Will Premiere run on Windows Vista?
 

Will any thing run on windows Vista? If I need to get a new OS for a video editing computer, Do I still have to buy an old copy of XP?

Not sure if you have to, but I would sure recommend it! Windows Vista is what happens when the most over rated software company in the world continues on their ridiculous ego trip, and attempts to screw over every PC owner on the market!

But you don't have to take my word for it!

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/...fm?newsid=7675
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-623...hreadID=201963
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/...ta_5308_05.asp (this one is long, but it's good!)

I've read a tone more, and some even stating specifically that if you are are doing multimedia, Vista will not cut it. Largely do to how it handles drivers and the like. I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about Vista, nor am I even going to pretend I like Microsoft in the least, but from everything I've read it would appear that Vista is not a viable solution to guys like us. I've even heard statements such that pressure on Adobe, AutoDesk, and the like are going to to be so severe to port software for Linux, that we might see that happen within the next couple of years!

Boy, that'd be nice!

Evidently.

I *do* know a lot about Vista - using it right now in fact. I have been extensively testing one of our multimedia apps on it and, for the video side of things, Vista is more capable on the same hardware platform than XP (the improvement is similar to what I have observed running our 32-bit app on XP Pro x64).

BUT - where Vista will create a lot of headaches for people is audio. Vista has a new audio layer and does away with DirectSound (it emulates it instead). For ASIO and other professional audio layers, there's no change.

Regarding Premiere and Vista, I don't know. I have Premiere Pro 1.5 but not installed on Vista - it's still on the XP Pro partition. I can't install it on Vista without uninstalling it from XP first.

Frankly, don't listen to anyone who hasn't had first-hand and extensive experience with the final (non-beta) version of Vista. The review mentioned in the previously reply as "this one is long, but it's good" is WAY, WAY, WAY out of date (April 2006). And its author is notoriously anti-Vista. At least take the time to look at his more recent reviews on the same site.

I doubt it. Most Linux fans don't like spending money....

Premiere Pro 2.0 wouldn't install on the latest Vista beta version. I imagine that Adobe will release an update or patch to remedy this. Maybe someone else has had better luck.

Please tell me you're kidding. Adobe release a patch for Premiere. Let me get in line for my sno-cone now cause that's what they'll be handing out if and whenever you ever see a patch/update for Premiere.

But wait, there's more... I'm sure Adobe would be more than happy to add that issue into their next version upgrade and, of course, you'll pay for it. I don't know who I'm beginning to dislike more, Microsoft or Adobe. Seems the bigger they get and the more money they make, the more they dump on their user base. It's no longer about helping the user, it's about buyouts, mergers, and how fat the board of directors pockets can get.

It runs.... Vista robs your system of the ram that PPro could be using... XP is the preferred choice to this final code Vista Ultimate tester. PPro is not 64bit either, so what's the point?

no probs using PP on Vista
 

I have actually finished a project in Premiere Pro 2.0 in Vista yesterday. Other than slightly larger RAM usage, I didn't run into any problems with PP and/or plugins.

One of the lucky ones...

PPRO 2.0 runs in Ultimate. The only problems were Boris CC and MB Editors wouldn't run inside Premiere. I didn't really notice any difference between XP and Vista as in terms of editing. PPRO wouldn't install if UAC was disabled by the way..

Adobe Production Studio with Vista Ultimate
 

PPro 2.0 works just fine on my Vista Ultimate workstation. I use several Adobe Production Studio applications, and I haven't noticed any difference in project rendering times compared to XP. I really enjoy the new 3D Aero navigation, my machine hasn't locked-up, and it actually shuts down fast and clean now, unlike XP...

I'll never go back to a Pc. I am a Mac guy all the way now, but I have a close friend who is a IT director at a large Broadcast company, so take this with those two things in mind.

Why would you want to switch to Vista when it takes uses soooo much of your computer resoures to run all of its "fancy new gizmos?" To me, thats robbing your editing software of power.

Bryon <><

Using Vista for the past 3 weeks or so, I don't think it takes up much of my computer resources, as in most cases applications start faster and run smoother. The only resource I can think of that vista will utilize more of is ram. If you editing video and graphics, I would just recommend having 3gigs of ram; 1 for vista and 2 for apps. As on my system, vista only takes up about 500mb of ram.

This is just my personal user experience using adobe production studio.

PS. I think people are giving vista too much crap before they give it a chance. The only crap I'll give vista is that it should of been better then OS X, not par. Microsoft had 5 years of development, and no new ideas.

I think the real question is "Will Windows Vista Run?"

I've given it plenty of time through all the betas and final code = still crap. Pretty and shiny is not equal to better. For average joe who don't know, XP and Vista are just something than run your computer. To us IT people, it is not necessary and avoided at all costs currently. We oversee 5000+ users and have only just started testing a couple machines with Vista, bleh!

Not Going Back to XP...
 

Here's a balanced Vista review, showing both the good and bad. They give it an overall score of 9/10, noting important improvements over XP. On the downside, there's a 10% drop in overall system performance due to early, generic/non-optimized device drivers, but gains in the user interface, security and stability outweigh this slight drop, which as they reviewer notes, is not noticeable for users with strong hardware:

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/01..._review/7.html

As for Mac OSX comparisons, much of Vista is old news, but it's not old for long-suffering XP users...

Me not being a major in computer science, I'm curious what specifically do you fell that the final code of vista is lacking?

Well driver support first off (but that is not Vista code). It has been months since the RTM came out and most OEMs and other manufacturers had plenty of time to get a stable Vista driver off the shelf. Creative and Nvidia still lack in that area as history dictates. MS didn't make it ANY better by delaying and constantly changing what the final product would actually become. It is totally different from what they promised it would be. They essentially rushed it out the door in time for OEMs to advertise x-mas specials, when it should have been held for another month or five. MANY beta and RTM testers were complaining and suggesting refinements –MS didn’t listen. If you look on theregister.com and theinquirer.net, among other sites, you will see that (1) gamers are having issues with Vista. (2) Security folk are having issues/nightmares with Vista. (3)Some companies are outright recommending NOT getting Vista until SP1. (4)They burned XP64bit basically; who’s going to right media based drivers for an “outdated OS” now? Nvidia can barely get out Vista divers that don’t BSOD your box. But alas, these are not OS code issues.

The coding in Vista lacks in that all they did was add/steal a few features you can already get for XP or native in OSX. It is NOT built from the ground up as they would like to have you believe, a friend who is an analyst said she was still spotting Win3.11 code in some areas that 3rd party anti-virus companies actually remove/edit from kernel or near kernel level. Vista made this much harder for those people too, but it could be a necessary ‘evil’. By definition the Security Center is malware! I got Vista running pretty quick and stable on my machine recently (it ate 358MB more ram at startup but hey). The only problem was the extent of crap I had to go through that ordinary people haven’t a clue about –and my hardware is less than a year old. XP wasn’t nearly this bad when it was new and shiny…

It is nowhere near being implemented at my work, a military funded LARGE company. I think our release date is historic too, a full year longer than when XP was rolled out -2009ish est.. We have a link on our intranet home page that lists what Vista is incompatible with that we use (everyday hardware and software like any large co. would use). The list got too long and we had to simply switch to not supported for the status as we have hundreds that work from home that went out and bought Vista.
Hey I’m all for a new OS with new cool stuff, but this is REEEEDICULOUS. It’s like a really good looking pizza that came out of the oven too soon and still has raw dough inside, lol. I’ll cross my fingers and hope that they work the bugs out over the next year, as always. I’m just glad I don’t have to pay for any of the versions of Vista, I’d not be happy shelling out the cash for Ultimate. I failed to mention the DRM infection, the EULA that is written by aliens, and the lack of anything worth a costly hardware upgrade for most.

Well if you want to try your Adobe purchase on a OS that Adobe dosnt support ....feel free
99$ bucks vs. a proven workflow...do the math

Very true.

--Marco--

When talking about driver support, is it mostly just for the x64 version of vista that is causing the problems? or are there x86 driver problems as well?

And I'm 100% with you about Microsoft taking ideas(even maybe code ideas) from OS X, as in the 5 years of development vista has very few--if any original features. But for me (not apart of a huge military founded server crazy setup), vista seems to run smoother and better then XP. and its prettier.

It seems that way as many are reporting being able to use some XP drivers for 32bit Vista. I don't know exact numbers though.

It also seems, IMHO, like AMD and Intel are killing 64bit dev. with multi-cores. I read an article somewhere where the author made a good point -why are we throwing two, four, and eight+ cores at an OS that can barely properly cope with one (see DEC ALPHA). We should be writing better code such instead of just putting more engines in the car. Now don't get me wrong I LOVE my dual core -but I wonder how quick my editor would run if it were 64bit on a 64bit OS with my 64bit single core vs. my dual core running everying 32bit...

Strange. My nVidia drivers work just fine on my Vista Ultimate RTM. The feature set of the configuration tools, on the other hand, is lame compared to the XP versions. But, the hardware drivers work. I've been using Vista RTM everyday for hours since November - not a single BSOD.

"They stole this, they stole that." WTF? Apple have "stolen" from Microsoft, too. And they have both "stolen" from Xerox and Sinclair (seriously! - Sinclair QL - January 1984 - true pre-emptive multitasking 32-bit OS - about 6 years ahead of Microsoft and more than a decade ahead of Apple.)

Much of Vista *IS* built from the ground up. The GUI is tightly integrated with the Direct3D pipeline. That's a major change. The audio layer is COMPLETELY NEW. There are a host of other new frameworks as well - all of which you can learn about at Microsoft's web site.

Why's that remarkable? In a VERY LARGE company that I have worked for (>100,000 employees), we used NT4.0 until about 4 years ago. By-passed 2K and implemented XP in 2004. SP2 finally came along in mid-2006.

Clearly, you don't like Vista. Fine. Don't buy it. But enough of the emotive nonsense. Plenty of people do (and will) like it. It was the same when 95 came out. And XP.

Huh? Microsoft's NT-based OSes have been "properly coping" with multiple CPUs for more than 15 years....

Why? Porting legacy 32-bit apps to native 64-bit can be a time-consuming and expensive business. For many ISVs, it just isn't worth the investment. However, with 64-bit CPUs becoming de rigeur, *new* applications should be written to be able to be compiled for native 32-bit and native 64-bit platforms. But, compared to just a few years ago, it's more cost-effective to add hardware.

Are you a gamer because I highly doubt that if you are...Nvidia drivers for Vista were beta at that time. OR you have a magically perfect machine with all the latest (last month) "vista ready" hardware and you write your own drivers?


Can't argue with that one, everyone's a thief.

Your point? or are you just reinforcing mine?


No, I like Vista it's just pointless to rush out and get it for people that are not tech savvy or not enthusiasts. I get it free, don't have to buy it, and wouldn't. "Plenty of people do (and will) like it. " You sound like a MS nazi there :-)

Will Premiere run on Vista? YES. How well is determined by many factors, including your knowledge of computers. Is Premiere Pro 1.x - 2.x supported on Vista, heck no! If you load Premiere on Vista and everything works without a hitch -you're in good shape. If you believe all the hype and the 9/10 reviews -you need to understand that many of those reviewers were sent brand new kick butt laptops or rigs with Vista on them, free. OF COURSE they are not going to bash it -you'll never be sent preview product again. Read the real stuff, the gamers are the ones that drive this industry -not those writing word docs and browsing the web all day. Read the stuff from the security people pulling their hair out. Read the reviews of the poor schmoe that bought VistaHE thinking it can upgrade from XP Pro (as it says on the box) then get's home and finds out NOT without research and trickery. Read the incredibly small writing on the back of the box.... XP, 2000, even 95 were NOT this bad.

We've had 64bit CPUs for decades and 64bit PC CPUs for 4 years now...Where's the software?

Time To Upgrade...
 

Hey, if your computer is lagging with Vista, well, that's a perfect reason to buy/build your new powerhouse machine; I used that reasonable excuse several years ago to upgrade my MB/CPUs when I moved to XP. Well, at least my wife accepted the excuse!

;->

Many will use this Vista event as an opportunity to shoot the old horse for a faster breed...

Also, for Vista software compatibility I used this resource:

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.ph...atibility_List

Another favorable review from a rich media source:

http://digitalproducer.digitalmedian....jsp?id=100045

He supplies a key reason to upgrade to Vista:

"I was able to run my systems longer between restarts, experienced fewer crashes and generally found it more informative than its predecessor."

My Vista experience has been the same-- FAR fewer hangs, crashes, slow starts and neverending shutdowns, etc.

Regarding Vista/nVid driver support, I had no problems installing the Quadro FX 4400 Vista driver. As indicated earlier, this new driver lacks some of the configuration bells in the XP driver, but it's solid and I'm running 2560 x 1600 while editing PPro projects on my 30" Apple display. Life is SO MUCH better working with Vista's new UI, and I see absolutely no reason, no reason whatsoever to go back to XP...

I love that answer, great reason to upgraded, lol. My wife buys that one too.

I tried vista as an early adopter around 16-November-2006, it was horrible! Two reasons:

1. Almost no drivers where available at that time
2. My motherboard an OEM sh*t AMD board really didn't like Vista(or anything else for that matter)

Re-installed Visa Ultimate a week ago - and now I runs perfectly. I have a new MB(MSI K8N well proven AMD platform). I actually feel like I have a more response from my programs now, for instance PPro doesn't stall when building "peak files".

Vista uses more system resources, which is good... a resource never used, is a resource not needed... I'm glad that Vista uses my internal memory as file and system cache. When memory is needed, Vista releases it.

I won't be going back to XP - the old experience :-)

// Lazze

Switched to 64bit XP Pro
 

Just installed XP Pro 64bit along side my XP Pro 32bit editor. It is based off of Server 2003 SP1 code. So far everything runs smooth and fast. I had to get a 64bit antivirus, but other than that all my hardware, games, and essential software work great. Exiting from BF2142 or BF2 used to take a couple seconds to unload from memory and page file, but now it's like turning off a light switch. Boot time is FAST. Rebooting is FAST. I'll let you later know if my editor (XP Pro 32bit) runs Premiere Pro 2.0 faster or slower in a same file render test.

64bit XP experience
 

Marco, please make some report of Premiere Pro performance in XP 64bit... and please specify your system specs

thanks!

I had Premiere Pro 2 run on Vista Ultimate 32bit for the first week or so, and then it decided to quit working. I'd open Premiere it will get to the project dialog box, I'd choose a project to work with and as soon as I hit OK, Premiere simply disappears with a Vista error chime. The first time it did it gave me an error saying something about Photoshop.exe but now it only does this. I googled that error but there's no related results. For the past three days I have tried practically everything one can try to troubleshoot this issue but to no avail. I am seriously considering to install XP now. So fed up with the WOW factor.

I have found these links that may be helpful for anyone trying to install PP2 on Vista Ultimate 64bit.
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bc32816/0
http://mysite.verizon.net/wgehrke/pp...hmark%203.html
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/

Had a funeral to go to last night. Hopefully tonight I can get some test results posted for you all. Hold yer butts! :-)

Xp64 Vs Xp32
 

I have made a thread for this since this is off topic -

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...782#post633782