Has vista got rid of most of the kinks by now?

[Lani]

deciding whether to switch to Mac, or upgrade my processor and memory etc, which requires upgrading to vista. I remember reading horror stories about it when it was first released, just wondering what the state of play with it is now? I know there is a new Windows OS in development, but have heard worrying things about that too. :rolleyes:

[Kym]

Vista is relatively stable but its fundamental issue of not supporting older hardware is still there. I needed a new Web cam and scanner.
Some older software wont run.
MS changed UI stuff without reason - so expect finding stuff harder. UAC (so called security) sux.

[Riverlander]

I have never had any real trouble with Vista - had it on this new machine for 2 years.
I have a mate who "fiddles" all the time and he is now using Windows 7 (I think that is right). He told me it is the new operating system from Microsoft and is a vast improvement on Vista. His is a freebie trial edition - good until Agust if I remember correctly. I have not seen it in operation.

[Lani]

So if I am upgrading processor etc, then it shouldn't be a problem? I am mostly using CS3, LR etc.

[Lani]

I have never had any real trouble with Vista - had it on this new machine for 2 years.
I have a mate who "fiddles" all the time and he is now using Windows 7 (I think that is right). He told me it is the new operating system from Microsoft and is a vast improvement on Vista. His is a freebie trial edition - good until Agust if I remember correctly. I have not seen it in operation.

Thanks Graham,
maybe I need to hold off for a bit then and wait for the newer OS.

[Kym]

Win 7 will be out late this year (80% confident). It is not a huge change from Vista (thankfully) - in fact it it almost a big service pack but they are charging for it.

[yummymummy]

Win 7 will be out late this year (80% confident). It is not a huge change from Vista (thankfully) - in fact it it almost a big service pack but they are charging for it.

Hmmmpf that's just typical of microsoft isn't it??? charging for things they should have put in in the first place..lol
I'm running vista on the laptop and haven't had any big problems with it. The biggest problem I'm having at the moment is trying to get my sons netbook to run wireless on the d-link router .. grrrrrr !!!! :angry0:

[Jcas]

I love Vista, but i do agree with Kym re UAC, i disable it ... :):)

[Kodi]

If you are running new hardware you won't have a problem with Vista.
I am Beta testing Windows7 at present and it will be a lot better than Vista when it is released,it is a modified version of Vista.
If you can wait I recommend getting Windows7.

[Tannin]

It doesn't matter what hardware you are running, Vista will be slower, have a more painful user interface, and deliver zero tangible benefit. Even Microsoft have given up on trying to get Vista right. As other posters have already noted, Vista is now on Death Row. It's due to be junked at the end of the year, and replaced by Windows 7 which already is similiar in use to, and runs at much the same speed as, XP - which is to say decently.

[arthurking83]

...... Vista is now on Death Row. It's due to be junked at the end of the year, and replaced by Windows 7 which already is similiar in use to, and runs at much the same speed as, XP - which is to say decently.

So is that faster than Vista?

I've read two opinions now that Win7 is much faster than Vista, using the same hardware.

I personally don't care as WinXP is more than I need, but I do need a new PC of some kind soon, mainly as a backup system as my kids get older and more PC aware.. I don't want to get a laptop with Vista if I can help it, but if Win7 runs faster then I'll feel less apprehensive about it.

[Tannin]

Windows 7 runs at about the same speed as XP, Arthur. I haven't done formal benchmark tests on it, for two reasons: (a) it's blindingly obvious to the naked eye, there is no need to measure it unless you want to compare Win7 with XP to figure out where the small differences are and in which direction (who cares?), and (b) it's still in beta, so the release version may be a little different. But you couldn't miss the speed difference between Vista and either XP or Win7 if you were using a sun dial as your stop watch.

My off-sider at work has been running Windows 7 at home for months now, it works fine. Our first test install of it was on an elderly Sempron 3100 with only 1GB RAM and a nothing-special video card (Geforce 5200? something like that - stock standard 3-year-old card). It was responsive and perfectly usable. Vista, on the same sort of machinery, is a complete dog.

[Tannin]

So is that faster than Vista?

Well, yes. But so is molasses.

[Kym]

Win 7 is closer to what Vista should have been. Then they charge you for it ? As I said above - it is really a big service pack (SP).
I wonder if we can get the ACCC make Microsoft give it for free? ;)

[ricktas]

I don' think charging for new versions of software is a Microsoft exclusive domain. When CS3 came out, and I bought it, my first thoughts were, it was just as 'service pack' for cs2.

[Tannin]

Just so Rick, although it's sensible to note that once any product reaches maturity, it's unlikely that there will be massive changes from one version to the next. Indeed, it becomes quite difficult to make any changes of great consequence to a mature product. And only a complete blithering idiot would make major changes just for the sake of changing things.

(Well, OK, that's exactly what Microsoft did when they went from XP (which is essentially Windows 2000 Service Pack 7) to Vista. But in this case, the result went well beyond even what you would normally expect from such a stupid strategy. Most people regard Vista as the worst Windows version of all time, with ME in second place along the Hall of Shame. Actually, I don't agree with that. I rate Windows 3.0 as the worst ever, closely followed by Vista, with ME in third place. But very few people these days remember Win 3.0 - it was a long time ago, and as usually happens with the particularly bad Windows versions, it was followed by a vastly better version (3.1) which had a much longer life. Similarly, ME was replaced by the excellent Windows 2000. Dare we assume that Win7 will be similar?)

[Kodi]

Win 7 is closer to what Vista should have been. Then they charge you for it ? As I said above - it is really a big service pack (SP).
I wonder if we can get the ACCC make Microsoft give it for free? ;)

Just imagine if that happens everyone will want the latest commodore or falcon for free (it's just an update of the previous model) LOL:D
I know where you are coming from here and i sort of agree with you as this release is too close to the Vista release.
I have been using Vista as my primary system since the days it was called Longhorn and have found it to be the most stable system i have had, people tend to forget the service pack and other issues that XP had.

[Lani]

Well now I am confused, I need a faster processor and more ram, but have been told XP can only really utitlise 2 gig of ram...which led me to believe I would need vista to get the benefit of the extra memory. Is that not the case?
Also, how does Windows OS compare with Mac in real terms...there is lot of sale hype out there. :rolleyes:

[Kym]

Well now I am confused, I need a faster processor and more ram, but have been told XP can only really utilise 2 gig of ram...which led me to believe I would need vista to get the benefit of the extra memory. Is that not the case?
Also, how does Windows OS compare with Mac in real terms...there is lot of sale hype out there. :rolleyes:

XP can use about 3.5 of 4GB (about 0.5 for IO mapping - esp. Graphics). So adding more memory to XP up to 4Gb is worthwhile. Even though any one program can only use 2GB the remainder is then for the operating system etc. Also you are always running more than one program.

The biggest beneficiary of the extra memory are high memory use programs like Lightroom, Photoshop etc.

This is the same for the 32 bit versions of Vista and Win 7.
The ONLY time you get real benefit of memory >4GB is a 64 bit operating system and 64 bit programs (of which there are few).

BTW: Win 7 will be V6.5 internally - because Microslug don't want to break things by bumping the major version number ;) Similar to Win 2000 (V5) and XP (V5.1).

Windoze V MacOS - it's a religious thing. There are trade offs.
Generally more software is available for Windoze esp. games.
MacOS is a variation of Unix and is more robust in design and execution. MacOS (Unix/Linux) is by design more secure.
MacOS is considered easier to use - but that takes a while if you brain has been programmed by using Windoze way of doing things.
Windoze is generally lower cost as you can use any hardware.
You need to have security add-ons to Windoze (Anti-Virus/Spyware etc).
Using a Mac (or Linux) is way cooler than using Windoze ;)

[Tannin]

Lani, RAM utilisation has got nothing to do with XP vs Vista vs Windows 7. None of the 32-bit Windows versions can use more than 3GB (note: 3GB, not 2GB) of RAM, and that applies to all of them equally. To use morethan 3GB you need a 64-bit Windows: XP-64, Vista-64, or 64-bit Windows 7. 64-bit Windows is not yet mature. XP 64 is a nightmare, Vista 64 little better (and in any case it's Vista), it's probably reasonable to expect that 64-bit Windows will come of age with Windows 7, though of course that remains to be seen. In the meantime, 32-bit Windows is the only practical option for most people. And that means that you are effectively limited to 3GB.

Vista has zero, repeat zero ability to benefit from extra RAM. In fact, Vista gets less benefit from RAM than XP because Vista wastes massive amounts of RAM - Vista with 2.0GB runs at about the same speed as XP or Win 2000 with 0.5GB.

As for your Windows vs Mac question, that's a whole different can of worms, however the executive summary is that the Mac OS is substantially more advanced than any version of Windows, but you pay for that with reduced software choice, and vastly higher prices for under-performing proprietary hardware that sacrifices functionality to external styling.

Edit: Kym beat me to it!

[Lani]

Thanks so much for your clarification Kym and Tony... quite elucidating in comparison to what the guy at the computer shop told me. :rolleyes:
So If I upgrade my processor from my current 2gig AMD3200+, and add 2 gig of ram to my current 2 gig, "should" that solve my problems when running LR and CS3/4 together?

[Kym]

Ha Tony! We seem to thing alike ;) Lani - at least the local experts agree ! Hope that makes things clearer.

Summary: Win XP (32 bit) - having 4GB (or 3GB) of memory is worth while.
Why 4? - memory sticks are often paired and it is better (more cost effective) to have the wasted 0.5 GB for performance.

EDIT: Your upgrade probably ONLY needs memory.
Once you think abut CPU upgrades ... the economics of a new box start making sense.

[Lani]

Ha Tony! We seem to thing alike ;) Lani - at least the local experts agree ! Hope that makes things clearer.

Summary: Win XP (32 bit) - having 4GB (or 3GB) of memory is worth while.
Why 4? - memory sticks are often paired and it is better (more cost effective) to have the wasted 0.5 GB for performance.

EDIT: Your upgrade probably ONLY needs memory.
Once you think abut CPU upgrades ... the economics of a new box start making sense.

Funnily enough, that was what I thought in the first place. :rolleyes: Well I can give it a try and if it doesn't solve the problem, I can still use it if I need a bigger upgrade.

Thanks again.:)

[Kym]

Thanks so much for your clarification Kym and Tony... quite elucidating in comparison to what the guy at the computer shop told me. :rolleyes:
So If I upgrade my processor from my current 2gig AMD3200+, and add 2 gig of ram to my current 2 gig, "should" that solve my problems when running LR and CS3/4 together?

Depends on the shop :D If it were Tony's shop you would get good advice.
Hardly Normal etc are often worse than useless.

If you box is 3 years old (or more) be careful upgrading - the economics don't work out usually (memory being the exception).

A whole new box for $1,200...$1,500 will be 3 or 4 times faster. A CPU upgrade buys you maybe 50% - if your lucky.
Reasons:
New box = new mother board = faster bus (key to overall performance)
New box = more and faster memory
New box = fundamentally faster CPU technology
New box = faster disk technology

[Tannin]

A bit more detail on Kym's suggestion gor using 4GB rather than 3GB.

Generally, modern system use RAM sticks in pairs. It is important that these be matched pairs, not mixed brands. RAM comes in 0.5GB, 1GB, and 2GB sticks. So, to get 3GB, you need to use 2 x 1.0GB + 2 x 0.5GB. First, you have to find sticks of 512MB RAM, which isn't easy anymore, and you will pay a price premium because they are no longer mainstream products. Second, you are using 4 sticks instead of 2 sticks, and the lower the number of parts, the more reliable the system is. So, as Kym says, it's best to simply put in 2 x 2GB for 4GB in total and not worry about the small wastage.

But Lani, it sounds to me as though you are running a Socket 939 Athlon - most 3200s were Socket 939 - and they use the older DDR-1, not the current DDR-2 RAM. So you will pay quite a premium for RAM to fit your machine now. (Asuming it is indeed DDR-1.) I'm not sure that you wil get a lot of benefit from what will be, in the end, a substantial expense.

In your shoes, I'd look hard at your software setup. You should be able to get perfectly decent (not brilliant but perfectly OK) performance from an Athlon 64 3200 with 2GB RAM. If you are not, then you probably need to pay some attention to streamlining your system, in particular, paying attention to what's starting up that doesn't need to be and is, in consequnce, robbing you of the free RAM and CPU performance you need to run two very large, inefficient, and very slow programs at the same time (Lightroom and Photoslug). Any decent computer tech or a skilled home user can help you with that.

The best alternative is probably to upgrade your system to something that uses the newer, faster, cheaper DDR-2 RAM. Right now, you have a choice between very affordable and good but not mind-blowing dual core CPUs, and rather expensive quad-core ones like the X4 920 and X4 940. Quad cores are not quite ready for prime time: they perform OK but the third and fourth cores sit idle waiting for a spare task they can perform much of the time, meaning that the practical benefit of a quad is limited. The good news, however, is that the gap is narrowing fast: we are just starting to see the new generation of dual core chips based on the latest quad-core technology arrive, and over the next few months, there will be more of them and faster. Meanwhile, the quads are dropping in price.

So your best plan is probably to tweak up your software settings for the time being, and look at replacing the 2GB 3200 motherboard with a high-spec dual-core or reduced-price quad core in three to six months time, when (unless I miss my guess) the pricing will be very attractive.

[Tannin]

PS: if my guess about your motherboard is right (Socket 939 3200), you can't just upgrade the CPU. They don't make Socket 939 chips anymore. So I'm assuming that you do CPU, mainboard, and RAM in one go. Typically, that gives you 80-90% of the benefit of a new system at around 50% of the cost. If the rest of your system is ancient, then the bets are off, of course.

[Lani]

That makes perfect sense, Thanks Tony :)
I have looked at what stuff is running in the background, but my guess is I am missing something. Like you say, the system should be handling it better.
Good news to hear that price of something is going to be dropping. :D
Gives me time to save a few pennies, and just upgrade the whole lot in a little while.

Thanks again for you help.

[Kodi]

Go to start/run and type in msconfig click OK and then open the startup tab and you will see a list of all programs that are running when you start your computer.
You can turn them off here and it will improve your performance.
For example if you are running Microsoft Office you can turn it off and then when you try to open Word or Excel it will take a few seconds more as it starts the program.
Adobe and Nero are major offenders also .
If you are not sure what to turn off just post a list of your startup programs and we can advise you what to turn off at startup

[Lani]

Go to start/run and type in msconfig click OK and then open the startup tab and you will see a list of all programs that are running when you start your computer.
You can turn them off here and it will improve your performance.
For example if you are running Microsoft Office you can turn it off and then when you try to open Word or Excel it will take a few seconds more as it starts the program.
Adobe and Nero are major offenders also .
If you are not sure what to turn off just post a list of your startup programs and we can advise you what to turn off at startup

Thanks for that,
I'll have a look and see. :)
*edit*
Just had a look and there are quite a few programs there. The screen doesn't show the whole names, so how do I find out what they actually are....just check them individually in the locations shown or is there an easier way?

[Kodi]

If you place your cursor on the line in between where it says; start up item and manufacturer it should turn into a cross, click and hold down your left mouse button and drag to the right it should reveal more info.