Longhorn is nowhere near, true, but the public beta of XP 64bit is available.

I did play with it briefly, and Vegas 4.0e performed the same - no speed increase, but no performance hit running 32-bit under 64-bit OS either.

Is the XP64-bit beta Longhorn? I thought they were different things. When WinXP went into beta (i got invited, but didn't do it) they had XP out within a year. I would figure the same with the 64-bit AMD os.

Thought I saw on this forum some extremely fast render times out of the 64 bit processor, seems like a AMD 2 gig 64 was getting speeds a 3gig or higher would normally post.

With all the problems of the Windows FINAL operating systems I don't know why anyone would want to run a Beta of it, I can only imagine how bad that would be.

For a great article on XP processors and DV, go here. You might need to register, but it's free, and all of the articles are awesome.

http://www.dv.com/features/archive.jhtml

It's entitled "When I'm 64."

There is also an article on the movie Cold Mountain and how it was edited with an NLE that runs on desktop computers (FCP).

"is the xp-64 beta longhorn?"

No.

So then what's longhorn? Their next "revolutionary" buggy os?

Yes

I'm running the 64 bit Windows 2003 Server beta and it is rock solid (I think of Windows Server 2003 is the next step from WIndows 2000 Pro. XP is just cheap and annoying). We're just waiting for the HW manufacturers to publish 64 bit drivers, although all my hardware has solid 64 bit drivers already. Also we have to wait for low level software like virus scanners and zone alarm to be coded for 64 bit. Most software like Vegas works fine, but stuff that talks directly to the kernel needs to be in 64 bit.

I don't have a 64 bit .NET Framework beta yet so I haven't been able to use scripting in Vegas in Win64, and I'm not sure all the DirectX sound plugins are working, but everything else works fine. No crashes - impressive performance. VidCap works fine.

I doubt Vegas 5 will have a 64 bit component, but 64 bit WInXP and Win2003 will be out by the end of the year from what I can tell so who knows.

It isn't worth going 64 bit just for the sake of 64 bit, but I think it should at least be a factor in your decision because as 64 bit stuff is rolled out you will see the potential of your AMD64/Opteron processors realized over the next couple years.

My memory bandwidth under Win2003 64 is more than double what it is under Win2003 32, so there is definitely potential to be tapped.

What I'd really like to see from Vegas 5 is better dual processor support in general. I want transitions and effects to be precached while the timeline is playing. The second processor could pre-render future frames and store them in RAM so there is never a glitch during playback. Not an easy task, but that's the kind of thing we need to compete with hardware solutions that never even hiccup at a transition. All this memory bandwidth doesn't do me much good if it isn't being utilized.

>as 64 bit stuff is rolled out you will see the potential of your >AMD64/Opteron processors realized over the next couple years

In a couple of year todays processors will be obselete !
we will be running Pentium 6 cpus at 10ghz at entry level or something
and the 128 bit OS debate will be starting

my thought is get the best you can afford today, dont worry about future proofing because when the future gets here there will be even better cpus and parts to use instead. or something in your existing PC will be bottle necking it. its a gamble your taking ...

eg some of the latest motherboards advertise "prescott" ready for upgrading but until recently you couldnt get these cpus, but if you want a high end one now it costs an arm and a leg. the ones that average joe can afford dont appear to offer alot of extra speed if any just a new architecture and some commands that not much software supports yet. ie no advantage

There is also the compatibility issue, betting that your hardware will be optimised/supported by this new technology you were preparing for. well shorly there will be a new CPU socket for prescott, so your "prescott ready" mboard cant upgrade to these CPUs with new sockets that would be even faster. so we have probably been taken for a ride by the marketing people again.

Look at the P4 evolution if you bought one of the first p4 motherboards, you couldnt use the latest p4CPU becasue you wont have support for 800FSB
only 533 or 400FSB and the benefits the new mboard chipsets and CPUs bring like HT support, PAT etc ....

eg 2

3 years ago i bought a P3 666 CPU PC recently I upgraded,

I had 2 choices buy a second hand CPU on ebay for $150-$200AUD (1ghz P3) which is all the mboard could support

why when
when for not much extra I could get an entry level P4 mboard,800FSB, some ram and a P4 2.8 something about 5 x faster than i currently have.


CPU speed costs money

So stick with the current affordable technology there is now and or dont pay premiums for "future ready" components because that future compatibility may l be limited and when you do come around to using it you may find complete upgrade is for cost effective.

Just my 2c worth ,,,,


Jc

>So stick with the current affordable technology there is now and or dont pay premiums for "future ready" components because that future compatibility may l be limited and when you do come around to using it you may find complete upgrade is for cost effective.

I agree with what you said for the most part - and most of my systems are configured for best value, but I like my main workstation to be viable for more than 3 years - and that takes a lot of thinking about the future. I think of it like a musical instrument. It takes a long time to settle in and learn its individual nuances. And then no matter what future situation I have to deal with, I have something consistent and stable to depend on. To me it's worth it to pay a premium for the luxury of using the same system for a long long time and not run into any major bottlenecks.

But yeah, it costs money. My last system cost almost $6,000. And in 3 years I'll do it again and benefit from all that new fangled technology you were talking about. ;)

I think Win64 will be a while yet. But the good news is that applications don't need a 64-bit OS to take advantage of the AMD 64. Sony could release a version of Vegas that takes advantage of the 64-bit registers and instructions on the AMD at it would work just fine on 32-bit WinXP.

But I don't know if Sony is going to do a 64-bit Vegas or not.

--nate

i kind rushed that post and when i re read it now i see all the grammer errors.

anyway .. Ive been dying for the last 3 months to upgrade I went for a 3.2 in the end, I bought this in feb 04 for $440AUD, when back in november 03 this was $1100.

the prices just drop to fast, and you cant sit and wait on the side line because then youll never buy a pc.

I understand that you want your workstation to be viable for 3 years but technology is progressing too fast. I hate the fact that todays desktop "SERVER" level will quickly be outdone by tomorrows entry level PC.

I guess to keep up or ahead you could do regular motherboard/ram/cpu upgrades.

even with overclocking it still costs you the same ..

ie a 3.2 ghx cpu costs say $X

a 2.8ghz costs $X - 60%

to over clock the 2.8 to get 3.2 performace you need to buy
the higher end motherboard and faster ram so you end up paying the 60% not to intel but to the mboard and ram manufacturer.

so in the end CPU power still costs the same amount of money.

Regards
Jc

>I hate the fact that todays desktop "SERVER" level will quickly be outdone by tomorrows entry level PC.

Personally, I love that fact! :)

Great choice of cpu. Best of luck with your new PC!

I think i didnt communicate that point right, I like the fact that technology is progressing , but the price we have to pay to keep upgrading.... sux

your $6000 server ... would be lucky to be worth $600 in 3 years.
Anyway i did the same as you bought the best i could and dont plan to change for a few years, so im in the same boat too.

If it wasnt for vegas render times I wouldnt of had the need to upgrade. My p3 666 did everything else fine. the only reason i upgraded was render times !

if sony would bring out hardware rendering for vegas it would eliminate the need for many people to upgrade an entire pc just to get better render times

wouldnt it be nice, buy a $400 PCI card slot it in and outrender any cpu on the market ?

How much would you pay for a "VEGAS rendering card " when you consider it would probably stop the requirement to upgrade your entire PC.

I dont hear anyone complaing about slow editing features/time ? yeah ?

JC






Jc
cheers
jc

>>your $6000 server ... would be lucky to be worth $600 in 3 years.

Nah... your depreciation factor is too high. It's more likely to be worth about $1500 in 3 years, not $600. I certainly can't replace my old dual PIII 1GHz workstation (now more than 3 years old) for that kind of money!

Since hardware depreciates so fast, an investment in this kind of technology is never about how much I can get for it later on... it's about things I can't put a price tag on, like creative productivity and quality of life - things that I don't necessarily get by purchasing the latest cheapest hardware.

>>If it wasn't for vegas render times I wouldnt of had the need to upgrade. My p3 666 did everything else fine. the only reason i upgraded was render times !

Good point. Editing, in the pure sense, is just as good on a P3 450 as it is on my dual Opteron 248. I've always loved that about Vegas. It even works great on my crappy laptop which is perfect when I'm cutting up video while travelling.

What I was after was better performance on the timeline. I rarely do straight forward DV editing. I'm working in 3d so there are always 2 tracks composited together with filters. The new system has made that an awesome experience compared to the 4fps I used to get!

The mistake I made with my last workstation was not paying enough attention to memory. The second CPU becomes bottlenecked for memory because it has to go through the first CPU to get to it. This time I went for twin dual channel memory controllers (1 dual channel controller for each CPU). But the potential will not be released until Windows supports NUMA in the OS. Right now only 64 bit versions of Windows 2003 support NUMA.

I debated a similar issue in December between a P3000 or the brand new AMD643000 that slipped into the market rather quietly (the 3000 has 512cache instead of 1 mg (the AMD3200) and is about 95-97% as fast in the reviews).

The AMD 3000 was almost 1/2 the price of the Intel 3000, let alone the Intel 3200 (about $200 versus about $460 for Intel at the time), plus there was the hope that 64 bit might make a difference.

I have been very pleased with the AMD64 3000.