This content has been marked as final. Show 46 replies
There are many threads on this subject. I suggest you search and read.
However, in my opinion - NO! Stay with XP for the moment. I see no advantage in moving from 32bit XP to 32bit Vista.
There are users that are on Vista with CS3 that appear to be doing ok. Other are not. If you upgrade to Vista, you may find that some of your programs and/or peripheral's may not work or work properly.
If you do move to Vista (which I find very good) make sure you read and understand the O/S beforehand.
Thanks for responding. Have you had any problems running premiere on Vista?
I will sum up Vista in two words: Stay Away.
Todd, to be fair, yes, but those same problems appear on XP so they're not related to the O/S. I think CS3 is a little buggy (especially audio) and these show up in larger projects (mine usually end up with 400/500Gb of source files).
I must admit there are less problems with Vista x64 than XP Pro and I attribute that to the way Vista manages my 8Gb RAM and the Quad processor.
You have gotta remember that XP is over six years old now and its development stopped at SP2 basically.
Take the time to learn Vista management and you won't be disappointed.
I've run three major longform projects off Vista now without hassle.
BTW: The biggest difference so far with Vista is you need to learn to turn things OFF whereas XP was the other way round. And you do need a good machine.
>its development stopped at SP2 basically.
Not sure that's true. SP3 for XP is due out early '08, and will contain all the real benefits of Vista (security) but without any of the issues. In addition, so many people started to switch back that Microsoft extended official support for XP by several years.
In addition to Jim's last post, seller's of Vista installed PC's are also offering an "upgrade" to XP disc for some of their units. I know, because I bought one for one of my clients. There have also been reports that Vista is slower than XP in performance.
If you only have one NLE and its used for revenue, Its generally not a good idea to make such a major change with your production system. However, if its just a hobby, knock yourself out!
Once Vista is verified (probably after a few SPx's) as being truly more stable and with better performance then XP, then I'll gladly switch.
I'd just be happy to hear that Abobe has ported CS3 over to 64bit XP!
G'day Guys, that's a great sales pitch by Microsoft. Vista sales world wide now are greater than XP was at the same time after release and they get the bonus of remarketing XP. Dell, who are the major purchaser of MS O/S started all this when they identified the original feed back on Vista and started reinstalling XP on new machines. That has now been reversed by Dell and once again Vista is their preferred O/S.
If you dig deep enough on the Microsoft site I think you will find the impending SP3 is a cumulative update, focused on security,but without any new technology. Makes sense if you take into account the cost of upgrading a redundant product.
Did Windows XP ever receive any "new technology". I don't recall anything new, just improvements on what was already there. In fact, adding the secirity features of Vista to XP with the SP3 patch will probably be the first time anything "new" (from a user feature standpoint) was ever added to XP.
I guess my point was that XP is still alive and kicking, and often outperforming Vista, so to suggest it's dead in the water would be somewhat misleading.
XP = Many fewer headaches for video editing than vista for now.
I had to upgrade in the middle of a project because my old XP system (P2.4, 2gb of RAM) was running soooo slow especially when doing multi-cam editing which I tend to do a lot. Vista has actually been a pleasant surprise to me. I read all of the horror stories and was afraid that I'd be spend more time getting the machine to work than working with the machine to get the project out. But as it turned out, the Cs3 Suite works great on Vista. I did experiment and turn some things off, like Aero, but really didn't see much of a difference. So I now leave everything on and for the most part (see below) it's been good. Having a Quad-care chip really helps.
Some do's and don'ts though. Do NOT get Home Basic..it's way too basic for video editing. I have Home Premium and it works fine. DO make sure you have plenty of RAM. I have three gb and it worked fine until Adobe came out with their 3.1.1 patch which if I had to do it over again I would NOT install. Talk about buggy. I may get more RAM...or I may just re-install Premiere CS3 and NOT install the patch.
Cool chart, Harm :D
I had been using vista for like the last year on all my machines, but I just dumped it!! There is NO advantage of anything I used or read about. But, LOTs of negatives! I updated to XP X64 and have never had my machines run so well. I now have even seen Premiere using 1.8 gig of memory space with x64.
I have read SP3 for XP is supposed to add maybe 10% more performance,
but not sure.
SP1 for Vista is supposed to add around -/-5% performance.
The reviews I have read said 0 performance improvement
with Vista SP1.
Until software and hardware you want to use forces you to use Vista I
wouldn't touch it with a dead mans finger. Vista is the worst OS Microsoft
has ever done and that includes Me and Bob. It isn't that there are lots of
bugs or security or even compatability issues. For me it comes down to the
interface changes. The UAC is a joke and one that makes you want to scream.
Having drop down menus turned off by default is another scream inducing
change. Plus it is slow. It takes 20 to 30 seconds to delete a file it has
calculate how long it will take to do the task and then do it. Microsoft
made us wait 5 years for this nightmare and based on what has been said the
SP1 isn't going to fix any of this.
Don't touch it until you have no other choice and then switch to a Mac. If I
hadn't just spent $2000 upgrading my system I would go Mac in a heart beat.
Microsoft really salamied the pooch with this thing.
G'day Robert and Dave, you gotta laugh at your Vista comments. Think about this! Even on this thread a number of people relate the very positive experience they get from Vista and all here use CS3. Every Vista CD that comes from Microsoft is identical therefore the only reason you can't get it to work better than XP must be a lack of knowledge or understanding of Vista or your machinery doesn't meet specs.
When you make comments like "don't touch it" or "switch to Mac" can only confirm what is said above.
Vista is different to XP, that's the way it's designed and the emphasis placed on security is a pain in the butt, but overall it's far more efficient than XP ever was or will be.
Dave, just to clear up an issue you raised. SP3 for XP is a service release and will not (nor ever has)increase the performance of XP unless you had initially set up XP incorrectly.
Vista, particularly x64, and CS3 make a great working environment particularly for long form editing without all the quirks of previous software. I've used Premiere on all sorts of platforms since v4.2 and the only editing suite I've found better in recent times is GV Edius v4.5 which is a dream on Vista x64
Love Vista all you want. I have been a beta tester for all the OS releases in the past for years. I have the latest state of the art hardware that is not even released to the public yet. And, I am now running XP X64.
Best of luck with Vista. There is NOTHING that runs on vista that does not run on XP. I have yet to read ANY bench mark that shows vista faster on anything. Vista does force you to get much more expensive hardware which the HW mfgs love.
I am more interested in stability, compatibility, and performance.
XP and Xp X64 gives me all of that.
Hi Dave, I didn't realise from your comments that you were a certified beta tester for MS, so am I. My job is to review relationships between MS O/S's and NLE's.
I've got some interesting questions for you on Vista networking later and how it relates to CS3. With your experience this should be a cinch. I'll put it in a new thread.
What are your machine specs?
No, I did not say I was a certified beta tester for MS.
But, I do lots of testing of beta products for many companies,
so of them I go under NDA on.
I love to be at the bleeding edge. But, after over a year messing around with Vista, when I plugged a scanner into vista and it would not work, I just threw in the towel.
So, tell me one program that ONLY runs under vista. And, tell me one
program that runs faster under vista? I have never seen, let alone read a report on anything like this.
I have two intel 5460's. 8 gig of memory. Sas drives.
I have no desire to ever go to a mac, but, I will wait until windows 7 in a few years and hope MS takes the junk out of the new OS.
Of ever came up with the UAC junk should be fired!!!!
I have no vested relationship with any company, other than to be honest with what I have seen.
Sure not happy with Adobe at the moment. I have wasted my entire day just working on getting back to Premiere 3.1.0, even though it is not clear the audio sync issue goes away.
Dave, consider this - where people go wrong with Vista is in thinking it works similar to XP. In fact, Vista adopts the position of turning most things on at startup and to tweak you need to turn services off.
One program that runs considerably faster on Vista x64 is CS3, as long as you have plenty of RAM and horse power.
Faster than XP 64 bit John? Or faster than XP 32 bit?
Interesting question, Jim. Certainly quicker than XP x32. What you need to remember is that memory management in Vista is vastly different to XP and really noticeable in x64bit.
You know my test setup is a dual boot quad with 8Gb Ram. With CS3 rendering Vista x64 is about 10% quicker over the same task and I can multi task in Vista more efficiently with programs like "Bridge" working much quicker than under XP.
Where a lot of people get caught is in thinking that Vista operates similar to XP and quite simply it doesn't. Just another large learning curve that throws the inexperienced and others that haven't bothered to study the new O/S.
People like Dave need to stick with XP until they get more knowledge of Vista but I think it unfair to bag Vista when quite a number of editors are working it very successfully. (The quiet achievers)
>My job is to review relationships between MS O/S's and NLE's.
Redgum, would you consider writing up a "how-to" guide in a new thread for setting up a new installation of Vista 64 for running Adobe's CS3 Production Suite?
I've got a copy just sitting here. The last piece of hardware (Aja Xena) that I was waiting for a driver for, just released Vista 64 drivers. I'd install it on my NLE if I had a reliable guide to "tweaking" the OS so I won't be stuck with no NLE for weeks while trying to figure it out myself.
I'm in a Catch-22 when it comes to Vista 64. The only machine that will really benefit from it is my NLE, yet I don't want to use my NLE as a "learning" machine.
Jeron, the best solution here is to dual boot your PC but make sure XP is loaded first (which it probably is).
The two O/s's cohabit lovingly but I made sure I loaded Vista on a separate drive (not partitioned).
This means you can get on with your work through the day and happily switch over to Vista at your leisure.
Actually, I bought a book called "Introducing Windows Vista" by William R Stanek (Microsoft Press)and worked through each chapter until I had the basics down pat and went on-line for the finer points.
Depending on what O/S you boot into that drive will be the "C" drive and you can share files as normal. For instance...
I've got CS3 on both XP and Vista that both access a Raid0 for data/video files. Must say, I don't use XP that often now, seems archiac.
Thanks for the info.
I don't want to dual boot. I'd only dual boot if I thought it wasn't going to work on Vista 64, but if I didn't think it wouldn't work on Vista 64, then I wouldn't bother installing it; even on a dual boot. (Does that makes sense?)
I was hoping for a guide that was more specific to Adobe's CS3 Suite; e.g. Turn off this service and that service. Set these properties for this service, etc.
I'll check out that book though.
"Redgum, would you consider writing up a "how-to" guide in a new thread for setting up a new installation of Vista 64 for running Adobe's CS3 Production Suite?"
I too would be VERY interested in this.
I have been editing with Premiere on XP-32bit for years. I am now considering getting an ENTIRELY new machine, Vista 64-bit, and am looking for the best information to help me get an ideal setup.
I'd love to but I just don't get the time with 11 crew to look after. Also, there's plenty of written information already available and a number of published Adobe authors on the subject. Why don't you email one of the established authors to see if they have already done just this?
>there's plenty of written information already available and a number of published Adobe authors on the subject.
I guess I just don't know what to put into Google to find the plethora of published Adobe authors that have written about the subject.
Do you have any names of these people off the top of your head, to help jump start my searches?
Honestly Redgum, you are the only person I've found who brags about how well Premiere Pro CS3 works on Vista64, which is why I had asked you for a "guide".
I can totally understand if you don't have time to write something up, since I don't have time to struggle with trying to get an unsupported OS to work with my applications ;)
Is there any advantage in getting Vista Ultimate? I know I should get 64bits - but, can i get a basic version or a better one?
All your help is so appreciated.
>Certainly quicker than XP x32.
That may be, and is not unexpected. XP 64 bit would also probably run faster than XP 32 bit. But it would also probably run faster than Vista 64, which is the correct comparison.
If you're going to make claims about Vista's performance improvements over XP, you need to keep a level playing field. You've got the hardware side right by running on a dual-boot machine. But you need to compare only 32 bit to 32 bit, or 64 bit to 64 bit. And from the benchmarks I've seen, on such a level playing field, XP always wins.
True Jim, compare apples with apples. The point I was making is that the Vista memory management is far superior to XP and even when you compare x64 bit versions Vista is more efficient. That's why I gave you an example.
However, we all know that whilst you gain improvements in many areas other areas may lack. Speed is not really the question, it's the ability for the NLE to continue working uninterrupted for a complete session that's important.
You can have the fastest PC and quickest O/S but it's of little use if you need to reboot every five minutes. This is where Vista x64 excels over XP x64.
I have not had to boot my xp x64 machine? Where is your data to
prove your comment, "You can have the fastest PC and quickest O/S but it's of little use if you need to reboot every five minutes. This is where Vista x64 excels over XP x64. " Is MS paying you?
Dave, it's under your nose. Just read many of the threads on this forum. And no, I'm an Adobe shareholder, you're paying me, not MS.
Let's not disrespect each other over this. Please, we are here to help each other, not tear each other down.
>But, after over a year messing around with Vista, when I plugged a scanner into vista and it would not work, I just threw in the towel
Sorry, but is it MS fault that the hw vendors out there are slow at releasing drivers for vista?
Interesting point Phil. Canon decided not to develop drivers for any of their hardware over twelve months old (and not current). That's a good way to sell more gear and I'm sure that's not the fault of MS.
(Not saying MS wouldn't do it if they sold hardware)
>Speed is not really the question, it's the ability for the NLE to continue working uninterrupted for a complete session that's important.
Here I disagree. I already work uninterrupted for complete sessions lasting several hours. Speed really is the question when deciding whether or not to move to Vista.