Okay - can't get a clear answer - Lightroom, PS, and Vista 64 bit

[kaiyen]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've done research on this, but the answers are kind of neither here nor there. Most comments lean towards "don't get vista no matter what" or "you won't see much of a difference." <br>

Well, the basic question is whether I should go 64 bit, obviously with Vista, for LR and PS CS4 specifically. I'm building a machine just for photo editing, off the network, nothing else on it. Even if the speed gain is 10%, I'm working with some scans of LF film that are 1.8GB unto themselves (they don't even import to LR, in fact, as they are too big). I have no problem investing in the RAM and CPU if it will give me that extra boost. <br>

So is anyone actually running vista 64 bit and seeing a noticeable improvement in performance, especially with really large files, generall in PS? I do most of my work in LR and don't expect that type of work, with relatively small files, to go any faster. But these huge files in PS are bogging me down. And the /3GB switch isn't enough. I want to throw more at it. <br>

thanks,<br>

allan</p>

[jlharris]

<p>I'm running Vista Home Premium w/ 4GB RAM. CS4 64-bit seems to start much more quickly than the 32 bit version. And since you can't install more than 4GB RAM (including your video RAM) and you're working with such large files, you absolutely should go 64-bit.<br>

The only real drawback to 64-bit Vista is that sometimes it's hard to get drivers for older hardware. I've had no stability issues with it, and the only think I couldn't get drivers for is an old webcam.</p>

[jesseb]

<p>As usual, verify that the manufacturers' test results are reflected accurately with real-world data, but check out this Adobe link for info pertaining to Adobe CS4 running in 64bit environment, in case you haven't seen it yet:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/faq/?promoid=DRHXB" target="_blank">http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/faq/?promoid=DRHXB</a></p>

<p>"In early testing of 64-bit support in Photoshop for Windows, <strong>overall performance gains ranged from 8% to 12%. Those who work with extremely large files may realize noticeably greater gains in performance, in some cases as dramatic as ten times the previous speed.</strong> This is because 64-bit applications can address larger amounts of memory and thus result in less file swapping — one of the biggest factors that can affect data processing speed."</p>

[kaiyen]

<p>Thanks to both of you. I appreciate it. <br>

FWIW, I posted in here because I originally was thinking that working with really large LR catalogs might benefit, too, but veered off course towards the large format scans I was working with last night. I think the LR catalog issue would be relevant to this forum. My fault for going off course.<br>

allan</p>

[jesseb]

<p>Just to add to my previous post, it's the fact that you're no longer limited by the 4GB (or more accurately, closer to 3GB) limit. <br>

64-bit vs 32-bit running same amount of RAM = no real difference. <br>

(64-bit) 6GB vs (32-bit) 3GB = now you're starting to see a difference working with those large files.</p>

<p>Google more, check out some Adobe forums for user opinions and check out tests like the one at the below link.</p>

<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/adobe-cs4-review.ars/5" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/adobe-cs4-review.ars/5</a></p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>We got a Vista machine for my wife last summer. We hate it.<br>

My own machine is an XP unit I bought just to avoid Vista.</p>

 

[kaiyen]

<p>Thanks Jesse. I would be throwing anywhere from 8 to 16 GB or RAM into this. At least 8, and if I can, turning off drive swapping entirely. <br>

Steve - in all seriousness, that's the kind of comment that is why I was unable to get useful info from other threads. This is not about vista vs. xp (or os x). It's about whether if I throw some serious RAM into a 64 bit machine I'm going to benefit.<br>

My other dilemma is dual vs. quad core since it doesn't look like much of anything I use can do quad, and saving the money is not a bad thing.</p>

<p>thanks.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>I'm using CS4, with Vista 64 and 8gb's of ram. Works great, no more crashes or lack of memory issues. I have a quad processor.</p>

[jesseb]

<p>Yeah, you're right about the quad vs dual. I remember looking at CPUs a few months ago and noticing the Intel E8400/E8500 as being the best bang for the buck. Seems to still be the case.</p>

<p>Check out this CS3 benchmark from tomshardware:<br>

<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Photoshop-CS-3,826.html">http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Photoshop-CS-3,826.html</a><br>

and this more recent one which includes the i7:<br>

<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-29.html">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-29.html</a></p>

<p>The E8600 is faster and yet a fraction the price of many high-end CPUs (see the very expensive QX9770). If you want to save more $, then I'd stick with the E8500 - significantly cheaper and I doubt you'll see much of a difference in performance, truly good value.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>By the way, for those that don't know much about operating systems, with Vista 32 and XP 32 you can only run up to 4gbs of ram. With Vista 64 you can run up to 128gbs of ram, although most mother boards only support 8 gbs to 16gbs. There are a few gaming mother boards that and server boards that go up to 32gbs.</p>

[robert_dar_woon]

<p>Hi Allan (and the group).<br>

I purchased my Windows Vista 64-bit computer about 6 months ago after hobbling along for many years with a very old Windows XP 32-bit computer. My primary reason for going Vista 64 (instead of Vista 32) was to be able to use 4+ GB of RAM.<br>

The only major problem I’ve had in migrating from XP to Vista-64 was hardware driver availability, as others have mentioned. My film scanner has no Vista driver, which has forced me to keep my XP machine alive. My old PDA is in the same boat as the scanner.<br>

A minor problem I encountered was that my anti-virus software would not install on Vista forcing me to find a replacement.<br>

A minor issue, albeit expected, was having to download the Vista-compliant version of various programs like Canon DPP, printer drivers and iTunes.<br>

Lightroom is the only 64-bit application I’m using.<br>

I've had no stability issues.</p>

[joshua_shaw]

<p>I run Vista 64 with 10GB RAM and am really happy with the performance.<br>

As others have mentioned, older drivers may not be supported and so you may have a problem with that. I had a problem with an older Epson scanner that only offered Vista 32bit driver support. But, I did some research and found a similar Epson model that did support Vista 64 and that also worked with my scanner. So, I strongly recommend that you check your hardware compatibility. Check out the website below to determine whether your hardware is compatible (check the 64bit tab after you select an item to check for compatibility). Google is also your friend here.<br /> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility</a><br>

Another reason I decided to switch to Vista from XP is that Vista's memory management is much better. And, the more memory you throw at it, the better it performs. With my 10GB, I am able to run many different programs at once without any issues. Here is some information on the way Vista uses memory (the information is relatively technical):<br /> <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html">http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html</a><br>

Also, one thing I noticed with some friends who complained about Vista was that there was a lot of additional software installed and running in the background (both from the computer manufacturer as well as items the user installed). If you plan on buying your computer from a company like Dell/HP, ensure you buy the business models to avoid a lot of the bloat the home edition computers come with. Also, run a slim antivirus to avoid performance issues (I personally like Eset Nod32 because of its small footprint).<br>

One tip: a problem that I faced with Vista 64bit was viewing thumbnail previews of Nikon and Canon raw files. Both companies claim that they don't support Vista 64 . However, that's not entirely true. The workaround is to install Windows Live Photo Gallery and make it your default viewer in Vista64 (http://photogallery.live.com). The reason this works is the following: Vista ships with Windows Photo Gallery (notice it is not "Live" Photo Gallery). This built in version is 64bit. However, Canon and Nikon only provide raw preview handlers for 32bit. Since "Live" Photo Gallery is 32 bit, the Canon and Nikon raw preview handlers work with this version and since it is the default viewer, Windows Explorer can now display previews for all of your RAW files. This took me a while to figure out, so I hope it helps you.<br>

Overall, I am pleased with the performance in Vista. While I am not problem-free in Vista, my system is much more stable than when I had XP. I think you'll be pleased with the performance boost you will see with a 64bit OS. Good luck!</p>

[kaiyen]

<p>Thanks again for all the help. One of my "solutions" to the drivers problems is, other than making sure everything works (which it does), is that this will not be my everday machine. I'm keeping the machine I'm on now - windows xp 32 bit - and just putting that on the 2nd input on my monitor. Then I'm running literally just PS and LR on the 64 bit machine. OS and anti-virus with small footprint, as you say, but only because I keep most of my files on the network. I might even not install antivirus, connect the computer up just for updates and to move a batch of files over after scanning and editing, and let LR just "refind" the folder afterwards on the server when needed. <br>

It means 3 computers under the desk but so be it.</p>

<p> </p>

[joshua_shaw]

<p>Note that you don't have to necessarily have to keep your computer disconnected from the network for fear of getting a infected. For instance, there is a computer security competition where participants try to attack various computers. No one at the competition was able to simply attack any of the computers (Vista, Mac, Linux) by attacking the computers head-on. Instead, one of the computers (MacBook Air) was compromised when the computer was taken to a bad website. Here is some more information about this:<br /> <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9905095-37.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9905095-37.html</a> <br /> <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/132733/2008/03/hack.html">http://www.macworld.com/article/132733/2008/03/hack.html</a> <br /> Most computers become infected because of a bad website they visit or a third party software they install (like Apple QuickTime, Adobe Flash and Sun Java which are notorious for security problems). Here is an article that shows this:<br /> <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10639">http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10639</a> <br /> So my point is that as long as you are not browsing the internet or reading emails on your new computer, you should be able to safely keep it connected to the network. I would recommend not turning off UAC in Vista (the prompt that asks you to confirm when you get into a secure area of your computer) and not to install additional software like QuickTime, Flash, Java, etc unless you actually need it and to always keep your computer updated. Also, you could install antivirus software and tell it to only scan files in the middle of the night so that it does not interrupt you, but it still helps you verify that your system is clean.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>My Vista 32-bit machine with 6GB does show 6GB physical memory after the "SP1" upgrade, though the system limitation would only utilize 4GB, including allocation of almost 1GB to the BIOS (Basic Input/Output System) and peripherals. </p>

<p><strong>Question:</strong> I do have a puzzling issue that I haven't yet bothered to investigate. I wonder if some of you have experienced this: When I am using PS CS3, every now and then -- notably when the memory use is intensive, such as opening multiple files at the same time, Photoshop would shut down. So far I just deal with it by re-opening the program again, etc. But it can be annoying. While this may be a hardware issue which can go as far as needing firmware upgrade to the motherboard, etc. I am not sure. Have you experienced this? If so, what is your solution? <br>

Mary</p>

 

[garrison_k.]

<p>In my opinion, dual core is the worst choice. It’s the first processor that Intel is going to drop in the spring. All applications are being coded today for four cores or more. Are you building this computer to run some aspects of CS3 quicker than others? Or, are you building this box to perhaps last you a few years and be running CS6 eventually? If you build today around a dual, it will be very expensive or perhaps even impossible, to replace or upgrade parts in a year or two.<br>

Duals are a bad choice because they can’t multithread like quads or even better, the new i7 octa-core. There are other CS3 benchmarks, also on Tom’s, that show that a quad is faster than a dual, so your mileage and PS use might vary. Many parts of CS3 will take advantage of four or more cores. Lightroom has always used four. Adobe started writing PS to take advantage of multi-core processors with CS3. CS4 more so now. I predict CS5 will be true multi-core similar to how Lightroom is today.<br>

I think it’s the absolute worst time to building a new computer. So many new changes are coming. The new i7 is already awesome but better yet, we have 32nm motherboards around the corner, and this with the new i7 will truly be remarkable. We’ll probably be seeing these i7 processors running at 5ghz.<br>

Even without the new 32nm mobo’s, the i7 920 for $300 is blowing away $1400 quads while running CS4. They don’t even mention the dual E8500 as it’s a non-contender.<br>

<a href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2333775,00.asp">http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2333775,00.asp</a><br>

After months of using a quad, I couldn’t imagine going back to my dual. Today for instance, I have Bridge open and batching via the Image Processor, Photoshop open and sharpening those as they are batched, two epsons printing them, and Nero burning DVD’s….all at the same time. Vista 64, a quad, and 8 cheap gigs of ram make this possible today.<br>

<br /> This might be of interest,<br>

<br /> <a href="http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=196451">http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=196451</a></p>

[kaiyen]

<p>Actually, I am going with a quad core system. I was considering the AMD Deneb design, but decided that a deal on a Phenom X4 9950 was the way to go. I just didn't want to bring up the dual vs. quad core discussion :-). I had already made up my mind.<br>

It is, in my opinion, always the worst time to build a computer. Or the best time. I don't intend this one to last more than 1.5-2 years at the long end.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Agreed, it is the worst time ever to future proof. So many changes right now. I also feel we'll be spending more on GPU than on ram soon.</p>

<p>If I was putting all the time it takes into building a box today, the price difference between building with old Q's and E's, is nothing to step up to an i7 920. $800 at newegg for i7 920, mobo, and 6 gigs of ram, compared to $600 for older and slower X4 9950 or Q6600.</p>

<p>Going with an i7 and ddr3 ram means you could swap out the mobo next year for a 32nm board.</p>

<p>Cheers Allen,</p>

<p>G</p>