Vista 64 bit - insight? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/05/2009 05:41:16 PM · #1

I'm thinking about buying a new desktop computer. Mostly I'm looking for more speed/power, so I can have several photo applications running at once, with multiple images open. Something along the lines of: DNG converter, Bridge, PSCS3, NeatImage, and Chrome all running.

I'm interested in Dell desktops. The fastest processor/RAM options all use the 64-bit version of Vista. I understand to some degree the technical difference between 32 and 64 bits, but I don't have any experience in how they actually function.

If i get a 64 bit system, will my software all still work? Or will I end up doing a lot of extra futzing to make things run smoothly?

Input would be much appreciated - and please don't tell me to get an Apple, because that won't happen :-)

justine

Canon EOS-50D

05/05/2009 06:18:04 PM · #2

Just passing on what little I know. I'm not a techie so this isn't THE word.

I had the same concerns as you. I Started here:
All my software worked. They will tell you some won't I guess I was just lucky.
Good luck.

BrianM

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85 (Lumix DMC-G80)

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/05/2009 06:33:23 PM · #3

I've been running Vista 64 at work for a while. The only problem I have noticed is that a lot of printers and scanners do not have drivers for Vista 64. I would recommend verifying that your printer and other peripherals have 64bit drivers.

05/05/2009 06:54:03 PM · #4

Hope you don't object to a copy-n-paste answer that I gave someone else just a couple of days ago in another thread:

The technical difference between 32 and 64 bit OS's is the number of parallel bits that can be processed at once and the amount of ram it can address. What this means is that a 32 bit OS with 4 Gb of memory can only address a little over 3 GB of it. Not a huge problem right now, but it will be in the near future as applications and data files become larger. 64 bits increases the address space so you can install more memory and be able to utilize it.

From a compatibility standpoint, applications that are optimized for 64 bit environments will run more efficiently, but old applications will run in a 32 bit compatibility mode and the user will likely not perceive or know any difference. The big issue is with device drivers, which DO need to have 64 bit drivers, as they run at a more fundamental system level. If you have any older peripherals, you will want to check the manufacturers web site to see if they 64 bit drivers. Most recent product are now shipping with 64 bit and 32 bit drivers included. One additional note is that most Vista drivers will also work for Windows 7, the next version of Windows, currently in public beta testing..

This driver thing is a problem for me sometimes at work. Now that people are beginning to transition to 64 bits, I sometimes get requests for 64 bit printer drivers for a printer that is 5 years old or more. There will not be 64 bit drivers made for many of the older products and the best I can do is to offer a workaround that will at least get them basic printing functionality.

Microsoft has been making 64 bit versions of windows for a few years now. I believe that with Windows 7 we will see the transition finally happen and the 64 bit version will be the one that is going to be the most common. (JMO)

05/05/2009 06:56:08 PM · #5

I was very concerned about the switch to 64 bits, but I'm delighted with the result. All my hardware works fine.

The only software that's given me any trouble, and I use A LOT of different software, is Quicken. It has problems with the printer under Vista 64, especially a network printer. And I run a lot of VERY old software too--like Ecco, which is from the earliest days of Win32. I run command line shells like 4NT, and that works fine too. I've literally run more than a hundred different older Win32 programs on Vista64 already, and they all run fine. Note however, that I don't run games, so that's not an area I'm talking about.

There was at least a history of some applications not working properly in Vista; I know a little utility I had for password management wouldn't work, but while they could have fixed it, they elected to only do so in the paid version. And before I had forked out for that, I actually found a better password manager (KeePass).

So if you run something "critical", it couldn't hurt to make sure it's Vista compatible.

There's one main thing you should know about the 64 bit version of Vista...Nikon and Canon are dragging their feet in making the 64 bit Codec plugins to Windows Explorer that allow thumbnails to be viewed from Explorer. Bridge and LR etc. still work, so it's only an issue for the Explorer 64 file manager. If you use Explorer32 instead you can get around this. Or you can buy a third party plugin: //www.ardfry.com/

By the way, I often buy Dell Precision Workstations, but this past October I bought the HP Pavillion Elite D5000 ATX PC, with 6GB memory and an Intel quad processor (Q9400), with a TV tuner (which has turned out to be great as a DVR), and an NVIDIA9500GS for around $1200, which is probably the least I've ever paid for a PC (I only bought a 500GB hard drive though and added more myself). I highly recommend this particular PC. It's quiet, fast, has better expandability than the low end HPs, and for all that, was incredibly cheap.

05/05/2009 06:59:26 PM · #6

Thanks all!

Yo_Spiff and

nshapiro, thanks for the insight. I'm much less nervous about the prospects of a 64 bit system now. My hardware peripherals are all current, and most of the software I'm concerned with appears to be okay. Since I don't know much about this facet, it's comforting to hear some real-world experience.

Now my dilemma is, do I order it with Vista (which I've always liked) or do I wait for Windows 7 to appear. I think I'm leaning toward the instant gratification and will order it with Vista.

05/05/2009 07:22:55 PM · #7

Originally posted by OdysseyF22:

Thanks all!

Yo_Spiff and nshapiro, thanks for the insight. I'm much less nervous about the prospects of a 64 bit system now. My hardware peripherals are all current, and most of the software I'm concerned with appears to be okay. Since I don't know much about this facet, it's comforting to hear some real-world experience.

Now my dilemma is, do I order it with Vista (which I've always liked) or do I wait for Windows 7 to appear. I think I'm leaning toward the instant gratification and will order it with Vista.

If you are planning to upgrade to Windows 7, you might want to make sure whichever processor you pick supports virtualization. That means Intel VT or AMD-V. I'm not sure that will be important in the end for a home user, but you might as well leave the door open! See //blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=946 for a discussion.

It really only matters if you plan to run XP mode or the Microsoft Virtual PC app under Windows 7.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/05/2009 07:28:28 PM · #8

Originally posted by OdysseyF22:

Now my dilemma is, do I order it with Vista (which I've always liked) or do I wait for Windows 7 to appear. I think I'm leaning toward the instant gratification and will order it with Vista.

I put 32 bit Vista on my new system, but will likely go to 64 bit when Windows 7 releases. I may install the release candidate and use that instead of Vista for a while.

BTW, check your e-mail for a submission I sent you last week.

Message edited by author 2009-05-05 19:29:03.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

05/05/2009 07:45:50 PM · #9

One bit of warning, the 64 bit version of Lightroom 2 can not burn disks, the people who write that bit of code for Adobe haven't written it yet, so you have to let Windows do the burning. The RAW viewer that is supposed to allow you to browse RAW files in Windows file viewer is a horrible kludge, which works if you remember to load it just right each time you use it. There are a few annoying workarounds like these, 64 bit is nice but not everyone is on board yet, which is frustrating since windows has been talking about going 64 bit for years.

Message edited by author 2009-05-05 19:47:15.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/05/2009 07:52:55 PM · #10

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

That doesn't sound like it should impact me too much. I use Windows to do all my disk burning anyway, and I only use Bridge for file viewing, etc. I hear great things about Lightroom, but I haven't justified playing with it yet :-)

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

05/05/2009 09:24:36 PM · #11

If you can avoid it or wait until 7 is in prod I think that is better. I recently got a new machine & went for Vista-64..... It's marginal in performance considering how much larger this machine is from the last one it's just not that much faster in responses. I had a few hassles with drivers... My biggest issue was with my Nikon film scanner - just pathetic as there are zip drivers (hint: Install vuescan instead as it's got it's own 64bit drivers).

IMO they made windows more confusing by trying to put a lip stick on a pig... The areo interface looks ok but it hides the options that used to be in XP and when you find them they are identical. I will probably go back to the pig interface and turn off areo but wanted to give it a bit of time.... there was point I thought I would keep it but not lately.

I had issues moving from outlook express to mail and they might as well be identical, so not sure why the conversion was such a pain.

The way it handles networks drives is different and annoying at first.

I have had more crashes from software since I owned this then over the life of my prev XP box. Most annoyingly... firefox is completely unstable on this box - it gos all gray at the drop of a hat (vista wy of saying it's hanging).

Searching for files is incomprehensible... Just a pathetic interface for doing what google desktop does easily.

Otherwise it's a meh sort of "upgrade"... not sure what they spent all that time on to be honest.

Message edited by author 2009-05-05 21:25:44.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/05/2009 09:46:45 PM · #12

Originally posted by robs:

I will probably go back to the pig interface and turn off areo but wanted to give it a bit of time.... there was point I thought I would keep it but not lately.

I tried aero for a couple of days until it drove me nuts. I like simple and efficient. Some people think I am still running Windows 98.

Originally posted by robs:

I had issues moving from outlook express to mail and they might as well be identical, so not sure why the conversion was such a pain.

Mozilla Thunderbird

Originally posted by robs:

I have had more crashes from software since I owned this then over the life of my prev XP box. Most annoyingly... firefox is completely unstable on this box - it gos all gray at the drop of a hat (vista wy of saying it's hanging).

No problems at all with FF on Vista over here (32 bit version).

Originally posted by robs:

Searching for files is incomprehensible... Just a pathetic interface for doing what google desktop does easily.

Again, the interface is a little different, but no problems. I usually know where my files are.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

05/05/2009 10:02:57 PM · #13

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Mozilla Thunderbird

Yeah - I use that for one of my email accounts but I just don't like the interface. I have yet to find a good client side email program that I like. I used OE because the interface was at least cleaner but it's pretty bad for functionality and the odd thing like filters that just don't quite work as I want.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/05/2009 10:16:50 PM · #14

In addition to what others have said here, if you're using Photoshop you may have to stick with the 32 bit version because most plugins are not yet available in 64 bit. I have CS4 and it installed both the 64 and 32 bit version in different directories automatically. I've been using the 32 bit version exclusively for a few months and while I cannot access all my RAM, I haven't had any performance issues.

Tajhad

Canon EOS R

Canon RF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM

05/06/2009 08:49:39 AM · #15

Odyssey - sorry I don't mean to hijack your thread but I have a few questions about 64 bit as well. Was going to start a new thread but thought it might be better if they were answered here.
As I understand it - all older programs will run on 64 bit (but at the lower 32 bit speed). Also anything plugged into the computer itself needs 64 bit drivers (which I can get for my printer, scanner etc) but what about going through a network ?
Does a modem / router requirer 64 bit drivers or is it immaterial ? Also what about a printer thats hanging off a XP machine (accessed through a router) ?
Would it work sending a print job from a 64 bit laptop via the router to a printer attached to a 32 bit XP machine ? Would you need to install the 64 bit drivers on the laptop even through it's going through a 32 bit machine? Or would the whole thing just be not possible ?

With anyone buying a machine at the moment (and the new windows going 64 bit and due for release soon) I would imagine it makes sense to go for the 64 bit but am unsure. I would not be inclined to install a new OS in a years time - I tend to only change operating systems when I change computers. Therefore, I don't know whether it would be wise to go with a 64 bit OS now (with a new laptop) or wait another 3 years when I replace this machine.

Also I could never understand, that if a 32 bit OS could only ever see 3G of RAM - why is that people always recommended putting more RAM into the system to make things work better (I have heard of people running 8G of RAM in older versions of Photoshop). It seems that this would be pointless (or am I wrong?).

05/06/2009 09:30:44 AM · #16

Originally posted by Tajhad:

Does a modem / router requirer 64 bit drivers or is it immaterial ?

Immaterial. Probably. You only need to be concerned about the device drivers that are actually running on the computer in question. Only if the modem requires a device driver to be installed will you need a driver. If you are talking about a router or cable/DSL modem that is out on the network, then no driver is needed. If you are talking about a modem that is in the computer, or directly connected as a device to that computers serial port, then you would need a driver.

Originally posted by Tajhad:

Also what about a printer that's hanging off a XP machine (accessed through a router) ?
Would it work sending a print job from a 64 bit laptop via the router to a printer attached to a 32 bit XP machine ? Would you need to install the 64 bit drivers on the laptop even through it's going through a 32 bit machine? Or would the whole thing just be not possible ?

The 64 bit computer will need a 64 bit print driver installed. Once the print job leaves the computer, gettingpassed to the other computer, it is a PCL or PostScript data stream and the 32/64 bit thing does not matter.

Originally posted by Tajhad:

Also I could never understand, that if a 32 bit OS could only ever see 3G of RAM - why is that people always recommended putting more RAM into the system to make things work better (I have heard of people running 8G of RAM in older versions of Photoshop). It seems that this would be pointless (or am I wrong?).

You are correct. It always makes sense to add more ram, but when you reach the limitation of what your OS can access, there is no point. The 32 bit OS ram limitation was not an issue until recently. This is the main reason for the shift to 64 bits. At one time PC's were limited to only 640K (Yes, that's Kilobytes) of memory it could access with a 16 bit operating system. That was under MS-DOS. Then Windows came along with a 32 bit OS and removed the limit. For a few years.

Originally posted by Tajhad:

why is that people always recommended putting more RAM into the system to make things work better (I have heard of people running 8G of RAM in older versions of Photoshop).

Some applications have methods of swapping out the address space they are writing to, in order to access more ram. I am not sure if Photoshop can do this or not, but it may. In the days of MS-DOS, there were some windowing environments, including early versions of windows, that did similar tricks in order to access more ram than the underlying operating system could really see.

BTW,on a related note, Windows was not really an operating system until Windows NT and 2000. Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, and ME all ran on top of a core of MS-/DOS. The later ones were labeled as an "Operating System" but technically they were really an operating environment that ran on top of DOS.

Message edited by author 2009-05-06 09:39:08.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

05/06/2009 10:08:11 AM · #17

As far as CD burning, I can also happily report that Nero 7.11 (latest build of that, offhand I think it's like 7.11.10) works fine in Vista64. As does Nero Backitup, which is a nice little program for backing up a large folder to multiple DVDs.

However, since Ahead software has gone the way of the bloated pig for later versions of Nero, I actually transitioned to the software HP supplied me for free with my PC--Power2Go from Cyberlink.

Not only does that cover most of the main features for Nero, it included a wonderful video editor--cyberlink Powerdirector. I thought I was going to need to keep my Mac to use iMovie, but Cyberlink Powerdirector actually works better and supports more input formats (including importing and editing MPEG movies).

Message edited by author 2009-05-06 15:23:14.

justamistere

Nikon D3s

05/06/2009 11:37:29 AM · #18

Thanks for the info. I recently converted to Vista-64/CS4/Lightroom. I built a machine with these specs. 12GB RAM and Intel i7-965 Extreme CPU, ASUS MB, V8-Cooler, CoolMaster Case, Enermax 750w power supply, WD Velociraptor 10,000rpm HDs for the Vista O/S. For Still picture/image editing I think that one Video card is sufficient, so I only got one 896 MB card and don't think the SLI/Crossfire technology will help.

Even for rendering video a fast CPU is helpful. I also hate the annoyances of Vista's security features, they should be left to 3rd party software, like Norton. The visual interface does not impress me, that's not as important to me. It seems to be quite automatic, so far, in installations, even IE-8 works. I have noticed a great improvement in speed over XP, but it needs all the high end peripherals to match. Luckily, at least RAM was only $149-199 for 6GB.

Using Adobe Bridge, it created all my largest size thumbnails for about 350 .JPG/.NEF pairs of files in 60 seconds (Data on 750k-RPM HD). Afterwards when I scrolled from beginning to end I didn't have to wait for any to focus. LightRoom, still has to render each thumbnail. I will set it to create thumbnail files locally in each folder.

dd1989

Fujifilm x100

05/06/2009 02:01:08 PM · #19

I'll just give my own little bits of advice.

My laptop came with an OEM install of Vista 32 bit Premium when I bought it a few years ago, I was lucky enough to be one of the first to have a laptop with a Core 2 Duo when they first came out, but I didn't really think about 64 bit much.

Eventually though I *sourced* a copy of XP 64 bit and it ran like a dream, it was completely smooth, XP obviously has the widest compatability of all MS operating systems. Everything just *works* on XP flawlessley.

I then however (foolishly) bought Vista 64 bit Ultimate - luckily I didn't have to pay full price as students get a very good deal (I got it for around £50!!!).

It was awful compared to XP 64, absolutely bloody awful.

I stuck at it for the simple reason I had paid for it! If I had downloaded it from a dodgy website I wouldn't have given it two thoughts about going back to XP.

I've been using Windows 7 from the moment I could get my hands on it, and the bottom line is that it makes Vista look like one giant mistake in every possible way. Windows 7 is everything Vista ought to have been. Faster than XP, efficient, intuitive and most of all it works how you expect things to work (I think Bill had been using an Apple or something!).

So, the bottom line is, if you don't mind using a release candidate version of windows, then get on the MS website and download Windows 7, the license expires in June 2010.

If not, then get back to XP.

Vista is horrid, absolutely horrid.

05/06/2009 03:03:24 PM · #20

Originally posted by dd1989:

...Vista is horrid, absolutely horrid.

I've been hearing people say this since Vista came out, yet I cannot for the life of me figure out why. I run Vista on two machines and have never had any more trouble with it than I've had with any other OS. It has a few quirks, but so do all systems.

I'm on the other side - I'm not convinced that Windows 7 is anything more than a Vista redesign to overcome the lousy stigma Vista somehow got. Definitely could be wrong here, but I have my suspicions.

Does anyone know when 7 will become a purchase option on new systems?

05/06/2009 03:32:14 PM · #21

Originally posted by OdysseyF22:

Originally posted by dd1989:
...Vista is horrid, absolutely horrid.

I've been hearing people say this since Vista came out, yet I cannot for the life of me figure out why. I run Vista on two machines and have never had any more trouble with it than I've had with any other OS. It has a few quirks, but so do all systems.

I'm on the other side - I'm not convinced that Windows 7 is anything more than a Vista redesign to overcome the lousy stigma Vista somehow got. Definitely could be wrong here, but I have my suspicions.

Does anyone know when 7 will become a purchase option on new systems?

I never thought XP was much of an improvement on Windows 2000. I still run 2000 on one of my machines, and when I had the Mac, I used it as my virtual PC OS. (There were a couple of apps though that didn't want to run on 2000).

On the other hand, Vista's been very good to me. I don't really care about Aero per se, but it's been very reliable, and if you know how to tweak it a bit (set it to non-verbose), you get better security without the hassles. One thing I've read about Windows 7 versus Vista is that Microsoft basically caved on the security and took a step backwards.

I'll also confess that I think Windows Media Center (new in Vista I believe) is better than sliced toast. Last night I used my laptop plugged into a 32" TV and watched a show I recorded on my desktop using Windows Media Center over a wireless connection on my network while I exercised. Worked great. So now I realize I can record any show using the built in program guide on the internet (that works like TIVO but its free), and pipe it upstairs to the exercise room flawlessly. I even was able to take the remote control/USB interface I got with my desktop and I just plugged it into my laptop (which has Vista 32), and it controlled Media Center without any driver/software installation or tweaking. Awesome!