You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Xp Or Vista?

Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 8:44am

Post 1 of 38

mad eye123

Force: 0 | Joined: 31st Jan 2008 | Posts: 32

Windows User MacOS User

Member

I ordered a new pc yesterday with:
- 64bit intel core 2 duo
- 4gb ram
- 1024mb nvidia geforce 8400
- 1tb hard drive

But i don't know what OS should i buy?
- vista or xp
I have vista in my laptop but i don't know...they make me angry. bluescreen of death , sometimes it stucks, compatibility issues plus all that super security that is not so necessary. From the other hand xp are so old and in some time service from mcrosoft.

If i go for vista what edition should i buy?
definatelly not home basic. i think that something like a premium edition is great but why not spending a little more money and buy ultimate...

What do you recommend?
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 9:11am

Post 2 of 38

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

I use Vista Home Premium both at home and at work and it's extremely stable. In fact, I can't think of the last time it crashed - which is a vast improvement over my general XP experiences.

In terms of compatibility with drivers and programs I've also had absolutely no problems, even with ancient games.

On the other hand, other people seem to have had lots of problems with Vista, but I'd suspect they're probably the same people that had lots of problems with XP. Or Mac OS. Or, in fact, any operating system. smile
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 9:19am

Post 3 of 38

coldside

Force: 414 | Joined: 6th Jan 2005 | Posts: 306

Windows User MacOS User

Member

The 4GB of ram is pretty pointless unless you go with 64-Bit Windows. Although windows can utilize the 4gb, applications can only use around 3GB, and thats after a hack. The good thing about 64 bit is the ability to upgrade to and utilize more ram. But there can be some driver issues, though they are mostly sorted out. On 64x you can install both 32x and 64x versions of software, so you shouldn't really have any issues there, unless your using an old 16bit program, which are hardly used anymore anyways.

The Vista vs. XP debate- If this is to be a work station (i.e- editing/vfx/compositing/audio) and you want to get the best performance out of it, you may want to go with XP just for the fact that it uses less system resources, which is a plus when it comes to rendering/computer intensive work. But some people prefer Vista. Its ultimately up to you. Don't go with Vista just with the assumption that it is the way of the future. XP will be officially supported with updates, patches and tech support until 2014, and even after that, community support will still continue. And with the release of Windows 7 expected to be around 2010-2012, Vista is really just an in-between for XP and 7.

Conclusion- In my opinion, I would go with XP Pro 64bit for all round stability and speed. Just beware that this topic could spark a debate a lot like that of windows vs apple. Some people are very passionate about their OS, but in my opinion, its just a tool to get the job done. I'm just as happy on windows, as i am on a mac, or linux. I can function perfectly fine on all three. This is mainly due to my tools- Maya, Shake and Fusion, being supported on all 3 (fusion as the replacement for me for shake on windows).
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 9:21am

Post 4 of 38

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

On the other hand, other people seem to have had lots of problems with Vista, but I'd suspect they're probably the same people that had lots of problems with XP. Or Mac OS. Or, in fact, any operating system. smile
Heh. To be brutally honest, I absolutely love Vista Home Premium. It's sexy-looking, stable, and a Microsoft OS. (Essentially a heavenly combination smile)

Vista 64-bit, however, is another story. And without going into detail, I will say I've had my share of compatibility issues with it.
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 10:20am

Post 5 of 38

mad eye123

Force: 0 | Joined: 31st Jan 2008 | Posts: 32

Windows User MacOS User

Member

i will certainly go for an 64bit OS... even if i know they will be compatibility problems. I always hear people saying about how bad vista are and mainly about gaming problems. Tarn i can't believe that you have no problems with gaming! I can't play COD in my vista laptop, rarely i ran it without problems, sometimes stuck and i have to shut down the pc or sometimes it stops ,the game closes and vista tells me about online help and the same story continues. As we know vista needs more ram than xp but i won't have serious problems with 4gb. When you choose to have the simple theme of windows and not the aero and the transparensy, i believe that you have more free ram so if you want to use software like 3ds max and etc or in rendering it will be good to choose the classic style? Am i right?
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 11:14am

Post 6 of 38

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I would go with Vista. I have now upgraded every PC in my house to Vista. No crashes, less lagging, etc. I hve actully found that they run faster on Vista than on XP. Of corse, you need a good system to un it well (yours is fine!). You should also gt Vista because it can utilize 4 GB of RAM. As said you NEED a 64-Bit OS with your PC.

Personally, I like the Vista Premium version. It has cool new features, it is real sleek and I jus love the speed and reliability.
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 5:46pm

Post 7 of 38

mad eye123

Force: 0 | Joined: 31st Jan 2008 | Posts: 32

Windows User MacOS User

Member

i'll probably go for vista home premium. maybe they would run better in this system than my laptop.
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 7:22pm

Post 8 of 38

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I know xp has its faults but I do know that it is compatible with everything I use. I have heard so many horror stories of people not being able to use certain programs because vista is not compatible and such. Not to mention I am able to play a lot of old abandonware games such as monkey island, leisure suit larry and all those classics on pc using scummvm or dosbox. but I will never update to vista and if i get a pc that comes with it i will revert back to xp due to the high amount of things it is incompatible with
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 8:06pm

Post 9 of 38

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

We have had nothing but problems with Vista here at the office and I have several friends that have had the same issues. I would wait unti Vista is a little more mature and more applications have been updated to Vista compatibility.



.02
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 10:26pm

Post 10 of 38

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

mad eye123 wrote:

Tarn i can't believe that you have no problems with gaming! I can't play COD in my vista laptop, rarely i ran it without problems, sometimes stuck and i have to shut down the pc or sometimes it stops ,the game closes and vista tells me about online help and the same story continues.
Have you updated your drivers? Are you playing the latest version of Call of Duty? Is this Call of Duty, or Call of Duty 2, or Call of Duty 4? What graphics card do you have? How much memory do you have? What kind of CPU do you have?

Would you mind considering these variables before ineffectively determining that the problem "must be Vista," which it probably isn't given that I own and play all three Call of Duty games ever released on the PC just fine on my laptop?

Bryan M Block wrote:

We have had nothing but problems with Vista here at the office and I have several friends that have had the same issues. I would wait unti Vista is a little more mature and more applications have been updated to Vista compatibility.
You could be more specific as to what those problems are before bashing an operating system.

As for me... I would definitely go with Vista. Drivers are mature, in fact... I have no idea why people still think Vista is, in any way, slower than XP. Recent benchmarks show that in gaming, Vista SP1 is exactly as fast as, or in some cases faster than gaming in Windows XP.

Vista is a clear choice, and if you want to go 64-bit, go Vista x64. XP x64 isn't terribly well-supported.
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 10:50pm

Post 11 of 38

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

mad eye123 wrote:

Tarn i can't believe that you have no problems with gaming! I can't play COD in my vista laptop, rarely i ran it without problems, sometimes stuck and i have to shut down the pc or sometimes it stops ,the game closes and vista tells me about online help and the same story continues.
Have you updated your drivers? Are you playing the latest version of Call of Duty? Is this Call of Duty, or Call of Duty 2, or Call of Duty 4? What graphics card do you have? How much memory do you have? What kind of CPU do you have?

Would you mind considering these variables before ineffectively determining that the problem "must be Vista," which it probably isn't given that I own and play all three Call of Duty games ever released on the PC just fine on my laptop?

Bryan M Block wrote:

We have had nothing but problems with Vista here at the office and I have several friends that have had the same issues. I would wait unti Vista is a little more mature and more applications have been updated to Vista compatibility.
You could be more specific as to what those problems are before bashing an operating system.

As for me... I would definitely go with Vista. Drivers are mature, in fact... I have no idea why people still think Vista is, in any way, slower than XP. Recent benchmarks show that in gaming, Vista SP1 is exactly as fast as, or in some cases faster than gaming in Windows XP.

Vista is a clear choice, and if you want to go 64-bit, go Vista x64. XP x64 isn't terribly well-supported.
I'm not "bashing" an operating system, merely suggesting that one waits until the OS is more mature. I can't be specific because I don't have a Vista machine- my bosses do- and they've had issues, my box is a completely updated XP box and it's fine. I keep forgeting that most people only use their computers for surfing the net, playing all kinds of games, and getting email. Things like Office, Outlook, and backwards compatibility with video and audio plugins that cost hundreds of dollars, as well as video and audio devices that may or may not have appropriate Vista driver support as of today never cross the minds of you kids I guess...

Do what you want, it probably won't affect you, but all the pretty buttons and reflections and all of that crap that is the Vista interface DOES slow the computer down. Try sitting in a meeting with Outlook, Word, and Powerpoint all open at the same time- it's not that Vista sucks, it's just that it will take some getting used to to optimize just like Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and 2000 and XP did for me. I don;t trust new operating systems until they've been proven for awhile that's all- and that's based on nearly 20 years of using Windows...
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 12:42am

Post 12 of 38

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Bryan M Block wrote:

Try sitting in a meeting with Outlook, Word, and Powerpoint all open at the same time.
I'm guessing this is a joke? Because my grandma's computer could handle any of those applications open simultaneously whilst they are at their most processor intensive without any hiccups or problems. Was the question/challenge more based around trying not to stab yourself in the throat for being forced to use powerpoint?

I've got Vista Home Premium here, Use it professionally as a tool for working with video and I haven't really experienced anything I hadn't with XP. Sure, Vista uses extra resources though I upgraded my machine to cater for that.

I also have a macbook pro, but that's another story. My advice is simple : Vista's fine, more than apt for what I can imagine this threads poster would need from an operating system. The UI is improved and the bread crumbs way of navigating folders is finally in a Windows OS.

-Matt

p.s. No 32 bit version of windows xp/vista can use 4gb of Ram. Buying 3gb will yield the same results but will be 1gb of ram cheaper. And don't even think about buying a 64bit windows OS wink

p.p.s. Games run fine, great even. I have a dual monitor set up so I can run Crysis on my main monitor - and Outlook, Powerpoint and Word in the other.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 5:26am

Post 13 of 38

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Breadcrumbs rule! And so do local filesystem bookmarks...

But seriously. Here's the thing: Vista had some teething issues. When you consider the task that Microsoft faces every time they release a new version of Windows... it's a task that no other company in the world has to do. They have yet to do it perfectly, and frankly... I say, "Do better."

Is Vista different? Yes, and this, my friends, is what is TRULY at the crux of the issue. It has changed. A LOT has changed... and that can frustrate people. Doesn't make Vista bad... but it makes them feel that it is.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 5:44am

Post 14 of 38

aenigma

Force: 480 | Joined: 5th May 2004 | Posts: 416

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Download Ubuntu for free and save your money until Windows 7 comes out next year. wink
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 7:21am

Post 15 of 38

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

aenigma wrote:

Download Ubuntu for free and save your money until Windows 7 comes out next year. wink
Yeah... Ubuntu... THAT operating system... to each his/her own, I guess. And Windows 7 isn't coming out next year, it's coming out in 2010.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 8:06am

Post 16 of 38

mad eye123

Force: 0 | Joined: 31st Jan 2008 | Posts: 32

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Have you updated your drivers? Are you playing the latest version of Call of Duty? Is this Call of Duty, or Call of Duty 2, or Call of Duty 4? What graphics card do you have? How much memory do you have? What kind of CPU do you have?

Would you mind considering these variables before ineffectively determining that the problem "must be Vista," which it probably isn't given that I own and play all three Call of Duty games ever released on the PC just fine on my laptop?
Call of duty 4 and i have a nvidia geforce 8400 256mb, 1gb ram, intel core. I haven't updated my drivers. I know that it needs more ram but why does it crash like that or it wants me to use the online help?

I read that:
Recommended Specs”
CPU: 2.4 GHz dual core or better is recommended
RAM: 1GB for XP; 2GB for Vista is recommended
Harddrive: 8GB of free hard drive space
Video card: 3.0 Shader Support recommended. Nvidia Geforce 7800 or better or ATI Radeon X1800 or better

“Required (min) Specs”
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 2.4 GHz or AMD(R) Athlon(TM)
64 2800+ processor or any 1.8Ghz Dual Core Processor or better supported
RAM: 512MB RAM (768MB for Windows Vista)
Harddrive: 8GB of free hard drive space
Video card (generic): NVIDIA(R) Geforce(TM) 6600 or better or ATI(R) Radeon(R) 9800Pro or better

p.s. No 32 bit version of windows xp/vista can use 4gb of Ram. Buying 3gb will yield the same results but will be 1gb of ram cheaper. And don't even think about buying a 64bit windows OS
Why? What's the problem? I'heard about some compatibility issues with drivers and etc but only for xp.


Download Ubuntu for free and save your money until Windows 7 comes out next year.
nice idea but i can't leave microsoft.lol
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 7:37pm

Post 17 of 38

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Alright... what in-game video settings are you using for Call of Duty 4?

Not trying to be mean, but... CoD 4 is a pretty performance-hungry game. For one, your Geforce 8400 isn't a particularly fast card. It's a dedicated card, which is good, and it's better than integrated graphics... but it's not a particularly FAST card. Added to that, you only have 1 GB of system memory which probably isn't enough to do gaming in Windows Vista.

I had a friend in USAF Tech School with a Toshiba laptop that had 1 GB of RAM and a Geforce Go 7900 GS in it -- and he was able to play most games pretty well, but they occasionally "skipped." IE, there was no lag, he could play smoothly, but... as soon as he'd wander into a different room or something, the game would lag for a few moments before becoming smooth again. This is a typical indicator of memory issues, because the system lacks sufficient memory to pre-load enough texture and vertex information for the game, and so when you enter an environment that requires new texture and vertex information, the system has to dig it up off of the hard drive (which is abysmally slow).

So before I start offering tips... you've mentioned a bunch of different system configurations. In the first post of this topic, you mentioned that you got a new PC (desktop or laptop?) with the following specifications:

-Intel Core 2 Duo
-4 GB RAM
-Geforce 8400 1 GB
-1 TB HDD

Can you tell me what brand makes this system? Is it an HP, a Dell, an Acer? If so, can you tell me the model number of the system in question? Can you tell me what model of Core 2 Duo you have inside your system? What software do you have running in the background? What security software are you using?

Secondly, in the post above you mention another PC (desktop or laptop?) that has the following specifications:

-Intel Core
-1 GB RAM
-Geforce 8400M 256 MB

That is not remotely helpful. First off, there's no such thing as an "Intel Core." There are Core Duos, and Core 2 Duos, and Pentium Dual-Cores, and Core 2 Quads... but there is no just plain Intel "Core." All of the processors I just mentioned are derivatives of a processor architecture that Intel refers to as the "Core Microarchitecture," but there is no such thing as a "Core" processor. Yet. And unless you're Sony.

So, is this PC running a Core Duo? If so, which model of the Core Duo? What is the make/model of the PC above?

I need a little more information. Also...

mad eye123 wrote:

When you choose to have the simple theme of windows and not the aero and the transparensy, i believe that you have more free ram so if you want to use software like 3ds max and etc or in rendering it will be good to choose the classic style? Am i right?
Not really, no. People think that Windows Aero (the transparent theme in Windows Vista) eats a whole bunch of your memory and is a system hog. These people are unabashedly wrong. Right now, Aero is consuming a "whopping" 39 MB of my 4096 MB of system RAM. Whenever you start up a fullscreen 3D game, Vista automatically turns Aero off in the background so that your graphics card can dedicate all of it's resources to in-game real-time 3D tasks.

Also, I use 3dsmax and Adobe Premiere -- neither of them suffer or gain by having Aero on or off, respectively. And Aero makes for a helluva window management system -- any slight, unnoticeable gains in application performance will probably be offset by the productivity enhancements in the workflow of Vista (Flip3D, taskbar previews, eye-candy... biggrin).

mad eye123 wrote:

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

p.s. No 32 bit version of windows xp/vista can use 4gb of Ram. Buying 3gb will yield the same results but will be 1gb of ram cheaper. And don't even think about buying a 64bit windows OS
Why? What's the problem? I'heard about some compatibility issues with drivers and etc but only for xp.
Any 32-bit operating system can only address up to 4 GB of memory -- because it only has 32 bits with which to define a memory address, which limits the number of possible memory addresses to a number around 4 billion. With a 64-bit operating system, you have 64 bits with which to define a memory address, which means you have far more memory addresses available.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 9:06pm

Post 18 of 38

mad eye123

Force: 0 | Joined: 31st Jan 2008 | Posts: 32

Windows User MacOS User

Member

My new desktop has an intel core 2 duo e8200 and the laptop an intel centrino(i can't remember more info no). The new system will be hier by Wednesday. It's not a brand ,i have just chosen what i wanted and i ordered it from a local pc store.

Is there any posibillity that it stucks because of the high-temperature but why especially games and not softwares?

Anyway i am not a guy who always plays games so it isn't a serious problem. I just play in my free time and probably and hopefully i won't have this issues in my new desktop.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 9:26pm

Post 19 of 38

aenigma

Force: 480 | Joined: 5th May 2004 | Posts: 416

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

Yeah... Ubuntu... THAT operating system... to each his/her own, I guess. And Windows 7 isn't coming out next year, it's coming out in 2010.
god forbid anyone try and challenge MS with a FREE OS. And you couldn't be more right, it's not for everyone because most people can barely use windows.

2009 was the rumor, and frankly it doesn't really matter if it's 2015. Their multi-touch demo = more eye candy bloat.

and for the record I'm running XP, Vista and Linux so to each his/her own, I know.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 9:26pm

Post 20 of 38

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

What site did you get it from?
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 9:32pm

Post 21 of 38

aenigma

Force: 480 | Joined: 5th May 2004 | Posts: 416

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

mad eye123 wrote:

Is there any posibillity that it stucks because of the high-temperature but why especially games and not softwares?
Give it more ventilation. Games are more taxing on your system which in turn makes it run hotter.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 3:53pm

Post 22 of 38

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

I will never update to vista and if i get a pc that comes with it i will revert back to xp due to the high amount of things it is incompatible with
Such as? I've literally encountered one thing that has had some compatibility problems, last night in fact - the game Beyond Good & Evil. However, with a bit of fiddling I think I've sorted it. Notably, it's a game that was abandoned by its publisher shortly after release and has always had compatibility issues, even with XP when the game was first released! So not a great surprise.

Bryan wrote:

We have had nothing but problems with Vista here at the office
I'm not sure the office environment can be used as an example of how stable an operating system is. Pretty much every single office environment I've encountered (either directly or through friends and colleagues) has been a hive of broken computers, either poorly installed in the first place or chock full of viruses, spyware and generally clogged up with crap.

The only exception to that rule is the FXhome office, and that's only because we're a small company that specialises in software development, so we generally know what we're doing. But even if we were to become a bigger company and employ 'non techie' people, I'm pretty sure the computers they used would soon encounter problems (whether they be XP, Vista or a Mac).

Basically, if you want to drive a car, you have to take a test. That's so that you don't damage the car, yourself or other people.

For some reason, people can use computers without taking any kind of test or training, despite them being vastly more complicated than a car. And that's before you even bring the Internet into the equation. Once the Internet is involved, you're on a collision course with pain.

Sure, you could argue that operating systems should be designed so that they're invulnerable to the mis-use of untrained staff, children and parents.

But, as Jeff Goldblum might say, noobs will find a way.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:22pm

Post 23 of 38

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Long story short - its merely trendy to slam Vista, but Vista 32 has nothing any more wrong with it than XP. (Vista 64 is different question though).

I built my computer from scratch and installed Vista. Being capable of building from scratch, I'm clearly no noob, but I've only had 1 real problem with it, ever. My components are generic, my drivers are standard.

That one problem I had was solved by installing SP1. If you installed XP without SP1, you'd encounter a far worse world of hurt than I did, but why anyone wouldn't patch their OS after install is beyond me.

Technically there is nothing broken and everything you install will work just as reliably as it would with XP. Note: I didn't say it'll work perfectly, i'm saying that you're no more likely to encounter problems. Its a common misconception that every new release of an OS instantly, magically fixes every conceivable problem in the previous version. It doesn't, but its popular to use every pre-existing problem as a valid reason why the new version has "problems".

On the whole the vast majority of office computers are behind the times or have been built en-mass by a company that probably thought IDE would never go out of fashion. Such is life. If your office IT team upgraded you to Vista without first vetting your system for the basic requirements, they should be fired.

If you're going to insist on installing the Mongol drivers for your Peruvian Region 9 ATA-1 DVD drive with the wrong jumper configuration, which clearly won't have any concept of Vista, then of course you're going to have problems, but frankly you should have your computer taken off you, you negligent tit.
Posted: Fri, 6th Jun 2008, 8:45pm

Post 24 of 38

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

videofxuniverse wrote:

I will never update to vista and if i get a pc that comes with it i will revert back to xp due to the high amount of things it is incompatible with
Such as? I've literally encountered one thing that has had some compatibility problems, last night in fact - the game Beyond Good & Evil. However, with a bit of fiddling I think I've sorted it. Notably, it's a game that was abandoned by its publisher shortly after release and has always had compatibility issues, even with XP when the game was first released! So not a great surprise.

Bryan wrote:

We have had nothing but problems with Vista here at the office
I'm not sure the office environment can be used as an example of how stable an operating system is. Pretty much every single office environment I've encountered (either directly or through friends and colleagues) has been a hive of broken computers, either poorly installed in the first place or chock full of viruses, spyware and generally clogged up with crap.

The only exception to that rule is the FXhome office, and that's only because we're a small company that specialises in software development, so we generally know what we're doing. But even if we were to become a bigger company and employ 'non techie' people, I'm pretty sure the computers they used would soon encounter problems (whether they be XP, Vista or a Mac).

Basically, if you want to drive a car, you have to take a test. That's so that you don't damage the car, yourself or other people.

For some reason, people can use computers without taking any kind of test or training, despite them being vastly more complicated than a car. And that's before you even bring the Internet into the equation. Once the Internet is involved, you're on a collision course with pain.

Sure, you could argue that operating systems should be designed so that they're invulnerable to the mis-use of untrained staff, children and parents.

But, as Jeff Goldblum might say, noobs will find a way.
Well, man all I can tell you is that there are documented problems with using programs like Sony ACID Pro, which I use regularly. Weird pop up windows when using FX and synth plugins and such. Also, Win Help, which has been included in every version of Windows since 3.1 is no longer part of windows- that's right, it's gone- so many programs that use Win Help for it's help section (alot of them do) is going to give you a window that says the software is "Incompatible with Windows" which is not comforting. Microsoft has made Win Help available as a seperate download now, instead of just including it in the first place so applications can at least "appear to be" backward compatible. ANyway, Microsoft has issued fixes for these issues- but if I were to have adopted Vista last year, I would have lost the proper use and functionality of ACID Pro 6 for maybe a year. ACID Pro 7 should be out soon and should be 100% Vista compat. Just like Vegas 8- but I'm on Vegas 7 and I didn't want to have to spend hundreds of dollars upgrading a bunch of stuff just becase the OS has changed- hence my suggestion to wait until they have gone through a couple of service packs and then make the jump. If you are starting from scratch and only plan on buying brand new VISTA compat. software- great! You should have no issues- but I have legacy software and hardware to consider and I'm not willing to risk productivity on making the jump until it is "mature" - and that is again based on a long history of using Windows...
Posted: Fri, 6th Jun 2008, 9:27pm

Post 25 of 38

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

Try sitting in a meeting with Outlook, Word, and Powerpoint all open at the same time.
I'm guessing this is a joke? Because my grandma's computer could handle any of those applications open simultaneously whilst they are at their most processor intensive without any hiccups or problems. Was the question/challenge more based around trying not to stab yourself in the throat for being forced to use powerpoint?

I've got Vista Home Premium here, Use it professionally as a tool for working with video and I haven't really experienced anything I hadn't with XP. Sure, Vista uses extra resources though I upgraded my machine to cater for that.

So- yeah, it requires you to get a hardware upgrade to "handle it". And, yeah believe it or not some powerpoints are pretty freakin' huge because they haven't been properly packed or optimized and are chock full of medical photos- and they can be system hogs-
Why the hostility? I'm not "against" Vista for crying out loud, but I've watched people try to juggle all this on a less than optimal laptop using Vista with slowdown- and usually I have to instruct them on how to turn off all the magic bells and whistles of the Vista interface to gain a performance boost- corporate america isn't as "tech savvy" as most of the people on an internet forum that uses complex software to create digital media...
Posted: Sat, 7th Jun 2008, 5:10pm

Post 26 of 38

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

Weird pop up windows when using FX and synth plugins and such.
Really...
Do they wiggle when you move your mouse pointer over them? razz

Bryan M Block wrote:

Also, Win Help, which has been included in every version of Windows since 3.1 is no longer part of windows- that's right, blah blah blah
Why not just google for help?

Bryan M Block wrote:

ANyway, Microsoft has issued fixes for these issues
Then, what are you complaining about?
Posted: Sat, 7th Jun 2008, 5:48pm

Post 27 of 38

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I bought my new comupter wishing it had XP, but I'm so glad it came with vista home premium! It took about a day to get used to it is really simple!
Posted: Sat, 7th Jun 2008, 6:33pm

Post 28 of 38

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

XP won't be supported by Microsoft as of June 30, as I am sure you all know. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to buy vista now, instead of later? Besides, I have found that Vista is better than XP and have upgraded every one of my systems. Just saying.
Posted: Sat, 7th Jun 2008, 9:04pm

Post 29 of 38

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

DVStudio wrote:

XP won't be supported by Microsoft as of June 30, as I am sure you all know.
It will be supported for a while. They're looking into extending the support if enough express concerns.
Posted: Sat, 7th Jun 2008, 9:56pm

Post 30 of 38

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

DVStudio wrote:

XP won't be supported by Microsoft as of June 30, as I am sure you all know.
Hiya, where did you get that date from? It sounds very wrong to me as MS have a formalised support model which sees mainstream support (service packs, etc) for something like 7 years, then extended support for another 3 or so after that again - and that's from the end of the sales cycle too, I'm pretty sure (so XP will be in mainstream support until 2015 or so if I remember correctly). Are they stopping selling XP on 30th? If that's the case that's massively different from stopping supporting the product!
Posted: Sat, 7th Jun 2008, 10:21pm

Post 31 of 38

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

mVPstar wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

Weird pop up windows when using FX and synth plugins and such.
Really...
Do they wiggle when you move your mouse pointer over them? razz

Bryan M Block wrote:

Also, Win Help, which has been included in every version of Windows since 3.1 is no longer part of windows- that's right, blah blah blah
Why not just google for help?

Bryan M Block wrote:

ANyway, Microsoft has issued fixes for these issues
Then, what are you complaining about?
I'm not complaining, only stating that had I jumped right into Vista I would have lost the functionality of my favorite apps for quite awhile until Microsoft caught up with the bugs, complaints, and issues that are a normal part of issuing a new OS or unless I wanted to upgrade my apps all at once and hope for the best. Why is this so hard to grasp? Why the animosity towards me because I only mention waiting until Vista is more mature to avoid any loss of productivity? There are similar issues when using Microsoft office / word and sharing between Office 2003 and 2007. Weird bugs and things that just appear because of some print driver or something that worked fine before you "upgraded" to 2007 - like pictues in WORD showing as big black boxes in documents. or things like the excellent "softshadow" plug-in for powerpoint that no longer works in powerpoint 2007. These are things we use every day in our business and I learned long ago not to be an "early adopter" because I'm usually better off. I never jumped to XP from 2000 Professional until after Service Pack I, and I was far better off stepping into that OS after that initial period.

Also, how does "Googling" for help stop Windows Vista from telling you that your app is no longer compatible with Windows because it's looking for WinHelp upon installation?

.02 YMMV
Posted: Mon, 9th Jun 2008, 8:45am

Post 32 of 38

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

Why the animosity towards me because I only mention waiting until Vista is more mature to avoid any loss of productivity?
Agreed there. I waited until later last year to move to Vista, due to the aforementioned compatibility problems etc. However, the situation seemed to have stabilised by November last year, and is even more stable now - more so than XP ever was for me.

I agree that waiting for stuff to mature is a good idea, my only point is that I think that Vista is sufficiently matured now for it to not be a major issue.

I've watched people try to juggle all this on a less than optimal laptop using Vista with slowdown- and usually I have to instruct them on how to turn off all the magic bells and whistles of the Vista interface to gain a performance boost
That's more down to people not doing their research, though. If you put something that requires a decent powered machine on a low powered machine, you're asking for trouble. So in that case I'd blame the IT department rather than Vista.

There's a secondary argument as to why Microsoft would make an OS that is quite resource hungry, but essentially it's a bit of a moot point: They did it, so that's that. If your computer can't handle it, don't get it - but don't complain if you do make the shift and then run into trouble.

It's tricky that there's always such a woeful chasm between business/education/voluntary sector machines and home machines. My girlfriend works at a charity in which most of their computers can barely run XP! Thankfully they've got a decent IT advisor, who wouldn't even think about recommending Vista. smile
Posted: Mon, 9th Jun 2008, 3:44pm

Post 33 of 38

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

It's the natural progression of technology. Newer technology is always coming out, these days very rapidly. Technology as a business means that almost every company is going to react to an innovation in some form or another; this reaction is sometimes the creation of a new product containing that technology or simply a competing idea.

And, tech businesses can only make money if they release a newer product and force it down everyone's throats. If you never had to upgrade your computing hardware and you could keep your computer for 15+ years until it breaks down, how then would manufacturers like Dell make money?

Bryan wrote:

Why the animosity towards me because I only mention waiting until Vista is more mature to avoid any loss of productivity?
There's no animosity. People are just pointing out that Vista has already matured to the point at which you could install it without running into really any major problems. You just keep repeating the notion that people should wait before immediately upgrading to an OS so as to circumvent prossible problems.

Well, duh. razz
Posted: Mon, 9th Jun 2008, 4:14pm

Post 34 of 38

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

mVPstar wrote:



Bryan wrote:

Why the animosity towards me because I only mention waiting until Vista is more mature to avoid any loss of productivity?
There's no animosity. People are just pointing out that Vista has already matured to the point at which you could install it without running into really any major problems. You just keep repeating the notion that people should wait before immediately upgrading to an OS so as to circumvent prossible problems.

Well, duh. razz
No, I've been pretty much "mocked" for even suggesting this- even in an unrelated thread my "professionalism" was called into question because I mentioned the whole powerpoint thing in this thread- even by posting "well, duh" you are mocking me. I post here not knowing what everyone's experience level is so if I state the obvious it's only because I've learned that what may be obvious to me is not obvious to everyone- which is why in the film maker's forum my posts are usually a little more "take a step back and explain it" instead of telling people "well, duh!"
Posted: Mon, 9th Jun 2008, 4:26pm

Post 35 of 38

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

The reaction you're getting is most likely because the advice you've given is both second hand as well as out of date Bryan. It's as simple as that.

People posting disagreeing with you doesn't class as animosity, though my reply definitely had a sarcastic nature - I apologize if that upset you ..But the problems you're describing re: Powerpoint hint at a misuse of the software rather than an OS specific problem.

With tech in general - it's always going to be a good idea to wait past its initial release so that the waters can calm slightly. Though with Vista that time has long past and it is no longer prudent advice. I recall having this conversation with Tarn shortly after Vista's release whereupon we both decided to wait it out.

I agree that in a purely office/professional environment compatibility issues are definitely a problem, I've worked in studios that are still running windows ME for the avid systems smile. So sure, sometimes upgrading is a wild gamble - though is that scenario directly relevant to the original posters requests/requirements? I'm not sure it is.

Regards
-Matt
Posted: Mon, 9th Jun 2008, 5:13pm

Post 36 of 38

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

The reaction you're getting is most likely because the advice you've given is both second hand as well as out of date Bryan. It's as simple as that.

People posting disagreeing with you doesn't class as animosity, though my reply definitely had a sarcastic nature - I apologize if that upset you ..But the problems you're describing re: Powerpoint hint at a misuse of the software rather than an OS specific problem.

With tech in general - it's always going to be a good idea to wait past its initial release so that the waters can calm slightly. Though with Vista that time has long past and it is no longer prudent advice. I recall having this conversation with Tarn shortly after Vista's release whereupon we both decided to wait it out.

I agree that in a purely office/professional environment compatibility issues are definitely a problem, I've worked in studios that are still running windows ME for the avid systems smile. So sure, sometimes upgrading is a wild gamble - though is that scenario directly relevant to the original posters requests/requirements? I'm not sure it is.

Regards
-Matt
Dear GOD! An AVID on Windows ME!?!?!?!?!?!?!? crazy That is a nightmare 6 ways from Tuesday!



I admit that I'm not as aware of Vista's current status as some of you, but I'm still watching my boss and the VP (we are only a 4 person company) struggle with issues on their Vista boxes, and I know of specific office 2003/ 2007 compat. problems I've witnessed - I was only cautioning the original poster in case, for example they own Vegas Pro 7 and they fire up their new Vista machine and the install of Vegas 7 says "this software is incompatible with Windows..." or some such crap that they will be fore-armed that not every single piece of hardware and software one has will probably make the leap as smoothly or successfully as one would hope. I have audio devices, MIDI controllers, many audio plugins and other things that I have no idea if they will make the "leap" or not- so I have waited - if it ain't broke- don't fix it. I have stated several times that this is just my experience, you can take that .02 for what it's worth- I'm not "slamming Vista" or any such crap, just cautioning. That said, I'm looking at jumping to Vista next year for all of the "well, duh" obvious reasons, and I'm looking forward to what a robust Vista system can do.
Posted: Mon, 9th Jun 2008, 6:04pm

Post 37 of 38

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, Just before I left that studio their prudence/reluctance to upgrade a little seemed to bite them in the ass as compatibility issues with quicktime which required updates unavailable to systems running lower than XP started to appear. smile

I didn't think you were slamming Vista Bryan, you're right to say that it always pays to research something before committing to it as there are undoubtedly certain uses and situations for which Vista is not yet ready to handle. I agree with your point in that sense through and through.

However, I guess I am probably quite defensive when technology is criticized for the faults of its users as new tech/tech in general gets a lot of undeserved flak (amidst the well deserved flak) - though that's undoubtedly because I'm a bit of a geek who understands these things and usually has to bite his tongue when people around him complain that OSX is rubbish because data isn't deleting from their hard drives and they need to reformat (they hadn't emptied the recycle bin, true story).

Regards,
Matt
Posted: Mon, 9th Jun 2008, 6:37pm

Post 38 of 38

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Yeah, Just before I left that studio their prudence/reluctance to upgrade a little seemed to bite them in the ass as compatibility issues with quicktime which required updates unavailable to systems running lower than XP started to appear. smile

I didn't think you were slamming Vista Bryan, you're right to say that it always pays to research something before committing to it as there are undoubtedly certain uses and situations for which Vista is not yet ready to handle. I agree with your point in that sense through and through.

However, I guess I am probably quite defensive when technology is criticized for the faults of its users as new tech/tech in general gets a lot of undeserved flak (amidst the well deserved flak) - though that's undoubtedly because I'm a bit of a geek who understands these things and usually has to bite his tongue when people around him complain that OSX is rubbish because data isn't deleting from their hard drives and they need to reformat (they hadn't emptied the recycle bin, true story).

Regards,
Matt
I hear you- my brother works for an industry specific software company as tech support and as an installer. He flies all over the country doing installs and then has to talk to Ma and Pa Jones in East Arsehole Iowa on how to hold down CTRL while pushing another key or some such crap. But there ARE (or at least WERE and continue to be) things that are hiccups in people shifting from XP to Vista in various capacities- I consider myself pretty computer savvy, at least far more than most "average people" but the technology moves too fast for me to keep up. Isn't it enough that I have to know how to use (and be proficient with!) and keep up with all of the software apps I have to use in my line of work that I have to know all the ins and outs of every OS tweak as well? OY VEY! I merely looked at this OS migration like I have every other move from one version of Windows to another: approach with caution and be prepared smile

On the other hand- yep. Quicktime is the bane of my AVID machine. Our version of Sorenson requires a "backwards" compat version of Quicktime, like version 6 or something to work 100% (errors on different encodes). This is a KNOWN error among the AVID forums (that's where we got the fix), but Sorenson tech support refused to admit it exists. Then they issued a new version of Sorenson squeeze that corrected the error (the one that didn't exist)- but wanted us to pay for the upgrade. In the meantime, Vegas likes the latest Quicktime version for any import/export that requires QT codec. But I can't encode into FLV flash video directly from Vegas- I need Sorenson. So I either lose functionality in Vegas or Sorenson because of an error IN the software.
None of which is Quicktime's fault- It's all Sorenson's fault and they won't admit it- just an example on the other end of the spectrum.