Computer conundrumsDigital photographers rely on the smooth running of their personal computers. Here's where to discuss problems and seek, as well as provide, advice.
I started this new thread because the one below is starting to look like a tree, with so many branches you don't know where to go.
First as one who has seen this new system, and has a son that keeps up with all the latest techno-babble. And built a new machine late last fall, just for the purpose of running Vista. Which goes far beyond the machine most would have or purchase, if you have any common sense.
First there are several versions of Vista from a starter, to a premium version. When you visit Micro Soft's site, and run the Vista ready program, you are only checking for bare minimum requirements. This means your machine can run the bare minimum Vista program.
Now the reality check, as you could run XP on a 266 machine, and yes you can, that is if your machine meets certain minimum requirements. But it will only just run, although very slowly. As for top performance from your 266, you would have been better off to stay with Win 98, so goes Vista.
I have seen the difference in the minimum version of Vista, and the Premium version, I really think most here would not be happy, with anything less than premium. There a whole new ball game starts. The minimum requirements get a whole lot bigger there.
My son has a new 48 bit dual layer processor plus a board that supports it, the latest sada drives raided (much diffrent than the DMA drives we have). A video card with 250 megs ram on board, 2 gigs of upper level ram, and a lot of other upgrades I won't bother with. That machine just meets Vista Premium requirements. Its what most of us would refer to as a super computer.
Now the bottom line, if your machine is doing the job you want it to, with XP. Why bother yourself to make, or go to the expense of changing to Vista. While it has a lot of attractive things to look at, I really doubt its advantages in doing what most of us do, that is process our images, and store them.
Now I'm going to get very blunt. If your criteria is to keep up with the Jonse's, or just bragging rites, - you are STUPID. One thing that has not been even mentioned, is will this new 48 bit system run all your current 32 bit software.
A lot of older programs fell by the way, when XP came out. There is no reason why that will not hold true for Vista. A lot of peripheral hardware makers did not up-date drivers for older printers, scanners, and other devices. The same is going to be true with Vista, but even more do, since Vista is not even based on the same platform previous windows versions were. So if you think you are ready for all of this - by all means go ahead.
But just as a 10 megapixel camera is not necessary for mom to take snap-shots of Junior, neither is Vista necessary for the average computer user. So myself I will stay just exactly where I am at, with XP. I really just can't afford all the possible expenses, that will/does go with the new Vista program.
Hi Steve,
Don't get too uptight about the requirements for Vista. It is obvious that your son has a gaming machine equipped far above what is needed for Vista to run satisfactorily. By-the-way, I presume you mean a 64 bit processor, not a 48!
I am running Vista Premium RTC1 on two machines. One is an Athlon XP 3500+ 64 bit with 2 GB DDR memory, and an AGP 8x nVidia 7600GT with 256MB on board, so not a real racer, but adequate. Vista runs fast on this, full Aero, and CS3 runs fast too. The Vista performance rating for this machine is 4.2, limited by the processor.
My second machine is a lower spec: Sempron 2.2 GHz, 1 GB DDR, and a nVidia GeForce 6200, also with 256 MB on an AGP 8x. Vista and CS3 both run satisfactorily on this machine but slower. The Vista performance rating is 2.2 limited by the graphics card.
I am going to buy Vista as soon as I can, the Premium. The Ultimate is aimed more at the multi-media fans I think. Photoshop CS3 and Bridge 2.0 are fantastic, even in Beta.
I am not getting up tight really. Take for instance your machine, quite expensive if I had to go out and buy it just to run Vista. I never ran XP on my old 600, although it would. I ran ME because the lower requirements of ME, gave me faster machine preformance. The bottom line is - do I want to do an expensive up-grade, or buy a new machine just to run Vista. Or would I rather buy a better camera.
The answer to this is pretty obvious to me, at least!. I consider my computer an evil necessity, for my digital camera. Not something I even give a squat about for anything else. I wouldn't even have a computer, if it weren't for my camera. So why am I going to put any more into it than necessary?.
Of course I do not speak for this modern generation of tecno-soled out suckers. If film prices came back down to something reasonable tomorrow, my digital cameras would go out the door the next day. And I would go back to my 35mm cameras, which I still have.
I started this new thread because the one below is starting to look like a tree, with so many branches you don't know where to go.
First as one who has seen this new system, and has a son that keeps up with all the latest techno-babble. And built a new machine late last fall, just for the purpose of running Vista. Which goes far beyond the machine most would have or purchase, if you have any common sense.
First there are several versions of Vista from a starter, to a premium version. When you visit Micro Soft's site, and run the Vista ready program, you are only checking for bare minimum requirements. This means your machine can run the bare minimum Vista program.
Now the reality check, as you could run XP on a 266 machine, and yes you can, that is if your machine meets certain minimum requirements. But it will only just run, although very slowly. As for top performance from your 266, you would have been better off to stay with Win 98, so goes Vista.
I have seen the difference in the minimum version of Vista, and the Premium version, I really think most here would not be happy, with anything less than premium. There a whole new ball game starts. The minimum requirements get a whole lot bigger there.
My son has a new 48 bit dual layer processor plus a board that supports it, the latest sada drives raided (much diffrent than the DMA drives we have). A video card with 250 megs ram on board, 2 gigs of upper level ram, and a lot of other upgrades I won't bother with. That machine just meets Vista Premium requirements. Its what most of us would refer to as a super computer.
Now the bottom line, if your machine is doing the job you want it to, with XP. Why bother yourself to make, or go to the expense of changing to Vista. While it has a lot of attractive things to look at, I really doubt its advantages in doing what most of us do, that is process our images, and store them.
Now I'm going to get very blunt. If your criteria is to keep up with the Jonse's, or just bragging rites, - you are STUPID. One thing that has not been even mentioned, is will this new 48 bit system run all your current 32 bit software.
A lot of older programs fell by the way, when XP came out. There is no reason why that will not hold true for Vista. A lot of peripheral hardware makers did not up-date drivers for older printers, scanners, and other devices. The same is going to be true with Vista, but even more do, since Vista is not even based on the same platform previous windows versions were. So if you think you are ready for all of this - by all means go ahead.
But just as a 10 megapixel camera is not necessary for mom to take snap-shots of Junior, neither is Vista necessary for the average computer user. So myself I will stay just exactly where I am at, with XP. I really just can't afford all the possible expenses, that will/does go with the new Vista program.
I understand what you are saying Steve, but, dont really understand your point. No one is forcing you to upgrade to Vista (its still a couple of weeks off before release date) by the time Microsoft finish supporting XP, I am sure what your son is running will be the at least the norm!
There are also more advantages to Vista that just looking pretty as well Steve not least of which is Security features.
I understand what you are saying Steve, but, dont really understand your point. No one is forcing you to upgrade to Vista
I'd like to take a moment to dispute that. We *will* be forced to upgrade to Vista by Microsoft.
I bought my brand-new Dell PC a few years back and it came with Windows XP service pack 1. Everytime I turn on the computer, I get a pop-up message saying that "Windows XP SP1 is no longer supported, you MUST upgrade to SP2..." - or words to that effect.
My PC, for reasons that are beyond me right now, will not install SP2. Each time I tried, I've ended up without a system that will not boot and I've had to choice but to wipe it and start afresh - and sticking to SP1. Yet, despite the PC being "relatively new" - in that it's using Windows XP, the current version of Windows, I've been hung out to dry by Microsoft for not being able to upgrade to SP2.
How long before Microsoft hang SP2 users out to dry for not running Vista? If we want to use Windows, the most popular operating system - made popular by Microsoft's monopoly, we are *forced* to upgrade at their whim regardless of how stable or fast your current system is. Don't upgrade and you won't get security patches and updates. Already, if you don't have SP2 you can't have IE7 so you're left with an old browser.
Sorry to rant, but it annoys me totally that Microsoft are allowed to leave buggy versions of their products unsupported and you'll only get their buggy product supported if you upgrade to the latest version.
I'd like to take a moment to dispute that. We *will* be forced to upgrade to Vista by Microsoft.
I bought my brand-new Dell PC a few years back and it came with Windows XP service pack 1. Everytime I turn on the computer, I get a pop-up message saying that "Windows XP SP1 is no longer supported, you MUST upgrade to SP2..." - or words to that effect.
My PC, for reasons that are beyond me right now, will not install SP2. Each time I tried, I've ended up without a system that will not boot and I've had to choice but to wipe it and start afresh - and sticking to SP1. Yet, despite the PC being "relatively new" - in that it's using Windows XP, the current version of Windows, I've been hung out to dry by Microsoft for not being able to upgrade to SP2.
How long before Microsoft hang SP2 users out to dry for not running Vista? If we want to use Windows, the most popular operating system - made popular by Microsoft's monopoly, we are *forced* to upgrade at their whim regardless of how stable or fast your current system is. Don't upgrade and you won't get security patches and updates. Already, if you don't have SP2 you can't have IE7 so you're left with an old browser.
Sorry to rant, but it annoys me totally that Microsoft are allowed to leave buggy versions of their products unsupported and you'll only get their buggy product supported if you upgrade to the latest version.
Hmmm...thats interesting, and what have MS said when you called them?
Hmmm...thats interesting, and what have MS said when you called them?
I don't understand your question - unless you're being sarcastic. If a whole continent of courts can'ts do anything to change Microsoft's practices, just what would a 'phone call from one disgruntled user do? Other than give them a good laugh, of course?
I don't understand your question - unless you're being sarcastic. If a whole continent of courts can'ts do anything to change Microsoft's practices, just what would a 'phone call from one disgruntled user do? Other than give them a good laugh, of course?
No, of course I am not being sarcastic, I am asking if you contacted Microsoft for support, if their service pack is crashing your system, I am sure they would help you out. I just assumed you would have called them for support, apologies if it came out as sarcasm....... (I just aint like that! )
No, of course I am not being sarcastic, I am asking if you contacted Microsoft for support, if their service pack is crashing your system, I am sure they would help you out. I just assumed you would have called them for support, apologies if it came out as sarcasm....... (I just aint like that! )
And I'm sure Microsoft would not help me out. If SP2 works for millions of people and doesn't work for one, all they're likely to do is to blame the computer. And the computer manufacturer would blame the O/S. After all, I didn't buy Windows from Microsoft - it came with the computer; and the computer is out of warranty. I'm not into wasting time being sent around in circles by companies that just give the pretence of giving a monkeys.
I don't have an axe to grind against Microsoft, I'm not one of those anti-MS "you can't beat Linux" people. Like most software that comes from big organisations that can't see the individual user, when it works it works great. When it doesn't, tough cheese.
I recall all the headline banners when XP first came out. The way it was "far more stable than anything that came before". And that it "puts security first". All of those headline-grabbing statements are the very reason I waited until XP was established before buying the new PC. But now it turns out that it's not secure at all, for that you need SP2 and without SP2, you won't get anything else.
It's also the very reason why I am not considering buying a new computer to replace my second PC that failed over Christmas (in days of old, I would by a replacement machine and retire to light-duties the one that can't be upgraded). There are all the headline-grabbing statements about Vista that we heard when XP was first released. There's every company and their dog selling "Vista-ready" PCs with free upgrades when it's finally released. But I'm not convinced because of the old adage "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". If XPSP2 can't be installed on an XPSP1 machine, I'm not at all confident that Vista will install on an XPSP2 machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coupekid
No, of course I am not being sarcastic, <...> apologies if it came out as sarcasm....... (I just aint like that! )
I apologise for jumping the gun. One day, when time isn't so tight, I will doubtless try to reinstall XP2 again - I have half an idea what the problem is, but it's only an idea. Trouble is, I use my computer for work-related activities and I can't afford it to be in a non-working state for several days. For now, it works, even if MS don't want to support SP1 (I'm working on the principle - if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it).
JSR have you tried getting advice on your SP 2 problem? There is an excellent member to member site, www.windowsbbs.com, where there are plenty of experts on XP problems. This one used to be quite common but seems to have dropped out of sight now.
Roger
JSR have you tried getting advice on your SP 2 problem? There is an excellent member to member site, www.windowsbbs.com, where there are plenty of experts on XP problems. This one used to be quite common but seems to have dropped out of sight now.
Roger
Thanks for the link, Roger. I'll have a good ol' browse around over the weekend and see if someone's already found a fix.
The most common problem with non sp2 compliant machines, is not having up-dated to the latest direct-X. SP2 will not run on a system with less than direct-X 9 on it. And of course crashes the machines that don't.
Pardon my extreme rant on the demerits of Vista. I just am not a technology orientated person, I subscribe to Henry Ford's mind set. Rather than come out with something new that does not work any better than the previous product, fix the bugs in the old product, and make it work like it should.
I have this same opinion about Digital Cameras, especially in the consumer grade models. Instead of coming out with product no. 1-b to replace no. 1-a, why not just fix the problem in the first one.
This is what P's me off so bad, we have been made suckers to an ever growing communistic money grubbing merchandising market, with promises, promises, that never delivers what they promised in the first place - its more than a little annoying.
The most common problem with non sp2 compliant machines, is not having up-dated to the latest direct-X. SP2 will not run on a system with less than direct-X 9 on it. And of course crashes the machines that don't.
As far as I'm aware, my directX is up-to-date. Funny you mention it, though, because that little idea I had about what could be the cause of the problem is the nVidia GeForce graphics card. When I get a mo., I'm going to pick up a £30 ATI one and then try out the upgrade after that.
Maybe there is some issue with the video card that I'm not aware of.
Re: Windows Vista - Re-Vistaed
)
Linear Mode
