The current computer I have (Dell) is nearing the 8 year old mark, has a Celeron processor, a measely 512k of RAM, and runs on XP Pro. Its on its third HD and I added a USB 2 port because it came with USB 1.1, but other than that has worked exceptionally well. I use it primarily for surfing the internet, emailing, and photo editing. Needless to say the photo editing software that I use on it is now quite long in the tooth and newer software (Lightroom) just isn't going to work without some serious upgrades. So I've decided its time to upgrade the whole thing. I remember reading all the complaints about Vista when it came out and for that reason I've avoided doing an upgrade for the past year or so. You can still get new computers with XP Pro installed instead of Vista. Is this still advised? I am also considering going with quad core processors or is a dual core sufficient. Also I planned on getting 4 gigs of RAM but have read that XP only uses 3 gigs. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
1) Most of the problems with Vista have largely been solved, and I know several people who are very happy with it for their photography needs. It will probably need some setup when you get your computer though, perhaps more than XP. I don't know that details though, since I'm still on XP myself. I plan on getting Vista in my next computer though.
2) Quad core processors would give you a definite advantage over dual core for software that uses multiple cores. I believe PS (and lightroom, etc.) would see a good increase in performance from a quad core, but those programs run terrific on dual cores as well.
3) You can use more than 3 GB of RAM if you have a 64-bit version of XP or Vista. Actually, you can use more than 3 GB even with a 32-bit version of the OS, since some memory can/will be dedicated to other cards and peripherals, etc. 4GB should cover it, though some of it may not get used much, since it's not main memory for the OS.
No need to waste money on another OS that has no clear advantages, as noted above.
There's a very good reason why computer manufacturers are still offering XP on their computers over a year after Vista's introduction.
Conventional wisdom seems to be that Vista was released too early, and that it's successor will be the OS that should have been released instead. An internet search will reveal the problems that Vista users continue to experience.
If I were to upgrade now, I would stay with XP Pro. I hope I have that option myself in a year or two.
Despite all of the horror stories and anti Microsoft biases you have probably already encountered, Vista works just fine. I have been running it since it came out and now many programmes even support the 64 bit version. Since you seem to be someone who keeps a computer for a while you may as well go with a quad core. Current programmes don't fully utilize all four cores, but eventually they will. Having said all this, you should seriously consider a Mac. Slick engineering and they seem to work will fewer problems and faster than PCs. I have a quad core PC with loads of RAM and am making the switch to Mac.
If you go with a Mac (or even if you don't really) make sure to search on here for the Mac vs. PC, and computer buying threads. There's some good opinions and advice on there (most important, I think, is to buy as many add-ons as you can from someone other than Apple - extra RAM, bigger drives, etc. Apple's markup is huge.)
As an operating system Vista is sort of ok - on the plus side is a better user interface, better security (at the expense of convenience), better performance (as long as you have the machine resources to make it happen). On the down side, it requires large amount of space on your hard drive, it is very finicky when used with software and hardware not officially certified Vista compatible, and can be a disaster if you have any legacy hardware (printers, graphics cards, storage devices, cameras, etc) that require proprietary drivers to run. Typically, if you are stuck with a prodduct that the mfgr has decided not to support on Vista, you are outta luck and will have to upgrade to the latest version of their product.
Nothing wrong with XP - I work for a Fortune 500 company that took delivery on 900 laptops from Dell - all of which were equipped with XP Pro. Lenovo and other companies still offer XP Pro as an option. That says to me that even though Microsoft will cease production and live support for XP retail in June, its going to be around for a while.
As far as Mac is concerned, there is nothing wrong with that. As always, make sure that the primary software that you intend to use is also available for Mac. If you are going to end up using a Mac in IBM compatibility mode it sounds like its not the best use of your $$$, since Macs cost so much more than PC compatible machines for an equivalent level of performance. I hope this post does not touch off another Mac vs PC battle.
I'd stick with XP Pro and make the upgrade to the Vista replacement when it is released in a year or so. As for the Mac thing, don't listen to the hype. If you build a system that is compatible they will be close to the same price and the performance will be very similar (you want see the difference). BTW, if you're looking at Dell, look at the Workstations for business applications and not the cheaper home versions. There's a difference in service and the units ARE more powerful with more Pro options. This is where PC buyers make the mistake and ends up unhappy! Remember, if you build a comparable system to a Mac they will be very close in $$$$.
I just built a new Dell Precision M4300 Certified mobile workstation with dedicated North American-based technical support. It has an Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 (2.60GHz) 6M L2 Cache, 800MHz Dual Core processor, 4.0GB DDR2-667MHz SDRAM (2 DIMMS), 15.4 inch Wide Screen WSXGA+ TrueLife LCD Panel, 200GB Hard Drive, 9.5MM, 7200RPM (with Fall Sensor), 8X DVD+/-RW w/Roxio Creator/Cyberlink PDVD, NVIDIA Quadro FX 360M, 512MB Turbo Cache memory video card,and a bunch of other goodies! Oh, and built with XP Pro, this is what my big workstation is built with. The final price, without any software is $1750. The comparable MacBook Pro is $2200.
If you're going to look at a Mac, buy a Mac Pro or a Mac Book Pro. If you're spending the money for one there's no need to buy an iMac.
I'm the director of network security for a large private university in Denver. Every Fall we do an orientation for new students, which includes installing software on their laptops. We see about 2,000 students over the course of three days. I get to see the major flavors of OS (Vista, XP, Mac OS-X) on quite a few different platforms (except, of course OS-X which only runs on Apple hardware) and I can tell you that if it were me making the decision, I'd hold off on Vista. We see huge problems with it, whereas XP Pro is pretty stable. From a security perspective, Mac OS-X is the better route for the present. Every year we see the percentage of Apple machines increase - I think it was around 35% of all student laptops this year.
I personally have both Windows XP and Apple machines, and I run XP on my MacBook Pro in a VMWare Fusion virtual machine. It's the best of both worlds from my perspective.
Just happened to see this brief article on Shoot Smarter (free registration may be required). They appear to be in the process of upgrading to Vista 64-bit. That brings up an interesting question to me....
I've heard people claim that they have a lot less problems with Windows using the highest end version, and the 64-bit versions. I myself have always had XP pro and have had one small early problem with it 5 years ago, and nothing since. Is it possible that the "home" editions, and particularly the 32-bit editions, are a big reason people have problems with Windows? Anyone else have this experience?
Now that Vista SP1 is out, the OS is rock solid. I've been using Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core Dell E1705 for over a year (w/4GB of RAM, 3.3GB usuable being on 32 bit). There are advantages that XP can't give you. One is that all drivers run in user-space memory in Vista, NOT in the system kernel like XP and earlier. What this means: if you're doing work and your video driver glitches, Vista detects and restarts it in nanoseconds. XP would hang until you reboot. Vista also pops up a polite box and lets you know what it just did. I was in the middle of an edit in PS CS2 when I got the message that my NVidia driver failed, but was restarted for me. I didn't even see a flicker on the screen. If it was XP Pro, I'd have lost the Photoshop work.
You know the standard columns in Windows Explorer showing Date Modified, Size, etc? Vista adds many more, including Focal Length, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed, EV setting (YEP, all photography info). Even camera model... how handy is that when sorting and searching? Also File Dimensions... I can easily spot all my 1920x1200 images when searching for a new Desktop.
SP1 filled in all the drivers that the manufacturers were too lazy to create when Vista came out (35,000 more were added). BTW, that was one of the hang ups last year about Vista, no drivers for everyone's older hardware (printers, etc). Not a big issue now!
The big important thing to remember with Vista: run everything as Administrator, especially Adobe products. ALSO, you can always run a program in XP Compatiblity Mode if it won't run under Vista.
Now that SP1 is released, this is the Vista I've been waiting for. I still have to use XP Pro at the office, but for my world, I wouldn't go back to XP if you paid me.
Paul - Sounds great, but running as Administrator is a bit of a security no-no. Unless you're suggesting that you log in as a regular user and use "Run As" to run programs as administrator.
Of course, I doubt most people don't log in as administrator, so this might not be a problem...
I've been using Vista Ultimate 32-bit since it's release and I'm more than happy with it! The release of SP-1 has helped a bit but I never really suffered any major problems without it! I also have a machine running on Vista Home Preimum which is also problem free.
My advice is to get Vista Ultimate 32-bit if you do go down this road as it offers a more stable OS. If you go to 64-bit some exsisting hardware may not work i.e. printers, etc...
I have found that Vista is more power hungry than XP was so a min. of 2GB RAM is required and will operate most new software such as lightroom and CS3. Also ensure a decent processor of at least 2.0 Mhz Core Duo processor would have it's advantages too.
Posted by Dan Baumbach on May 22, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I'm running Vista and I like it. It's a lot prettier than XP and in general I've had no problems with it. Because Windows is so prevalent, nearly every virus written targets Windows and Microsoft went overboard trying to protect users from a virus taking over their computers. The resulting User Access Control is the reason a lot of people hate Vista. But you can easily turn it off if you feel you and your anti virus program are enough security.
You should probably visit a friend who runs Vista or play with a computer in a store so you know what you're getting into.
- Dan.
Posted by Doug Andrews on June 10, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Based on the advice here and other places I purchased a Dell Vostro with an Intel Core 2 Quad Processor (2.4GHz, 8MB L2 Cache), 4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM (4 DIMMs), a 19-inch widescreen UltraSharp flat panel monitor (which will be used in a dual setup with my 17-inch UltraSharp monitor), 256MB ATI Radeon video card, 160GB HD (in addition to my Western Digital 250GB external HD I currently have),and a 16x DVD +/-RW burner all running on XP Pro. Dell had a deal through their business line of desktops where you could get XP Pro installed and they would also include the Windows Vista disk if/when you want to upgrade to that OS, so we got that bonus feature.
Discussion
16 replies1) Most of the problems with Vista have largely been solved, and I know several people who are very happy with it for their photography needs. It will probably need some setup when you get your computer though, perhaps more than XP. I don't know that details though, since I'm still on XP myself. I plan on getting Vista in my next computer though.
2) Quad core processors would give you a definite advantage over dual core for software that uses multiple cores. I believe PS (and lightroom, etc.) would see a good increase in performance from a quad core, but those programs run terrific on dual cores as well.
3) You can use more than 3 GB of RAM if you have a 64-bit version of XP or Vista. Actually, you can use more than 3 GB even with a 32-bit version of the OS, since some memory can/will be dedicated to other cards and peripherals, etc. 4GB should cover it, though some of it may not get used much, since it's not main memory for the OS.
There's a very good reason why computer manufacturers are still offering XP on their computers over a year after Vista's introduction.
Conventional wisdom seems to be that Vista was released too early, and that it's successor will be the OS that should have been released instead. An internet search will reveal the problems that Vista users continue to experience.
If I were to upgrade now, I would stay with XP Pro. I hope I have that option myself in a year or two.
Troup (Mac fanatic if you haven't guessed)
Nothing wrong with XP - I work for a Fortune 500 company that took delivery on 900 laptops from Dell - all of which were equipped with XP Pro. Lenovo and other companies still offer XP Pro as an option. That says to me that even though Microsoft will cease production and live support for XP retail in June, its going to be around for a while.
As far as Mac is concerned, there is nothing wrong with that. As always, make sure that the primary software that you intend to use is also available for Mac. If you are going to end up using a Mac in IBM compatibility mode it sounds like its not the best use of your $$$, since Macs cost so much more than PC compatible machines for an equivalent level of performance. I hope this post does not touch off another Mac vs PC battle.
I'd stick with XP Pro and make the upgrade to the Vista replacement when it is released in a year or so. As for the Mac thing, don't listen to the hype. If you build a system that is compatible they will be close to the same price and the performance will be very similar (you want see the difference). BTW, if you're looking at Dell, look at the Workstations for business applications and not the cheaper home versions. There's a difference in service and the units ARE more powerful with more Pro options. This is where PC buyers make the mistake and ends up unhappy! Remember, if you build a comparable system to a Mac they will be very close in $$$$.
I just built a new Dell Precision M4300 Certified mobile workstation with dedicated North American-based technical support. It has an Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 (2.60GHz) 6M L2 Cache, 800MHz Dual Core processor, 4.0GB DDR2-667MHz SDRAM (2 DIMMS), 15.4 inch Wide Screen WSXGA+ TrueLife LCD Panel, 200GB Hard Drive, 9.5MM, 7200RPM (with Fall Sensor), 8X DVD+/-RW w/Roxio Creator/Cyberlink PDVD, NVIDIA Quadro FX 360M, 512MB Turbo Cache memory video card,and a bunch of other goodies! Oh, and built with XP Pro, this is what my big workstation is built with. The final price, without any software is $1750. The comparable MacBook Pro is $2200.
If you're going to look at a Mac, buy a Mac Pro or a Mac Book Pro. If you're spending the money for one there's no need to buy an iMac.
I'm the director of network security for a large private university in Denver. Every Fall we do an orientation for new students, which includes installing software on their laptops. We see about 2,000 students over the course of three days. I get to see the major flavors of OS (Vista, XP, Mac OS-X) on quite a few different platforms (except, of course OS-X which only runs on Apple hardware) and I can tell you that if it were me making the decision, I'd hold off on Vista. We see huge problems with it, whereas XP Pro is pretty stable. From a security perspective, Mac OS-X is the better route for the present. Every year we see the percentage of Apple machines increase - I think it was around 35% of all student laptops this year.
I personally have both Windows XP and Apple machines, and I run XP on my MacBook Pro in a VMWare Fusion virtual machine. It's the best of both worlds from my perspective.
Good luck on your decisions!
Arlen
I've heard people claim that they have a lot less problems with Windows using the highest end version, and the 64-bit versions. I myself have always had XP pro and have had one small early problem with it 5 years ago, and nothing since. Is it possible that the "home" editions, and particularly the 32-bit editions, are a big reason people have problems with Windows? Anyone else have this experience?
Now that Vista SP1 is out, the OS is rock solid. I've been using Vista Ultimate on a Dual Core Dell E1705 for over a year (w/4GB of RAM, 3.3GB usuable being on 32 bit). There are advantages that XP can't give you. One is that all drivers run in user-space memory in Vista, NOT in the system kernel like XP and earlier. What this means: if you're doing work and your video driver glitches, Vista detects and restarts it in nanoseconds. XP would hang until you reboot. Vista also pops up a polite box and lets you know what it just did. I was in the middle of an edit in PS CS2 when I got the message that my NVidia driver failed, but was restarted for me. I didn't even see a flicker on the screen. If it was XP Pro, I'd have lost the Photoshop work.
You know the standard columns in Windows Explorer showing Date Modified, Size, etc? Vista adds many more, including Focal Length, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed, EV setting (YEP, all photography info). Even camera model... how handy is that when sorting and searching? Also File Dimensions... I can easily spot all my 1920x1200 images when searching for a new Desktop.
SP1 filled in all the drivers that the manufacturers were too lazy to create when Vista came out (35,000 more were added). BTW, that was one of the hang ups last year about Vista, no drivers for everyone's older hardware (printers, etc). Not a big issue now!
The big important thing to remember with Vista: run everything as Administrator, especially Adobe products. ALSO, you can always run a program in XP Compatiblity Mode if it won't run under Vista.
Now that SP1 is released, this is the Vista I've been waiting for. I still have to use XP Pro at the office, but for my world, I wouldn't go back to XP if you paid me.
Of course, I doubt most people don't log in as administrator, so this might not be a problem...
I've been using Vista Ultimate 32-bit since it's release and I'm more than happy with it! The release of SP-1 has helped a bit but I never really suffered any major problems without it! I also have a machine running on Vista Home Preimum which is also problem free.
My advice is to get Vista Ultimate 32-bit if you do go down this road as it offers a more stable OS. If you go to 64-bit some exsisting hardware may not work i.e. printers, etc...
I have found that Vista is more power hungry than XP was so a min. of 2GB RAM is required and will operate most new software such as lightroom and CS3. Also ensure a decent processor of at least 2.0 Mhz Core Duo processor would have it's advantages too.
You should probably visit a friend who runs Vista or play with a computer in a store so you know what you're getting into.
- Dan.