[fiveo]

My trusty old computer died this weekend. I got tired of trying to get it running and I ordered a new tower from Dell. The one I ordered is a XPS Studio desktop with the Intel i7-920 processor and 6GB memory. I just noticed that the Vista OS that comes with it is 64 bit. Will my Elements 5 run on this machine? I ordered it from the outlet so I have no choice of which OS. Should I cancel my order and find one with 32bit or can I make this work. I checked and my Canon printer and other peripherals should work OK. Help!

Thanks,
Bill

[emalvick]

You shouldn't have a problem...

The only problem I've ever had with my Vista 64bit is that the dng and pef codecs don't work, meaning you won't see thumbnails from your raw files in windows explorer although most other software will be fine.

Erik

[Adam]

If you have 6GB of ram, you'll need the 64 bit version. 32-bit operating systems can't handle more than 4GB of ram. I'd honestly stick to XP, though

The video card in my Vista laptop just fried, and I'm falling back to an new Alienware laptop, but with XP instead of Vista.

[Maxington]

Vista handles memory far better than XP, and as previous posters have said, 64 bit can use more than the 3.2 gig than XP can.

Vista is an overall better operating system, except when companies don't support their software on it

[Gooshin]

also i would like to point out that alot of the hype around vistas being ass, are related to instances where large companies with more than 50 networked machines made the switch, back when it just came out.

Installing and taking care of Vista on your single and personal computer is much easier and less troublesome than being the guy (or girl) in charge of 50+ machines, atleast 50% of which are operated by computer inept people.

[xjjohnno]

Vista 64 bit is a decent operating system, as to regarding Elements 5, Vista 64 runs quite a lot of 32 bit programs quite happily as long as they don't rely of 64 bit drivers.
Canon should have 64bit drivers on their website, they are pretty decent with their driver support. As mentioned above, the .DNG and .PEF codecs might not be readable. There's a pay to use 64 bit .DNG codec.
Now I don't know if anyone from Pentax pops in here but at this time I will take the opportunity to request they sort out a 64 bit .PEF codec for us, their loving customers.

[fiveo]

Thanks for all the replies. It shipped out first thing this morning so I guess I'll see how I get along with it. Paint Shop Pro X2 is compatible with Vista 64 bit. I have an excuse to try some new software now! I would be interested in any other comments people have on this OS/system.

Thanks,
Bill

[Adam]

Vista handles memory far better than XP, and as previous posters have said, 64 bit can use more than the 3.2 gig than XP can.

Vista is an overall better operating system, except when companies don't support their software on it

Not to sidetrack, but...

I switched to Vista in March '07, and since then, I've only had trouble running one or two programs, neither of which was all too important. Everything that used to work fine on XP also worked on Vista. So everything was great, until my high-end, overpriced, stylish laptops started booting slower than before, encountering graphics errors several times a week, and dying as a result of windows update.

My current system parameters are as follows: 2.5Ghz Core2Duo, 4Gb RAM, 250Gb HDD @7200 RPM, broken nVidea 8400M GS @ 64Mb + Intel integrated graphics. Boot times are so slow that I never fully shut down my computer unless I'm at home- stand by and hibernation are much faster alternatives. And that's without any junk applications or viruses - trust me. I'll be happy to follow up this post on Friday, and perhaps a few months into using my new computer, which will be running XP pro on a 2.8Ghz Core2Extreme, with the same RAM but increased graphics memory (512Mb); I have no doubt that booting will take fractions of what it does now.

The amount of performance that Vista shaves off your system thus started pissing me off. Say a game or app requires 1GB of ram on XP. Well Vista users are in good shape- that same program will require 2GB. I've also learned that all the new wizards, i.e. the wireless networking wizard, windows error manager, new search features, and other services look better in Vista, but don't actually accomplish anything. If there's a networking problem on XP and you know what you're doing, you can fix it just as well as you would on a Vista system. That's probably why most corporations immediately downgrade all their systems to XP.

I guess the only things I will greatly miss as I switch back to XP are the round desktop clock and RSS feed which has provide me with countless hours of reading. I also don't know what I will do without transparent window borders and a glowing circle icon instead of an hourglass /sarcasm.

You know Microsoft really screwed something up when you have to pay extra on top of the cost of Vista just to have the option of pre-installing XP on a new system. Likewise, the fact that all Sony notebooks come with an XP recovery DVD (not a Vista one, I wonder why) says something in itself. This Friday I will be waving farewell both to Sony notebooks, and to Windows Vista. Let's hope Windows 7 doesn't dissapoint later on down the road.

Edit: BTW, 64-bit XP raises the RAM limit to 128Gb, just like Vista (well, Home Basic limits it to 8Gb and Premium to 16Gb so that Microsoft can make more money in the event that you purchase a powerful PC with home editions of Vista and then need to upgrade to facilitate more ram; the other three editions have it maxed out to the authentic 128Gb's). So Vista isn't special there

[daacon]

One of my desktops has Vista Home Premium 64bit with 6gb Ram. It runs most all my 32 bit apps (I don't have Elements though) - I did have to dig a bit to find some printer and web cam drivers.

I agree with Adam about the networking issues. There are certain things you must trun off immediatley (User control - Cancel or Allow !!! ahhhh) - there are several threads on how to speed up Vista and what services you can turn off.

I bought a new Dell XPS m1730 a few months ago and had XP installed. This was for both my sanity as well as some of the work applications I need I could not get to work (some vpn software) and was lost trying to trouble shoot it.

[Maxington]

Not to sidetrack, but...

I switched to Vista in March '07, and since then, I've only had trouble running one or two programs, neither of which was all too important. Everything that used to work fine on XP also worked on Vista. So everything was great, until my high-end, overpriced, stylish laptops started booting slower than before, encountering graphics errors several times a week, and dying as a result of windows update.

My current system parameters are as follows: 2.5Ghz Core2Duo, 4Gb RAM, 250Gb HDD @7200 RPM, broken nVidea 8400M GS @ 64Mb + Intel integrated graphics. Boot times are so slow that I never fully shut down my computer unless I'm at home- stand by and hibernation are much faster alternatives. And that's without any junk applications or viruses - trust me. I'll be happy to follow up this post on Friday, and perhaps a few months into using my new computer, which will be running XP pro on a 2.8Ghz Core2Extreme, with the same RAM but increased graphics memory (512Mb); I have no doubt that booting will take fractions of what it does now.

The amount of performance that Vista shaves off your system thus started pissing me off. Say a game or app requires 1GB of ram on XP. Well Vista users are in good shape- that same program will require 2GB.

Well, name me a new piece of software that had LOWER requirements than the 7 year older version? And I doubt there is any OS that has lower requirements than the previous one. And why is Vista to blame for you having a broken graphics card?

It is sluggish to boot, my 2gb Vista laptop isn't lightning fast on bootup. It has very good sleep/resume ability though, far better than XP. And the Tablet functions on Vista are absolutely amazing.

Programs all run about the same on my various different computers, except if you try to run Vista on something with less than 2gb ram.

I've also learned that all the new wizards, i.e. the wireless networking wizard, windows error manager, new search features, and other services look better in Vista, but don't actually accomplish anything.

Try typing the program or file you want in the search bar in the Start Menu and watch it pull up exactly what you want. XP doesn't even have that ability. This is an amazingly kickass ability of Vista.

If there's a networking problem on XP and you know what you're doing, you can fix it just as well as you would on a Vista system.

Gotta agree with you there, trying to setup/fix Vista's network is ridiculous. Why they made such a dog's breakfast of those control panels screens is beyond me. Maybe trying to hide it from clueless users?

That's probably why most corporations immediately downgrade all their systems to XP.

It's more likely that the Server versions that are compatible fully with Vista aren't out yet, which is retarded. And a lot of corporations run old software.

I guess the only things I will greatly miss as I switch back to XP are the round desktop clock and RSS feed which has provide me with countless hours of reading. I also don't know what I will do without transparent window borders and a glowing circle icon instead of an hourglass /sarcasm.

Vista does a lot of nice stuff in prettyness, and its far more helpful to use. Minor stuff like renaming a file on Vista, it doesn't highlight the .exe/.txt. etc extension, letting you rename just the filename. The tickbox where you can select mutliple things without holding SHIFT or CTRL. The multiple overwrite/rename options when you copy multiple things. The fact that you can click to tell it to do the same option for the next 10 files, or not. Stuff that was unclear or missing in XP.

You know Microsoft really screwed something up when you have to pay extra on top of the cost of Vista just to have the option of pre-installing XP on a new system.

Because they don't want to support XP anymore. Supporting 2 OS's costs everyone more money that they have to get back somewhere. Those charges aren't from Microsoft anyhow, that's the manufacturer.

Likewise, the fact that all Sony notebooks come with an XP recovery DVD (not a Vista one, I wonder why) says something in itself. This Friday I will be waving farewell both to Sony notebooks, and to Windows Vista. Let's hope Windows 7 doesn't dissapoint later on down the road.

Says that the Apple smear campaign and rampant internet whiners who forgot how bad XP was when it was released were successful. It's not like XP was perfect out of the box, it's had 3 service packs and 7 years of support!

Edit: BTW, 64-bit XP raises the RAM limit to 128Gb, just like Vista (well, Home Basic limits it to 8Gb and Premium to 16Gb so that Microsoft can make more money in the event that you purchase a powerful PC with home editions of Vista and then need to upgrade to facilitate more ram; the other three editions have it maxed out to the authentic 128Gb's). So Vista isn't special there

Not special, but Vista64 is pretty well supported, XP64 was a bag of unsupported shit.

When doing heavy processing on my work computer, and watching XP die instantly, where Vista keeps chugging along shows me all I need to know about how much better Vista is under the hood. Even funnier is when my Vista laptop kicks the crap out of my more powerful XP desktop without crashing when doing heavy CAD or image processing.

I can quite happily use Windows XP, and I do on 2 out of 4 of my computers, but Vista is nowhere near as bad an OS as people make it out to be. Most of the time, they are just parroting bullshit they heard from someone else, and the rest is problems caused by lazy coders and manufacturers not updating their products, nothing to do with Microsoft.

/threadjack!

[Big Dave]

Maxington,
If your system isn't at least a Core2duo or AMD64 X2 with at least two GB's of ram, Vista is a real dog. I have converted a ton of laptops to XP pro for people. I run Vista64 as a second OS and it runs OK,but I switch over to XP for serious work.

Vista is an overall better operating system, except when companies don't support their software on it

[xjjohnno]

Those Sony laptops with the XP recovery disc have me suspecting they were pre Vista release laptops that Sony may well have specced up with the install of Vista and minor component changes.
I have 2 Toshiba laptops as well as my desktop, the laptops with Vista recovery partitions, one being the older Dual core processor. My fondest memory of XP pre SP1 was the fact it didn't like to boot off in a hurry if at all.

[Maxington]

Maxington,
If your system isn't at least a Core2duo or AMD64 X2 with at least two GB's of ram, Vista is a real dog. I have converted a ton of laptops to XP pro for people. I run Vista64 as a second OS and it runs OK,but I switch over to XP for serious work.

Yep I agree, I mentioned that in my post above ^^

[Adam]

Try typing the program or file you want in the search bar in the Start Menu and watch it pull up exactly what you want. XP doesn't even have that ability. This is an amazingly kickass ability of Vista.

The one and only thing I will genuinely miss. The start menu is the one place where the new search feature shines- and works quickly to actually find what you're looking for.

I guess once my XP start menu drives me nuts I can always boot up my other old laptop and glance through Vista from time to time, likely getting a chuckle at the 5-minute wait involved in popping the menu open

XP had it's flaws, but compared to what we saw before, mainly 98/Me, it was a giagantic step up. Remember the whole "windows works harder so you can work smarter" motto? Well, it was true! On the other hand, XP >> Vista = pretty graphics and a rushed attempt at next-generation computing with ease of use. I'm sure that if Microsoft thought about what they were doing, they could piece together an OS in which the task manager wasn't the only component that never crashed. Combine that with nice graphics, minimal/efficient resource use, and appeal to both professionals and consumers alike, and we'll be in business. Again, let's hope Windows 7 accomplishes that. I personally hope it does- there's no way I'm switching to Mac. A new version of Windows XP with slightly easier browsing controls, additional folder options, improved graphics, and good stability is just what we're all looking for.

On the flip side of the argument- agreed- Vista didn't get the initial recognition it deserved. But there really isn't that much to it beyond what impresses you on day 1, and that's probably why the only people praising Vista are those trying to sell it. Don't tell me the whole 5-version Vista thing isn't there for Microsoft to make free cash. I've got Vista Business and they still want me to "upgrade"? Gimme a break!

[Adam]

Now that we're talking about the positive aspects of Vista- the other "one-and-only-thing" I liked was the Windows Photo Gallery. Is there a version of that for XP by any chance, or some similar browser, or am I stuck with the ol' 3rd-party apps?