Posted by Rene de Heer on September 30, 2008 at 5:17 PM
I was wondering whether it is generally "safe" to go the Vista 64 bit route. I am asking this because in the past there were driver issues.
many thanks
Rene de Heer
Posted by Denis Glennon on October 1, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Rene,
I have Vista 64 Bit up & running for over 3 months and after a few initial, but not unanticipated, bugs, everything is fine. I like it very much.
I installed it when I configured/built a new computer especially for digital photography at the same time as I commenced using a Canon 1DsMkIII. My previous Dell workstation was so s-l-o-w in processing the files from the 21 Mp 1Ds.
All drivers/plugins I used with CS3 and 32 Bit, work fine. I had to search for a few new 64 Bit drivers but found them.
Hope this helps.
Denis.
Hello Rene
I have just installed it on to a second hard drive and made my PC dual boot between 32 bit and 64 bit. I have all my photos and docs stored on 2 separate hard drives in stripe formation, thus making it possible to access the images from either system. Eventually, I hope to just use 64, but up to now, I am having problems finding drivers for my Mutoh RJ 900 printer and my Roland Metaza.
Best wishes
Phil
Posted by Paula Graham on October 1, 2008 at 1:48 PM
I wanted to go that route when I had my new computer built in Feb this year but was told that PS does not like 64 bit! so, I stayed with XP Pro. But, I 'know nothing'!
Posted by David Clapp on October 1, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Its Killer, dont hesitate if you can afford a machine with lots of RAM.
I have never had a machine running Vista before this one. With the chokehold on available RAM it makes sense to get a machine that can cope with upgrade and Vista will give scope for a whopping 128mb RAM.
I have mostly modern peripherals, not because I demand the best (bangs fist) but because I happen to have bought a scanner and some hard drives lately. I use a HP4 printer that first printed a spreadsheet when Supersonic by Oasis was in the charts, runs fine.
I can process as 1DsIII 16bit TIF from RAW in around 3.5secs, I am subsequently very happy.
Any new operating system has “teething” problems, and just within itself.
When a new system is announced then the other software companies have to modify there drivers etc. so as to be compatible, and they don’t always get it right. So “driver” problems can’t always be associated with the new operating system.
Don’t forget because of economic factors, some companies will not offer drivers for some of there older programs due to small client base etc., or hardware when they are medium to small companies, invariably they just haven’t got the resources.
As an aside I have a 20Gb MP3 player, which I use extensively. To load tracks it needs Media Player 9 & XP, it doesn’t work Media 10, 11 is the current version. So is it worth keeping a laptop just for it, and not have the option to update tracks, when using more current versions. You know the answer.
Don’t forget that in the not too distant future Microsoft will not be supporting XP, and they have just released the last service pack, No.3. for XP. So soon you will have to change anyway. Its upto you at the end of the day when you make the jump.
If you are worried about Photoshop, then don’t, CS4 will be 64 bit compatible, assuming you intend to upgrade.
Don’t get too hung up on 64 bit. Don’t forget the M’board, processor, RAM, even down to the power supply and cooling system, even the location of the computer can have an affect on a computers performance. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Vista needs 1Gb to run and installing more than 8 is a waste of money, as Vista just will not see it.
When David refers to the 128mb, emphasis on the “mega” bytes, he is referring to the video card and not the RAM of the machine.
Vista is very graphic orientated, so you do need a top of the range video card.
If you are working on large files then you will need that 8Gb’s, so as to maintain a reasonable working flow/speed.
Don’t ever forget, that although you don’t see it, Vista etc., is always working in the background as well as possibly other programs, virus protect etc. all of which are nibbling away at that RAM.
Posted by Paul Inglis on October 4, 2008 at 4:31 AM
Hi Rene,
Firstly I recommend Vista Ultimate whether it's 32-bit or 64-bit. I've been running the 32-bit since its release with only a few teething problems early on. The 32-bit machine runs with 2GB RAM as more is not seen by the OS. However I'm just in the process of upgrading my desktop to 64-bit which can see as much RAM as you can put into it (up to 64GB I believe). I've chosen 8GB as I can’t see me needing more than that at this moment in time.
Before I decided to install 64-bit I did an online search for all the software I am using to discover if I could download the relevant drivers. Nearly all my software is now compatible with 64-bit Vista. I also found that Adobe Lightroom 2 and CS4 are both compatible with Vista 64-bit amongst many other software packages.
Discussion
7 repliesmany thanks
Rene de Heer
I have Vista 64 Bit up & running for over 3 months and after a few initial, but not unanticipated, bugs, everything is fine. I like it very much.
I installed it when I configured/built a new computer especially for digital photography at the same time as I commenced using a Canon 1DsMkIII. My previous Dell workstation was so s-l-o-w in processing the files from the 21 Mp 1Ds.
All drivers/plugins I used with CS3 and 32 Bit, work fine. I had to search for a few new 64 Bit drivers but found them.
Hope this helps.
Denis.
I have just installed it on to a second hard drive and made my PC dual boot between 32 bit and 64 bit. I have all my photos and docs stored on 2 separate hard drives in stripe formation, thus making it possible to access the images from either system. Eventually, I hope to just use 64, but up to now, I am having problems finding drivers for my Mutoh RJ 900 printer and my Roland Metaza.
Best wishes
Phil
I have never had a machine running Vista before this one. With the chokehold on available RAM it makes sense to get a machine that can cope with upgrade and Vista will give scope for a whopping 128mb RAM.
I have mostly modern peripherals, not because I demand the best (bangs fist) but because I happen to have bought a scanner and some hard drives lately. I use a HP4 printer that first printed a spreadsheet when Supersonic by Oasis was in the charts, runs fine.
I can process as 1DsIII 16bit TIF from RAW in around 3.5secs, I am subsequently very happy.
Any new operating system has “teething” problems, and just within itself.
When a new system is announced then the other software companies have to modify there drivers etc. so as to be compatible, and they don’t always get it right. So “driver” problems can’t always be associated with the new operating system.
Don’t forget because of economic factors, some companies will not offer drivers for some of there older programs due to small client base etc., or hardware when they are medium to small companies, invariably they just haven’t got the resources.
As an aside I have a 20Gb MP3 player, which I use extensively. To load tracks it needs Media Player 9 & XP, it doesn’t work Media 10, 11 is the current version. So is it worth keeping a laptop just for it, and not have the option to update tracks, when using more current versions. You know the answer.
Don’t forget that in the not too distant future Microsoft will not be supporting XP, and they have just released the last service pack, No.3. for XP. So soon you will have to change anyway. Its upto you at the end of the day when you make the jump.
If you are worried about Photoshop, then don’t, CS4 will be 64 bit compatible, assuming you intend to upgrade.
Don’t get too hung up on 64 bit. Don’t forget the M’board, processor, RAM, even down to the power supply and cooling system, even the location of the computer can have an affect on a computers performance. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Hope this helps.
Vista needs 1Gb to run and installing more than 8 is a waste of money, as Vista just will not see it.
When David refers to the 128mb, emphasis on the “mega” bytes, he is referring to the video card and not the RAM of the machine.
Vista is very graphic orientated, so you do need a top of the range video card.
If you are working on large files then you will need that 8Gb’s, so as to maintain a reasonable working flow/speed.
Don’t ever forget, that although you don’t see it, Vista etc., is always working in the background as well as possibly other programs, virus protect etc. all of which are nibbling away at that RAM.
Firstly I recommend Vista Ultimate whether it's 32-bit or 64-bit. I've been running the 32-bit since its release with only a few teething problems early on. The 32-bit machine runs with 2GB RAM as more is not seen by the OS. However I'm just in the process of upgrading my desktop to 64-bit which can see as much RAM as you can put into it (up to 64GB I believe). I've chosen 8GB as I can’t see me needing more than that at this moment in time.
Before I decided to install 64-bit I did an online search for all the software I am using to discover if I could download the relevant drivers. Nearly all my software is now compatible with 64-bit Vista. I also found that Adobe Lightroom 2 and CS4 are both compatible with Vista 64-bit amongst many other software packages.