PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on upgrading to Windows Vista



wtdedula
07-16-2007, 09:28 AM
Hello All;
What is the general consensus on whether to upgrade to Vista or to wait a little while longer. I am running Lightwave 9, Will run the New VT5, plus a lots of other video and graphic editing, and productivity software. By now, do most applications support Vista ? Are folks who are running it find it to be buggy ? Do you find that you can't do something that you used to do on XP ?

I just got a new 64-bit workstaton (A P5WDG2 WS Professional board) with 4 GB Ram and find that I can't utilize all of it until I either get Vista or the 64 bit version of XP. Currently, I have XP Professional Installed.

Would you suggest I switch to Vista now, or wait a bit ?

Thanks.

Tim

Bytehawk
07-16-2007, 09:36 AM
if you want to be one of the first to jump into these waters, please do and tell us your experience.

I will wait and see until everyone says they don't have problems anymore. I just don't need nuisances like that. :)

rqe3bc
07-17-2007, 01:33 PM
I'm running Vista Home Premium 32-bit - Lightwave 9.x runs fine with the Hub disabled. Crashes (locks up the entire computer) when enabled.

I also just discovered that the driver for my soundcard does not have a mixer so I cannot record anything from the soundcard. Since I write my own soundtracks this is a real pain because I have to do all the sound on an XP computer. So I just have to cross my fingers and hope that someday the manufacturer will include this in the driver.

I have an Nvidia card and even with the latest drivers I don't get OpenGL so in some of my programs that use OpenGL all I get is a black box with no texturing, transparencies, etc.

Another Vista "feature" that just started is my Recycle Bin empties itself every 20 minutes and I cannot find a way to shut this off as there is nothing in the properties or help file that addresses this issue.

If I could dump this Vista OS I would - nothing but problems even with all the "features" disabled. Unfortunately, I found out that if I install XP it will void my warranty.

mattclary
07-17-2007, 01:55 PM
Long term, you will probably get more life out of Vista. I run XP64 and have had no issues getting drivers and such, but who knows how that will goo in a year or two?

In the short term, I would say go with XP64, as Vista offers no real advantage other than a pretty GUI.

Sekhar
07-17-2007, 01:58 PM
I've had good experience with Vista (4 months now), in fact I love it. Mine is Vista 64 bit on Dell Precision 390 (I guess Dell made sure the HW is 100% compatible).

WRT LW, no problems I can attribute to Vista. I run both LW 64 bit and 32 bit without issues. My graphics card is el cheapo (Quadro FX550), but works fine with the latest nVidia drivers.

My biggest issue with the OS so far has been with support for HW (lack of drivers), but that is more to do with it being 64 bit - most vendors are offering full support for Vista 32 bit. Since you're considering 64 bit, driver issue is something to keep in mind.

I've also had trouble with disk access (with QuickTime like Neverko mentioned and with Flash 8 Pro), but these issues are apparently with me using a RAID system. Also, Flash 8 predates Vista and is NOT certified, so can't blame either vendor.

My overall experience has been great, it's a pleasure to use the OS; so, unless you have to support legacy HW/SW, I'd very strongly recommend upgrading, since Vista (and 64 bit) is the future.

SBowie
07-17-2007, 02:51 PM
My biggest issue with the OS so far has been with support for HW (lack of drivers), but that is more to do with it being 64 bit - most vendors are offering full support for Vista 32 bit.Examples?

Matt
07-17-2007, 03:56 PM
Can you run 32bit apps in Vista 64bit? If so, do they run slower? Or do all your apps / drivers HAVE to 64bit?

DogBoy
07-17-2007, 04:02 PM
Examples?
My printer and scanner aren't supported, as Canon don't make "professional drivers for consumer products" :twak:

64bit is a pain for drivers, be it XP64 or Vista64. Core drivers are fine though (vid cards, motherboards and most sound cards/chips)

Matt, 32bit apps run fine on the whole, it is more the drivers that cause an annoyance.

Sekhar
07-17-2007, 04:37 PM
Examples?
In my case my scanner Epson Perfection 2450 wouldn't work. Epson did have 32 bit drivers for Vista, but not 64 bit. And Epson support said they had no plans to release one for 64 bit. After a LOT of Googling, I managed to find a workaround with a 64 bit Epson driver meant for ANOTHER scanner on ANOTHER OS - I would never have guessed. Anyway, my scanner works now.

Another example is the Intel webcam I had, which had no drivers for the new OS; but hey it's just a webcam, so I had no problem chucking it and getting a new one from Microsoft.

I also had trouble with my external Western Digital 500GB Firewire/USB drive: the Firewire wouldn't work. However USB worked, so I switched to that, no biggie.

Also, my old Spyder (color calibration) wouldn't work; so I had to upgrade to the new Spyder2PRO. I guess the new one is better, but I was a bit annoyed that I had to dump the perfectly working old one.

All in all, I'm expecting new HW (especially pro stuff) to be increasingly compatible; but with the 64 bit OS, it's not something you can take for granted - you'll have to double check every time you buy HW.

jasonwestmas
07-17-2007, 05:32 PM
All my 64-bit programs work great on Windows Vista 64. My 32 bit apps run good too. I can't compare because my 64 bit computer has a faster CPU than my 32-bit computer anyway.

dweinkauf
07-17-2007, 05:46 PM
I just upgraded my 6-year old workstation with a new motherboard, dual-core processors, video card, RAM and a dual-boot (32 + 64 bit) OS. My scanner is about 8 years old and works better than an all-in-one copier/scanner/fax I purchased a year ago. I decided against Vista because I haven't got the time to deal with driver and component issues. As I understand it, Vista requires a very high standard for components and I neither have the money to replace my older components and equipment nor the time to deal with the problems of keeping the old ones running with Vista. My upgraded system really works well and will for some time to come.

Sekhar
07-17-2007, 05:49 PM
All my 64-bit programs work great on Windows Vista 64. My 32 bit apps run good too. I can't compare because my 64 bit computer has a faster CPU than my 32-bit computer anyway.
Windows uses a layer called WOW64 to run 32 bit apps seamlessly. I.e., 32 bits apps will think they're running on a 32 bit OS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOW64 for more.

Also, there's apparently little penalty for the 32 bit apps having to go through this extra layer. E.g., see http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1857480,00.asp.

Tom Wood
07-17-2007, 06:11 PM
QuickTime has a major bug with Vista and RAID setups. Until it's fixed you can run your .mov files from a non RAID disk or use VLC player.

I depend heavily on both QuicktimePro and my RAID drive.


I'm running Vista Home Premium 32-bit - Lightwave 9.x runs fine with the Hub disabled. Crashes (locks up the entire computer) when enabled.

I need the HUB to run properly.


I also just discovered that the driver for my soundcard does not have a mixer so I cannot record anything from the soundcard.

My soundcard doesn't have a mixer, nor does WaveLab, my sound application of choice.


I have an Nvidia card and even with the latest drivers I don't get OpenGL so in some of my programs that use OpenGL all I get is a black box with no texturing, transparencies, etc.

I have an NVidia graphics card and I need at least some OpenGL in LightWave.


I've also had trouble with disk access (with QuickTime like Neverko mentioned and with Flash 8 Pro), but these issues are apparently with me using a RAID system. Also, Flash 8 predates Vista and is NOT certified, so can't blame either vendor.

I spent a lot of money on the Adobe WebSuite that includes, Flash 8.


I also had trouble with my external Western Digital 500GB Firewire/USB drive: the Firewire wouldn't work. However USB worked, so I switched to that, no biggie.

I depend on my Western Digital external firewire disk for rendering in order to avoid disk thrashing of my RAID.

Jeebus, this sounds like a nightmare to me. Not interested. :thumbsdow

jasonwestmas
07-17-2007, 06:36 PM
If all you want to do is take advantage of the 64-bit properties of programs like lightwave, xsi, or ZBrush3 like I do then Vista is nice to play with. More specialized plugins/features/utilities might not have the support yet I guess. For example, my utilities for my MSI SLI board is only half supported by vista/64. But hey,you don't need that to render ;)

lots
07-17-2007, 09:49 PM
I wouldn't bother with Vista. I probably wont touch the OS until its mainstream, and has had an SP or two under its belt (and a good collection of DX10 games).

Anything that Vista tries to offer, is better done elsewhere on other OSs (things that I find useful that is :P). Honestly the only reason I run windows is for games and LW :P I'm pretty much 100% linux otherwise..

LW_Will
07-17-2007, 10:02 PM
...don't.

sammael
07-17-2007, 11:49 PM
I have one hardware issue, currently I can only enable 3.2gb out of my 4gb of ram or it becomes unstable, but im sure this will be addressed in the near future with driver updates for my hardware. Appart from that Vista is rock solid here (ultimate 64). I prefer it over XP.

dballesg
07-18-2007, 12:59 AM
HI,

I just received my Vista Business Express Upgrade from DELL and installed this Monday. No hardware problems, except with my graphic card Quadro FX 2500M.

It is terrible to find updated drivers for that card, Dell ones are really old, for example, Modeler make the viewports black when I resized them, but come to normal after I release the mouse. Annoying but I can survive with it.

I am sure it is due because I upgraded the drivers with ones from Laptopvideo2Go and it will be resolved when I found new adequate ones.

Vista has caused a bit of inconvenience with the register of several programs. LightWave didn't detected the dongle until I downloaded 7.4.0 version of driver the Sentinel. No problems after that.

Speed Edit needed to be re-registered due to the change of SO. But works fine. No problems with the preview as I had on XP 64 due to graphic drivers as well.

ZBrush it is failing to start if I use it's shortcut, but runs fine if I use directly the exe and run it as an administrator.

Same with VueInfinite/xStream. You needed to run them as an administrator so they recognize the register numbers. But are working fine now.

All of that problems are due to the new protection schemes that Vista has about user accounts, I know you can deactivate those and make your life easier, but didn't found how to do it yet! :)

In general I found it more stable and faster on the same computer I had XP 64.

Best regards,
David

System Information:
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Business
Version 6.0.6000 Build 6000
CPU Type: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7600 @2.33GHz, 2333 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s)
RAM: 2.045,97 MB
Graphics Card: NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M
Display Driver Version: 158.36 Forceware

starbase1
07-18-2007, 03:08 AM
The main benefits for upgrading are generally claimed to be:

1. Improved inteface.
2. Faster search.
3. Better security.
4. Improved stability.

1. Well, the interface is already available in large part through shareware and free stuff. Persionally I am not impressed by the fancy effects.

2. Faster than what? XP's built in search is notoriously poor, again there are a wealth of free aleternatives.

3. This does appear to be a big step in the right direction, but it's not enough to rely on. You will still need 3rd partyspyware, firewall, virus scanners, (just like XP).

4. Well, I'll beleive that when I see it. MS always claim the new release is the most stable yet, and they have bnot delivered stability yet.

The down sides are:

1. Massively hungry for hardware - and how much of your hardware should be devoted to the OS rather than the actual applications?

2. Device support is at best patchy - as an absolute minum check drivers for your devices before jumping in.

3. "Trusted" computing. This means that the OS controls your access to your media. They delete files they don't think you should have, deliberately degrade video quality if they don't like the look of the drivers, and generally treat all video and audio data as something you are not allowed direct access to. Try some web searches to get a better idea. The short version is that the word "trusted" is meant to mean trusted by the RIAA, Hollywood etc, who do not trust you with 'their' media one inch. They can remotely disable player software, and generally do pretty much anything they like on 'your' computer, without your permission.

Now some people are more bothered by the last one than others, (as you can probably tell I hate it). You may decide it's not a problem for your use of the PC, particularly if you don't use it for thoise kind of things. Personally I feel it makes Vista completely unsuitable for a PC used as a media centre of any kind.

Nick

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 03:32 AM
Personally I feel it makes Vista completely unsuitable for a PC used as a media centre of any kind.
Not really, because what you mention only comes into play if you decide to actually watch DRM protected content - which, on the other hand, you can only watch on a device that is "secure" from a DRM pov (i.e. no Blueray/HD-DVD on a Mac or Linux as long as it is protected).
However, your own media and whatever you record is in no way inhibited by the DRM (unless you chose to do so).

Then again, as long as people buy DRM protected music from iTunes, why make a fuss? ;)

Back on topic... I'll get Vista 64 with the next machine, whenever that may be. I don't see a reason to update any of the existing boxes (even though the new Explorer has some spiffy new features I'd love to use).

Cheers,
Mike

starbase1
07-18-2007, 05:24 AM
You fail, like others, to realize that the Aero interface is NOT just a prettyfication. It's providing hardware accelerated windows and as such you'll notice speedier performance in a lot of applications, including LightWave, for dragging content around, resizing etc.

Don't be silly - the time spent resizing windows while working is tiny, and faster graphics can come just as easiliy from a more powerful graphics card. Which vista requires anyway.



Why would you need that. The apyware protection and firewall in Vista is perfectly adequate. Just use Avast AV and you're good to go.

By your own description you need to add to what's provided. You agree with me.



Highly exaggerated! Vista uses no more system resources than XP. I've tested and found this claim to be FALSE! It needs more CPU power to run great, but that's not a wasted resource as such. It's not using it when idling.


No, it needs more memory and in particular a better graphics card. Look at any mag that covers the requirements to upgrade. Lightwavers priobably have more memory and better graphics cards than most, so are less likely to be affected. But the minimum requirements ARE higher, particularly if you want the frills.



100% Rock solid here! Where's the problem? If you have problems don't blame Vista. Get better supported hardware or blame your driver vendors.


That makes it alright? Where ever the blame lies you can end up with hardware that worked well under XP not working under Vista. And MS have made anything that touches the audio or video path a LOT more complex to write thanks to 'trusted computing'. More complex = more expensive.



After using Vista for a few months, I'm never returning to XP. It's slow and dated in comparison.

Your choice.

I consider it a nasty bit of bloated spyware in all but name.

mattclary
07-18-2007, 07:04 AM
You fail, like others, to realize that the Aero interface is NOT just a prettyfication. It's providing hardware accelerated windows and as such you'll notice speedier performance in a lot of applications, including LightWave, for dragging content around, resizing etc.

I have a machine that I do QA testing on at work. It is using a Geforce FX 5200 video card. Very much NOT top of the line, but very good for a business machine.

Now, I use Ghost images. I have Ghosts of XP and Vista that I switch to and from, sometimes multiple times a day. I see XP and Vista back to back, on identical hardware. If I turn off all the gloss in Vista, the windowing performance is ALMOST as good as XP. And yes, I am running relatively up-to-date drivers. Maybe a few weeks old.

Maybe performance differences are more on top of the line video cards, but I have no complaints for windowing performance on XP, whereas Vista is laggy.

dweinkauf
07-18-2007, 07:57 AM
Let's see if Vista can handle this. The "fair use" provision (section 107) of the copyright law allows educators to use small sections of copyrighted material in their lectures and critiques. So that a teacher doesn't have to waste time in class trying to find that small section on the DVD that is to be critiqued, it is sometimes necessary to copy that small section of copyrighted and protected material to a digital format (i.e. MPEG) inside the computer so it can be placed on a single DVD with other short clips for a lecture. Can you please tell me how Vista will allow educators to use this legally protected provision of the copyright act.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 08:06 AM
Can you please tell me how Vista will allow educators to use this legally protected provision of the copyright act.
Does that also give treachers the right to circumvent copy protection technology such as CSS? In that case, they just need a tool to remove it and off they go, where is the problem?

Of course, it may be illegal in some countries to sell software that circumvents copy protection mechanisms.. but that ain't Vista's problem (nor is you example).

Cheers,
Mike

dweinkauf
07-18-2007, 08:18 AM
Educators can't waste their time trying to find and use software to circumvent something in an OS that is preventing them from exercising their legal right to "fair use." Are you saying that educators should use something illegal (CSS) to exercise that legal right? And, how many educators, who are often more computer illiterate than their students, would know how to do this or, again, would have the time to do it? It just makes more sense for educators to stay with XP - an OS that presents no such problems.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 08:30 AM
Educators can't waste their time trying to find and use software to circumvent something in an OS that is preventing them from exercising their legal right to "fair use." Are you saying that educators should use something illegal (CSS) to exercise that legal right? And, how many educators, who are often more computer illiterate than their students, would know how to do this or, again, would have the time to do it? It just makes more sense for educators to stay with XP - an OS that presents no such problems.
Actual, I just did a check on this. It is illegal in the US to circumvent CSS in any case, and the DCMA seems to overrule fair use as provided by the copyright law.
Basically, fair use is fine, but you aren't allowed to do something illegal (such as circumventing DRM schemes such as CSS) in the process.
And this is not related to Vista at all. All that Vista does is provide the optional DRM infrastructure - actual using that depends on the content provider (read: film studios, publishers). IF Vista wouldn't have the infrastructure - then you would be in the same sitation as OSX and Linux: You can't view/use the stuff legally.

So, you're basically complaining about a restricted environment for certain media that you have no other way to use in the first place... which was incorporated due to pressure by the copyright holders.

Mind you, I'm not a fan of DRM at all... but don't blame MS for the publishers choice to use it... blame the studios and publishers.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 08:33 AM
Educators can't waste their time trying to find and use software to circumvent something in an OS that is preventing them from exercising their legal right to "fair use."
Just to further my point (sorry for the two posts):
Any DVD player has to have a license to support CSS scrambled content. This is the same on any platform, be it by MS, Apple or open source (there is imho one commercial DVD player for Linux with a proper license). Using anything else to view CSS protected DVDs is a violation of the DMCA (or equivalent laws in other countries).

Hey, we voted for these politicians, but in '99 (or 2001 in Germany) nobody seemed to care...

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
07-18-2007, 08:37 AM
So, you turn off Aero and Vista is slower on an antiquated gfx card? Big deal.

I have both XP and Vista on my old Athlon64 with an AGP 7800GS card and Vista with Aero enabled is much snappier than XP on the same machine.

What are you trying to say with your comparison?

The point is that running Aero is better.

I thought it went without saying that Aero was even slower. Not glacial, but noticeably slower.

As I said, I am sure Vista is snappier with a high-end video card, which is exactly what Starbase1 is saying. Sure it works good, if you throw hardware at it.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 08:41 AM
As I said, I am sure Vista is snappier with a high-end video card, which is exactly what Starbase1 is saying. Sure it works good, if you throw hardware at it.
Well, W2K is a lot snappier than XP with an old, slow gfx card - and don't even mention NT 4 ;)

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
07-18-2007, 08:47 AM
Just to clarify, turning off Aero disables the 3d acceleration. You can't have Aero off and have the new accelerated windows.

If Aero is slow for you, see my earlier comments about running Vista on old hardware. A FX 5200 card doesn't even qualify as a graphics card any more, in my oppinion. It was a low end office/business card when it came out and being about lowest in the chain of pretty bad FX 5xxx series cards, doesn't help it out either.

If you know your graphics card history the FX line of cards is a black hole in nVidias otherwise excellent history :)

Well, it runs XP snappily. So I can run XP snappily on a cheap video card without an OS that decides what I can and can not watch, or I can buy newer more expensive hardware and let MS and Hollywood decide what I can do on my computer.

Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Performance really isn't even my big issue with Vista, believe it or not. It's what I consider the dumbing-down of the OS.

I hate that I can't browse my network domains anymore, all I am allowed to see is "The Network". I work for a global company with offices scttered across the planet. I know for a fact (thanks to Fister) that we have 4000+ machines on our network. You can filter machines so you only see the ones in the domain you want, but there is no guarantee that the machine in the next room is going to get populated to the list before the one in Bangalore. The list STILL populates, it just hides the ones you "don't want to see".

If I want to access info in the Documents and Settings folder, I have to physically take ownership of them (even though I am an admin). You have to run several iterations of this, as not all permissions propagate the first time or two.

mattclary
07-18-2007, 08:50 AM
Well, W2K is a lot snappier than XP with an old, slow gfx card - and don't even mention NT 4 ;)

Cheers,
Mike

What prompted me to move from 2000 to XP was when my entire OS got hosed because I improperly removed a USB device. XP has better support for that type of stuff. When it becomes apparent that Vista actually offers some better features (not just eye candy) than XP, I will move. Until then, XP serves my needs without the aggravation of Vista.

mattclary
07-18-2007, 08:52 AM
I'm no fan of DRM either, but this is totally off topic


Are you f-ing kidding me? Your choice of OS affects EVERYTHING you do on your computer. "It's the tool, not the artist", right? If the tool gives you blisters, it's not as good a tool as the one that doesn't.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 08:54 AM
Well, it runs XP snappily. So I can run XP snappily on a cheap video card without an OS that decides what I can and can not watch, or I can buy newer more expensive hardware and let MS and Hollywood decide what I can do on my computer.

Not quite... you can run XP snappily on your old box and not watch the media which Hollywood decides needs a new playback infrastructure... or use Vista and submit _only_ that content to the DRM.
That choice is entirely different, because all the stuff you can do with XP media wise you can do just as well in Vista without it interfering.

I.e. once the analog gap is closed (which is up to the studios) you'll have the same restrictions playing back HD content on XP (if you find a player that supports it). The already require HDCP support if you want digital out... on XP.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 09:00 AM
Are you f-ing kidding me? Your choice of OS affects EVERYTHING you do on your computer. "It's the tool, not the artist", right? If the tool gives you blisters, it's not as good a tool as the one that doesn't.
Yeah, but just because somebody gives you a loaded gun, that doesn't mean you are required to shoot yourself in the foot either (and that goes for any OS).

I'm not fussed because I couldn't care less about HD content due to the DRM (and this includes stand-alone players or consoles as well). It is quite likely that those parts of Vista will never play a role on my machine - unless I decide to shell out for content (and I'm strict about DRMed stuff, I just don't buy it).

Other than that, it seems to have a few nice features, not enough to upgrade an existing machine, but enough to get a new box with it.

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
07-18-2007, 09:09 AM
Not quite... you can run XP snappily on your old box and not watch the media which Hollywood decides needs a new playback infrastructure... or use Vista and submit _only_ that content to the DRM.
That choice is entirely different, because all the stuff you can do with XP media wise you can do just as well in Vista without it interfering.

I.e. once the analog gap is closed (which is up to the studios) you'll have the same restrictions playing back HD content on XP (if you find a player that supports it). The already require HDCP support if you want digital out... on XP.

Cheers,
Mike

What if I have a DVD that I purchased and I want to rip it to mpeg4 so my daughter can watch in on a Playstation Portable? I don't know if Vista will prevent this, but I have have my doubts as to "allowing" it.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 09:12 AM
What if I have a DVD that I purchased and I want to rip it to mpeg4 so my daughter can watch in on a Playstation Portable? I don't know if Vista will prevent this, but I have have my doubts as to "allowing" it.
It won't prevent it. HD-DVD, yes. But that you can't play on XP either (at least not without the same restrictions).
And if the DVD is copy protected (the publishers choice) than you're commiting a crime anyhow.

Cheers,
Mike

dweinkauf
07-18-2007, 09:19 AM
It was mentioned that the DCMA "seems" to overrule "fair use" in the copyright law. The key word here is "seems" because some of the provisions in the copyright law suggest it's not clear that this is the case. I suspect the two laws are in conflict and that our legislators need to remedy this.

Be that as it may, a lot of educators have older technology that works just fine for writing papers, doing lectures and even some multi-media work. I have three workstations including two high end systems and this very old PIII with Win2K that I'm writing this note on. I could upgrade this to XP, but since it's not broken, there's no need to fix it. I've even done some high-end graphics (using Mirage) on this machine. It has never encountered a virus or broken down and has proven to be my most reliable workstation allowing me complete freedom to do things I have to do.

Can someone, then, please tell me why it's necessary for educators and people like myself, who have perfectly reliable technology, have to trash all that great technology to buy new technology just so a new OS will work properly.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 09:24 AM
Can someone, then, please tell me why it's necessary for educators and people like myself, who have perfectly reliable technology, have to trash all that great technology to buy new technology just so a new OS will work properly.
You don't. Nobody is forcing you to purchase anything... which is why I don't get the fuss.
Sure, you might miss out on some things that are more or less important to you, but the choice is yours. (Obviously, the more you find out about the choices, the more educated you are when you get to pick between them - which doesn't mean it gets easier either...)

Cheers,
Mike

dweinkauf
07-18-2007, 09:34 AM
The point is that I can keep my older technology running with Win2K and XP without a lot of restrictions. Since I can't do that with Vista, there's absolutely no reason to go there. It would be a really dumb purchase if I had to make it - which I don't because I have a free upgrade copy of Vista collecting dust on my shelf.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 09:39 AM
The point is that I can keep my older technology running with Win2K and XP without a lot of restrictions.
That is true... however, the restrictions are not connected to DRM, which is my point ;) (in that respect W2K and XP are more restricted since they don't play back this "Premium" content at all - certainly not W2K and XP is bound to phase out too).

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
07-18-2007, 09:51 AM
It won't prevent it. HD-DVD, yes. But that you can't play on XP either (at least not without the same restrictions).
And if the DVD is copy protected (the publishers choice) than you're commiting a crime anyhow.

Cheers,
Mike

I agree, but it is not MicroSoft's place to play policeman. You might kill someone with that hammer, so we are going to make the head all soft and mushy. ;)

And, the morality of the situation is more important to me that what the law books say. If I buy something, it is mine to do with as I please, as long as I am not giving copies to others.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 09:54 AM
I agree, but it is not MicroSoft's place to play policeman.
I suppose in this case it is, unless they want to miss out on HD content. After all, policemen don't make the laws either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
07-18-2007, 10:03 AM
To be honest, don't much care about the DRM in Vista either, my gripes as I stated above are the hobbled functionality in the name of "security". So far, other than the networking issue, I have been able to fix what they have broken, but I shouldn't have to.

sammael
07-18-2007, 10:08 AM
Blame the lazy manufacturers... or buy quality stuff! :)

I think its more luck of the draw for what is fully functional and what isnt at the moment, its a matter of MS and third parties ironing out the issues.
I have all high end hardware but this did not solve my problem.

Vista has plenty of options to tone down the flashy interface stuff if you are running older hardware. Even with all that sh!t enabled Vista seems to run bettter on my pc than XP ever did.

Theres a lot of myth floating around about how dodgy Vista is but its mostly based on assumptions by people who have never used it.
Ill be the first to admit there are some issuse that need ironing out but if you know the first thing about computers you can get it running within minutes. Same as XP when that first came out, give it a couple more months if your the sort to throw a tantrum when anything at all goes wrong.

The actual OS is very stable, it has not crashed on me once. Its the drivers that you'll come accross the odd issue here and there and in some cases chipset or bios related problems. Patches come out almost daily from MS and hardware drivers are progressing quickly.

sammael
07-18-2007, 10:17 AM
I think this is the closest I have ever come to being satisfied with a MS product. I think my blood pressure has evened out slightly when computing and its a bit nicer to look at than that revolting XP theme.

dweinkauf
07-18-2007, 10:18 AM
Until the day the Win2K and XP are phased out, I intend to stay with them. DRM is really not the main problem for me - I just went there to initiate some discussion about a real problem.

The bottom line for me is that I don't have a lot of money to keep upgrading hardware to run the latest eye-candy. But if, in the very unlikely event I did upgrade hardware to meet the Vista standards, what happens a few years from now when some hardware system components start having minor problems? As I understand it, Vista is designed to do some nasty things like shutting down when that occurs. I've had components with minor problems before, but neither Win2K nor XP ever shut down because of it and the fixes were usually pretty simple.

At my age, I don't have the time to waste with an OS running what I do with my computer. I absolutely hate dealing with any OS (the Amiga OS being an exception). I just want to get my work done without a lot of restrictions and I have serious doubts that Vista will allow that to happen. So for me, Vista is a really dumb purchase (again, if I had to purchase it) at this time.

A side note - about a month after the day Best Buy stores had to replace all copies of XP with Vista on all of their computers, I spoke with a couple of sales people who told me they were getting a lot of complaints about Vista not working properly or in ways people didn't understand. Just yesterday, another Best Buy salesperson told me they're still getting complaints.

Lightwolf
07-18-2007, 10:23 AM
As I understand it, Vista is designed to do some nasty things like shutting down when that occurs.
Ah, but only if the critical path using that component is needed... which again is only if you use premium content.
I mean, the same is true for any HDMI display you might buy. Any studio can completely block that device from playing back premium content by patching the firmware of your playback device (another requirement by the industry).
Either doing that when you buy a newih HD-DVD/BD disc, or on-line (which will also affect standalone players or consoles with on-line access).

It isn't MS that is screwing us... for a change ;)

Cheers,
Mike

sammael
07-18-2007, 10:27 AM
3. "Trusted" computing. This means that the OS controls your access to your media. They delete files they don't think you should have, deliberately degrade video quality if they don't like the look of the drivers, and generally treat all video and audio data as something you are not allowed direct access to. Try some web searches to get a better idea. The short version is that the word "trusted" is meant to mean trusted by the RIAA, Hollywood etc, who do not trust you with 'their' media one inch. They can remotely disable player software, and generally do pretty much anything they like on 'your' computer, without your permission.


I have not heard a lot in reguard to issues like this, but I have not encountered any problems so far. But I would just take this attitude on their part as justification to patch the software with hacks if needed, which will undoubtedly come out when people start running into issues. Like Windows Live Messenger for example, I have no qualms about running A-Patch to remove the unwanted advertising and questionable 'features'.

dweinkauf
07-18-2007, 10:31 AM
You might be missing my point. It is my understanding that Vista reads any component going bad as an attempt to copy something or use premium content and shuts down because of that. If this is true, it doesn't matter if I'm using premium content or copying something for this to happen. So why do I need to put up with this when it is not a problem with Win2K or XP?

JGary
07-18-2007, 11:00 AM
Ram prices for my dell XPS laptop have finally dropped dramatically and I can justify loading it up with the full 4gb. Problem is, I'm currently running 32bit XP and to use all 4gb I either have to use my free Vista upgrade I already have sitting on the shelf, or buy XP 64bit. Dell seems to have driver updates for my laptop to make the Vista upgrade relatively painless. So, given I get my drivers straightened out, I should be able to use Vista with Lightwave with little trouble?

sammael
07-18-2007, 11:07 AM
Do it, there will be no looking back but dont install all 4gb until you update vista with the KB929777 patch
which addresses issues on systems with more than 3gb
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=80411

SO install vista with 2gb then patch and add the other 2

edit: maybe listen to neverko

JGary
07-18-2007, 11:20 AM
This laptop is touted as a extreme gamers machine with a beefy 7950 gtx, 512mb video ram and is one of the reasons I bought it. Surely, with so much importance placed on the video card in this particular model, Dell would make sure it works with Vista (famous last words right?!). I'll have to check the Dell forums and see if any problems are showing up for other people. Thanks for the info guys!

sammael
07-18-2007, 11:22 AM
Sounds doubtful that you would have any problems, its important to patch before installing the ram though otherwise windows wont boot or even install in the first place.

dballesg
07-18-2007, 12:53 PM
HI,

I have a DELL M90, it is almost a clone of the XPS except I have a Quadro FX2500.

And the problem is the graphic driver, DELL doesn't update them quickly enough. I am using ones from Laptopvideo2go.com. But it is producing some drawing problems in LW and xStream.

I installed this monday my Vista Busisness and EVERYTHING else is working like a charm and as neverko pointed the windows resize and movement it is much faster than in XP.

BTW Neverko, thanks for your tip about UAC in Vista! :)

Best regards,
David

jasonwestmas
07-18-2007, 01:48 PM
You're welcome! :)

If you haven't done so already, you would probably want to disable SuperFetch as well.

Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services

Just set the startup type to "disabled".

Your hard drive will thank you :)

I was looking for that superfetch thingy. Grind. . Grind, you weren't kidding. My hard drive isn't exactly quiet either.:hey:

sammael
07-18-2007, 07:53 PM
Just as a note: I had no problems at all installing Vista with 4Gb present - both x86 and x64 worked on first go.

It's very likely to be an issue with some motherboards and/or BIOS combinations. It's definitely not an issue on my end.

You aren't using an nForce based motherboard by any chance? They can have lots of memory related issues, particularly the newer 650 or 680i based boards.

Edit: But seeing as there's a patch for Vista, it's also a Windows issue. But an issue only with some hardware it seems.

Always nice to know, in case someone runs in to this install problem.

Im pointing out the ram/patch issue because I have noticed a LOT of people are having this problem.
It did nothing to solve my ram problem at all though, I am using the intel 975x express chipset which should have no problems whatsoever with 4gb ram, I have narrowed the problem down to driver issues.

starbase1
07-19-2007, 12:19 AM
After all, would you rather not have content at all?

Actually yes, I would prefer that. The horrendous complications it requires in the audio and video path hobble the product and make driver production unnecessarily complex, and disable legitimate products like total recorder - which I use to time shift audio.

starbase1
07-19-2007, 08:56 AM
They're not playing policemen.

Don't be silly - the entire video and audio subsystem is built around DRM, and stopping you doing stuff Hollywood don't like. That's exactly what they are doing, and they are driving up cost and instability of the whole system in order to do it.

JGary
07-23-2007, 11:17 AM
So, I did it. I installed Vista on my laptop so I could use all 4gb of ram. Problem is, I did not realize that the 32 bit version of Vista Home Premium has the same limitation of not being able to use all 4gb of ram, even though the Microsoft website states it will use 4gb! In fact, my computer now only registers 3.25gb versus the 3.5gb that was seen with XP. If I upgrade to Vista Ultimate, will that let me install a 64 bit version, or do I have to buy a seperate 64 bit version? Maybe I should just roll this sucka' back to XP...

jasonwestmas
07-23-2007, 11:57 AM
Vista-32 only can use 3GB. If you have activated your 32-bit Vista you will have to go through a long line of waiting for technical support to switch your license to another 64-bit license code. OR you can simply buy another license and have both versions.

oDDity
07-23-2007, 01:38 PM
Just as a note: I had no problems at all installing Vista with 4Gb present - both x86 and x64 worked on first go.

It's very likely to be an issue with some motherboards and/or BIOS combinations. It's definitely not an issue on my end.

You aren't using an nForce based motherboard by any chance? They can have lots of memory related issues, particularly the newer 650 or 680i based boards.

Edit: But seeing as there's a patch for Vista, it's also a Windows issue. But an issue only with some hardware it seems.

Always nice to know, in case someone runs in to this install problem.

With my new monster hardware upgrade, I'm also now on a dual boot of vista 32 and 64 on a RAID 0, with 4gb RAM, and I have an nforce 650i board. No problems so far. Totally stable, and no problems with any software or hardware.

These raptors are noisy as f**k in my otherwise noiseless system, so I definitely had to turn that prefetch off.

*Pete*
07-23-2007, 02:09 PM
sorry if this has been asked and answered before, but...is it possible for me to upgrade from 32 bit XP to 64 bit Vista?

or will/should i need to buy a full version of a 64 bit vista and install it from scratch?

oDDity
07-23-2007, 02:43 PM
Yes, it's a lot less expensive than people were making out. You can get vista ultimate in the UK for around £100, which is not much more than xp pro.

pixym
07-23-2007, 02:50 PM
Hello Neverko,

I have just ugraded my dell precision 490 dual woodcrest 5160/ 4GB ram.
I installed Vista 64 business on a second 150GB HardDrive.
Right now I am testing LW 64 in discover mode. I am waiting for my permanent licence key...
In discovery mode I am loaded some LW scenes that I could not render with the news radiosity mode in XP 32... So far so good execpt the fact I can not join my old G4 dual 867 (Mac OS 10.2.8) on the network.
I have done some animation tests with very low MES value on a more than 2 polygons scene, and the new FG mode eats my whole 4GB ram...
In interpollated MC mode it is a little slower but far less memory consuming.
Tommorrow I wil buy some memory (probably 2GB) to add to my workstation.

Lito
07-23-2007, 03:19 PM
So is there any reason to buy XP64 and Vista 64bit? I was thinking compatibility wise that XP64 would have better drivers than Vista64. I want to basically not install a 32bit OS on the system. I guess I could go dual Vista32 + Vista64 but that just seems like a waste since V32 won't see the 4gigs of memory I'll have on my new system.

*Pete*
07-23-2007, 04:16 PM
Thanks Neverko, very helpfull :thumbsup:

Lito..today maybe XP has better support, but you should buy with tomorow in your mind..vista will get more attention by Microsoft than XP in the future.

RedBull
07-23-2007, 05:36 PM
You fail, like others, to realize that the Aero interface is NOT just a prettyfication. It's providing hardware accelerated windows and as such you'll notice speedier performance in a lot of applications, including LightWave, for dragging content around, resizing etc.

The extra memory and grunt required for those pretty Aero effects, comes at the cost of resources..... Personally with programs like Mudbox, ZB3 and LW,
which have OGL interfaces, i don't want Graphics memory being eaten up by the Aero look, I'd rather MB, ZB3 and LW had the extra resources themselves.

I did notice that it's faster with transparency on on my machine which is weird.


Why would you need that. The apyware protection and firewall in Vista is perfectly adequate. Just use Avast AV and you're good to go.

Sorry but the protection and issues with the Vista firewall are numerous,
not to mention compared to something like Kerio or other software firewalls, the features are severely lacking. And Defender finds about 1/10 of the spyware other programs do. (Spybot, Adaware etc)

Not to mention if you disable UAC, than virtualisation and Internet Explorer
protection is disabled too.


Highly exaggerated! Vista uses no more system resources than XP. I've tested and found this claim to be FALSE! It needs more CPU power to run great, but that's not a wasted resource as such. It's not using it when idling.

I think you need to check again, Aero uses more graphics resources...
There is no audio acceleration in Vista, so thats slower...
More services, with bigger memory footprints, Your claim is completely FALSE!

All of these new services like ReadyBoost and Sidebar, obviously do take up much resources. I run XP64 on 16 services and I'm writing this message from Vista32 which is using 48 services. That's more RAM, more GPU and CPU, and HDD activity than XP uses. That's more heat, and more power consumption than XP.

And you should go to website like http://www.speedyvista.com/ which help on info to remove the unneeded services.


100% Rock solid here! Where's the problem? If you have problems don't blame Vista. Get better supported hardware or blame your driver vendors.

Your entitled to your opinion, I could write a 4 page document showing dozens of issues and problems within Vista, which are OS specific, (not driver specific) and are not present in XP or W2K....

There are so many little niggly annoyances, and in the end it's the little things that matter.

I can copy a file from my XP64 machine from my Vista machine (HDD)
faster than i can copy the same file from my Vista machine to XP64.

Vista is too busy trying to calculate how much time it will take itself (and it hardly ever works out the answer before it's copied)

Microsoft in all there wisdom, have made it so any directories in the Program Files directory are not shareable on the network anymore i can share these folders to Vista on my XP64 machine, i cannot share those directories on Vista to my XP64 machine...

Again, Microsoft have decided where when and who is allowed to touch my data., rather than letting me decide to where and when i share my data.

How is that 100% rock solid?

What about other features, how does IE7 fair (it's definitely better, except i now use Firefox with Adblock, Noscript and Filter.G) So IE7 is useless to me.

What about WMP11...... Have you actually seen VLC media player, why do i want Microsofts bloatware player, that actually doesn't play anything?

VLC is cross platform, Open Source and can play .mov, ,wmv, .mkv and just about everything else, it's not DRM handicapped and doesn't force itself to update over the net once a week... I can play 50 different video files at different speeds, aspect ration's with post filters in real time....

WMP can play 1 video file at a time..... This isn't progress, it's crapness...
Windows Media Player Classic was a better Media Player.

Vista is 1 step forwards, and 2 steps backwards......


After using Vista for a few months, I'm never returning to XP. It's slow and dated in comparison.

It's ironic but everytime MS release a OS...... I suddenly have a new found interest and love of the old ones..... ( I still miss DOS)

Anyway XP64 NTDLR died (boot.ini file problem) yesterday, after installing Maya 8.5 64bit (well done Autodesk) And of course the issues that i will face
in getting it back up and running i may be forced to load Vistax64.....

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! :)

Each to there own, I like plenty of bits of Vista, but i also like plenty of DOS6, NT4 and W2K features that have been removed or forgotten.....

And if we are lucky, Vista SP1 is due out in Feb08...

Ernest
07-23-2007, 05:50 PM
Anandtech made a nice comparison of the memory usage of programs (games) that get close to the 2GB barrier between 32-bit Vista and XP.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3044

Wickster
07-23-2007, 05:59 PM
Here is a opposite story for you guys. I just bought an ASUS G2S-A1 Notebook preloaded with Vista. Though this was a gaming notebook, I don't really PC game, so I was hoping to turn this onto my mobile workstation.

Anyway, I was running Vista Home Premium for a week after purchasing the notebook and I keep getting the feeling that with all this GUI things running around like transparencies, fade ins/outs and those animated icons it seems to be draining resources. I like the look and feel of vista, seems to run fine until I tried installing my apps. DFX+ 4.X installed OK but after installing the latest update, it wouldn't run anymore. After Effects 7 Pro wouldn't install at all. Here is the wierd part about the After Effects install woes, if I try to browse the DVD installer disc...BSOD (blue screen of death)! Wow, and this happens every time, run the DVD on my XP machine and it works OK. Last error box I read says Adobe After Effects... .msi is not a valid windows installer. But it installs and uninstall fine in XP. Any guesses???

Well I got fed up that my 2 post production apps aren't running on Vista I decided to install XP on the G2S. Well wouldn't you know it probably half the hardware on the machine had no XP drivers for it. I mean there are but you basically have to "Slipstream" the drivers on to the XP installer disc in order for XP to see the SATA hard drive. There were no NVidia XP drivers for the 8600M so you have to hax the ".inf" file of their Forceware Drivers. On the Device Manager, you would get a dozen question marks "?" pertaining to "Unknown Device" which you would play a guessing game as which hardware would that be when you're trying to find a driver.

All in all though, I did manage to install XP and created a customized XP Installer for the G2S, through Slipstreaming missing hardware drivers. XP does run a little fater than Vista in my opinion. I still have one display related problems with my setup though, my monitor can't seem to wake up from sleep or hibernate...so I have to make sure it doesn't go to sleep or hibernate. :(

But I forgot to run the necessary Lightwave Render comparison between Vista and XP (32bit)...can somebody run that?

If my display problems gets worse I might just leave After Effects and DFX+ on the desktop XP and put Vista with disabled fancy UI back in.

RedBull
07-23-2007, 06:11 PM
Anandtech made a nice comparison of the memory usage of programs (games) that get close to the 2GB barrier between 32-bit Vista and XP.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3044

Yeah i think it's a little scary when years of development actually go backwards in performance, i mean we demand LW GI is and rendering is faster than before, but we accept that Windows will be slower than the previous.

Thanks for the link, it makes me want to fix my XP64 install rather than do something stupid and load Vistax64 on my workstation.

Steamthrower
07-23-2007, 06:17 PM
I'm happy to say I have no part in this conversation because I just bought a loaded MacBook Pro.

But actually, Microsoft is getting much, much better as far as stability wise. I expect them to only get better. When XP first came out it crashed right and left but smoothed out over a few gigs of updates and service packs. So I'm confident that in another 6 months, there will be hardly any Vista issues.

sammael
07-23-2007, 09:56 PM
But with all new tasty, hand picked hardware you should have no problems.


'should' being the operative word, I have tasty hand picked hardware & expensive too with the top of the line intel chipset I could find at the time of purchase. Im still having problems implementing all 4gb of ram, so I would say its more of a lucky dip realy. But when I bought my hardware Vista was not released, I guess now at least its possible to research and purchase hardware that is guaranteed to work properly.

Im not complaining about Vista, I like it but people should be a bit wary imo especially upgrading on existing hardware.

ted
07-23-2007, 10:26 PM
I would have held off for another 6 months or so. But since I was forced into a new system, I took a safe option. Not perfect, but nothing is. :hey:

I went with a dual boot. XP and Vista 64. Most hardware was purchased for V64, but drivers are usually the biggest issue!

I still havn't been able to enjoy editing V64, but when I "try", I'm not down more then the time it takes to re-boot into XP. I can't risk the downtime.

mattclary
07-24-2007, 01:19 PM
Microsoft in all there wisdom, have made it so any directories in the Program Files directory are not shareable on the network anymore i can share these folders to Vista on my XP64 machine, i cannot share those directories on Vista to my XP64 machine...

Again, Microsoft have decided where when and who is allowed to touch my data., rather than letting me decide to where and when i share my data.



An excellent example of the "dumbing down" I spoke of earlier.

jasonwestmas
07-24-2007, 01:22 PM
Look out matt you're about to break into 4k posts. :O

pixym
07-24-2007, 01:29 PM
You should drink a cup of champagne for Your 4000th post :D
BTW: You post 4 times more than me, I join also in Feb 2003...

burvis
07-24-2007, 02:17 PM
wo... I don't know what to do know? It's confsing...was going to ge a new lapto with Vista but I still run LW 8.5, I'm thinking problems for sure, or would 8.5 run on vista?

anyone know? I pan on upgrading to 9, but am in the midle of projects that are deadline intense...

burvis
07-24-2007, 02:30 PM
:newtek: anyone have an answer...
going to purchase a new laptop... first, does LW work ok with Vista? I'm still on 8.5 and XP, and plan to load it onto new machine with Vista

Also is a AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-64 as good as an Intel Core 2 Duo T5500?

Thanks for any help here... I've been with LW since 3.1, still in te middle of many projects and hae not braved to upgrade to 9.2... I know it rocks..

Chris

starbase1
07-24-2007, 03:52 PM
Well, (and I speak as someone who would not touch vista with a barge pole, I have twice been offered free copies...)

A new laptop will come with all the drivers it needs, so no problems there.
LW works with Vista, so no problems there.

The only major issue for your situation is likely to be if you want to connect peripherals you already own to Vista, so check drivers for them. (And bear in mind that will include network connections).

Nick

burvis
07-24-2007, 05:06 PM
really 8.5 will work ok? We have another node Vista machine that works within our networked 18 processors so Vista works in the network, just was concerned about the new portable workstation that every 3rd day goes to the FD with me, so I can do LW there (don't tell the chief! ha)

But I've read in this forum, that the hub crashes Vista?

Thanks for the reply

Chris

sammael
07-25-2007, 12:07 AM
really 8.5 will work ok? We have another node Vista machine that works within our networked 18 processors so Vista works in the network, just was concerned about the new portable workstation that every 3rd day goes to the FD with me, so I can do LW there (don't tell the chief! ha)

But I've read in this forum, that the hub crashes Vista?

Thanks for the reply

Chris

I have had no problems in Vista with LW no hub crashes. LW 8.5 would be fine even running in vista x64. It realy does seem more and more like a lucky dip with Vista though, in the search for solutions to minor issues I have had I have come accross some pretty obscure problems that people are having with the OS. Some people have no dramas at all, others have major problems and a lot of people have minor but annoying problems that seem unfixable and im one of them.

burvis
07-25-2007, 05:34 AM
How about the diference in the processors

is an AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-64 as good as an Intel Core 2 Duo T5500?

I've had pentiums only, some xzeons, but never the AMD? probably not much different?

JGary
07-25-2007, 08:15 AM
How about the diference in the processors

is an AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-64 as good as an Intel Core 2 Duo T5500?

I've had pentiums only, some xzeons, but never the AMD? probably not much different?

For comparision, I have a PC with a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ and a laptop with a Intel Core2 Duo T7200 @ 2ghz. I haven't done any official tests, but when rendering the same scene, these two computers have similar render times.

mattclary
07-26-2007, 07:19 AM
Reason number 987 why Vista sucks:

We have multiple domains at my work.

I have a primary machine for daily work.

I log into Domain A on that machine (domainA\matt.clary). I have a share on that machine with specific permissions to a Domain B login (domainB\matt.clary) with full permissions.

On my secondary machine, I log into Domain B (domainB\matt.clary)

In Vista, I do a Start > Run \\machine\share I get an error: Logon Failure: The target account name is incorrect

I have a third machine that I also log into as domainB\matt.clary

When I do a Start > Run \\machine\share, guess what? The share opens up with no problem.

Man, I hate Vista... :devil:

Wickster
07-26-2007, 10:25 AM
How about the diference in the processors

is an AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-64 as good as an Intel Core 2 Duo T5500?

I've had pentiums only, some xzeons, but never the AMD? probably not much different?
I believe T5500 and T7200 abd T7300 all yield 2.0GHz but the later ones (T7XXX) has more cache so gives off a little faster times. I'd pay just a little more to get a T7XXX series laptop. I was going to get a T5XXX laptop but just a few days before an updated T7XXX came out for the same model and I opted for that instead.

Lito
08-10-2007, 04:15 PM
Well I have been playing around with vista64 since I just built my new PC, and it isn't as bad as some make it out to be. But it does have some annoying quirks.

UAC, disabled it almost immediately (in Control Panel BTW). The Prefetch thing is disabled also in services. I also disabled the Driver Signing thing which you can do one of 2 ways:
Temporary:
When booting to Vista64 press F8 before it starts to boot and select the option from the menu.
Permanent:
From an admin command prompt type:
bcdedit /set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS

So I go to eat dinner but start formating a partition. Vista pops up a requestor that says a reboot is necessary because of updates. I select postpone since I am formatting and go. I come back and Vista is shutting down the PC but it is hung up waiting at the shutdown screen because the drive is formating. Well I am basically locked out of the system now and have no idea how long it'll take to finish the format (probably another 1 to 1.5 hours). I was planning on playing around in vista some more since the format would take awhile. When did it become policy that rebooting downloaded updates takes precedence over a system task like formating a drive? I guess I need to turn off auto updating in Vista also. I forgot about that one.

jasonwestmas
08-10-2007, 04:55 PM
probably the most annoying thing about vista64 is knowing what can be used in it and what you can't. It's a luck of the draw depending on your motherboard too and how that operates with vista. Sometimes programs install properly and sometimes they don't. Whatever you do always make sure to immediately restart your computer after you install or uninstall ANYTHING especially x86 apps. That makes all the difference. I know that's windows101 but with vista you can get file damage in my experience so far if you don't pay extremely close attention to how install and uninstall stuff, read every little note that vista throws at you during installation or uninstallation. Better yet just keep your programs to a minimum in vista to avoid software conflicts. Just my advice after 3 months of use. BTW this isn't Microsoft's fault just most software developers don't do a great job with their installers sometimes for windows and especially vista.

jasonwestmas
08-10-2007, 06:17 PM
No, I'm not using antivirus for my vista64 comp. These kinds of troubles have always been in my experience with windows but I'm mainly talking about drivers that are not certified for Windows vista. My main board for example lacks a lot of vista support in the way of drivers but actually I haven't needed any to do what I do. I've had audio problems with my NForce500SLI board, the analog won't work and I hooked up an xbox360 controller to it once to see if it would work and the driver totally interferes with all audio devices. If I don't be carefull when installing drivers for all my devices they don't work properly e.g. not restarting your computer or making sure you turn off your computer completely sometimes needs to be done for some silly reason. little details like that make things really quirky to set up. AS of NOW however everything is working fine but I'd be lying if I said no trouble shooting was involved;) I really like this OS and it works with almost anything I've thrown at it including some old 3D apps like Deep exploration 3.5, it even works with Pixel kinda. Transform tool is still beta busted though :P Of course these drivers do have vista64 versions for them but sometimes they just don't work together but work fine on my 32 XP machine (with the 32 bit drivers of course).

jasonwestmas
08-10-2007, 06:23 PM
BTW my Nforce500SLI board runs an AMD Athlon X2 6000+ processor. If I did it again I would get a board that I was sure was Vista certified before installing it. I'm quite the newb with hardware as it turns out.

bkmvlswe
08-12-2007, 11:44 PM
I'm rather new myself to using Lightwave just working on some quickstart tutorials that came with the inside lightwave 9 book, here is a fun thing apples quicktime messed up the graphics driver and i had to reboot, then i used a developer edition(very early) player called songbird and then it worked fine.

My computer is using amd 5600+, 4gb of kingston memory and nividia 8800gtx graphics card, i have 2 hard drives for a total of 1.5 tb not in raid, games are on it's own drive, not sure on motherboard sitting at work right now so can't check,
os is swedish vista ultimate 32 bit.

Had lw crash when rendering an animation on second frame, then when i changed to avi no compression it seemed to work fine, so far lw 9.2 seem stable enough, had some odd behaviour but that was after i played doom 3 for a few hours :)

bkmvlswe
08-13-2007, 02:33 AM
Cool thanks for that info, good thing to know when you start animating stuff.

IMI
08-13-2007, 09:11 PM
Saving out to .avi or .mov from LightWave is risky business at best, you never know when the file saver will crash Layout :( It's been like this forever, they just aren't very stable.

Yes. I lost my very first animation attempt this way, saving to .avi, a couple years ago. They really ought to just remove that from the output options.
That has happened once. It will not happen again. :D

Lito
08-19-2007, 01:24 PM
Just a quick update, the permanent disable option for the Driver signing has been disabled by MS on the new patches they made available :(. So the only way to turn it off is by waiting to press F8 on reboot, or just keeping your system in sleep mode instead of shutting down.