Easy

Step 1 - Upgrade to Windows XP
Step 2 - Enjoy

If you are going 64 bit, John's article is worth a read.

The article I referenced in not only for Vista64. Terje is obviously an XP zealot, there is nothing wrong with Vista.

then it's intel that was causing my vegas/gimp crash's/lockups the other day because the comp I used was vista/intel & my home machine is xp/amd. :) seemed to me vista has some issues with multi-tasking between heavy programs (could be tweaked most likely).

Terje is obviously an XP zealot

That is just sad. I am no such thing. If you haven't discovered that Vista has some pretty serious issues, you must have lived in a cave the past year or so.

I've been running Vista on three machines (out of eleven) here for the last year or so and I haven't had any problems whatsoever. I run primarily Vegas, Sound Forge and the entire Adobe CS3 suite. I run a lot of other little apps and simply haven't had any issues. The Vista machines are all Intel quad-core processors using Intel motherboards with four gig of RAM each.

"If you haven't discovered that Vista has some pretty serious issues"

I have 3 machines running Vista and I have no idea what "issues" you speak of. Could you please list them?

"there is nothing wrong with Vista"

to quote the Bard "...let me count the ways..."

John, I am fully aware that Vista runs fine on a wide variety of hardware. It does, for example, run fine on my Asus motherboard with a Q6600 chip. I have been running Vista 64 in parallel with XP 32 for about a month or so. I have no issues with it other than the fact that I think I had to do more tweaking than should have been necessary to get the best performance out of it.

On the other hand, Vista has been what can only be described as a nightmare for Microsoft. Companies are not adopting it at any rate at all. The only thing that has made companies starting to consider moving is the fact that Microsoft is threatening to stop supporting XP. Microsoft had to back paddle seriously on keeping XP available to system builders.

Are these issues figments of my imagination? Clearly not. Does the fact that you have no problems with Vista negate the very widely reported problems with Vista? Obviously not. I have no issue with you enjoying Vista, but quite frankly, it still isn't something I would recommend people upgrade to simply because there is far too much of a risk that they'll run into trouble.

So, where do Vista have problems? Well, one important one is in networking performance. Network drivers and Vista multimedia drivers run at very high, priority. Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, decided that they should change the priority of multimedia drivers because users like good performance. That is absurd. It means that if you have an MP3 playing when you work, your network connection can slow down dramatically. BY DESIGN! Only Microsoft could have come up with such a hare-brained idea. It is ludicrous.

Oh, and before you go and state "My network connection works fine when I play games and movies" - that is utterly irrelevant. Your single, or even three, experiences do not change the fact that a very large number of users are going to see this problem. Nor does it change the fact that Microsoft has stated that this was done intentionally. This is not going to affect you if you have a cable modem or similar, but at work, where we have GigE connections, it has a dramatic impact on performance. Again, this is by Microsoft design, it is documented, and it is widely reported.

This is just one of many widely reported issues. The fact that Microsoft, very close to release, went and completely altered the Windows driver model still has significant impact on the availability and quality of Vista drivers. Is this the driver manufacturers problem? Not at all, they develop to what Microsoft give them in through their developer connection, altering this process takes time. If Microsoft, very shortly before release totally changes the model, there is no way hardware vendors, who specialize in hardware, not in software, can be expected to keep up.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/vistaone3046.pdf

On the link above you can read an email exchange between Ballmer and Jon Sirley (Microsoft Board Member) and others on some of these issues.

I am surprised that you do not understand that the "but it works fine for me" response is not a valid response to the "Vista has some serious usability and performance issues" statement. When something is reported widely, single or handfuls of exceptions to what is reported doesn't negate the problems that are reported. Nobody has ever said that Vista doesn't work at all on any computers anywhere. Your single (or three, or even counting blink3times three) counter-example ONLY refutes a statement similar to "All Vista users everywhere are having serious problems". That was never said by anyone.

The fact that companies are not adopting Vista has more to do with the fact that it doesn't make economic sense to do so. Vista (and especially Vista x64) is an improvement over XP. It is far more stable, but there the advantage pretty much ends. Most of the new Vista "enhancements", turn out to be fluff and worse, annoyances, like UAC. If Vista was $10 a seat, everyone would have upgraded. But it's way too expensive, even for the Enterprise versions.

And then there's the hardware issue. Many corporate desktops and laptops are not "cutting edge" and a Vista upgrade would force many businesses into upgrading their hardware en masse.

Lastly, the world economy is in a major downturn. This hasn't helped the computer industry at large and certainly is a major factor in the sluggish adoption of Vista.

All this said, I have been running Vista x64 since the beta program and it is the most reliable OS that MS has produced. I ran it in a double boot configuration with 32 bit Windows XP for a few months, because i also was scared by all the anti-Vista hype (which of course, turned out to be unwarranted). If anyone is considering upgrading and your hardware will support it, I would recommend that you do so. But if you want to save money, stay with XP and you won't be missing anything exciting.

Vista for me rocks on a quadcore. I just love it. Have XP on a few laptops and it reminds me of when my main machine was an XP and the slower ones where win98se. TImes change.

Cheers

"I am surprised that you do not understand that the "but it works fine for me" response is not a valid response to the "Vista has some serious usability and performance issues" statement."

So in that saga you wrote above, you listed one problem (and i am not convinced is even a problem in the first place) and you're calling Vista a disaster area because of it? Okay... well. suit yourself. I've been using Vista (both 32 and 64) for almost a year and have not seen ANY network problems. Vista is perfectly stable and operates quite smoothly. I have no desire what so ever to return to XP.

XP was a slice but it is right where it belongs for me now.... in the history books.

So in that saga you wrote above, you listed one problem

I did? I thought I listed two. The changed driver model that makes a significant amount of hardware not work, and a crippled device priority model that breaks networking.

(and i am not convinced is even a problem in the first place)

You are joking right? So, do you really think that it is more important that your MP3 player works properly than your networking? That would confirm what I have suspected, that you are about 13 years old and never use your computer for serious work - please, imagine a big smiley here.

you're calling Vista a disaster area because of it?

No, I am not, I am pointing out the fact that Vista has been a disaster for Microsoft, and that these two, among others such as UAC has been a major impediment for the uptake of Microsoft. In fact, Vista has singlehandedly caused more headache for Microsoft than any other product release in their history. This is not my estimate, this is from the horses mouth so to speak. But then again, you knew that, right?

Why did MS push back the pulling of XP from the market? Was it because Vista was such a huge success? Was it perhaps because the corporate uptake of Vista has been as close to Zero as it is possible to get, with no real improvements in sight. Most analyst firms still strongly recommends againstmoving to Vista. That is the disaster, not any individual problem.

Can you explain why analyst firms still recommend against deploying Vista?

I've been using Vista (both 32 and 64) for almost a year and have not seen ANY network problems

So, you are still looking at your DSL/Cable connection and concluding you have no problem even though I specifically said that slow connections like that are not impacted? Do you actually read what you respond to blink?

I am a Vista user. I don't hate it, but ignoring the fact that Vista has some serious issues is absurd. Of course it works well for a lot of users, but that is irrelevant given the magnitude of users it doesn't work for.

Hell, even XP SP3 is a monumental screw-up on part of Microsoft. So much so that people who develop software distribution tools and auto-provisioning tools (tools that automatically install software on PCs in a corporate network) have had to add Vista upgrade and XP SP3 blockers as one of its features. Customer demand. The IT departments around the world were unable to keep up with the problems ensuing from Vista and SP3 upgrades.

If I try to use Windows Update to install SP3 on my company PC I am given a nice message saying this is illegal according to company policy (obviously not the case for my home PC).

Again, I am not saying that Vista doesn't work at all, I am only pointing out the extremely widely reported fact that it is having some very serious issues.

...........Again, I am not saying that Vista doesn't work at all, I am only pointing out the extremely widely reported fact that it is having some very serious issues.

hmmm change the word vista with another familiar word,,

vista workin ok here on 1 machine,, maybe a little more predictable than the other word
.....

"Again, I am not saying that Vista doesn't work at all, I am only pointing out the extremely widely reported fact that it is having some very serious issues."

All I have heard is you talking a lot, but as for "serious" issues I have yet to hear any. Hardware issues are not issues... just simply expected when moving to a new system of this nature. Of all the hardware devices I have, only ONE was not compatible... and that was an OLD printer server. Look at the shift from 3.1 to win 98. Look at the shift fron FAT32 to NTFS. ANY time I have shifted from one OS to another, I have had to do some hardware upgrading. My shift from XP to Vista has been the LEAST amount of hardware loss.... so where is the problem???

A disaster for Microsoft is not my problem and I can hardly call it a "serious" issue in my world.

"So, you are still looking at your DSL/Cable connection and concluding you have no problem even though I specifically said that slow connections like that are not impacted? Do you actually read what you respond to blink?"
My DSL connection is no different AT ALL from XP. Not faster, not slower

"Can you explain why analyst firms still recommend against deploying Vista?
That's like saying 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest.... or..... Buy this and you get 10% more. WHAT DENTISTS..... and..... 10% MORE THAN WHAT?????
What analyst firms???

You keep mentioning "serious issues" but you have yet to list any and If the above is the best that you have than maybe you should rethink your original statement because so far I have heard nothing but fear mongering.

All I have heard is you talking a lot, but as for "serious" issues I have yet to hear any.

You have not? So when industry analysts say that companies should not upgrade to Vista that is because everything is working well and fine? The email thread from Microsoft pointing out that Vista has some serious problems, that is just a figment of my imagination?

My shift from XP to Vista has been the LEAST amount of hardware loss.... so where is the problem?

Still with you blink, as usual, still with you. For the past couple of years the IT press, from CIO magazines to the general computer press has been overflowing with articles discussing problems with Vista. Go google if you want, you'll find thousands of articles. Microsoft have readily admitted that the Vista upgrade has, by far, been the most problematic upgrade for them. This is all out in public view, anyone who has read anything about computers for the past two years can not have missed it.

Against all of that you claim that your single (or even three) experiences is a counter argument? Are you serious?

I can hardly call it a "serious" issue in my world.

I am not talking about "your world" blink, I am talking about the real one, where the rest of us live. I have said several times that I am not talking about your world. Your singleton existence is irrelevant when measuring whether Vista has problems or not. You are essentially claiming that since The Lakers scored a goal in each game in Boston they must have won the games. Obviously, since they scored a goal. You fail to even consider that what matters is not a single drive or a single goal, but the overal situation after the entire game.

That's like saying 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest

I really hope you are joking. Seriously. If not, it is proof positive that you are not in any way connected to the reality of the business world. Comparing companies like Gartner with ads for tooth paste is absurd in the extreme.

You keep mentioning "serious issues" but you have yet to list any

The fact that you do not bother to read what I post doesn't mean that I failed to post it blink, it just means that you are either lazy, do not have the Adobe Reader installed or that you are so caught up in your religious hallucinations that you refuse to read anything that goes counter to your pre-conceived ideas. Let me remind you that I did already post a link to a PDF with a string of emails from the likes of Steve Ballmer at Microsoft discussing some, but far from all, of the issues Vista has. Why did you not bother to read it?

Do you really want me to quote? Oh, and remember, this email string is from 2007, so it is not particularly old.

In the first email Kalkman points out that Microsoft made a mistake when releasing Vista by not including the OEM team. This, according to Kalkman produced a lot of "customer pain".

Mike Nash points out that Vista turned his laptop into a "$2100 email machine"

Ballmer: "The hobbyist who bought ... I know they are struggling"

Jon Shirley to Ballmer: "The most persistent and so far hardest to fix issues are both with MSN [Terje: That is MICROSOFT applications] products, Portfolio [..] and Music"

Jim Allchin: "We really botched this. you guys have to do a better job with our customers that (sic) what was shown here"

So, blink, this email thread, centered around the Vista Capable program, the reason why Microsoft is being sued, detailing some of the problems with Vista, they are a figment of my imagination?

When Microsoft says that networking for those of us using GigE networking is broken, in other words, that by design Vista will seriously impede network performance if you are so sinful that you play an MP3 on your PC while connected, that is also a figment of my imagination? If you seriously think that crippling network connectivity (and no, your cable or DSL connection is not affected, they do not use GigE transport) in favor of playing music is not a problem, then you are just confirming that you are about 13 years old, since your Brittney Spears MP3s are more important to you than your networked business applications.

Oh, and how about the TCP AutoTuning feature in Vista? The one that will make network connectivity for a lot of applications break entirely. I must have imagined it.

http://blogs.technet.com/asiasupp/archive/2006/12/14/windows-vista-tcp-auto-tuning.aspx

What about any application using the SHFileOperation API. They are now broken and will have to be re-written. Is the guy who wrote it still around? Do you have the source code or will you have to re-write the entire thing from scratch?

The list isn't endless, but it is quite long.

How many other Microsoft operating systems have InfoWorld or any other publication petitioned Microsoft not to stop selling?

http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

The fact that there is blink3times and John Cline living in the world where Vista has no problems of any serious kind, and an approximately 6 billion people living in a world where Vista has some serious issues, shouldn't that tell you something blink?

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2007/11/the_postsp1_vis.html

A performance deficit of up to 2:1 on a variety of business critical applications, even after SP1, that is not an issue?

Terje,

Since the original poster of this thread asked to “config my new Vista computer for Vegas” it is distinctly unhelpful to start by calling Vista a “disaster.”

Making a blanket statement calling Windows Vista a "disaster" without qualifying the statement is as close to fear mongering as can be! Make a freakin' list of who is affected by the differences between XP (or any other OS, you too Macfanboys!) and Vista. There are distinct sets of users.

1. Corporate computer users.
2. Corporate IT departments.
3. Small business users.
4. The small business IT person, who usually is multitasking!
5. The individual user.
6. ?????

There are also a few distinct hardware scenarios as well.

A. The user of new computers, ones that have the latest OS installed.
B. The user of older computers, ones that have an older OS installed.
C. ?????

I've advised, since the days of Windows 95, that individual computer users avoid installing a newer version of an OS over a previous version. The bigger the OS jump, such as trying to install Win XP over Win 95 is just asking for trouble! I usually suggest that the individual either buy a new computer with the latest OS installed or they buy a new hard disc for their old computer and install the new OS on it.

My advice for the individual is multiplied many times for business's large and small.

So my take on Vista is, for an individual computer user, that the difference between XP and Vista will be usually matters of annoyances of varying levels

As Terje correctly points out, the differences between XP and Vista for corporate users and IT departments can be very significant!

Nedski

P.S. Vista might be a “disaster” for Microsoft Sales because corporations are hesitant to upgrade thousands of computers, but that doesn't mean squat for an individual computer user! ;-)

P.P.S I've just put together a new PC with Vista, it works fine, but I'm going to shut off that really annoying UAC security feature!

Oh, one more thing, my new PC has Vista 64 installed vs my old PC with XP SP2 installed.

The new PC has a Core2 QUAD 2.66ghz, 8GB DDR2 RAM, Vista 64.
The old PC has a Core2 DUO 2.66ghz, 4gb DDR2 RAM, XP SP2.

I ran John Cline's HDV render test. The old PC took 4 minutes, the new PC took 2 minutes. I haven't done any serious tweaks on either PC.

As Terje mentioned, you should make sure that there are Vista drivers for ALL your critical hardware, including BIOS updates if needed!

Nedski

Since the original poster of this thread asked to “config my new Vista computer for Vegas” it is distinctly unhelpful to start by calling Vista a “disaster.”

Well, to the original poster, I never did that. I just pointed out that if he wanted as few problems as possible, he upgrade his Vista computer to Windows XP. When the discussion went on from there, I pointed out that Vista has some serious issues. I have detailed some of them.

As for the different requirements for a home user and an IT department that is obvious, but there are many areas where home users will have exactly the same problems. A series of business applications have a performance deficit of up to "2:1" on Vista over XP. For home users that may actually matter. If the home user has only the PC, that is OK, but if he has a scanner, a printer, a webcam or similar, he may be in trouble. Do you know of anyone who have just a PC? The new Vista TCP drivers are known to kill many typical home routers. Do you think that may be an issue for a home user? Should I be forced to buy a new printer, a new router, a new scanner and all new software (a significant amount of software broke under Vista) just because I got a new PC? What home users have that kind of money to spend?

I've advised, since the days of Windows 95, that individual computer users avoid installing a newer version of an OS over a previous version.

That advice is a little excessive. Most of the Microsoft OSs have upgraded to the new version fine enough. Moving from DOS-based Windows 98 to the non-DOS-based XP was a little bit of an issue, but totally manageable.

I think the advice that is now coming out from the professionals is good advice. Sit on the fence until Windows 7 comes out. It seems likely that this will be less of a hassle than going through Vista.

Let me quote InfoWorld on this:
"Bottom Line: When the choice is between a buggy, bloated, immature OS with no tangible value add vs. a lean, clean and reliable (if somewhat dated) OS that has the broadest support base in the history of personal computing - plus performance to burn - there really is no contest."

Now, of course, blink is going to claim that this is all a figment of my imagination because in his world of two, all is well in Vista land.

But Terje old pal, don't you want to run Vegas 64 when it ships??? Will it run on XP 64?

Almost all of my external hardware has Vista drivers. The only one that doesn't work is a Mustek scanner. The driver barely works with XP!

Have you read much about how Windows 7 will be "better" than Vista? Other than a new marketing scheme from the boys in Redmond? ;-)


Nedski

But Terje old pal, don't you want to run Vegas 64 when it ships??? Will it run on XP 64?

As I said above, I already own, operate and run Vista 64 on my Q6600. As with blink, I have no issues with it whatsoever. It is a little more bloated than I want, but so far it is OK. That doesn't mean that I am blind to the fact that there are a lot of users who have a lot of problems with it. I can't ignore the fact that these problems are not only well documented, but Microsoft even agrees to them and some of them are apparently by design.

This is the main difference between blink and me, and we have been in similar shouting matches before. Last time blink had a long series of notions about another item, and he continued to spout them for months despite the fact that more and more evidence was mounting for him being completely and utterly wrong.

To me it seems that blink, when he has a notion in his head, that he is utterly unwilling to let it go no matter what amount of evidence there is showing he is wrong. This trait is, to me, one of the scariest human traits I know of. I think of it as the "I have a strong conviction and that conviction must be correct given it's strength." It is the most serious problem our current society is dealing with today given it's prevalence, but even more so, the acceptance in the rest of society that it is perfectly reasonable that we should listen to people with strong convictions.

Here is a tip: If someone has a very strong conviction and they mainly do two things, namely re-state their personal situation and ask you for evidence that your counterpoint is correct, that's the time to write them off as unsuitable for anything more advanced than operating a kinder garden toy. Sadly, that means that our current president should not be allowed to operate anything more advanced than a tricycle.

This is the reason I am hitting blink hard on this one. If I can make a single person understand that convictions have no merit, no value are completely useless and most of the time utterly counter-productive, then perhaps I have done something worth while. The most dangerous people in the world are people with convictions. Now, the convictions blink is spouting here is not a dangerous conviction by any stretch, but the fact that he again is allowing him self to fall into the trap of sticking to a conviction in face of mountains of evidence against it is what worries me. You see blink is otherwise a reasonable man. It is when otherwise reasonable people start having convictions (of any kind) that I grab my gun and duck under the table.

"To me it seems that blink, when he has a notion in his head, that he is utterly unwilling to let it go no matter what amount of evidence there is showing he is wrong."

Me????
Are you serious?!?
You look back at how many people in this thread are calling you out here. In fact so far I see NO ONE agreeing with you So who's wrong?? Gawd... give me a break. You have convinced NO ONE here of anything that you have claimed, and yes... I happen to include myself in that group.

In fact let's just be specific here: Out of ten people that have commented in this thread.... only 2 have been negative.... and one of them is you. So if I'm on the majority side how is it that I (me as in myself) is wrong??

I will ask you ONE more time, please LIST (in simple point form) the "serious issues" with Vista. Can you do that. Is this possible for you??

Terje,

So what, if any, tweaks for Vista 64 made Vegas happy? Or is your 8.0b running without any issues? Be they serious or just annoying. I'm planning on finishing my current video project on my old XP computer than copying it to the Vista PC and seeing if it survives the process!

I have been reading about making tweaks to Vista, but if you know of any that make a difference with Vegas, I'd appreciate it. Vegas is my most valuable application.

Thanks,
Nedski