[ctviggen]

I wanted to add more memory to my relatively new computer, but I stupidly ordered a single DDR2 800 memory, when I needed two of them.  Since I did that, I decided to get another, which would put my computer at 6GB.  Supposedly XP will only use 3.5 GB, so I'd be wasting 2GB.  When I put this computer together, I got enough hardware upgradeability to add Vista.   Should I upgrade to Vista?  My wife's laptop has Vista, and I can't see much reason on the surface to upgrade.  In fact, it seems as if everything is harder to do in Vista.  To me, Vista looks fancier but doesn't operate any better and takes more hardware requirements to do so (which granted my computer has, including the minimum requirement of a 256MB gaming video card).  But is there something under the hood that would make me want to upgrade?

Thanks.

[ctviggen]

Oops.  I also meant to ask if I should get the 64 bit edition or the 32 bit edition. 

[orthobiz]

No. Upgrade to Mac.

Paul

[Philistine]

I've got Vista on two PCs, XP on a third PC and a laptop.
I've found none of the negative issues reported with Vista, its a very robust OS, but I see very little difference between XP and Vista as a user interface - Vista is marginally better.  But the difference is not enough to pay for the 'upgrade',  if it was free then yes I would change.

On one PC I've hit the 4mb limit for the 32 bit version, and have pondered installing the 64 bit version but at this stage just envisage more problems to deal with.

[thunderbrick]

No. Upgrade to Mac.

Paul

Paul is very wise.  Do what he says.

Here's an article about the Intelligent Ground Vehicle Competition, a university-level event where teams must design autonomous robots that must find their way out of the woods, so to speak.

http://experiencethis.mst.edu/2008/06/artificial_intelligence_and_th.html

[richidoo]

PS1 has fixed a lot of Vista issues. Buyers on NewEgg seem to be happy with it, overall, especially the 64 bit version. Windows 7 will not be released anytime soon, but XP support will continue due to Vista stigma.

[GHM]

I also use Vista service pack 2 on one HTPC and XP service pack 3 on the other two in the house. The more I use Vista the more I favor it over my XP units!

I'm not at all sure what you use yours for? But if it is for music or possibly for total entertainment. Vista is quite a leap ahead of XP.

I've hit that brick wall too with memory. After thought I decided to leave well enough alone. Using Vista Premium home with 3GB ram and a 1 GB video card..my PC blazes through whatever I can throw at it.

I think once more software is compatible with 64Bit, I'll move up the chain. I really don't have any complaints at the moment.

You do realize Vista will allow you the newer 32 bit floating sound point with the use of WASAPI?

J.river and Foobar both have plug ins for WASAPI, which is native to windows. In the newer Service pack 2, Blu ray is native to windows as well.

I've had Mac here..in many cases I would call it a downgrade if the choice of software and hardware are important to you.

[whubbard]

I have been using 64-Bit Vista Ultimate since about 2 weeks after it was first made public. I was using it on a extremely high-end machine, that even for todays standards is pretty good. I have never had any problems, and I have a lot of weird programs and hardware. Therefore I would go ahead and recommend the 64-bit version. Your really not going to have any trouble, and there are a lot of programs out there now starting to optimize to the 64-bit architecture. I will soon be putting 8Gb of Ram in (I have 4 now), and that can only be done with 64-bit.

Your other option would be to stick it out and wait for Windows 7. It is meant to be a big improvement over Vista, which is great to hear, since I thought Vista was pretty good.

-West

[TheChairGuy]

Vista 64bit user, with 4gb RAM, here since June 2008

Bought at Best Buy and I demo'ed a MAC at both Best Buy and Apple store to see what it was up against.

I happened into a great deal at Best Buy one day on this...only $749.  Added a 3 year warranty (as I always do) and the total was like $1150.00 with CA tax.

The rough equivalent with MAC would run me double this....and I found no significant operating advantage, and a whole host of new software needs in addition, if I wanted to move to it.

I think Vista 64 is a great operating system....no downtime at all in 6 months here and it's plenty fast (and I have lotsa' programs loaded on it for my work). I have AOL/AIM, SKYPE, Office Professional 2007(Word, Excel, PowerPoint and the full version of Outlook), Spyware and Anti-virus, Blackberry Desktop Manager, CD/DVD burning software, video editing software and all the other crap like Miscrosoft Player, Flash, Adobe, etc. you end up with on Windows that often drains resources.  I mostly use Firefox as my browser. 

This wasn't the case with XP...it was notably slower than Apple OS and I had intermittent issues.  At 2x the cost and with little speed or downtime advantage, unless you are a graphics professional (I think I remember you are a lawyer) or some other technical field where Mac is the de facto standard, I can't see an Apple purchase as a sound investment.

My purchase was made on the company.....but, as one of it's owners I couldn't see how moving to Mac now was going to increase productivity for me (sales and marketing) or be a wise investment for my company.  My partner, on the other hand, is the creative part (packaging, graphics, photo shoots, etc) of the team...and has owned and used Mac for 20 years now and ain't budging from it.

John

[jqp]

I use 64-bit Vista Premium on a Toshiba laptop. Got it at BB for $700 with 4GB DDR2 800 in August 2008. I immediately removed Norton 360 virus and security suite (went with AVGfree).

I like it more every day, its a great OS for a laptop. I would never get a 'netbook' after having this since it is not very big or heavy and has all the power I would ever need in a portable. Boots up in about 30 seconds and comes back from sleep in about 3 seconds (I do this as much as possible)!

I like the way it quickly finds available wireless networks, since I mostly use it at lunch or at friends houses to get to the web for a few minutes.

64-bit Vista is mature without the problems of a lack of 3rd party 64-bit drivers that plagued 64-bit XP. Just make sure you have a good video card and a good processor, which you need for any modern graphical OS (Windows or Mac)

[Kevin Haskins]

I just paid an extra $99 on my Dell to DOWNGRADE to XP!   

Why?   I know all my software works with XP.   Vista has nothing I want or need. 

[GHM]

I'm planning to take a test run of the Windows 7 Beta version this weekend on my laptop. From what I've read so far, it uses less resources. We shall see!... should be fun.

[satfrat]

I can't justify the move to Vista and will update my Window XP Media Ed as I wait for Windows 7, then I'll probably look for a custom builder to refurbish my HTPC with new motherboard and such. I just added 2G of RAM for a total of 3G now and I'm thinking of replacing my P4 3.0 with a pulled 3.4, the highest it goes for my motherboard. Other than that, it's a waiting game and enjoy what I got which I'm pretty happy with, thanks in large part to GHM's help with incorporating my Trends USB transporter.

Cheers,
robin

[GHM]

I can't justify the move to Vista and will update my Window XP Media Ed as I wait for Windows 7, then I'll probably look for a custom builder to refurbish my HTPC with new motherboard and such. I just added 2G of RAM for a total of 3G now and I'm thinking of replacing my P4 3.0 with a pulled 3.4, the highest it goes for my motherboard. Other than that, it's a waiting game and enjoy what I got which I'm pretty happy with, thanks in large part to GHM's help with incorporating my Trends USB transporter.

Cheers,
robin

Hey Robin..smart to wait on Windows 7! Nothing wrong with the newest Vista, but Windows 7 is a BEAST!! Fast !!! and decisive! This new OS is going to be a HUGE hit for windows users!! I've only been using it for the last hour... I'm already sold! I can't wait for the retail version to be released!

[bwaslo]

Something to maybe consider -- the crippled Vista audio mixer.   I (and others as well) consider the Windows mixer system in Vista to be significantly inferior to the older system that XP and previous Windows versions used.  Essentially the Vista mixer takes out considerable control capability that used to be there -- it does not let you easily treat the the audio system as a collection of audio hardware component sources (even though that's what it is)-- in Vista, the audio playback system is treated as a collection of application program sound outputs that all get mooshed together.  Try to mix in the Line input with what a CD is playing to the speaker.  Or a microphone and a line input.  Or try to record what is playing out to the speaker.  Try to adjust the recording level in a soundcard that has input level control (if you can find it! - or to avoid useless recording dynamic range loss from fake "software" level control in systems that don't!).  Sometimes it's possible (but not usually, it seems), though it's anything but intuitive to do.   Also, I can't say for sure it's Vista (never having had both OSes in the same machine) but in Vista systems I've used, the audio seems more fragile and much more likely to have data dropouts and recording problems.  I wouldn't want to do professional recording with the Vista setups I've seen.  And also take note of the number of soundcards that STILL don't have decent Vista drivers and the ones that do have drivers, but which prioritized DRM management (limiiting what you can do with a SPDIF output).

Particularly for some of us who use soundcards as part of measurement systems, Vista audio is a near disaster.  There apppears to be no way for an application to control the overall mixer, the hardware inpiuts,  nor to know and restore a given mixer setting. So other programs can interfere with the hardware settings or even the actual sample rates the system uses -- bad, bad news.  I sincerely hope that Windows7 restores the usability of the mixers and ditches the dumbed down audio system, but I doubt it will.  The new mixer arrangement is likely to reduce customer tech assistance requests for Microsoft, since beginning users can get things to play easily for simple functions, even if they can't do much else with the audio.

[GHM]

Something to maybe consider -- the crippled Vista audio mixer.   I (and others as well) consider the Windows mixer system in Vista to be significantly inferior to the older system that XP and previous Windows versions used.  Essentially the Vista mixer takes out considerable control capability that used to be there -- it does not let you easily treat the the audio system as a collection of audio hardware component sources (even though that's what it is)-- in Vista, the audio playback system is treated as a collection of application program sound outputs that all get mooshed together.  Try to mix in the Line input with what a CD is playing to the speaker.  Or a microphone and a line input.  Or try to record what is playing out to the speaker.  Try to adjust the recording level in a soundcard that has input level control (if you can find it! - or to avoid useless recording dynamic range loss from fake "software" level control in systems that don't!).  Sometimes it's possible (but not usually, it seems), though it's anything but intuitive to do.   Also, I can't say for sure it's Vista (never having had both OSes in the same machine) but in Vista systems I've used, the audio seems more fragile and much more likely to have data dropouts and recording problems.  I wouldn't want to do professional recording with the Vista setups I've seen.  And also take note of the number of soundcards that STILL don't have decent Vista drivers and the ones that do have drivers, but which prioritized DRM management (limiiting what you can do with a SPDIF output).

Particularly for some of us who use soundcards as part of measurement systems, Vista audio is a near disaster.  There apppears to be no way for an application to control the overall mixer, the hardware inpiuts,  nor to know and restore a given mixer setting. So other programs can interfere with the hardware settings or even the actual sample rates the system uses -- bad, bad news.  I sincerely hope that Windows7 restores the usability of the mixers and ditches the dumbed down audio system, but I doubt it will.  The new mixer arrangement is likely to reduce customer tech assistance requests for Microsoft, since beginning users can get things to play easily for simple functions, even if they can't do much else with the audio.

Sorry to read about your issues. Though I've never used my system for studio recording or measurements. The system is very stable for the basic home audiophile. WASAPI can be set to exclusive mode..no other sounds are present or mixed in. It works very well..probably because it is native to windows and not a  3rd party application. I've never had any problems using it like this. Using it by way SPDIF or USB, I've found this to be the best route for the home audiophile using windows. It's pretty cut and dry actually depending on the Media player used.

[boead]

Something to maybe consider -- the crippled Vista audio mixer.   I (and others as well) consider the Windows mixer system in Vista to be significantly inferior to the older system that XP and previous Windows versions used.  Essentially the Vista mixer takes out considerable control capability that used to be there -- it does not let you easily treat the the audio system as a collection of audio hardware component sources (even though that's what it is)-- in Vista, the audio playback system is treated as a collection of application program sound outputs that all get mooshed together.  Try to mix in the Line input with what a CD is playing to the speaker.  Or a microphone and a line input.  Or try to record what is playing out to the speaker.  Try to adjust the recording level in a soundcard that has input level control (if you can find it! - or to avoid useless recording dynamic range loss from fake "software" level control in systems that don't!).  Sometimes it's possible (but not usually, it seems), though it's anything but intuitive to do.   Also, I can't say for sure it's Vista (never having had both OSes in the same machine) but in Vista systems I've used, the audio seems more fragile and much more likely to have data dropouts and recording problems.  I wouldn't want to do professional recording with the Vista setups I've seen.  And also take note of the number of soundcards that STILL don't have decent Vista drivers and the ones that do have drivers, but which prioritized DRM management (limiiting what you can do with a SPDIF output).

Particularly for some of us who use soundcards as part of measurement systems, Vista audio is a near disaster.  There apppears to be no way for an application to control the overall mixer, the hardware inpiuts,  nor to know and restore a given mixer setting. So other programs can interfere with the hardware settings or even the actual sample rates the system uses -- bad, bad news.  I sincerely hope that Windows7 restores the usability of the mixers and ditches the dumbed down audio system, but I doubt it will.  The new mixer arrangement is likely to reduce customer tech assistance requests for Microsoft, since beginning users can get things to play easily for simple functions, even if they can't do much else with the audio.

??? Not my experience. I've been using VISTA since Beta2.

Actually I have found Vistas audio to be superb . MUCH better then XP in every way.

And yes, more than 3GB of RAM and 2 cores on XP is a waste. XP is inherently crippled. My 4-core, 4GB Vista-64 runs circles around XP. I duel boot booth OS’s, mostly because of Adobe but that has been fixed now (by Adobe) and I find myself hardly using XP anymore. When I do I find it slow and cumbersome in comparison to Vista. And again, Vistas audio is better. It’s all in the drivers.  There is lots to read about Vistas superior audio ability here and everywhere else.

I’ve used a few different audio cards with Vista without any problems. I video edit professional broadcast on vista, never a problem. Actually I have more problems with XP’s memory management.
It’s the same nonsense all over again. Win95 vs. Win98, Win98 vs. W2k, W2k vs. XP and so on.
Each was better and more intuitive then the prior. Win7 looks and feels just like Vista, don’t let anyone fool you. F’in humans, it’s a wonder were still alive.

Vista was built for a minimum of a core-2 duo with 4GB of RAM. Just like Apples OS. Try running Leopard on an old Mac with a single core and old software, its not much different. The only difference is that with a Wintel box you can if you want to. No Apple Gestapo smashing in your door.  If you don’t have the hardware to run Vista then stick with XP, that includes a good video card too.

Is it worth the cost of an upgrade? Well, I think so but that’s a matter of opinion and your disposable income. LOL, if you’re in this hobby then I have to assume dropping a couple of hundred on Vista Ultimate isn’t a problem but if it is, then stick with XP and return that other stick of RAM – go put some gas in your car and call it a day.
Viva La Vista. 

[boead]

Hey Robin..smart to wait on Windows 7! Nothing wrong with the newest Vista, but Windows 7 is a BEAST!! Fast !!! and decisive! This new OS is going to be a HUGE hit for windows users!! I've only been using it for the last hour... I'm already sold! I can't wait for the retail version to be released!

Me too!

[bwaslo]

There is lots to read about Vistas superior audio ability here and everywhere else.

That's kind of hilarious, actually.  I'll bet I've seen the "lots" you've referred to.

So how is Vista's audio is better?  Name some technical advantage.  XP and 2000 can do 24bit 192kHz sampled, full duplex, without dropping samples (provided other hardware is behaving and not causing DPC latency issues, and yes, Vista is also just as susceptible to those).  What exactly improves on 24/192?   Crippling the mixer?   Either the samples are all converted correctly, without dropouts or sample conversion, or they're not, accuracy is the key, that's it.  Any more is just creative distortion.  Being able to do live room EQ is a neat trick, granted, but it could be done in an application in XP as well (and I'd rather use an external DSP box to do that anyway, since that will run in real time which Windows doesn't, making it more reliable).

I've read much about Vista audio, haven't seen anything convincing to indicate that it has a "superior audio ability".   Just promo propaganda and geewhiz chatter.  From my viewpoint, it has lost a lot and gained nothing I'm concerned with (your mileage may vary of course).  I've programmed for Vista audio for technical software where every sample counts, and in which dropouts or lost buffers can cause major issues -- you can miss samples in simple sound recording and never know for quite a while, if ever).  I do use Core Duos, and 3GB RAM, BTW.  And even with Aero off (or on, no diff).  If there's anything better about Vista audio, I've not found it -- and the mixer is rubbish, plain and simple.  Granted, when only playing music through to a line out, it's probably fine and easy, but not everyone does just that -- why serve only the common denominator, isn't a computer supposed to be more universal?   It used to be.

Vista's promotion info claims it raises the priority of audio to prevent dropouts, but it's dropouts seem to be worse on a more powerful machine than one that works fine with XP (though again, there can be more besides machine power that can get into that, so that may not be an entirely fair test).  For example, an older PentiumM laptop works great with the EMU0202, which is nearly unusable at higher sample rates on a Core Duo Vista Premium laptop I work with. 

It really bugs me that MS actually put a software record level control in Vista that cuts down the signal DIGITALLY that gets recorded, on the record input.  Meaning that even if you have the actual analog hardware set to drive the converter to  near full scale (for best resolution, like it should be), Vista provides a way so that reduced dynamic range is likely to be what gets recorded.  Or so that you can clip hell out of the converter, without software knowing - because what gets recorded and sent in the capture buffers can never reach full-scale because of this dumb "feature".  That is completely retarded, IMHO.  Record level controls are analog, that's why they're there, to optimize the crossover from analog to digital.

I'll grant that an exclusive mode in Visa could prevent other applications from messing with audio.  And its so easy to write for the exclusive mode with all the extensive documentation out there for it... (kidding, there doesn't seem to be much documentation, in fact, unless more has been released in the past 6months, which is the last time I went dragging through the MSDN on the subject).  And having the audio run in user mode (as Vista does) should minimize operating system instability caused by bad soundcard drivers and renegade applications, though somehow audio still seems able to lock the system up at times when things go awry.

So, yes, I'm hard on Vista audio, but that's because I've worked quite a bit with it at low level and it has caused me problems, and is yet to show a benefit.  This is not "the old is better, the new is bad" prejudice, it's experience.  I like new and better when it happens.

BTW, no offense to less demanding users. I can understand audiophiles liking Vista's stripped down interface and media center, and effects.  No one needs to agree with me. I use the computer as a signal processor as well as for basic audo, though, a different application.

[satfrat]

I just took a look at your website bwaslo, now i understand why you're ripping Windows Vista.

Cheers,
Robin