In a few other threads I've tried to make a strong case to suggest that despite the "new" Windows Vista, I *highly* recommend sticking with Windows XP when building or buying a computer for heavy Video Editing tasks. Programs like Premiere Pro CS3, Vegas 7/8, Edius, Avid, etc have largely all been developed with Windows XP at heart (and probably Windows Vista in mind).

Seems the debate rages on as to which operating system to use but frankly, I can't understand why there is really even a debate. The operating system is merely the underlying foundation of which enables the ability of all your "clone" components to properly work with your software of choice. In the end, it doesn't really do anything for you directly unless you consider the included solitaire game a real must have.

In computer technology it's usually assumed that the newer is the better but this has rarely been the case with the development of new operating systems. It typically takes a generation or two of service packs and hotfixes along with application developers time to take advantage of new software technologies before either the speed is returned or functionality and safety/security is enhanced.

I have no doubt Windows Vista in the long run will probably prove to be a wonderfull operating system just as Windows 2000 was and Windows XP has become.

What prompted me to post this is an article I found comparing the raw performance of applications/benchmarks while running an equivelent system under Windows XP and Windows Vista. I *strongly* recommend taking the 5-10 minutes and reading it through, particularly the area as it relates to audio/video encoding.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html

Jon

That's interesting, Jon. The article in question (which I read in its entirety) is 9 months old. That's almost eternity in high tech (grin). I'm not saying this to defend Vista, just that I'd liked to have been reading a more current comparison of the two.

-gb-

I generally agree that, for now, XP should be the preferred OS for video editing over Vista but not for the reasons implied by Tom's Hardware. For me, the simple reason is: maturity. XP is a mature, stable and well-supported OS. Vista is still relatively new (and will be until the first service pack comes along - or whatever MS decide to call it).

The Tom's Hardware comparison raises some important points (to me at least):

The test applications fall into a number of categories. Some show worse perfomance cf. XP than others. These applications have been developed for XP and, therefore, implicity make fundamental architectural assumptions. Some of the assumptions have a direct, negative impact on performance on Vista. Vista is a new major release of Windows (NT6.0) vs. XP (NT5.0). There are considerable architectural differences, especially in the realms of audio and video.

Applications that use DirectDraw for 2D graphics will suffer a performance hit. DirectDraw is deprecated and is emulated in the 3D graphics pipeline. In fact, one of the major differences between Vista and earlier Windows is that all the graphics are done in the 3D graphics pipeline - this includes maintaining the desktop.

Applications that are 3D graphics intensive but Vista-naive will show a very severe hit. This relates to 3D applications that display 3D graphics in real-time, not the creation of 3D image files. The reason is that the presentation of each 3D frame is synchronized to the vertical blanking interval of the display in order to prevent tearing of the display. This is not the default behavior on XP. Vista-aware applications can overcome this. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the graphics benchmarks perform so poorly. More details at:

http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_9/
http://www.spec.org/gwpg/publish/vista_paper.html

Applications that are audio intensive - such as games - will also take a hit if they are Vista-naive and make use of DirectSound. DirectSound is deprecated in Vista and is entirely emulated by software. Applications using DirectSound will demonstrate a performance hit. This may explain part of the slower performance for the games benchmarks.

I've learnt the DirectDraw and DirectSound differences the difficult way - our software performed less on Vista than XP and I had to wade through a mountain of MS documentation to find out why. Making the software Vista-aware allows it to select the appropriate video and audio pipelines for the host OS. Consequently, the performance on Vista is comparable. There is a caveat: there is still a performance hit if Aero (dwm.exe) is running. Typically, I see dwm.exe using 1 to 3% of processor time. The more that is going on - e.g., video playing, vectorscopes etc etc), the more dwm.exe uses.

A final thought: if the differences between a well-known NLE are 5 - 10%, then does it really matter? Let's say a final rendering will take 5 hours on XP, then it will take perhaps an extra 30 mins on Vista. If the rendering is running overnight, does it matter? Or, that 30 mins can easily be swallowed up by the system sitting almost idle while you scratch your head trying to work out how to achieve a certain effect. i.e., the total time to complete the project has more uncertainties beyond OS differences. The analogy I would use is: I drive 30 miles to work and can do so at 65 mph in my trusty but aging Ford XP. It's getting expensive to maintain and some of the parts aren't available anymore. A new Ford Vista could do it at 60 mph but in more (perceived) comfort. It take about 2.5 minutes longer. And it is a new model, so it might have all kinds of undiscovered mechanical problems...

The analogy I would use is: I drive 30 miles to work and can do so at 65 mph in my trusty but aging Ford XP. It's getting expensive to maintain and some of the parts aren't available anymore. A new Ford Vista could do it at 60 mph but in more (perceived) comfort. It take about 2.5 minutes longer. And it is a new model, so it might have all kinds of undiscovered mechanical problems...
Then there is the fact that many of us have a few other old Ford XP's in the garage that we tinker with and maintain. We can't afford to go to a fleet dealership and replace the whole lot, expecially given that the new pickups would be slower and probably force us to buy some superchargers. Plus having that one shiny new pickup makes the other drivers in the household want the shiny new paint, which means I'd have to teach them all the new-fangled controls, and... sigh... think I'll just stick to the old model.

That's interesting, Jon. The article in question (which I read in its entirety) is 9 months old. That's almost eternity in high tech (grin). I'm not saying this to defend Vista, just that I'd liked to have been reading a more current comparison of the two.

-gb-

Yep, you're right Greg on most occasions except that Vista hasn't had the benefit of a service pack update and many of the problems I've seen on o around the internet have barely been addressed with hotfixes. There's actually a huge memory "bug" in Vista that's driving the gamers nuts..

Also, I would imagine in the past 9 months compatability issues have been improved, but there's nothing out there suggesting speed has been increased.

Another thing I didn't mention was that smaller third party type apps like custom Title software, Boris Effects, Cineform, plug-ins, etc, etc are typically even SLOWER to adapt new operating systems..

Jon

Thanks for putting your input into this John..

I think you actually lay out ALL the accurate reasons not to screw around with Vista that this point. I'm sure as time progresses and new applications are no longer naive to Vista's features, the speed gap will be smaller and smaller.

I think you make a good point of showing that the performance difference may not be THAT much but on the other hand, what do you get for taking that 5-15% performance hit with Vista? If I had something to show for it then I could maybe justify the performance penalty. Perhaps a render overnight doens't mean much but what about those 100 minute renders that could be done 10 or 15 minutes sooner? That certainly makes a difference if you're doing that 2-3 times a day.

All Vista offers me is a guaranteed slower machine with possible compatability issues. Where is the benefit? OH! I almost forgot, it costs more too!

I don't mean to come off sounding as a Microsoft basher because I'm not. I also don't want to turn the thread into some kind of flame war ala PC vs Mac, but I can't help but think anybody using Vista is doing so for not a legitimately good reason. Kinda reminds me of people who bid on used equipment on eBay just to win the auction when they could have bought it new off the internet for cheaper without going through auction hassles. In the same way people have this compelling reason to win an auction, they have this strong urge to have the "new" software. It frustrates me a bit that because of peoples emotional knee jerk reactions we let Microsoft get away with giving us new software that is more bloat-ware like and slower.

Jon

Perhaps a render overnight doens't mean much but what about those 100 minute renders that could be done 10 or 15 minutes sooner?

I think you have highlighted an important point. Nearly all of the XP vs Vista benchmarks relate to very CPU intensive applications - video encoding, gaming, CAD - that also need to run for a long time. Hence, the performance loss soon adds up. There's another type of application that represents probably 99% of Windows' use. These are things like office suites, accounting, publishing, data processing (e.g., statistic analysis of scientific/technological processes). For the most part these applications sit idle. Someone typing away hits a key maybe five times a second - in CPU terms, that is an astronomical time. What Microsoft have done, though, is change the interaction between the computer and Windows in such a way that the user *perceives* it to be more responsive and faster even when it isn't. That doesn't mean they alway get it right. I've just tried Excel 2007 and all I can say is "Ugh". Things that are just a click away in previous versions have been buried - a theme true of Vista, too.

but I can't help but think anybody using Vista is doing so for not a legitimately good reason

Agreed. I'm using Vista right now since I am doing some software development and want to make sure it works on Vista for my customers. My wife has been provided with a Vista laptop by her company and we are trying to put XP on it (another sordid story of frustration and disbelief...).

John.

...but I can't help but think anybody using Vista is doing so for not a legitimately good reason.

Let me try to help you to understand then. It comes installed on the computer I bought, and is installed on virtually everything now. Is that not legitimately good reason enough?

I bought a dell laptop with Vista Home Premium installed for a client of mine. It playing around with it, it has a modern AMD Dual Core processor and I couldn't believe how long it took to boot up. Unbelievable...

I will say this... the OS is a MUCH more pretty OS to work with. From a practical standpoint that doesn't mean anything, but I commend Microsoft on definately enhancing the look of Windows.

Let me try to help you to understand then. It comes installed on the computer I bought, and is installed on virtually everything now. Is that not legitimately good reason enough?

I suppose if you're "stuck" with it, then you didn't make the choice. I'm only referring to people who are actually making the choice to either buy the software and "upgrade" their version of Windows or those who build new systems and make that "choice" to put Vista on it when they could have gone with Windows XP Pro.

Have come across what I consider to be an alarming number of reports similiar to this over the past couple weeks.. It appears maybe Vista is WORSE off than I originally thought..

http://www.dailytech.com/Update+Windows+Vista+Fails+If+You+Copy+Lots+of+Files/article9294.htm

Buyer beware.. Vista is not ready for prime time...

As an avid (no pun intended) windows guy having just switched to a mac a year ago, I am utterly apalled with Vista. I bought my wife a new laptop from HP and it came preinstalled with Vista Home Premium. Now I don't want to be a Vista Hater but I can't help it. I actually am becoming a Microsoft Hater! If anyone has the ability to decide on Vista vs. XP, my 2 cents is stick with XP Pro. This laptop has so many bugs in it it's not funny. I bought it at Best Buy and it's out of the 30 return period. Crashes all the time and has lots of bugs with simple email and surfing. I searched the Vista forums and I have never seen anything so rampant as this. Everyone is complaining. So here's what I ended up having to do. Searched the forums and it gave me a support site. On the site it says if your software has been pre-installed, you have to call the computer manufacturer. I called the manufacturer and they say that they won't support the software, only the hardware to work with that software! I don't want to change the purpose of this thread but I promised myself if a Vista/XP issue ever came up, I would go out of my way to flame VISTA. Sorry. I am now off my soapbox. My apologies.

Jeff

I feel your pain Jeff... It's going to take a few more updates to get Vista up to snuff and, even then, it will probably not perform as well as Windows XP Pro when running on similiar hardware. Just absurd that the foundation layer of software a computer requires to run, the operating system is so bloated that it slows your progress. I'm a big Microsoft proponent overall and I think they don't get as much credit as they typically deserve considering what they are dealing with and what they have had to deliver but Vista seems horribly misguided.

My opinion is they should have created a completely 100% brand new OS from the ground up and completely ditch any backward compatability whatsoever. Continue to support and sell the crap out of Windows Xp and let the software industry slowly migrate their new software over to the "better" Windows on the new platform. This would have given Microsoft a leg up down the line as well...

Jon

I was wary of going to Vista at first, but I REALLY wanted to get my machine running in 64-bit mode to see if it would really show a performance boost. So, I removed my hard drive with my current XP install, put in a shiny new hard drive, and put on Vista Ultimate 64-bit. The installation went very smoothly, and took noticeably less time than it does to install XP.

The one thing I think is of the utmost importance when installing Vista: Make sure you have all the drivers for your hardware downloaded or on disk and ready. With the exception of my LAN adapter, wireless adapter, and touchpad, every other piece of hardware had to installed manually. Vista could not see my Quadro Card or my sound card, so I had to "force" those drivers in to get the machine to start operating the way it should.

The other thing I think is important is that once you install Vista, you should turn off "User Account Control" so the computer doesn't ask you permission to do everything every few seconds. You'll get all the red flags and warnings, but it will make your whole computing experience less frustrating.

Once past all that, I installed my spiffy new copy of 3ds Max 64-bit, and have been enjoying my machine ever since. It takes less time to boot up than it did in XP, and my programs load MUCH faster. The other key to Vista is knowing that it IS a resource hog. I can understand why Vista would seem sluggish on these $500 bargain laptops and desktops from Big Box retailers. Those machines all have onboard video/audio, and aren't meant to be used the way Vista wants to be.

I remember alot of these same issues coming up back when XP first came out. People were so shocked that it wouldn't run well on their first generation Pentium. Vista will have its problems now, but I'm positive that the next OS Microsoft releases in 6 or 7 years will cause just as much of an uproar!

Just my two cents...

OK, I calmed down a lot overnight. What I am more frustrated over right now is the control Vista seems to take over my machine. Call me paranoid but I think MS has developed a system to secretly control our machines by FORCING us to use their browser, email programs etc. I think it's a conspiracy! BTW, MS took XP Pro 64 bit off the shelves so they can force us to use Vista and btw, why didn't they install a 64 bit version on a 64 bit machine?

George is getting upset!

OK, I calmed down a lot overnight. What I am more frustrated over right now is the control Vista seems to take over my machine. Call me paranoid but I think MS has developed a system to secretly control our machines by FORCING us to use their browser, email programs etc. I think it's a conspiracy! BTW, MS took XP Pro 64 bit off the shelves so they can force us to use Vista and btw, why didn't they install a 64 bit version on a 64 bit machine?

George is getting upset!

Well Jeff...

Firefox browser should run and operate just fine on Vista so I'm not too sure your conspiracy theory here is going to hold up. Let's remember, most of what is a pain in the a** with Vista is the attempts Microsoft has made to try and make the operating system safe from the real enemy, the malware, spyware, and virus creators out there.

They probably took XP 64-bit off the shelves because, frankly, it was more problematic for the general public than Vista. Unlike the post a few up from this one where the user was clearly educated and understood what it meant to install a 64-bit OS, the general public has absolutely no clue. The support calls and refund demands must have been through the roof on this OS. They're thinking was probably "Hey, if we're going to offer a 64-bit OS, let's stick to one version and, of course, it might as well be the new one for the future"

Like I said before, I think the error in Microsofts ways was trying to develop an operating system that would work and be compatable with the existing user base to replace Windows XP. I don't know if many of you remember back when WindowsNT was released, but the very definition of that operating system was NT "New Technology" and it was dramatically different than Windows 3.1. It would work on the same hardware, but you definately had to have specific drivers for it and certainly not all applications ran on this OS. NT is still the underlying basis for Windows 2000 (the OS I happen to be running right now on this machine) and Windows XP. Supporting the masses with an existing OS that is mature and reliable while creating a new technology product while not having to make backward compatabity a necessity I think is in the best interest of all.

Jon

You really know how to ruin a perfectly good Vista Bashing argument!

Thanks for your levelheadedness.

Jeff

I actually used Windows Vista for 30 days as part of a computer review article called "30 Days with Windows Vista."

I'll sum up the article for you: The thing crashed on me. Frequently. I lost data.


There is no way I'd ever use it as an editing machine.

Here's the thing: Vista blows.

I used it as long as I could stand it then fled back to the world of XP and couldn't be happier -- and I deal with computers day in and day out, including Linux, Mac, XP and Vista.

Vista is the only one I'd like to avoid ever using again.

Tons of people reacted in a similar manner when Windows 95 was released and started taking over those the users of Version 3.11. You needed a strong machine to not only run Windows 95, but the vast majority of software from 3.11 and earlier didn't work- or didn't work without producing a lot of headaches. Then, the same thing happened when XP came out to replace Win98 and the horrific Windows ME. Personally, I think it's called progress! Of course, it's always at least a little difficult to switch over to a new system. There is the issue of an unfamiliar system that you have to re-learn to a degree, and then there is the huge issue of all the third party hardware and software developers that now must create new bits of code and drivers to get their new and existing hardware to play nice with the new kid in town.

My experience with Vista is limited, but it's growing, and all this talk of crashing makes me wonder just what kind of systems are creating all this trouble. Currently, I'm running Vista Ultimate 64-bit on Core2 Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and a QuadroFX 2500m. This machine runs far better NOW than it did 2 months ago with Windows XP.

On the other hand, I have a relative who is running Vista Home Basic on a Celeron chip with integrated graphics and only 512MB of RAM. That machine is more bothersome to work with. It's very slow to respond, has virtually no multi-tasking capabilities, and takes forever to do even simple tasks like email, word-processing, and web surfing. If that machine was my only experience with Vista, I assure you that I would hate it too! But, like I said in a previous post, that's what happens when you cut corners and buy the $499 special at the local computer outlet. Vista is more robust and requires more resources than XP. You need to have to proper equipment, or else you'll run into trouble and frustration.

Another point to consider is the method of installation. I know of several instances where people had a horrible time running an upgrade disk that installed Vista "over" their copy of XP. I remember that same thing happening with some people upgrading to XP from Win98 or WinME. I think the sad fact of the matter here is that you need to start off with a fresh install of Vista. That means forking over for a new hard or formatting your existing one. Also, have your drivers ready! Before you start upgrading, compile a list of your internal hardware like video card, sound card, wireless, LAN, etc. Go to the websites of the companies that manufactured those components, and look up and download the Vista drivers. Don't install them- just save them all to a thumb drive or burn them to a CD/DVD. One thing I have learned is that Vista isn't very good at recognizing some existing hardware. You'll be looking an 800X600 screen in 8-bit color when you're finished installing, and if you want to get your system running at it's full potential, you'll need to install all or most of those drivers manually.

Speaking of software, many older titles simply won't run on Vista. Yeah, I think that stinks to a degree, but I can't imagine how much MORE space and resources Vista would take up if it was more backwards compatible- not to mention how much more buggy it could've been! Another thing is dependent on what flavor or Vista you're running on. Here at work we've run into a few situations where software has been updated or patched to work with Vista- but ONLY Vista Ultimate. Some of this stuff just plain ol' refuses to run under any other version of Vista.

Before long, everyone will eventually have to upgrade. Third party businesses are working to make their products more capable and friendly to Vista, and that's where the money is going. Do I think Vista needs some work? Yes. I also think Microsoft would've found it in their better interests to let more 3rd party developers in on the whole Vista scene earlier so there wouldn't be this 1-year lag or gap in the pool of compatible drivers and software. I also don't like the selection of Vista Versions. Why not just release ONE title that can do it all? All the other things I can complain about are minor little things that were put in to make your machine more "idiot proof". I've figured out how to turn that stuff off, so now there's no problem with those anymore.

Just my two cents...

So, considering Vista is so much more "robust" than XP... can somebody please explain exactly what it actually *does* for me that Windows XP doesn't already?

Jon

Making something worse until it catches on isn't really progress.


Vista is ME all over again.

Unfortunate to need to pick an OS right now.

XP can't be the answer, because that would be going backward and getting stuck. But Vista is so bad in so many ways, and even if in some bizarre way you like it, it just isn't ready yet-- compatibility, stability, etc.

For now, stick with XP, but be wary of getting stuck there. Though it may be better than Vista, microsoft is pushing the update, so you'll be stuck soon-- unfortunate as it is.

Longhorn is coming... sometime... will it be another mess, or will it be to Vista that XP was to ME? And, of course, the fundamental question, will microsoft actually recode the whole thing this time? Or, better yet, will they at least just not recode the whole thing, quit pretending they did, and just fix the security flaws? We shall see.


Then again, I must say I prefer Windows 2000 over the other OSs. 98 was alright, but always crashed. BSOD ftw! Heh. 2000 was a nice upgrade; stable, simple... no complaints. But then the time for XP came when 2000 was just too old. And of course I skipped right past ME. XP is ok, though I don't like the new graphics; I always use it in classic mode-- no idea why vista is so ugly now... I'd be going back to "classic xp" mode, or whatever they call it, only to have an operating system slightly uglier than what I want. Yeah...
And, of course, if you WANT the graphics they are trying to emulate-- just get the real thing, OSX. If not, enjoy windows, but don't play with the silly rolodex window shuffler.


Anyway, off topic. But, hey, if we're discussing the operating systems in detail, might as well say it.


So, as for the specific question here, stick with XP for now, if possible, and move up to Vista once you must-- AND follow and important rule-- don't be a beta tester for Microsoft. They always just dump software on the public to see what bugs exist. Windows with no Service Packs is all but a beta version.

Vista LOOKS nice. That's about it as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, of course, there is always a burn-in period for any new application or OS, but as Daniel said, Vista is ME all over again.

One tech guru went so far as to publish an article telling Microsoft to drop Vista and go back to XP:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html

One of the problems with Vista is that it's so full of security and DRM schemes that is causes more trouble than it's worth. Windows has fallen in bed with the content providers to help them protect their content -- which is their right -- but at the expense of the user? A simple login has turned into a major annoyance.

Not good. Not good at all.

P.S. If I upgrade, it may well be to OSX.

Look pretty?!!

Right now, probably not very much. There are new features under the hood that aren't being exploited. However, new applications will eventually be released that leverage these new features, making them Vista-only (or Windows 7, depending of the timing).

This is typical when something new comes along whether hardware or software. e.g., when Windows was first launch, most applications were DOS - Windows seemed unnecessary. When Win95 came along, there were virtually no 32-bit applications and most hardware was 16-bit (e.g., my now laughable Orchid Videola capture card!) The switch from the consumer line to the NT line (mainly XP for most) meant few hardware drivers. With DirectX, it took a while for software to make use of it. The introduction of FireWire required new NLEs. In spite of multiprocessor support for years with NT, it is only now that applications are making use of it. Vista is the first 64-bit Windows available as retail. Right now, there's precious little point to it because very few 64-bits apps exist. That will change since MS have made it much easier for developers to create 32- and 64-bit versions of the same product.

BTW, I don't understand the frequent crashing mentioned in this thread. I've been using Vista for almost a year and have had one crash - by that I mean a BSOD. No hangs etc. That's the only type of OS crash. Frequent BSOD crashes are symptomatic of either ailing hardware, overheated hardware, hardware not designed for Vista or bad drivers. The latter can mean using beta drivers or drivers explicitly not designed for Vista. The most troublesome are video and audio. Even having a legacy audio card in the computer can cause BSODs whether or not any drivers are installed (this was the one BSOD I had and out came the card). You should check the hardware vendors' websites frequently to ensure that the latest drivers are being used. If apps are crashing, the most probable causes are either sloppy programming or programs that assume a particular OS version. There are many that incorrectly assume that the highest version is XP. I've rarely had any application crash either. Those that do are usually my own creations that are still in an early stage of development(!)

Yeah, I actually think it looks pretty.

And we got the same song and dance about ME when it first came out about growing pains and applications and drivers catching up, etc., etc. and ME turned out to be a disaster.

So I think I'll be jumping over Vista to the next OS system (as I did from 98 to XP), whatever that might be called. Apparently, most of the world is doing the same thing.

So, considering Vista is so much more "robust" than XP... can somebody please explain exactly what it actually *does* for me that Windows XP doesn't already?

Jon

What are you trying to get out of it? What does XP do for you that Win 98 couldn't?

I needed 64-bit support. Vista did that for me, and provided higher performance. Windows XP X64 was not only difficult to find, but drivers are much harder to come across as opposed to Vista.

Vista provides DirectX 10 support for those that need it or want it. You personally might not have a need for it, but I can almost guarantee that the next big release of video cards will support it.

Vista adds more built-in protection. Granted, this may seem trivial and downright useless for more advanced users, but you'd be surprised at just how many people out there are completely clueless when it comes to the functionality and safety/defense of their system. All these complaints about the system asking you permission 3 times before opening a folder/file- You can turn that off. I think some responsibility lies with the end user to learn as many details as they can before they start messing around with their own stuff.

Vista has more sparkly bells and whistles. Once again, things like this don't mean a lot to me, and they probably don't mean a lot to you- but the overall look is more refined and pleasing to the eye.

As far as inner-guts nuts-and-bolts types of advantages, I couldn't tell you. I'm not a code-monkey or anything like that.

I'm not trying to be a Vista fan-boy, but it seems like Microsoft is only taking the next step. We'll see how much things will change over the next 3 years when Vista becomes the norm...

What are you trying to get out of it? What does XP do for you that Win 98 couldn't?

I needed 64-bit support. Vista did that for me, and provided higher performance. Windows XP X64 was not only difficult to find, but drivers are much harder to come across as opposed to Vista.

Vista provides DirectX 10 support for those that need it or want it. You personally might not have a need for it, but I can almost guarantee that the next big release of video cards will support it.

Vista adds more built-in protection. Granted, this may seem trivial and downright useless for more advanced users, but you'd be surprised at just how many people out there are completely clueless when it comes to the functionality and safety/defense of their system. All these complaints about the system asking you permission 3 times before opening a folder/file- You can turn that off. I think some responsibility lies with the end user to learn as many details as they can before they start messing around with their own stuff.

Vista has more sparkly bells and whistles. Once again, things like this don't mean a lot to me, and they probably don't mean a lot to you- but the overall look is more refined and pleasing to the eye.

As far as inner-guts nuts-and-bolts types of advantages, I couldn't tell you. I'm not a code-monkey or anything like that.

I'm not trying to be a Vista fan-boy, but it seems like Microsoft is only taking the next step. We'll see how much things will change over the next 3 years when Vista becomes the norm...

Let me just clarify a few things here..

#1) Vista is does not just "add" 64-bit support. You still have to buy the 64-bit version of Vista to get 64-bit support and you are now in the same exact bandwagon with Vista 64 as you were with Xp 64. Drivers are still hard to come by, etc.

#2) There are DirectX10 graphics boards (Nvidia 8000 series, AMD 2000 series), and they've been working find under Windows XP for some time now..

#3) It would seem that the built in protection is the single largest seperating factor between Windows XP and Windows Vista. The irony in this is that now that Vista is out, you can bet that the hacker community is going to focus more effort on bringing Vista down than any other OS. What that means is if you really want a "secure" PC, you're probably better off actually using an OS other than Vista. Look at what the MAC people have enjoyed over the years, far less suseptability and vulnerability largly due to their OS only have 5% of the marketshare. Windows XP will probably become even more "secure" as time moves on.

I'd argue that Microsoft is NOT taking the right step by releasing an operating system that doesn't add much more than a better visual appearance yet requires a MUCH more powerfull computer to operate as fast as the previous OS? It would be one thing to require faster GPU to render the more "visually improved" new OS, but what is the explanation on why performance across the board for ALL my applications is still down 5-10% using the same hardware on this new OS?

It's a shame I'm in this position really of giving Vista such a hard time.. the reality is that I actually like Microsoft and the products they produce. I've had a history of being an early adopter of their technology. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that Vista is so bad that it's the new "Windows ME" but it's clearly not up to par..

Jon

Let me just clarify a few things here..

#1) Vista is does not just "add" 64-bit support. You still have to buy the 64-bit version of Vista to get 64-bit support and you are now in the same exact bandwagon with Vista 64 as you were with Xp 64. Drivers are still hard to come by, etc.

#2) There are DirectX10 graphics boards (Nvidia 8000 series, AMD 2000 series), and they've been working find under Windows XP for some time now..

#3) It would seem that the built in protection is the single largest seperating factor between Windows XP and Windows Vista. The irony in this is that now that Vista is out, you can bet that the hacker community is going to focus more effort on bringing Vista down than any other OS. What that means is if you really want a "secure" PC, you're probably better off actually using an OS other than Vista. Look at what the MAC people have enjoyed over the years, far less suseptability and vulnerability largly due to their OS only have 5% of the marketshare. Windows XP will probably become even more "secure" as time moves on.


1) If you purchase the boxed package of Vista Ultimate, it comes with a 32-bit disc and a separate 64-bit disc. So, as long as you're running with a Core2 chip or similar 64-bit capable processor, you have a 64-bit system when you install the appropriate version of Vista. The discs are clearly marked. Also, I had a much easier time finding drivers for Vista 64-bit compared to XP x64. Lots of driver developers will have a separate tab or option for Vista 64, but Windows XP is just Windows XP, which I take to mean 32-bit. I will somewhat agree that certain drivers may still be hard to find, but I found all the drivers I needed within about 10 minutes a couple months back when I upgraded.

2) DirectX 10 cards such as Nvidia's 8X00 series will work just fine under XP (The argument that they couldn't was never brought up)- in DirectX 9.0c. DirectX 10 is not supported in Windows XP and never will be. Something to do with new code in the drivers and Shader 4.0 support. There WILL be an update to DirectX9, called DirectX 9.0Ex, which will help Vista machines running non-DX10 cards perform a little better. However, XP will not be getting any more updates for DirectX- unless there's a link somewhere explaining otherwise.

3) I agree with you here-but it's kind of a catch-22. Of course Mac users have enjoyed their position of being able to gloat about not being attacked by hackers... you said it yourself- They have what, about 5% of the market? I'm sure we'd be here discussing the same problems for Macs if they dominated the home computer market. That kind of boasting is on par with saying that travel by horse is so much safer than travel by car- since way more people drive cars and not horses, a lot more people get into car accidents instead of horse accidents, therefore people that ride horses don't have to worry about getting into an accident. Wait... it kind of makes my head hurt.

The way I see it, Microsoft is merely responding to the market. When the market has so many casual users and laymen (for lack of a better term) interacting with its product, they're naturally going to get all sorts of complaints and calls about how their system is "stupid" or not user-friendly because they just wiped out their program file directory or whatever random bone-headed thing people do to their computers that I sometimes get to try and fix. A more intermediate or advanced user would know not to go randomly deleting things in certain directories, but people like us that know what we're doing are in a rather small minority. So when the market collectively cries out "You should help us not do stupid things to our computers!", Microsoft responded by putting in features that you or I find intrusive and annoying. If anything, I find it sad and disheartening that so many people out there feel they need someone to protect them from themselves.

As far as the reduced performance, I'm not sure what exactly you're doing, but like I said, I noticed what seems to feel like a performance GAIN. Besides, I don't see why a small reduction in performance is so surprising or frowned upon. I can't think of one software title, be it Video editing package, 3d modeling app, or First-person shooter game where a new version was released that performed just as well on the same equipment. Each new release is more demanding and more resource intensive than the last. One old Pentium III workstation here at the office had Premiere 6.5 installed, and it ran just fine. Then, we upgraded to Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5, and now the thing crawls. It's almost impossible to accomplish anything on that machine anymore. So why didn't Adobe just make Premiere Pro to perform on an old machine? Why can't I run 3ds Max 9 on my old Pentium 2 with a 16MB Voodoo FX Graphics card? The new software being developed will always try to take as much advantage of the hardware as possible. That's why we keep getting more storage, more memory, and better processors, and that's why software today can do things it couldn't do years ago. 15 years ago, real-time previewing of something as simple as a dissolve seemed far-fetched. Now, its something that most of us take for granted. So, I really don't understand what all the hullabaloo is about.

"The way I see it, Microsoft is merely responding to the market."

Frankly, I think Microsoft is trying to CREATE the market and it isn't working. More and more businesses and government institutions are turning to Linux solutions and, from what I've heard, Vista is not selling all that well.

Microsoft may well have moved to improve on XP, and have apparently addressed several security concerns, particularly with IE7, but they've also crippled the product by introducing DRM schemes in some misguided attempt to help content makers at the expense of consumers.

There was a time when Macs were considered must-haves for those of us doing graphics, audio and video work. That changed over the years with XP. But I have a feeling a lot of people will be jumping ship again and heading back to the Mac.

And at the risk of having to eat my words, I predict that Vista will NOT be the norm in three years.

More and more businesses and government institutions are turning to Linux solutions and, from what I've heard, Vista is not selling all that well.

Much of the switch to Linux in those markets is from Unix-based servers, not Windows desktops. Few large companies and institutions would switch their entire desktop inventory from Windows to Linux - it would be prohibitively expensive to undertake/manage and to train all the employees in the new productivity applications.

The Linux market share is still very small (<5% as a generous estimate) and will do little to dent Microsoft's dominance.

I expect many corporations will skip Vista and go from XP to Windows 7 unless their upgrade cycles fall short of the estimated 2010 release. This was true with NT4.0 and Win2K - i.e., straight to XP in many cases.

FWIW, the Vista = Me (lowercase e) analogy is silly.

"FWIW, the Vista = Me (lowercase e) analogy is silly."

You may think it's silly, but based on my experience with both, it's accurate. And switching to a lowercase e doesn't change that fact...