PDA

View Full Version : LW9.2 and Vista



djmm62
07-07-2007, 05:43 AM
Hi Folks
Is there anyone out there running LW9.2 on Vista and if so is it going OK?
Version 9 seemed to go allright for me but having all sorts of trouble with 9.2.
Is it vista? is it 9.2? is it my geforce 7900Gt card drivers.
Please does anyone have any info or opinions,
Please talk to me

Neo Sharkey
07-07-2007, 12:19 PM
I'm running 9.2 on Vista. I installed Vista on a Lenovo T60 that I was using previous with XP.

Under XP, performance was pretty good. However, once I moved to Vista the performance dropped. Specifically, screen refreshes & updates took long several seconds to complete when I was working on a large object.

In short, if you are running XP now, I would stay with it. If you got a new machine with Vista on it, it may not be worth the hassle to install XP.

Vista looks prettier, but it feels wrong. Things have been moved for no logical reason, Explorer crashes far too often, and while doing things as simple as a file copy. Vista may get better at SP1, but right now its not ready for prime time. I really get the feeling that they had to release it when they did, because it really feels like a beta.

Apriori
07-07-2007, 11:56 PM
I too was having no problems with Vista up to yesterday. I had no problems with speed and can’t remember a single incident since installing on my new Vista laptop.

Since yesterday Modeler keeps crashing. Every time I do an undo, it crashes to desktop. Boolean operations also crash to desktop. At the moment Lightwave is unusable.

I have tried reinstalling without any change. I have tried running in XP emulation and it still crashes.

I can only think that some windows update has caused this.

Sekhar
07-08-2007, 12:52 AM
I'm also running LW 9.2 32bit and 64bit on Vista Ultimate 64bit without any issues I can see. Performance is excellent.

Apriori
07-08-2007, 11:01 PM
You say you did a reinstall. But did you make sure to wipe all .cfg files?

One of the first thinks I tried was checking out the config files.

I have since tracked down and fixed the problem. I had upgraded my graphics card drivers. Reverting to the older drivers seems to have fixed the problem.

The problem was with 'atioglxx.dll'.

It became obvious what the problem was when I looked deeper into the Vista problem reporting. I am starting to like Vista.

oDDity
07-09-2007, 02:18 AM
What are the actual and tangible benefits of moving from XP to Vista (if you're not interested in the bit of extra eye candy DX10 might give in games)

sammael
07-09-2007, 03:29 AM
What are the actual and tangible benefits of moving from XP to Vista (if you're not interested in the bit of extra eye candy DX10 might give in games)

For me Vista has been a lot more reliable than XP so far, I have lost count of how many times I had to reinstall XP for various reasons. Thats one of the major reasons I upgraded and so far it seems worth it in that sense. I was sick to death of seeing the 'Installing Windows for the first time' text in the xp setup even though it was the 20th or so time.

I have one issue, that I can not utilise my 4gb of ram. I have to set it in the bios to 3.2gb otherwise I get display and stability issues I have narrowed this down to a driver issue with my video card. This is one MAJOR disappointment I have with it but I think its more Nvidia drivers than Vista.

Im not sure about all the technical details but you would hope that MS has added some other software upgrades appart from dx10.

For me Vista has not crashed once but app crashes are about the same as ever. In terms of LW I can render more complex scenes due to the 64bit factor even when I only had the 2gb that I was using in XP.

It looks better and I like the changes made to explorer as well, if you have no issues with XP though I dont realy think its a nescesary upgrade yet all you'll get is a slight performance hit which no doubt would increase with older hardware. There are still some driver issues and realistically its probably better to wait a few more months yet unless you are using the very latest hardware imo.

Apriori
07-09-2007, 04:44 AM
I have been using Vista on my laptop system for just over a month and, so far, had no problems with it. All the programs I have mounted so far run without problems (once you either disable UAC or configure shortcuts to run as administrator). I have had no blue screens or freezes etc. The problem I had above was a compatibility issue between Lightwave and ATI OpenGL (ATI seem to be well known for poor OpenGL support).

I have heard complaints about the speed but I can’t comment as the only system that uses Vista came with it already installed, hence I can’t compare it with a previous XP installation.

As for “…tangible benefits …”, I haven’t found any beyond a sort of ‘tighter’ feel to it. If you have no issues with XP I don’t really see the need to change, I am still running XP on my desktops.

sammael
07-09-2007, 08:52 AM
Sammael: Do you mean that you're running Vista 64-bit and can't utilize your 4Gb due to system instability?

Yep, I spent 2 days trying to solve the problem but I have put it down to driver issues, Im prety sure its the video card drivers (quadro fx 3400) which are still in beta stage and thats what becomes unstable realy, any app that depends on the video card tends to crash and there are general display artifacts and errors even when browsing the net, limit the memory to 3.2gb and its fine. It may also be the bios but I have updated to the latest beta bios and no cigar. I also installed the patch that is supposed to fix some common 4gb issue but that did not help either.

oDDity
07-09-2007, 09:53 AM
AMD processors have 64 bit on the tin, but I'm getting an Intel quad core. Intel don't even mention 64 bit. Do they work with 64 bit OSes, and does it mean I can have more than 4 gigs of RAM with it? The motherboard I'm getting can hold 8.
Also, do you need 64 bit applications to run on a 64 bit OS/hardware, or will 32 bit apps still run on it.
Why is it preferential to have Vista with new hardware?
[email protected] getting 4 gigs and an Nvidia card as well, so I don't like the sound of that bug, and Vista also has problems with Nvidia cards in combination with the WD 10,000 RPM drives which I'm also getting.
There is a 64 bit version of XP anyway isn't there?

Andyjaggy
07-09-2007, 09:59 AM
AMD processors have 64 bit on the tin, but I'm getting an Intel quad core. Intel don't even mention 64 bit. Do they work with 64 bit OSes, and does it mean I can have more than 4 gigs of RAM with it? The motherboard I'm getting can hold 8.
Also, do you need 64 bit applications to run on a 64 bit OS/hardware, or will 32 bit apps still run on it.
Why is it preferential to have Vista with new hardware?
[email protected] getting 4 gigs and an Nvidia card as well, so I don't like the sound of that bug, and Vista also has problems with Nvidia cards in combination with the WD 10,000 RPM drives which I'm also getting.
There is a 64 bit version of XP anyway isn't there?

Yes the Intel quad cores are 64 bit, and yes there is a 64 bit version of XP. It still seems like many prefer it over Vista.

oDDity
07-09-2007, 11:33 AM
I was reading this article (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/06/25/wd-raptor-nvidia-g80-dont-play-nice-with-vista/) about the WD1500ADFD and Nvidia graphics causing bugs in Vista.

It just seems to me that there aren't a lot of real benefits in Vista other than it's now the OS that MS is pushing, though I'll probably end up going with Vista Ultimate 64 so I can get more RAM. There never seems to be enough.
I was also trying to decide between getting a quadro card, or a 8800GTX. I decided that the GTX is probably the best multi-purpose card.
I'm getting the Asus P5B Deluxe motherboard.
I'm also trying to decide between getting two 75 gig 10k raptors for a RAID, or just one 150 gig. I know the 75's are slightly faster, so 2 of those would be very fast, but RAID can be unstable and a general pain in the ***.

Like most people, I only start reading up about hardware when it's time to buy a new computer, and things seem to move forward quite quickly.

oDDity
07-09-2007, 12:09 PM
So are you getting 20k read and write speeds, and does it make much real world difference from 10k, or 7200?

Andyjaggy
07-09-2007, 12:25 PM
As Andy said, yes the Intel Core 2 processors (duo/quad) are fully 64-bit capable.

If you use the pro versions of Vista 64-bit or XP Pro 64-bit you can have as much RAM as you can possibly afford :) 128+ Gb RAM (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx)

It's not preferable to have Vista with new hardware, but the other way around :) Older hardware seems to = crash country.

I dual boot Vista Ultimate 32-bit (3Gb RAM available - 2Gb per application limit) and Vista Ultimate 64-bit (No RAM limit per 64-bit application, other than your physical memory (Still 2Gb limit for 32-bit applications running under Vista 64-bit).

I don't have problems with the Vista + nVidia card + 10k RPM drives. But I don't use a Quadro, as frankly I see no reason to. The 8800 GTS I have, has plenty of memory and is blazingly fast in OGL performance.

It also seems to me that there are more people with graphics driver issues under XP 64-bit, than under Vista, in general. Something I don't see getting better for the XP 64-bit users as time progresses. After all Windows XP 64-bit is now an outdated niche platform (not very wide spread at all) and MS has stopped shipping it, or so it appears, as I had a copy in back order for a few months before canceling and getting Vista 64-bit instead. Something I don't regret for a second, seeing as it's perfectly stable and smooth running.
As a future platform, I don't put much faith in XP pro 64-bit. I just don't think it will be very well supported.

Any memory related issues with 4+Gb are most probably due to the nForce shipsets. I don't see you as a SLI kinda guy, so I'd definitely go the Intel chipset route (I actually did after being warned about these very issues). The board in my signature is rock solid and supports any current socket 775 processors, even the new 1333FSB ones. Dual core, Quad core... anything non-Xeon from Intel. This board has no issues when you fill up all the RAM banks, unlike many nForce chipset based boards, that require a lot of tweaking in some cases.

Yes avoid the nforce chipset. I didn't do my research and got one. Now I am having nightmares getting a stable system with more then 2 gigs of ram.

oDDity
07-09-2007, 04:15 PM
Lol, yes, quite a difference.

sammael
07-16-2007, 07:34 AM
Hey neverko just curious, is your machine fine overclocked to 3ghz with 4gb ram installed? I heard about some issues thats all.
I still have not solved my 4gb problem but with 3.2gb operational I can overclock to 3.2ghz. The problem I heard about was to do with overclocking with 4 sticks installed (which I have and there seems to be no problem).

sammael
07-16-2007, 07:44 AM
Just as a comparison heres my Performance test results with 2 standard sata II seagate drives in raid 0
I should have gone with the WD raptor as I had planned :( I might get a couple since theyre cheap.

Radiance
12-05-2007, 09:06 AM
Hi guys, about the not-getting-my-4GB issue:

A 32-bit operating system cannot address more than 3.2 GB of memory. This is all memory, including the memory on your videocard.
If you want to go beyond this memory-addressing maximum, you must use a 64 bit operating system.
So this 3.2 GB ceiling is not any fault of chipsets, drivers, CPUs and such. It's the limitation of a 32 bit OS.