Vista or XP

[Alex_B]

Installing a new system for the privilage of things no longer working and running much slower than they were previously is not something I consider an upgrade.

 

[Renair]

I've had Vista for over a year, not a single problem or bug or crash or anything. Using a laptop with home premium and 3 gigs of ram, 1.6g Processor, run lightroom and cs3 extended with no issues what so ever.

 

[dEARlEADER]

None of you clearly use any form of colour management. On a photography forum this question is a no brainer.

Vista when it pops up a UAC window, or an application crashes and it greys the background clobbers the monitor correction curves. Yes that's right, windows XP didn't provide the option to load video LUT curves from the ICC profile, and Vista takes the glorious leap backwards in actively resetting them every ****ing time you want to do something as basic as install a piece of software.

Forget the other bugs, the slowness, the interface which completely screws your chance of running a computer at any kind of speed with less than 1.5GB of ram while at the same time not supporting more than 3.5GB (another reason not to use it for photo editing, anyone here do panoramas?) .....

I could go on but if the two points above aren't blatently enough to turn you off Vista I would just be wasting my breath. Christie you made the right choice in my opinion. Vista will always have it's supporters, but then so did Windows ME.



Paradigm shift mate. You should be asking who would still run Windows 98 if you could do on it everything that you can do on Windows XP. Maybe one day when Photoshop CS5, directx 10, or another program I desperately need drags me to upgrading by the short and curlies I will join you. The place I work just caved into Vista so I'm forced to there. But if I actually looked forward to that kind of pain I'd join an S&M club. At least it's more fun.

Installing a new system for the privilage of things no longer working and running much slower than they were previously is not something I consider an upgrade.

But Ram and systems are cheap Garbz....... this argument kinda sounds like shooting jpeg because raw files are bigger.... I will concede Vista is not for the person who has a 4 year old machine and wants to upgrade the OS....

As for the colour space issue I need you to school me more..... I use plain old srgb format thought my workspace..... I am not understanding the issues you mention.... help me?

My machine is quite quick 3 gig ram and I have no performance issues... panos....hdrs.... no problem... the only slowness I've experienced was using Nikon software to convert NEF to TIFF... turns out that's Nikons inattention to detail...

I'm not trying to sit here and promote Microsoft or Vista (I could really care less)for any particular reason other than I bought it... I'm not experiencing any difficulties worth mentioning.... I still run XP at work and my laptop... and for a home pc adequately supplied I like Vista it better...

tell me more about the colourspace...

 

[nynfortoo]

You can switch UAC off. I have done*, and haven't experienced any colour space issues.


*it annoyed me when I first installed Vista, though my brother assures me after a few days of regular use, it's set up well enough to not be too naggy. I still don't feel the need to switch it back on; I've never had my system compromised in any way in the decade I've been online.

 

[Easy_Target]

Well... I'm finally ready to add a computer. Although I'm a Mac fan, I'm sticking with Windows since everything else is in place.

I can still buy a computer with XP Pro. It's what I know.

Is it time to jump to Vista? I'll be running CS2. Nothing else.

Any insight is appreciated.

Thanks.
-Pete

If you plan on getting a new computer, stick with XP Pro. If you plan on getting 4GB of ram or more, get XP Pro x64. It's a crapton better than 64bit vista.

Vista = feature bloat lvl 10 + resource hog
XP Pro x64 = feature bloat lvl 4

 

[shorty6049]

maybe you should check out THIS

i love vista and only had compatability issues in the first couple months it was out.

 

[peterbj7]

I know people who have many compatibility issues with machines supplied with Vista, where the machine won't run software they already have and want to run and which hasn't been rewritten for Vista. To say nothing of performance. I get 10 hours battery life from an HP laptop running XP. The equivalent Vista model is stated to run for just over an hour, and it runs much hotter because of the serious processing going on.

I installed XP on someone else's desktop machine supplied with Vista because of the problem running certain software, and the performance improvement is remarkable. The machine is a fairly up-market model with a fast dual processor and 4gb of RAM, yet under Vista ran barely adequately. CS3 Photoshop ran like a dog, taking maybe three minutes to load a RAW file from the owner's D3. With XP a RAW image loads almost instantly, and all other aspects of performance have improved commensurately. Of course, I was lucky that there were XP drivers for all devices installed on the machine - I gather that is increasingly not the case.

But my main beef with Vista is the spying aspect, which I refuse to accept. That is why I will NEVER run Vista on a computer I own.

 

[Alex_B]

maybe you should check out THIS

i love vista and only had compatability issues in the first couple months it was out.

remember, for most people performance of the system does not matter anyway. just us photographers, in particular those doing things which need a lot of cpu and memory, then graphic designers and all those strange people, they want performance.

oh, and gamers, but they need a different kind of performance.

 

[Garbz]

But Ram and systems are cheap Garbz....... this argument kinda sounds like shooting jpeg because raw files are bigger.... I will concede Vista is not for the person who has a 4 year old machine and wants to upgrade the OS....

As for the colour space issue I need you to school me more..... I use plain old srgb format thought my workspace..... I am not understanding the issues you mention.... help me?

No we shoot RAW for features. But it's still coming from the wrong angle. Why should I upgrade a 4 year old computer with Windows XP to vista $1000 for hardware, $200 for the OS, only to get no speed improvement, no superior features, compatibility woes, and the joy of re-learning the UI. I don't think it relates to RAW vs JPEG. I think it relates to switching to RAW only because you have a faster CF card.

It's not a colour space issue, it's a video hardware Look-up Table issue. Vista has made some great progress with colour management support, but the fact that UAC clobbers the Lookup table (and still does with service pack 1) is an inexcusable oversight. Fortunately nynfortoo has the obvious answer to this problem, but it still shows the low level of thought and teamwork that goes into the development.

Don't get me wrong Vista is the future. It has to be. We'll eventually have to upgrade regardless as support for old systems dies. I am just complaining about the old saying in the IT circles: "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away" You may not notice the speed outright, but put two identical computers next to each other and work on them at the same time and it's jawdropping from the moment you're sitting there playing freecell on the XP box while you are still waiting for Vista to get to the logon screen :lmao:

You can switch UAC off. I have done*, and haven't experienced any colour space issues.

:thumbup: Stupid design in the first place. Let's improve security by annoying the user so much that we end up training them to click continue to every box that appears.

 

[nynfortoo]

:thumbup: Stupid design in the first place. Let's improve security by annoying the user so much that we end up training them to click continue to every box that appears.

Indeed. The people who know how to look after their computer and stay safe just switch it off; the people who don't know how to look after their computer either switch it off, or just accept any UAC prompt.

 

[Overread]

I always thought microsoft could have helped users so much if they just named stuff in an understandable manner - take that running programs menu (ctrl alt del). Take a look at that and pick out the virus - good luck as you can't even get a refrence for which are good and which are bad without going online (not much help if your computer is shot with viruses).

 

[usayit]

I always thought microsoft could have helped users so much if they just named stuff in an understandable manner - take that running programs menu (ctrl alt del). Take a look at that and pick out the virus - good luck as you can't even get a refrence for which are good and which are bad without going online (not much help if your computer is shot with viruses).

Ah so what were you expecting.

i_am_virus.exe
meavirus.exe
virus.exe

????

You are not making sense. Virus programs can easily fork of any process that looks legit. Sometimes they are inserted into space allocated by a "good" process.


Perhaps if MS kept all processes within the confines of the resources that were allocated. Perhaps if processes didn't all run as system or administrator? Perhaps they could actually leverage a decent user login/security system. There's a long list of what they could do... but as Garbz said... it is easier code in a pop-up and annoy the crap out of the user.

 

[shorty6049]

well if all you guys HATE vista so much, you can always wait for Windows 7 in a couple years

 

[Overread]

Ah so what were you expecting.

i_am_virus.exe
meavirus.exe
virus.exe

????
.

Other way around - the good telling us in plain english that they are good and also being on a checklist (a nice little list given to us with the new computer). That would at least let us know all the critical system processes we shouldn't shutdown

 

[shorty6049]

does XP have that though? the list USUALLY tells you what each process is if its a windows process