers for XP64 is also a major drawback.

 

Sorry, if Microsoft had followed through on developiong XP 64 it would be a different story.

[athinkle]

Kelly, while the OP does mention Vista 64 in the post title, the 32 bit vs. 64 bit issue is still relevant. A 32 bit

version of Windows, while limited by the RAM cap, is going to be more compatible with older software. I made a

conscious decision to go with a 32 bit version for that reason, and I have yet to run into any serious RAM issues

even while running Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, and Illustrator at the same time. For this reason, a well made

rig using Vista 32 isn't a bad idea for some users.

 

 

I would suggest the OP just get whatever version of Vista suits him right now and not cross his fingers for the timely

release of 7. Even if it is in fact released on time, it does pay to wait awhile for the first service pack to avoid the

inevitable release bugs.

[garrison_k.]

"Kelly, while the OP does mention Vista 64 in the post title, the 32 bit vs. 64 bit issue is still relevant."

 

Maybe to others, but not the OP. As I understand it, the OP is deciding between two 64-bit OS's.

 

Vista64 is the number one selling OS today. Projections for mid 09 are that half the Windows machines

out there will be running 64-bit. And it's about time imo we started moving, or being pushed, to a 64 bit

world.

 

Vista64 SP1 and Server 2008 x64 share the same kernel as W7 64-bit. The transition should be the

least painful as any other previous OS change.

 

MS is releasing a beta of W7 to the public next month. The daring can register and give it a shot at

Technet.

[dmanthree]

Garrison,

 

don't know about you, but I would NEVER put beta software on a production machine...

[ross_lipman]

Initially the main problem with Vista is that it was used on machines that were not fully capable of supporting it. While basic specs met the min standard from MS, in reality the machines were slow and peripheral drivers did not operate smoothly. Vista also had a lot of bugs that took some time to work out. Flash forward 2 years and most hardware makers have dedicated and working Vista drivers in place and most consumers understand that Vista requires an updated machine to operate effectively. In some ways this has been like the introduction of XP...intially there was resistance from buyers and issues regarding operating stability but MS got everything worked out. The fact is that XP is familiar and works well, causing consumers to question why they need to upgrade their OS and possibly purchase a new computer to ensure that the new OS works smoothly.

 

Best,

 

Ross

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here we almost ALWAYS have a new dream machine in the pipeline to handle pesky GIANT files quicker; thus by definition its always going to be a newer OS; a board thatn handles a boatload of ram; a quicker cpu; It doent have to connect to every printer we own; or have internet crap; its a beta unit thats balls to the wall to hoss thru BIG files; ie its a producer in a production environment. If there is an issue with a weire file or issue we jsut use the more stable stuff thats slower. Its like pusshing an engine design; one is at the edge; its a race Thats waht5 some of us use 64 bit boxes for. I havwe so many boxes that its NOT an issue if there is a subtle problem; or a rare major one. The trap an amateur gets into is an all one box. In prining we have boxes for ripping; for FTP's; for emails; for scanning; for UPS shipments; for payroll; etc. The UPS shipping computer is an old Photoshop dream machine that cost 3 grand; its got a 75 Mhz Pentium and 72 megs of ram; now its a shipping box and one thats LAN connected; it only draws a few watts; lower than any other computer thus very green. Its so old it has a Y2K ISA board to allow dates above 1999. <BR><BR>VISTA/XP 32 bit and VISTA/XP 64 bit are two different animals; it seems folks still are confused about this issue to no end . Its like the 64 bit folks are chatting about 1 ton pickups to handle GIANT BOULDERS; and the 32 bit folks are chatting about golfcarts; gardentractors and toy trucks to carry cream puffs and. marshmellows and pingpong balls. he maine rason to use a 64bit OS with modern CS4 is to allow one to handle giant files beyond the 32 bit barrier.

[kelly_flanigan1]

If one really is not going to work with large files than one may just want to stay in the 32 bit world with say plain XP or plain Vista and just use CS3 or older. <b>If thats the case why was the question posed as 64 bit?</b><BR><BR> Its like if on pickuptrucks.net sombody asked about an Acme 1 ton versus an Acmesuper 1 ton pickup; and the peanut gallery injects comments about the Acmemini 1/2 ton; or acmemicro 1/4 ton trucks as an alternative; without knowing what "load" is going to be hauled.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The really bizzare thing is there are folks injecting bad feedback about 32 bit VISTA; when its NOT the OS thats 64 bit; NOT what the question is about. VISTA 64 bit thus is dissed by folks who have never used it before; classical pre justice. Its judged to be no good based on zero experience; or by a bad experience with a totally different product thats only 32 bit. Not wonder the economy is fouled up; folks cannot read anymore and cannot tell the differnce in the numbers 64 and 32! :)

[jtk]

<p>Vista 64 reportedly has advantages but it certainly has compatibility issues with some apps. Probably not relevant to photography, but certainly the case with a lot of business software.<br>

Don L says: "As to your comments on Windows95, 3.1, and 98, those OS's were profoundly buggy and unstable."<br>

...which proves my point about avoiding people who claim expertise.  I found all those old OS extremely stable, entirely UN buggy...  when people use "custom built" machines or rely on "consultants" they suffer\ great harm. Obviously, nobody would "consult" on hardware or build it if they were good enough to get a professional occupation, such as engine rebuilding or plumbing.<br>

The trick is to avoid "experts" and buy good stuff off the shelf...which of course means not buying the cheapest crap, ie not buying Dell.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Even the "not the cheapest" has exceptions too. Three older boxes here are from the 1999 time frame and are just Emachines with celerons; with 112 watt supplys; hardware capped with 256 megs of ram; and have intergrated video; and wimpy 128K of L2 cache. All three started with win98; were upgraded to win98se; then upgraded with faster and bigger HDA's and dual booted for win98se & win2000 and have faster burners. They are only 533 to 566 Mhz boxes; they are poor to average for playing an avi movie compared to our 550Mhz P3 Earth Magnet technology IBM since the P3 has some extra stuff that handles compression compared to an old celeron. All three work well with scanning; emails; cad stuff; retouching thats a couple of layers with files up to say 40 to 50 megs. Whats interesting is all three are nothing that a dream machine is said to need; non really required reinstalling windows to fix problems like folks preach; non have required a new supply. The new supply gambit is interesting; two units were only half price back in 1999; TAKE BACKS ude to duffus folks trying to install a 200 watt gamer board in a 112watt unit. The store only replaced the supplies and sold the units as take backs; 240 bucks back in 1999 compared to 500; a cool deal. <BR><BR>Even the "old obsolete" ebay IBM box that I am on now at home is decent box still for alot of photoshop work; its just got a P3 @1 GHZ with 1 gig of ram and 100Mhz bus; it cost 60 buck off of ebay long ago; sold as "junk". It will play any movie.<BR><BR>Many store bought PC's/boxes have alot crap; craplets running

[tonybrown]

My limited experience is that Vista is very good provided that the system was installed by a reputable manufacturer and that the computer has adequate RAM. Others I know have the same experience. On the other hand my XP machines are not so stable, which I suspect is reduced support from Microsoft.

[jonathans]

<p>I worked in the computer/network consulting world for many years.  Our advice with Microsoft products (we installed and supported MS and Novell) was always "wait for the first Service Pack".  <br>

If you are stuck on Windows, go with Vista.  Windows 7 (or whatever MS decides to market it as) may be out soon, or it might be out in a couple of years.  Either way you really don't want to be the first to jump on that bandwagon.  THere *will* be driver and program incompatibilities and lots of annoying little bugs to be worked out - which usually happens when SP1 (of any product) is released.  Unless you enjoy paying for the privilege of being a beta tester, never jump on a new product release if you can avoid it.  <br>

I mostly use Macs these days, but I have Vista Business loaded on a partition so I can boot into Windows for the one or two programs from companies that still have their heads stuck in the sand.  Vista Business hasn't given me any trouble - you might want to look into it as opposed to Vista Home since it doesn't have all the media center crap built into it.  <br>

Ditto the advice on making sure it's from a reputable company (don't go buy the $299 special at Best Buy), clean all the crap you can off when you get it (or pay the extra $15 or so to not have it installed in the first place), and make sure you have lots and lots of RAM and a good video card.  </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

64 bit versions have been around in many windows products for several years. Amateurs can "wait for the perfect swing" and thus WAIT for the for a stable "all in one box" that they crave with no 64 bit issues. For some of us we got 64 bit Windows boxes to save time by allowing more ram a few years back; ie to save time; save money. In amateur usage there is really no deadlines; no clients; thus folks can stay in the stable 32 bit world with its truncated; boxed in rams limits. Thus the amateur is often a 32 bit cheerleader; and loves the secure world of 32 bits; manual hammers, hand drills, 1/2 ton trucks, hand shovels. Thus an amateurs chgeerleading is anti 64 bits; anti power hammer; anti cordless drilll; anti 1 ton truck; anti Cat D9. Amateurs shoot for love; and can WAIT for a perfect 64 bit systems since there are no large giant files. :)

[don_e]

<p>"He's saying if I can hold on for couple more months I'm better off with Windows 7"</p>

<p>So?  Use XP or Vista now.  Upgrade to 7 whenever it comes out. </p>

<p> </p>

[dean]

<p>Just get Vista 64. It works. I have been running it since July on custom box. There are bizarre occurences relating to internet connectivity, but it runs everything photo related perfectly. No stability issues, and I rarely restart.<br>

As for Mac being better for photography production - that is a ridiculous assertion. If you want a Mac, fine. I'm sure you'll be happy, and, yes, I think their laptops look better than most pc's. But, it is like buying Nikon or Canon - either one will work, and to claim one is inherently more reliable than the other is ignorant.</p>