PDA

View Full Version : Windows Vista?



Ztreem
01-25-2008, 01:31 PM
I'm thinking about upgrading to Windows Vista 64bit, I just wondering if anyone know if Vista home Premium or Vista business is ok or do I need Ultimate? I mostly do modeling work in Lightwave and Alias AutoStudio and some renderings in Lightwave and Photoshop.

Thanks for any advice.

dccpro
01-25-2008, 01:47 PM
I got unlimited and use LW, Zbrush, and xsi under 64bit. It has been a excellent experience so far! I just upgraded my Fprime, hd instance, and with Dponts nodes I rarely have a need to go back to 32 bit.

Steamthrower
01-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Here in the office we have an Ultimate and a Home Premium. Of course Ultimate is, "the ultimate", but I personally don't think it's worth the large price difference.

Business I don't think is good for graphics use.

Ztreem
01-25-2008, 02:38 PM
Ultimate is the ultimate version to get but I feel it's a little too expensive, almost the double of what Home Premium costs. I don't really feel that I need any of the tool in buisness or Premium, what I can tell from the list. So maybe I just go for Premium, it have the best price. :)

As long as I can run all my software without limitation. If I need the other tools, I hopefully can use a third party software to do the same thing as in Ultimate.

nomad108
01-25-2008, 03:04 PM
Just got a new laptop preloaded with Vista Business edition. I've had no problems with LW. Of course, I have the 32 bit edition, so not exactly the same as what you're doing. Anyhow, I doubt you'll need Ultimate.

safetyman
01-25-2008, 04:08 PM
I have Home Premium 64-bit and everything works great with LW. I don't have the 64-bit version of LW to try out, but the 32-bit version works just fine.

Ztreem
01-26-2008, 02:20 AM
Thanks everyone for all the comments and advice, I'll start with Vista Premium for now, then if I build a new computer I maybe try Ultimate on that one.

meshpig
01-26-2008, 02:57 AM
Here in the office we have an Ultimate and a Home Premium. Of course Ultimate is, "the ultimate", but I personally don't think it's worth the large price difference.

Business I don't think is good for graphics use.


Why, how much is the "ultimate" for Vista? Leopard is $130 USD.

m

Ztreem
01-26-2008, 04:02 AM
Here in Sweden I have to pay around $460 for Premium and $770 for Ultimate this is with VAT.
Edit: If I build a new computer I can buy the OEM version and get away with $290 for Ultimate.

Philbert
01-26-2008, 04:13 AM
OK I just typed a whole long post and it somehow disappeared while I was typing.

Anyway I was saying I have Vista Ultimate x64 for my desktop and Home Premium 32 for my laptop. Both work fine.

If you use plugins like LWCad and Vue xStream that need access to the Program Files folder you have to run LW as Administrator. Easiest way: Right click the EXE > Properties > Compatibility tab > check box "Run this program as Administrator". Then the plugins will always work fine.

As for price, I think it's best to do what I did for my desktop and get an OEM version. It's the same thing but with a different DVD case and costs half as much.
Ultimate 32 OEM at NewEgg: $170
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213

Ultimate 32 Retail at NewEGG $320 ($400 at Best Buy)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116140

RedBull
01-26-2008, 04:35 AM
I'm thinking about upgrading to Windows Vista 64bit, I just wondering if anyone know if Vista home Premium or Vista business is ok or do I need Ultimate? I mostly do modeling work in Lightwave and Alias AutoStudio and some renderings in Lightwave and Photoshop.

Thanks for any advice.

Is there any reason your thinking of upgrading?

Based on your system specs with 2Gb of RAM, and modeling needs there is very little benefit to Vistax64. Vista is more resource hungry, so you would only be likely sacrificing performance by doing so. If you were running out of memory frequently and thinking of 4 or more likely 8Gb of ram i would suggest it, but otherwise not sure what the benefit would be.

Programs like Photoshop and AutoStudio would run in WOW emulation (32bit mode in 64bit windows) which further slows them down (albeit only a little).
But to me i don't see much of a gain in upgrading to it for your situation.

64bit plugins are more scarce and slower to appear, and often plugins like Fprime have specific 64bit issues, i also have a few OGL graphic problem in Vistax64 stuff like checkboxes which are white when checked, rather than having the checkbox marked, and various other issues.

Ztreem
01-26-2008, 04:46 AM
Is there any reason your thinking of upgrading?

Based on your system specs with 2Gb of RAM, and modeling needs there is very little benefit to Vistax64. Vista is more resource hungry, so you would only be likely sacrificing performance by doing so. If you were running out of memory frequently and thinking of 4 or more likely 8Gb of ram i would suggest it, but otherwise not sure what the benefit would be.

Programs like Photoshop and AutoStudio would run in WOW emulation (32bit mode in 64bit windows) which further slows them down (albeit only a little).
But to me i don't see much of a gain in upgrading to it for your situation.

64bit plugins are more scarce and slower to appear, and often plugins like Fprime have specific 64bit issues, i also have a few OGL graphic problem in Vistax64 stuff like checkboxes which are white when checked, rather than having the checkbox marked, and various other issues.

When you put it like that I really don't want to upgrade. :D
I was thinking about upgrading to 4Gb of RAM and that's why I was thinking about upgrading to Vista and 64bit.

kopperdrake
01-26-2008, 04:46 AM
Out of curiosity, I have a an old dual xeon 3G machine - is there any way to check if my system is Vista 64 compatible without buying it?

STEEL TOE MEDIA
01-26-2008, 06:16 AM
I'm running vista premium on a 32 bit system. Intel quad core 6600 2.4 g (overclocked to 3.0) and 3 gigs of ddr2 ram on an asus pk5c motherboard (actually i have 4 gigs but due to address space allocation with vista 32 bit and xp 32 bit, it doesn't support the physical address extension mode. I haven't pulled the extra gig cause its safer there, doesn't matter, and 1 gig only cost $40, so who gives a **** anyaway, shoulda done some research and bought a better board, but, i digress...). I am also running dual nvidia pci express 6800 ultras (256). (Incidently, 1- 22" acer widescreen, and 2 -19" acer widescreen for real estate).
I haven't gained any performance what-so-ever over my old intel 3gig hyperthread system with 2g ddr 400 ram and ati 9800 pro (128), running xp pro (With lightwave mind you. everything else....different matter.).

New system advantages= 3, with possibility of 4 monitors, vista hasn't crashed, yet.....
Old system cons: only 2 monitors, xp crashes if you look at it funny.

Whats my point?

Don't waste your money or time upgrading to a hi-pro system if you don't have to, 'cause, lightwave doesn't use it anyway. Modeller is still herky jerky with models over 500 000 plus polys, no matter what your system config,(that i've used so far, anyway, and if i'm wrong, please, lay it out for me. I embrace any sys-advice as far as performance goes!) and layout only recognizes 2 gigs of ram for rendering.
The quad is good for batch renders, i guess, but I have an 18 tower render farm with 2.4 intel cpus, so i don't use it for that any way, and have never tried batch rendering with it.
I debated 64 bit (the quad is capable), but whats the point of 8 gigs of ram, if you consider the above?
If I'm wrong, I accept, and await correction.....

STEEL TOE MEDIA
01-26-2008, 08:51 AM
neverko,
agreed on both points.
exception: when i was building the new machine with the intention of putting vista on it , the specs for vista said it was 4 gig capable in 32 bit. I can't comment on wether there is a board that will let you run 4 gig under 32 bit or not. As i said i have 4 gig in it, but it only recognizes 3 gig for the reasons stated above (the board i have will run 64 bit at 8 gig, but i'm not gonna bother with it, for reasons that are many and tedious). I knew lw wasn't going to use it, it's more for the other software i'm using in unrelated "things", I was just wishfully hoping for some magical performance punch in the face.
It was more of a slight tickle, as it does render a little faster when i do single frames (stuff that used to take, say 10 minutes, now takes about 6, which, when you think about it, is pretty good).
The quad was also a choice i went with for other software i was using (plus i got a sweet deal on it, $130, score!). I'm sure it would be fab for batch rendering, and I do plan to experiment with it when i get a chance, but running screamernet over my legacy farm has its share of challenges that require attention daily (sucks to be your own tech guy, let me tell ya.)
I have yet to run it with my farm, so i don't know if the renders will look different, or any of that yet, but it will be an interesting experiment.....

Didn't mean to sound negative.
Just saying that an older machine that is half decent, like my 5 year old machine i switched from, is adequate for the majority of users (non pros anyway).
It would be real dandy if newtek gets a little speed in the modeller dept., ala what the fancy new cards can punch out.
My old machine now runs my pro tools set up for my recording studio (as well as being a node in my farm (so technically i have 17 2.4's, and 1 3.0 intel towers)
As an aside, there was a pro to my machine i forgot to mention, and that is the abilty to use the fancy glsl stuff. My old rig couldn't pull that off.
I don't use other pkgs with the exception of poser 5 ocaisionally, and it doesn't work in vista, so it's a moot point.
Rips it up on all my creative suite cs3 stuff though.....
So....OT, there you have it. New machines are definately a good way to go, but 32 bit over 64 bit? I don't think it matters that much. The extra ram doesn't really have squat to do with rendering, but a quad core does kick ***. if you go vista, get premium or ultra (or whatever its called), don't bother with xp pro, as its garbage and always has been (that's a personal opinion, shared by many i might add).

dccpro
01-26-2008, 02:17 PM
I have check box and slider issues on 64bit. They work, but the images don't show up.

What are fprimes 64 bit issues that were talked about?

RedBull
01-26-2008, 04:00 PM
I totally agree! :) (I have a few notes on modeling specific 64-bit benefits further down).

This I'm not so sure about. I haven't noticed any performance degradation of 32-bit applications running under a 64-bit OS. LightWave 32-bit even seems slightly more snappier under Vista x64 than Vista x86. It also renders ever so slightly faster, albeit only a few seconds for an image renders in a few minutes. Nothing really tangible, but definitely not slower. Photoshop can use 4Gb RAM under a 64-bit OS (http://prodig.org/2006/12/27/photoshop-64bit-when-not-if/), so if you work with really huge files and have 4+ Gb, it's a definite benefit to be on a 64-bit OS.

You could easily see I'm correct, by just testing the render times of the same scene in LW32 and LW64, obviously any 32bit program running under emulation is going to be slower than running natively. Running 32bit applications under x64 will always be slower than running them directly on a 32bit platform. (it won't be faster... :) Photoshop is also not native 64bit, and it can't actually access 4Gb of RAM, likely 3.xGb and Vista or x64 could be using the last gig. Apparently Photoshop will only access 3.25Gb of RAM when using trickery, and will use that in 32bit windows too. (using 3Gb switch)

I've found the benefits on my 4Gb Vista machine, mean little against my 2Gb XP64 machine, they can both produce 10.4million subdivided polygons in LW32 Vista being more resource hungry means a lot of memory is wasted on my 4Gb machine compared to XP64.


I know that you know this :) But others might not :) LightWave 32-bit, with all it's plug-ins works perfectly fine on a 64-bit OS. I have a workflow that depends very little on plug-ins, outside of LWCAD and a few others. Denis (and those help him compile) are superb in supplying 64-bit versions of his great plug-ins. Having access to both 64-bit when needed and the regular 32-bit version is a Win/Win situation.

Yeah Denis is actually compiling in 32bit, and it's others like Marvin and Mike who have to port to 64bit, these are often updated a little later than there 32bit counterparts (as often are commercial plugins from Sensei, or Can Taracan for example)


Modeler has horrible memory performance and I've run into not being able to complete operations in 32-bit Modeler on several occations. These were not your "standard" objects, but noneless memory usage was out of the roof and Modeler goes crash boom when it runs out of memory.

Never run into any issues, i mainly use 32bit LW/Modeler in 64bit Windows.


I have no OpenGL issues under Vista. Where do you have the checkbox problems? And what other issues? :)

There are plenty and confirmed by others underneath me, they are likely Nvidia issues, but only affect Vista x64 for myself at this stage.

(PS The FPrime problem, well one of them involves MS VC++ compiler problems under x64. Basically many shader/diffuse nodes preview/render as pink, where LW render them normally.... I tend to only use FPrime32....

The only real reason for Vista upgrade that i can see is DX10 gaming, and thats about it really. And we know that DX9 in Vista is slower than DX9 in XP, and that DX10 is slower than both of those...


When you put it like that I really don't want to upgrade. :D
I was thinking about upgrading to 4Gb of RAM and that's why I was thinking about upgrading to Vista and 64bit.

With 4Gb you may think about it, but in all honesty it only creates problems for me, other problems i dislike on Vista x64 include the over zealous driver signing compared to XP64 or Vista32. But it didn't provide any advantages for me personally, if doing it again i might at least wait until SP1 or SP2 being a microsoft product, that way when you buy the DVD you will get the latest stable almost useable version. :)

safetyman
01-26-2008, 05:11 PM
The reason I haven't gone to LW 64 on my computer is I was afraid of all the 32-bit plugins "breaking" or not working. Reading through the above posts, I'm not sure if that's been addressed or not (I'm so confused!).

RedBull
01-26-2008, 05:26 PM
The reason I haven't gone to LW 64 on my computer is I was afraid of all the 32-bit plugins "breaking" or not working. Reading through the above posts, I'm not sure if that's been addressed or not (I'm so confused!).

Most programs i have work okay, they just don't provide any benefit over XP32 or XP64. But the odd one will suffer from problems, developers are catching up and will eventually get on top of things. Developers will often wait until SP1 or SP2 before really putting development efforts into Vista over XP.

As it is OGL is 10% slower (that means 10% slower OGL in Layout/Modeler) under Vista than XP. You can disable all of the Aero and DWM and it gets about 8% back again, but again it's more of a disadvantage than anything.

It will always be there, if i was perhaps buying a new machine i would maybe suggest getting it now, otherwise honestly i don't see the point..... ?

Recently disappointed to know that plugins like Dstorms Liquid pack (CUDA version) by INO, will only work with 8 series Nvidia cards under XP, CUDA only supports XP at the moment....... DOH! That's the only reason to buy it! 4x faster dynamics calcs, but not under Vista.

Ztreem
01-27-2008, 12:10 PM
Thanks everybody for your input. I've just looked up the drivers to my motherboard and it seems like there is no Vista drivers, so I think I'll wait with Vista until I buy a new computer.

dccpro
01-27-2008, 01:07 PM
Well, I have had no trouble at all with vista 64, but then again I only use 64 bit apps on it. I would say it is well worth it for LW, and I wouldn't go back! I think Redbull may be overreacting a bit!

RedBull
01-27-2008, 02:44 PM
Well, I have had no trouble at all with vista 64, but then again I only use 64 bit apps on it. I would say it is well worth it for LW, and I wouldn't go back! I think Redbull may be overreacting a bit!

Yeah i feel most people who spend money on Vista, often feel it's good, well you have to when you pay all that money for it, but in actual numbers please feel free to show me Vista x64 faster anywhere than XP64 or even XP/Vista 32. Any benefits, it does something faster, better than XP64 or XP32?

Nerveko, on the Microsoft site there is a lot of info on WOW, and how it's emulation slows down compared to native speeds, i've also spent much time on testing...It's really quite obvious even on LW32 and LW64, I' would be surprised you cannot see render time differences? Technically any form of emulation, simply has to be slower than running natively.

Again, choose what's best for you...... But just because it's a new version of Windows, doesn't mean it does anything for 3D professionals price/peformance ratio. :)

dccpro
01-27-2008, 07:04 PM
Yeah i feel most people who spend money on Vista, often feel it's good, well you have to when you pay all that money for it, but in actual numbers please feel free to show me Vista x64 faster anywhere than XP64 or even XP/Vista 32. Any benefits, it does something faster, better than XP64 or XP32?

Nerveko, on the Microsoft site there is a lot of info on WOW, and how it's emulation slows down compared to native speeds, i've also spent much time on testing...It's really quite obvious even on LW32 and LW64, I' would be surprised you cannot see render time differences? Technically any form of emulation, simply has to be slower than running natively.

Again, choose what's best for you...... But just because it's a new version of Windows, doesn't mean it does anything for 3D professionals price/peformance ratio. :)

spent very little money on vista...OEM with the system I just built, I think it was $150.
Well the reason I got vista 64 was so that I can render scenes with 25 mil polys. I could have got xp 64, but why?

Do you doubt the 64 bit is the future of 3d computing?
and that vista is the future of Microsoft?

Lightwolf
01-28-2008, 02:22 AM
You could easily see I'm correct, by just testing the render times of the same scene in LW32 and LW64, obviously any 32bit program running under emulation is going to be slower than running natively. Running 32bit applications under x64 will always be slower than running them directly on a 32bit platform. (it won't be faster... :)
Your observation is correct, the conclusion isn't though.
64bit apps are usually a bit faster because the CPU has a few more capabilities in 64bit modes (mainly more registers to use, and definetly SSE-2 support). That alone can make 64bit apps up to 15% faster (rarely though).
The nice thing is this affects the OS as well. You might loose a bit of performance due to the Wow64 layer, but that tends to be offset by the OS being a tad bit faster as well.
As a result 32bit apps runs just as fast as they do on a 32bit OS, and native 64bit apps tend to be a bit faster.

Cheers,
Mike

RedBull
01-28-2008, 02:47 AM
The nice thing is this affects the OS as well. You might loose a bit of performance due to the Wow64 layer, but that tends to be offset by the OS being a tad bit faster as well. As a result 32bit apps runs just as fast as they do on a 32bit OS, and native 64bit apps tend to be a bit faster.

My own tests in some 64, some 32bit applications, (XSI, Max, C4D, Maya and LW) shows 32bit runs 32bit fast, and 64bit runs 64bit at about the exact same speed. I also ran Crysis benchamrks and it shows the same results.

Native 64bit applications running on XP64 are generally the same as the 32bit applications running on XP32 for example, there is some variances in my testing, but they are small, and sometimes 32bit is slightly faster and others 64bit... But generally almost nil speed gains when comparing 32Bit LW and 64bit LW on the same scenes on their respective operating systems..

So you can be sure slightly less when running emulation (negligible as it may be, it's certainly not making anything run faster) I've also been doing a lot of Linux/32/64 testing and benchmarking over the last month or two. Blenders and Houdini's and even they perform a little differently.

Anyway for most running 2Gb machines, and older 32bit software it doesn't make a lot of sense really. That's just my own tests over the last few months (and XP64 I've been running for 2 years)

In the end unless there is a specific reason why one wants to upgrade, i cannot give many personal endorsements for something that slower, heavier and costly and doesn't provide any performance benefit over previous versions.... (especially on older PC's) Ummm at least Vista looks prettier! (not as pretty as Linux, but prettier than XP) Obviously not good when using OGL heavy applications like Mudbox or LW... :)

Peoples own mileage may vary.

Lightwolf
01-28-2008, 03:18 AM
In the end unless there is a specific reason why one wants to upgrade...
I see no reason to upgrade a running system either.
However, when you get a new system I see no reason against Vista. SP1 is less than a month away and is likely to solve the last few niggles, and I feel that the revamped GUI - plus a few other things - is well worth it (plus, at least here, Vista64 Business is cheaper than XP64).

I seems you haven't tried 32bit apps on a 64bit OS. You'll find that there is a ngeligable difference (if any at all).

Mind you, the 15% I mentioned is from synthetic benchmarks (SPEC) - it only shows a general tendency.
There can also be a difference in performance of apps running under Vista depending on the compiler used (the memory management changed a bit - and it needs new compiler libraries to make full use of it).

Cheers,
Mike

Ztreem
01-28-2008, 03:29 AM
When I borrowed and tried XP64 a year ago or so, I found it to render some scenes alot faster then in XP32. I tried the radiositybox benchmark scene with LW32 in XP32 and in LW64 in XP64 and it was a 6 min difference in rendertime even if I only have 2Gb of RAM.(64bit was the faster one.) but at that time no plugins that I used worked in 64bit, so I skipped 64 bit, but now I want to go 64bit again. I only have 32 bit windows and if I'm going to upgrade to 64bit I will buy Vista, I don't want to buy a XP now when Vista is released. As it seems that there is no vista drivers for my hardware, I'll just have to wait until I can build a new system. :(

pming
01-28-2008, 06:16 AM
Do you doubt the 64 bit is the future of 3d computing?
and that vista is the future of Microsoft?

Hiya.

With regard to Vista being the future of MS...

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35641/118/

Personally, I never even considered 'upgrading' to Vista. And after the horror stories I've heard from personal friends about it (I think only one friend had no 'real problems'; just lack of drivers for a while when it first came out), and it's, uh, how do I put this...'It's overly protective oversight of what I'm doing on my computer so I don't screw it up or do anything bad on it'...naaa... I'll stick with my Windows XP Pro 64-bit. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

mav3rick
01-28-2008, 08:23 AM
vista as system NOT TALKIN ABOUT LW ON VISTA is big bag of c*r*a*p so my advice skip it until sp2 or 3... i recently bought new dell inspiron with vista preinstalled after a month i called M$ to give me downgrade licence to xp.

Lito
01-28-2008, 08:25 AM
I have not had any major issues with Vista 64 and would recommend it to anyone who is upgrading especially with SP1 coming out in about a month. The only 2 things I dislike about it are the Driver Signing mess and the super slow boot up times. The driver signing is just very annoying because you can't set it to off by default without user interaction when you reboot the machine. If they just re-enable that feature it would be a whole lot better. I don't know why it takes so long to boot up the machine. It is by far a lot slower than XP or linux (from reboot to logged in,all background apps loaded and ready to work). I run a few of apps like Stardock objectdock plus and the usual virus checkers and stuff, but I'd estimate at least a 1 to 2 minute increase in boot times from XP. This really becomes a minor inconvenience since you only have to do it on a reboot or full power down. I use standby mode all the time now just to avoid this boot up time.

Philbert
01-28-2008, 08:54 AM
The only 2 things I dislike about it are the Driver Signing mess and the super slow boot up times.

I have no problems with boot times, it's about the same if not faster than XP on my old machine. The only slow thing I notice is that I hibernate my laptop a lot and both hibernating and waking up from it are much slower than my old XP laptop. It probably takes twice as long.

dccpro
01-28-2008, 09:44 AM
My boot times are faster too, but my system is also 5 times faster then my old one.

iainbyoung
01-28-2008, 10:01 AM
I have been using Vista64 for just over a year, on my main box and finally had enough last weekend. Uninstalled it and put XP32 back on. The speed increase I now have (over the Vista install) is significant, and it isn't riddled with bugs like Vista.

For example...

My 3dmark score has gone up by just over 2000 (about 15%) since going back to XP.

In Vista, IE7 and Firefox would regularly crash

I could not get shockwave/flash type stuff to install at all.

If I had any of my external USB2 or Firewire drives attached, the system would not boot at all.

Invalidated my SpeedEdit license just by applying Windows Updates

Boot time with XP is significantly faster (it used to take well over a 2 minutes to get into a usable state on Vista, it's more like 15-20 seconds with XP)

Lightwave (9) render times are faster with XP, not significantly, but around 5% on average.

I still think it's a nice OS, but not stable or fast enough yet for my main machine...

dccpro
01-28-2008, 10:10 AM
I have been using Vista64 for just over a year, on my main box and finally had enough last weekend. Uninstalled it and put XP32 back on. The speed increase I now have (over the Vista install) is significant, and it isn't riddled with bugs like Vista.

For example...

My 3dmark score has gone up by just over 2000 (about 15%) since going back to XP.

In Vista, IE7 and Firefox would regularly crash

I could not get shockwave/flash type stuff to install at all.

If I had any of my external USB2 or Firewire drives attached, the system would not boot at all.

Invalidated my SpeedEdit license just by applying Windows Updates

Boot time with XP is significantly faster (it used to take well over a 2 minutes to get into a usable state on Vista, it's more like 15-20 seconds with XP)

Lightwave (9) render times are faster with XP, not significantly, but around 5% on average.

I still think it's a nice OS, but not stable or fast enough yet for my main machine...


was it an old system? that you had it installed on...
I think thats why peoples millage is varying so greatly.

iainbyoung
01-28-2008, 12:06 PM
was it an old system? that you had it installed on...
I think thats why peoples millage is varying so greatly.

Not particularly. It's a system I built myself fairly recently.

Intel dual core E6600 overclocked to 3.12GHz, 2gb of fast memory, 1TB of hard drive space, Nvidia 8800GTX graphics card (also overclocked), lots of cooling etc, (in XP it will happily run Crysis at 1600x1200 with everything ramped up to maximum).

It flies with XP, but Vista is just plain slow by comparison.

Steamthrower
01-28-2008, 12:14 PM
Sorry for replying late to this thread in response to Neverko's question. WHy don't I like Vista Business for graphics? Cause it don't come with Chess Chess Titans, Mahjong Titans, and Inkball!

Nah, actually, it's the steep price that kills me. If you're going to spend that much you might as well get Ultimate.

creativecontrol
01-28-2008, 07:53 PM
I'm sure this question has been answered before somewhere but is it possible to use Vista 64 and Lightwave 64 with a parallel dongle or do I have to exchange it for a USB dongle?

I just can't imagine when I would have the time to exchange it. I would have bad withdrawl if left without lightwave for days...perhaps weeks...terrifying.:D

Ztreem
01-29-2008, 01:27 AM
I think I've heard of people that got their new USB dongle sent to them and first when they have got their USB dongle they return the old parallel dongle. Contact NewTek and see what they say.

Phil
01-29-2008, 01:50 AM
Any dongle exchange will also impact your dongle-locked plugins. That's the time when you hope none of the plugin vendors you rely on have called it a day. If they have, you are stuck.

Be aware, also, that Worley's Taft and Polk collections require the installation of parallel port dongle drivers, even if you only have a USB dongle. They will fail to work otherwise. Worley is aware of this, but has not issued an update.

As for Vista, I balk at the disk footprint. 15 GB for an OS? That's absurd, especially on laptops where HD size has not scaled in the same way as for desktops. I don't care how 'good' it is. There's absolutely no excuse for an OS eating 15 GB of space.

Ztreem
01-29-2008, 02:09 AM
As for Vista, I balk at the disk footprint. 15 GB for an OS? That's absurd, especially on laptops where HD size has not scaled in the same way as for desktops. I don't care how 'good' it is. There's absolutely no excuse for an OS eating 15 GB of space.

:eek: 15Gb? are you sure, that sounds ridiculous. :thumbsdow

Phil
01-29-2008, 03:11 AM
Seriously, who complains about disk space in this day and age?

Oh noes! LW Layout takes TENS of megabytes of memory just to load! Ohmegads... my Amiga could load LightWave with 1Mb including the OS. The end is nigh!

:D

Anyone on a laptop. One harddisk, limited capacity. It's quite simple when you think about it, rather than lurch into bashing someone. The largest harddisk that fits in a 9.5 mm high form factor is 250 GB. The next size up (320 GB) adds a platter so you exceed 10 mm, something that won't fit into slimline laptops.

Phil
01-29-2008, 03:14 AM
:eek: 15Gb? are you sure, that sounds ridiculous. :thumbsdow

Yup. I trialled Vista on a Boot Camp partition here using a friend's install disk. Exactly 15 GB of disk space vanished on install (no matter what version was to be installed). I couldn't find out why.

It seems that a number of people are complaining about this, hence the emergence of vLite that suggests around 14 GB can be culled.

Ztreem
01-29-2008, 04:23 AM
Even though harddrives is quite cheap now a days, I prefer optimized software that doesn't fill my hardrive with junk instead of bloated software with lots of big files. Maybe that's just me.

PS. I have no problem to spare 15 Gb to windows, but I would be happier if I only had to spare 1. That's 14 Gb more to my animations. :)

Philbert
01-29-2008, 04:26 AM
15GB sounds about right. I just got my Vista laptop about a month ago so there's not much on it yet, just the basic programs like LW, Photoshop, Firefox, etc. and files for those. There's 2 150GB drives and my C: drive has currently "98GB free of 140GB". actually now that I think of I just checked the system requirements and it says it needs at least a 20GB HDD with 15GB free.

creativecontrol
01-29-2008, 09:31 AM
Any dongle exchange will also impact your dongle-locked plugins.

Thanks for the info. How does LWCAD respond to dongle changes? That's the most important for me.

Phil
01-29-2008, 09:33 AM
They will probably need NewTek to inform them, just like Worley labs. If you send NewTek a list of which vendors need to be identified, I think they can take care of it. At least those which still exist.

Titus
01-30-2008, 10:15 AM
This is my first comment ever about Vista because of prior knowledge. Now I've bought a HP with Vista my impression is: I hate it!

At this moment the task bar says the memory comsuption is near 1 GB, the only program I'm running is Firefox. This software is bloated.

iainbyoung
01-30-2008, 10:34 AM
That's because you are not understanding how memory management works in Vista.

Basically it "pre-loads" frequently used programs etc in memory when you start the operating system so that when you request them, they should start up a lot quicker. If the memory if needed by something else, then those programs are unloaded and the space is made available.

I've seen many times that the memory usgae is over 1gb, start a program, and the usage goes down (because of the aforementioned reasons).

It works well. Just a shame the rest of the OS is slow and bug ridden...

Titus
01-30-2008, 10:46 AM
I don't want programs to start quicker but if memory unloads then no problem.

Philbert
01-30-2008, 12:32 PM
Speaking of programs loading faster, here's another nice feature. I have a 4GB thumb drive used for Ready Boost which helps programs load faster and may quicken things up in general.

Lottmedia
01-31-2008, 06:22 PM
Hey boys,
Sorry I'm probably late in the convrsation, but my work has had me swamped and I'm jut now checking in with the forums :) A few things that I've found out lately I thought I would impart, since they seem relevant:

Just purchased a new lappy (1st Vista machine) and I've been looking into all the options and stuff. One thing I found out that a lot of people don't seem to know is that you can get the 64-bit version of whatever version of Vista from microsoft for the cost of shipping. If you buy the box apparently both version are thee except unimate, no room I guess.

32-bit memory: After a long time of digging I found out from several sources that vista (and XP) 32-bit CAN access 4g of ram. There is a /PAE switch that is added to the Boot.ini that activates it. It has to do with the number of memory addresses a 32-bit OS has available to give out. Apparently your video card ram and other memory in your computer go into this pool, so as it was explained to me, if you have a 512m videocard and as 128 m sound card, you only have 3,360m (give or take all that wierd bit/byte math stuff) of addresses left to assign to your ram, so if you have 4g that's why you only see 3.5 or so. If you activate the Physical Access Extension thingie (which apparently has been around for a while) you will be able to access all of your 4g in a 32-bit OS

That said, i haven't tried it yet as my new lappy is currently circling somewhere over Memphis at the moment, according to FedEx.

Anywho, I read through this and though I would share those tidbits with everyone

Cheers!

Casey :cat:

RedBull
02-01-2008, 02:01 AM
I've seen many times that the memory usgae is over 1gb, start a program, and the usage goes down (because of the aforementioned reasons).

I noticed when doing some 10million polygon render in LW32 (under Vista x64)
that when rendering ZBrush displacements for example, i would watch LW eat the memory, and unlike XP64, Vista would not release it after hitting ESC (after render was done) so i still had many GB assigned to LW...

Also, when i used to minmize say Layout in XP64, the amount of memory LW used, would drop to minimal. This doesn't occur in Vista.

So basically if i want to use another program or do something else after a large render, most of memory is still allocated to the 10million poly displacement. This would seem to help the speed of succsessive renders ever so slightly, at the cost of doing any other tasks at the same time.. I would need to do some more tests to be sure.

GregMalick
02-04-2008, 06:24 PM
... I have no OpenGL issues under Vista. Where do you have the checkbox problems? And what other issues? :)

The display problems I have heard of, are due to disabling Aero (which I don't see why you would do). With Aero on (which has a few very good benefits, such as eliminating the old "window painting") there should be no display problems. (none seen here in LightWave, modo or XSI). Silo 2.0x doesn't work for me with Aero enabled, but that's because it uses old GDI calls for it's UI, which none of the other applications do.

Aloha neverko,

The attached pic shows the problems I'm having with LW widgets.
I think I disabled Aero - so I'll have to check that when I get home to see if enabling it cures the problem.

Philbert
02-04-2008, 06:46 PM
The attached pic shows the problems I'm having with LW widgets.
I think I disabled Aero - so I'll have to check that when I get home to see if enabling it cures the problem.

It's the case of the vanished mini-sliders! :p

Auger
02-04-2008, 07:00 PM
Just in case anyone still using the DFX+4 that came with LW8 is planning on migrating to Vista, I've got some bad news. Eyeon is not supporting DFX+4 anymore and will not be updating it to work with any version of Vista. :thumbsdow

That and Filesync are the only softwares I haven't been able to install since building a new machine with Vista Ultimate.

Philbert
02-04-2008, 08:33 PM
The only software I was unable to install is for my old Buslink external drive, which I still use a lot. I contacted Buslink and they said it's no longer supported and my best option is to buy a new one. So I have to leave it connected to my old computer and access it over the network. The only other install issue I had was my Epson printer drivers, but Vista came with drivers that did the same thing.

GregMalick
02-04-2008, 09:11 PM
And Here's the solution:

The widgets only properly display for me when using Windows Aero.

Titus
02-05-2008, 07:09 AM
Speaking of programs loading faster, here's another nice feature. I have a 4GB thumb drive used for Ready Boost which helps programs load faster and may quicken things up in general.

The thumb drive must be a fast drive. I tried ReadyBoost and some programs started to fail: Phostoshop crashed at startup, quicktime had quirks, etc.

starbase1
02-05-2008, 08:00 AM
Seriously, who complains about disk space in this day and age?



People with laptops for one...

And speaking as someone with a lovely little 'eee', running fine off of 4 Gb for everything, 15 Gb is not going to fit on at all!

starbase1
02-05-2008, 01:59 PM
Well, it's not a full featured laptop by any means, but toy is too harsh. And with other similar devices out there and on the way soon, it seems pretty sure that manufacturers are expecting the sub laptop market to open up a LOT.

And your statement that no one worries about disk space is simply wrong, as originally delivered.

I see it as relevant because if Microsoft stick to their published road map for withdrawing XP they will effectively abandon the low end market completely. I flat do not believe that MS have the balls to do that. There is a significant and growing sector of the hardware market (not lightwave users) who want or have machines incapable of running Vista.

I've also seen several laptops brought along to London Lightwave meetings that were perfectly capable of running the software with satisfactory performance. Worth remembering too that even moderate laptops these days have the power of a respectable desktop a couple of years ago...

Nick

Lightwolf
02-05-2008, 02:57 PM
I see it as relevant because if Microsoft stick to their published road map for withdrawing XP they will effectively abandon the low end market completely.
Nope, that's what they have CE for... a lowly OS for slow hardware. If they are interested in the segment they can cover it, I wouldn't worry about that.

The problem with Vista, or Windows is general, is that people expect to run their 20 year old software on it. And surprisingly it can work. What MS ought to do is show the finger to anybody who uses old software, like Apple does.
Can you imagine the outrage, especially from corporate users?

Who knows, maybe virtualization is an answer, and you'll get images of WfW, Win95/98, NT, W2K, XP and Vista as optional components included with future versions of Windows... ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
02-05-2008, 03:00 PM
We obviously have different views on what constitutes a viable computer and on what a critical amount of HD space is.
To be honest, it seems you have a much narrower view on it.
Something to browse, read e-mail and maybe ponder on a text document can be viable when travelling, or just for quick couple of minutes. I'm surprised at how often I use my laptop - and I hardly do any 3D on it.

Something like the eePC is a nice little commodity piece of hardware. Then again, I wouldn't want to run XP on it either...

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
02-05-2008, 03:12 PM
I just feel it's irrelevant when people bring those concerns to a Vista as a workstation environment thread. Hence my narrowmindedness in this context.
Well, in that case you'd want Irix, that's a real workstation OS :D

Cheers,
Mike

monovich
02-05-2008, 07:46 PM
I finally installed a copy of Windows Vista Business that I got for free. I've been nervously eying it for about six months. I put it on one of my XP64 render mules. (AMD X2, 4gb ram, 80gb hd). It seemed to install fine, but man that is one buggy OS on my hardware. I get random restarts, bugs galore with my graphics card (7800gts), incompatability with software I used to consider dependable.

I wondered how people could hate vista, but it really drives me nuts, and I can't recommend it to anyone unless I find out my hardware is somehow to blame.

edit: when it works it is great, and its much easier on the eyes than XP.

Philbert
02-05-2008, 08:11 PM
The thumb drive must be a fast drive. I tried ReadyBoost and some programs started to fail: Phostoshop crashed at startup, quicktime had quirks, etc.

It's a SanDisk Cruzer Micro 4GB
http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Item(1925)-SDCZ6-4096-A10-SanDisk_Cruzer_Micro_4GB_Black.aspx

RedBull
02-06-2008, 01:23 AM
I would blame your hardware driver vendors before blaming the OS. Vista is perfectly stable in itself. Though it has a few minor niggles, they are not centered around stability. It's easy blaming the OS while in fact the problem most often lies with 3rd party drivers.

I also run Vista Ultimate on my old Athlon64 based PC (ASUS K8V SE Deluxe motherboard) with 2Gb RAM and a 7800 GS. This system is older than yours and it's 100% stable.

Really means nothing a quick google search, and the fact that SP1 has already been RTM, (before even XPSP3) means it's not a perfect OS.

And if it's a driver issue, remember what Driver Signing and WHQL were meant to do? They were meant to stop driver incompatibilities existing, by checking to make sure they passed a bunch of Quality tests..... (Really it's an excuse to charge vendors money for a phony WHQL badge!)

I mean their are real problems with it, and i have 4 machines with Vista all of them exhibit some problems of a sort. Some minor, some major some hardware some software etc.... I also can get some of the same problems to occur on all 4 machines.. But i also expect trouble for being an early adopter and to run Vista (especially x64) before MS release SP2. It's just a production rule.
No MS software before SP2!

I was annoyed yesterday to find i needed an Update for TF2, to stop it crashing when changing servers. But no such update exists in Windows Update. But after some searching i found i needed to download this update.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105 Why is this not included in Windows Update? Grrrrrrr!

But lets hope that the appalling network and disk file performance is as improved as i hear it is in SP1. :)

BTW for the OP.
I read this today from the Tomshardware Vista vs XP comparison they did a while back.. "If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it;"

In terms of performance Vista blows hard, and I don't know about others but i pay a lot of money for my machine to render 1 second faster than it did 2 years before, so loading slower OS on a workstation doesn't really make a lot of sense in a professional realm. Maybe for a prettier way to check my email though! :)

starbase1
02-06-2008, 04:23 AM
Who knows, maybe virtualization is an answer, and you'll get images of WfW, Win95/98, NT, W2K, XP and Vista as optional components included with future versions of Windows... ;)

Cheers,
Mike

That's the way I see things going. My next home machine is going to have huge amounts of storage and memory as the top priority, and I'll be looking to install everything possible into VM's. This should also make keeping old software working much easier when I do upgrade too.

Oh, and you won't need MS to provide anything pre vista either, just install once into a VM and back it up. MS have only recently started deliberately making their software break VM's.

Andy Webb
02-06-2008, 04:37 AM
Well I'm with neverko on this one. :)

Lightwolf
02-06-2008, 05:38 AM
Really means nothing a quick google search, and the fact that SP1 has already been RTM, (before even XPSP3) means it's not a perfect OS.
Name one perfect OS and I'll let you off the hook :D

Cheers,
Mike

starbase1
02-06-2008, 10:43 AM
Name one perfect OS and I'll let you off the hook :D

Cheers,
Mike

The ZX Spectrum OS!

It included a complete programing language within it's 9 kilobytes of code, and as far as I am aware never had a single bugfix!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

There are software companies with EULA's bigger than that these days...

:thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow

The serious point behind this is that I do think there are a lot of problems caused directly by the 'ship it in its current state, we can always patch it later' approach adopted by far too many companies.

Nick

Lightwolf
02-06-2008, 11:33 AM
The ZX Spectrum OS!

It included a complete programing language within it's 9 kilobytes of code, and as far as I am aware never had a single bugfix!

None of the ROM based OSes ever had. And they had buggy hardware too, which was exploited and even cause later revsisions of the hardware to be compatible in terms of bugs as well (i.e. C= 64).


The serious point behind this is that I do think there are a lot of problems caused directly by the 'ship it in its current state, we can always patch it later' approach adopted by far too many companies.

Then again, as you know, we've passed the age where one person would write a complete OS. Heck, even the Amiga GUI was initially written by one person in a few weeks time.

Cheers,
Mike

Weetos
02-06-2008, 12:44 PM
The ZX Spectrum OS!

The microcode of the ZX wasn't really an OS per se. If I remember correctly, it was a BASIC interpreter, with only a few disk I/O routines. At this time, CP/M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M), a real OS based on a monolithic kernel that was able to run on Z80/8080 based computers such as the CPC6128 ( a best seller in Germany, Great Britain and France. Not sure there was a way to run it on a ZX, though

Concerning the bugfixes of those ROM firmwares, I remember that, in the case of the Amiga, a few bugs has been patched thanks to a trick that consisted in using a patched version of the bugged routines, that was loaded in RAM during the startup, so that each time the bugged routine was called, that call was intercepted and the patched routine was used instead.

creativecontrol
02-25-2008, 07:59 AM
Thanks for you advice Neverko, I put Vista 64 on my new box and I have to say I'm VERY pleased. I don't know what people are complaining about. I have two nearly identical boxes, both quad core 6600's, one on Vista 64 with 8 gig and one on XP with 4 gig.

Aero is a huge improvement to something that really needed it. The painful old drawing system windows has used forever has finally been updated and it's great! Smooth movement without that stupid window painting and horizontal tearing. Nice!

Vista boots just as fast. It loads Photoshop, Indesign and Illustrator about 5 times faster than XP! If you've loaded them before and they're in cache, it's about 10 times faster. It loads LW faster as well.

I like the memory management far better. It actually USES the ram to cache everything which makes a considerable improvement in real work performance. This does not seem to effect the performance of programs using the ram. I'm sure you can clear ram in nanoseconds while it takes much longer for new material to arrive from the HD.

Overall, I'm very pleased. I wouldn't go back.

Lottmedia
02-25-2008, 08:44 AM
I have to say that I've not had any major issues with Vista and like all the improvements. I think that some people just find it necessary to complain about everything Microsoft for some reason.

One thing I've noticed is people having vista problems seem to be people upgrading an XP 'puter. Haven't heard much from machines shipped with Vista or at least machines that should logically be running it. (1g ram and onboard graphics running Aero and you have problems, really?) It's got some steep reuirements, true, and if you want to eek every ounce of speed out of your setup, maby vista isn't for you, but I don't see anything more that general crabbiness behind a lot of the complaints I hear.

Casey :cat:

mattclary
02-26-2008, 08:44 AM
T
Vista boots just as fast.


Bullcrap. Vista is dog slow at booting. It's slower period, hardware for hardware, but when it comes to booting it is VERY much slower than XP.

I was recently at a customers house. We turned on his laptop that is almost identical to mine (but with 2GB ram). I pulled my laptop out of the bag and turned it on after powering his up, and my XP64 was STILL up before his Vista. I use my laptop for everything, have tons of crap on it, he is a little old man who uses his to surf the web and do some Excel spreadsheets.

I have a machine at work that I alternate between ghosts of XP and Vista, reboot the thing 10 times a day between the two. Vista boots slower. Lots slower.

I will say I have seen no stability issues with Vista, just bloat.

starbase1
02-26-2008, 10:06 AM
I don't know what people are complaining about. I have two nearly identical boxes, both quad core 6600's, one on Vista 64 with 8 gig and one on XP with 4 gig.


With that spec, anything would run fast...

Lets's put it this way. I could move at impressive speed in a Ferrari even, if I was wearing bedroom slippers.

That does not prove that bedroom slippers make great running shoes!

Lightwolf
02-26-2008, 10:18 AM
I could move at impressive speed in a Ferrari even, if I was wearing bedroom slippers.

That does not prove that bedroom slippers make great running shoes!
Lol... but it doesn't prove that bedroom slippers are the best to drive a Ferrari with either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
02-26-2008, 10:47 AM
Lol... but it doesn't prove that bedroom slippers are the best to drive a Ferrari with either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

They slip off and on more quickly and are much more comfortable to wear. They don't protect you well when stepping on nails, but I make it a habit to watch where I walk.

Lightwolf
02-26-2008, 12:55 PM
They slip off and on more quickly and are much more comfortable to wear.
No good fora Ferrari, you need a decent grip, the clutch is hell :D (Yeah, my dad had one ... one of the old ones that still looked nice)

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
02-26-2008, 01:00 PM
No good fora Ferrari, you need a decent grip, the clutch is hell :D (Yeah, my dad had one ... one of the old ones that still looked nice)

Cheers,
Mike

Come on, Mike! I'm using it as a metaphor for XP! Try to keep up, ok? ;)

Lightwolf
02-27-2008, 03:26 AM
Come on, Mike! I'm using it as a metaphor for XP! Try to keep up, ok? ;)
I did... the Q6600 is the ferrari and XP the slippers, right?

Cheers,
Mike

RedBull
03-02-2008, 09:29 PM
Is anyone using a Wacom Intuos3 in Vista?

I have this problem, where holding the pen down will invoke a animated icon (small circle that flashes) it makes modeling most un-enjoyable.

Has anyone found a way to disable this?
I have disabled the "Dynamic Feedback" tab options which look to provide this kind of thing, but no good... The only way seem to be to disable the Aero themes and use Windows Classic.

Philbert
03-02-2008, 11:03 PM
I'm using it in Vista, I do find that circle quite annoying, but I don't use my tablet for modeling. I haven't found a way of disabling that though. I had a hard enough time disabling the Tablet PC Input Panel.

Ztreem
03-03-2008, 01:18 AM
I'm using it in Vista, I do find that circle quite annoying, but I don't use my tablet for modeling. I haven't found a way of disabling that though. I had a hard enough time disabling the Tablet PC Input Panel.

That sounds like the press and hold thing for a right button click. I have disabled it on my TabletPC using XP Tablet Edition, maybe it's a similar thing in Vista. Should be a setting for it in the control panel, look for pen and tabletPC settings. I don't run Vista myself so I'm just guessing.

RedBull
03-03-2008, 02:31 AM
I'm using it in Vista, I do find that circle quite annoying, but I don't use my tablet for modeling. I haven't found a way of disabling that though. I had a hard enough time disabling the Tablet PC Input Panel.

Thanks i guess it's another 'feature' that cannot be turned off, just to infuriate me. I tried deleting some .exe files like wisptsis.exe, but of course even booting in safe mode, does not allow me access to delete a file on my HDD..... I just give up with Vista..... It makes it totally unusable for splines, point modeling.

Thanks for reply,

Lightwolf
03-03-2008, 03:15 AM
Is anyone using a Wacom Intuos3 in Vista?

I have this problem, where holding the pen down will invoke a animated icon (small circle that flashes) it makes modeling most un-enjoyable.

Hm... either I've never seen it or I managed to turn it off... I don't recall seeing it though.

There is a setting that shows you the location of the cursor when you press ctrl, could that be it?

Cheers,
Mike

Philbert
03-03-2008, 03:43 AM
Here's what circle looks like, although for me it's a silver color and doesn't glow, but has a drop shadow instead.

http://www.atrevido.net/blog/content/binary/TabletRightClick.png

it appears when you press down the stylus and hold it in one place for a second or two, then when you let go it bring up the "right-click" menu. Like if I copy some text on the page, hold until the circle appears, then let go , the menu pops up showing me Copy, select all, etc.

Lightwolf
03-03-2008, 03:50 AM
it appears when you press down the stylus and hold it in one place for a second or two, then when you let go it bring up the "right-click" menu. Like if I copy some text on the page, hold until the circle appears, then let go , the menu pops up showing me Copy, select all, etc.
Weird, I've never seen it. But I re-map my pen keys to be straight left (tip) middle and right mouse buttons.

Ah, there we go: Pen and Input Devices -> Pen Options -> Press and hold ... I've got that disabled.

There's also the "Dynamic Feedback" tab which controls the drawing of those circles.

Cheers,
Mike

Philbert
03-03-2008, 03:51 AM
Here's a solution I just found, worked fine for me.
http://www.pixolator.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=45893

Ztreem
03-03-2008, 11:20 AM
Ah, there we go: Pen and Input Devices -> Pen Options -> Press and hold ... I've got that disabled.


Just as I expected, as I mention earlier. It's one of the things that Vista have got from XP Tablet Edition.

Lightwolf
03-03-2008, 11:59 AM
Just as I expected, as I mention earlier. It's one of the things that Vista have got from XP Tablet Edition.
Yup, and a few other things as well. Vista is great with a Wacom, you even get the hand writing recognition (which works surprisingly well).

Cheers,
Mike

Philbert
03-03-2008, 12:07 PM
Yup, and a few other things as well. Vista is great with a Wacom, you even get the hand writing recognition (which works surprisingly well).

That was one of the few things I didn't like about Vista and the first thing I disabled. I hated having that thing pop up all the time and even on the edge of my screen when I wasn't using my tablet.

RedBull
03-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Here's what circle looks like, although for me it's a silver color and doesn't glow, but has a drop shadow instead.

http://www.atrevido.net/blog/content/binary/TabletRightClick.png

it appears when you press down the stylus and hold it in one place for a second or two, then when you let go it bring up the "right-click" menu. Like if I copy some text on the page, hold until the circle appears, then let go , the menu pops up showing me Copy, select all, etc.


Yeah i can't get rid of it, the dynamic controls which i mentioned in my OP do not have it marked or checked, (as it's not checked in that ZB link either) it always gives me this option, the other way around was to disable the Wacom driver, however this stops me from changing my buttons around.. It's alright i'm going back to XP on all machines, Vista is just not useful, with so many useless changes to me, and not advantages.. I did try that Wacom Europe page and ZB link, but it still did not fix the issue.

Cheers....

But thanks it's nice to know someone knows what I'm talking about.. :)
Anyone come up with a way to delete wisptis.exe let me know. :)
I also find Hand Recognition to be far annoying on a Non-Tablet PC. It should not even be installed by default on a normal desktop install.

Philbert
03-03-2008, 11:51 PM
Did you try...
On the Pen Options Tab, click "Press and Hold" then "Settings", Uncheck the box for "Enable press and hold for right clicking"?

At first I misread the directions and went to the "Pointer Options" tab and said "hey, everything's already unchecked!".

Doctor49152
03-06-2008, 02:45 AM
Just tested out a fairly complex scene of mine to decide if I want to go XP64 or Vista 64 on my new machine. Did a scene test in XP64, rebooted and did it in Vista64

XP64 time - 34:10
Vista64 time 35:06

Machine is Intel Q6600 (2.4 Ghz) and 8 gigs of ram.

Alt things being equal I am still not sure which way to go. It is still Vista after all.

starbase1
03-06-2008, 10:11 AM
Don't forget the new option - Windows Server 2008!

There are reports coming in that this outperforms Vista by 17% on identical hardware, and is generally much better all round.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2008/03/windows_worksta.html

That user was so impressed he is calling it "Windows NT 6.1 Workstation."

Nick

RedBull
03-07-2008, 12:45 AM
Don't forget the new option - Windows Server 2008!

There are reports coming in that this outperforms Vista by 17% on identical hardware, and is generally much better all round.
That user was so impressed he is calling it "Windows NT 6.1 Workstation."

Nick

I won't hold my breathe, but i miss NT4 and W2K as they really were excellent production workstation OS's.. So Windows NT 6.1 sounds good to me. 17% faster still makes Linux around 20% faster still! :)




XP64 time - 34:10
Vista64 time 35:06

Machine is Intel Q6600 (2.4 Ghz) and 8 gigs of ram.

Alt things being equal I am still not sure which way to go. It is still Vista after all.

When Explorer is crapper, when deleting files is impossible, and when the new desktop search finds nothing of what i want it too The nail in the coffin is the fact that after 5 years on identical hardware XP64 is far faster and less resource hungry.

Doctor49152
03-07-2008, 12:57 AM
looking at my previous post I made an error.

Vista64 time was 34:06 not 35:06

RedBull
03-07-2008, 01:32 AM
looking at my previous post I made an error.

Vista64 time was 34:06 not 35:06

Be warned that unless you run the render several times, and average the result, the times when within seconds of another are meaningless.