| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2008 10:56:13 PM · #1 |
I am currently budgetting for a dual core upgrade (still doing PP on a single brain :p )
So with the new PC, which OS should i be using?
Plz, no mac for me at the moment.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 10:58:48 PM · #2 |
Probably better to stick with XP until MS forces us all to take the Vista pill. Vista's biggest plus is enhanced security measures, but Vista comes with a heavy performance hit.
I'm still using an Athlon 2000 I put together 4 1/2 years ago. Probably time to upgrade this year.
Message edited by author 2008-02-13 23:00:35. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 10:59:26 PM · #3 |
It really doesn't matter. Vista is pretty stable now and doesn't kill too many resources compared to XP.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:00:56 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It really doesn't matter. Vista is pretty stable now and doesn't kill too many resources compared to XP. |
Second that... Vista is very stable right now, I have absoulity no problems (I have Lightroom, Portrait Pro, SC2 and CS3 installed for a long time and they both running pretty fast :)
Message edited by author 2008-02-13 23:03:09. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:08:12 PM · #5 |
| Going from W2000P to Vista was a learning curve, but I like the intuitiveness of it and it's hardware support a lot. Networking is totally behind the scenes as well. Only thing I will suggest is NOTHING under 3GB RAM - Vista sucks up RAM like you wouldn't believe. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:08:50 PM · #6 |
thanks for the fast reply
since RAM is cheap now, should i get 2gb or 4gb?
From what i understand Vista 32bit only see up to ~3.5gb of RAM
only Vista 64bit can fully use 4gb?
what is the diff between the Vista 32/64 bit?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:15:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Brad:
...I will suggest is NOTHING under 3GB RAM... |
Not really. 2 Gb is pretty good enough to start with. They do have updates, and SP1 is coming up now that fixes all the leaks.
It was a lot worse when it came out first... but now, 2 GB memory should do just fine. Make sure you do have a good video card though. That I suggest to start at least 256 Mb card, and fast ones if you can. I am running AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4000+ with NVIDIA GForce 8500 GT... My Vista performance score is 4.8, which is pretty good.
Personally I don't think you do need 64 bit OS/Machine right now. I am not sure how many applications support that rate, but by the time we are ready 64 bit all together, you will change your computer anyway, and then upgrade your computer and OS to 64 bit... Right now, 32bit system is fine... this is personal of course. So it depends what you are running (program wise) and what do you need from your computer I guess.
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 00:04:42. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 08:35:18 AM · #8 |
| Well, I suppose if these guys are actually using it and it runs fine for them, their opinion carries more weight. I have one sample of it on a laptop at work for testing drivers and software compatibility. I think XP would be quite zippy on this laptop though. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 09:32:19 AM · #9 |
| I have been using Vista with CS2 for the past year and haven't had any issues. By default Vista has alot of graphic enhancements which seem to chew up the ram. You can however turn most of them off which does seem to help quite a bit. Just make sure you have Maximum Ram no matter which route you go because Adobe likes to eat memory too. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 09:39:14 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Only thing I will suggest is NOTHING under 3GB RAM - Vista sucks up RAM like you wouldn't believe. |
I will semi second that brad. I say 2GB but 3 or 4 would be nice. Vista at idle uses up 512 mb of ram and running applications easily pushes to 90% of the 1 GB my laptop had stock.
I find 2 which is my laptops max is fine. I can actually run Windows Vista and XP inside of MS Virtual PC giving each operating system 1 GB of ram and still have enough left over to run my XP only video editing software. This is actually pushing it a bit but i would have to say running under 2 GB of ram your asking for a head ache. I cant believe they actually sell Vista PC's with 512mb of ram considering thats what my laptop uses when its not even doing anything.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 09:49:06 AM · #11 |
Guys, remember graphic card is important as ram. 2 GB ram is good enough if you have a good card. My experiences, I can play about any games, with good resolution or do PS work while watching video clip... It is true you can turn off the visuals of Vista and that helps a lot, but it uses card's memory and card's processor a lot. To not to share that with CPU and RAM, get a fast card with at least 512 memory.
My specs are below this thread. I use AMD dual core processor. Dual core always helps Vista to run much faster.
Nothing against the RAM deal, but it's not only RAM, that's what I am trying to tell you guys here whoever wants to switch to Vista.
I use Enterprise version by the way.
FP |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:19:09 AM · #12 |
| Just a thought, but has the calibration issue with Vista been addressed? I didn't think it had. To recap for those unfamiliar, it seems that Vista won't always hold a calibration. The look-up-table gets overwritten, causing the calibration to revert to some default. I wouldn't use Vista for color-sensitive work unless I *knew* this was ironed out. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:20:13 AM · #13 |
I donno know about 2GB ... It really depends on how you work.
My "processing machine" is a dual duo with 2GB and the way that I tend to work I find byself up against the memory wall.
I would strongly suggest if you are working with large files in CS3 that you go to 4GB. It wont hurt and you wont be gripeing in 6 months that you "shoulda"
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:22:30 AM · #14 |
Thanks Fritz, now I have something else to wonder and worry about lol
Originally posted by kirbic:
Just a thought, but has the calibration issue with Vista been addressed? I didn't think it had. To recap for those unfamiliar, it seems that Vista won't always hold a calibration. The look-up-table gets overwritten, causing the calibration to revert to some default. I wouldn't use Vista for color-sensitive work unless I *knew* this was ironed out. |
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:25:49 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Just a thought, but has the calibration issue with Vista been addressed? I didn't think it had. To recap for those unfamiliar, it seems that Vista won't always hold a calibration. The look-up-table gets overwritten, causing the calibration to revert to some default. I wouldn't use Vista for color-sensitive work unless I *knew* this was ironed out. |
I had that issue. I replaced my video driver and it has been resolved.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:30:52 AM · #16 |
nomad actually thanks for mentioning that. I mentioned being able to run Vista and XP at the same time and run video editing software within 2 GB.
But your right if your working with a large drum scan or any kind of image file thats uncompressed size is very large say 1 GB or working with several 256 to 512 mb uncompressed files at one time. This can eat some ram.
However these days I havent scanned much film or large prints I rarley work with anythign thats more then 50 mb uncompressed in the way of stills.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:33:19 AM · #17 |
The reason XP and 32bit Vista can access just 3.5 GB of RAM even if 4 GB is stalled is a memory addressing issue. In a 32 bit OS, it reserves 512 MB of addressing space at the upper end of the 4GB range. That's why you don't have an issue until you break the 3.5 GB threshold. While 4 GB is the theoretical RAM limit, the top 512 MB of addressing is reserved for video.
Since RAM is so inexpensive these days, I'd recommend going with 4 GB in matched pairs, even if you will be using just 3.5 GB. No one has complained about having too much RAM.
Good luck. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:48:49 AM · #18 |
Here's my question for vista.. I originally had Photoshop 6 and have upgraded. Will Vista take these programs? Even though they're older programs?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:50:51 AM · #19 |
I don't have against more RAM... trust me, more ram is the better performance... It's what your CPU and RAM on your machine, then the other things like Video Card, HD etc. Since they are cheap these days, go for it.
I am not sure what the minimum benchmark for vista is exactly. I heard if you have performance going up to 4 or 5 that should be enough for many applications. Now, you are talking about film scanning and other things, that's besides the point. Working on PS, I am very comfortable, I have no wait, no delay no hiccups... and my performance test shows 4.8... You have 5 or better or make it better, add RAM... that helps.
FP |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:52:06 AM · #20 |
BUMPing  neophyte's question
"Here's my question for vista.. I originally had Photoshop 6 and have upgraded. Will Vista take these programs? Even though they're older programs?" |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:54:00 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
Here's my question for vista.. I originally had Photoshop 6 and have upgraded. Will Vista take these programs? Even though they're older programs? |
You don't actually have to install PS6 first. It'l just ask you for the CD when installing the upgrade. It verifies the CD and then spits it out :-)
But, yeah, it's mostly backwards compatible, save some issues with fax software.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 11:07:38 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by zerocusa:
I am currently budgetting for a dual core upgrade (still doing PP on a single brain :p )
So with the new PC, which OS should i be using?
Plz, no mac for me at the moment.
Thanks |
Why not a Quad Core?
The Intel 6600 is cheap.
Adobe apps support multi core, dunno about 4 but figure OS and other multi-tasking would be helped by having 4.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 11:19:12 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It really doesn't matter. Vista is pretty stable now and doesn't kill too many resources compared to XP. |
Second that... Vista is very stable right now, I have absoulity no problems (I have Lightroom, Portrait Pro, SC2 and CS3 installed for a long time and they both running pretty fast :) |
Third That...
Been running Vista Since the beginning... Currently on 4 machines in the house 2 Ultimate and 1 Home Premium and a laptop with Vista Business. I have Vista business running on a old laptop (no Aero because Intel Video is the worst video ever made) at work for fun with a 1G of RAM and it runs as good as some to the XP laptops with a gig and a half.
Current Photo Machine is 3.2 AMD Athlon (single) w/2Gs of RAM and a nVidia 7800 (something or other). No urge to upgrade what so every as this Vista Ultimate machine performs nicely. Maybe move to a nVidia 8800 for DirectX 10 but that would be it. (Disclaimer: I am in IT I take care of my PCs, I have seen users render XP pc's useless due to lack of maintenance and care)
Grab a 2G Cruiser (can be found for 19 bucks) USB thumb drive and put it in a slot (permanently) and Use Readyboost to cache many of Vista's functions. It works.
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 11:22:30. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 11:20:46 AM · #24 |
Just to tell a bit of the other side of Vista. It may not be as stable as advertised.
About 6 months ago I purchased a new Dell XPS710 with all the bells and whistles, including 4 Gb of RAM and a T harddrive and quadcore technology, etc. etc. Oh, yes. And Vista Ultimate. I was hoping this purchase would last a while.
Well, from the beginning, it acted somewhat slower than the Dell machine with XP that I had.
Then the updating mechanism began to act up. Eventually it refused to update any program, including Vista, Photoshop or anything else. And finally, it threw out all the updates previously made because of one of the fixes prescribed. With increasingly more complicated fixes coming from Microsoft technicians by mail I was learning more about my machine that I wanted to know.
All these fixes failed, and now I am faced with performing a "clean install" of the Vista operating system. Of course I don't know how to do this - so when a friend has time, it'll get done.
Meantime, my machine crashes periodically on, naturally, an uscheduled basis.
Dell? Oh, yes. "It's a software problem. Sorry, we only fix hardware problems."
Frankly, for me CS3 ran a lot better on XP. Maybe when the first upgrade comes out for Vista it'll be a better buy.
(sigh, it's still better than pencil and paper...)
:))
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 11:26:23 AM · #25 |
I have Vista 64 on a two year old Athlon X2 3800+ and dual 7800GTs. I started with 2GB RAM and now have 3GB RAM. (Vista performance score 4.8)
There are some kinks with x64 bits – the occasional bit of software that just won’t run, including (weirdly) the later versions of RealPlayer (last time I checked it was possible to run an older version but not the latest version of this program). However, with computer equipment less than 2 or so years old, there should be few hardware/driver issues. I got it on the assumption that we will all make the jump at some point and I might as well get used to it – the 3.5/4GB RAM limit will drive everyone to 64 bit computing very soon, I suspect. Some programs have a 64 bit mode that might take advantage of the extra bits (eg Half Life 2) – though what those might be is beyond me.
I did not notice a huge change in 2GB to 3GB RAM performance, except in CS3 where working with large multi-layer image hugely benefit from the extra memory.
I quite like most of the changes to Vista, but have not rushed to upgrade my laptops. Networking support in Vista is superb in comparison to XP if that is an issue.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/28/2025 10:28:45 PM EST.
