As the saying goes "Curiority killed the cat" - Installing Vista was a piece of cake, but gimme a break - the jump from a stock install of XP is like 4GB - Vista stock install is 12.3GB!!! I dread the day when I do eventually have to buck up and upgrade my computer - having to consume more resources just to run an OS and the associate Apps seems very unfriendly environmentally.

If it weren't for the fact I will eventually be going to HD, I would still use Win2K with Vegas since it is a supported OS (Thank You SONY!!!) Unless I"m mistaken - there isn't a way to work with HD on Win2K - is there???

Hmmmm, i haven't tried it because i've never had Win2K installed (thankfully! I rate it about even with ME for usability). However, i was doing HD experiments under 98SE and all went well. What makes you think HD wouldn't work under 2K? The OS has very little to do with which video formats are usable.

REALLY??? I was under the impression that acquiring HD and editing could only be done under XP or later... What did you use to gain access to acquire your HD footage onto 98SE???

I never had external HD footage to work with since i don't own an HD/HDV camcorder. However i was able to create and render HD footage under 98SE and view it on my monitor. I can't think of any reason why capture and print-to-tape of HD wouldn't work under 98SE. They're not OS-dependant operations, they're merely data transfers.

I out it on and then immediately took it back off. Everything is slower. I dont expect amiracle but man, it was a horrifying experience and Im running an AMD64 3700+ with 2GB RAM.

If they dont optimize it better by launch, I seriously doubt I will be be making the upgrade.

I fortunately had a spare 40GB drive laying around that I thought I would install it on - what a joke. Just sitting there doing nothing the hard drive was thrashing... Shut down, plugged in my XP drive and got back to work. M$ has a serious issue with this OS if this is the performance that can be expected from it. Personally, I would rather run Ubuntu Linux than anything else - I was able to get Cinelarra installed and working, but the interface leaves much to be desired...

Last I looked at Cinnelara the documentation gave me the creeps. Poor guy!

I'll bet that this beta is indexing the drive or something. Maybe since you're experimenting anyway you should let it sit and see if it ever stops churning.

Rob Mack

it requires a DX 9 card. The earliest DX 9 card is the ATI 9600 series (the 92xx & 95xx were released later as DX 9 ones too). The Nvidia 6xxx line is their first DX9 line I belive (I don't think it's any of the 5xxx series but I could be wrong).

Sadly, DX 10 will be Vista only so if Vegas 8 requires DX 10 we'll all be forced to upgrade no matter what. :(

When is Vista due 2007? It defnitely is going to require a recent computer to run, but if you don't want Vista, you can just stick with XP for another year or two, the next computer you get, you can decide if you want to go with Vista. I think that is going to be a common scenario for a lot of people.

'07 or REAL late '06, yeah. But like I said, DX 10 it Vista only & as a guy who buys a ame or two a yearm that might stop if they start requiring DX 10. I like 2k & XP wasn't good enough for me to upgrade to. I don't want to have to upgrade my MB, memory & Video card just to run a new OS. I didn't have to do that before. :)

I agree with you on that Friar.. But I guess to keep things moving along in our never ending quest for progress all things do eventually change.. I think Vegas is the only NLE app now that doesn't require you to be on XP - I still don't understand why AVID & Adobe required the XP upgrade. Is it only because XP can acquire HD footage??? I keep hearing conflicting stories as to whether win2k can acquire HD footage or not.. I would love to be enlightened on that topic...

Cliff

Cliff, two quick questions ...

1) Where did you hear that only XP systems can acquire HD footage? I don't recall hearing anything like that.

2) Have you actually tried to see if you can do it with your 2K system? It doesn't seem like it would be a difficult or time consuming experiment.

Question: Can you run the Vista 64bit Beta alongside of XP 32bit on a seperate drive or partition and choose which one to boot up? Anybody tried?

Edit: Nevermind- I found the answer.

j razz

I don't remember for sure, but it seemed as though in order to connect an HD camera to a windows box, one needed to run XP - I don't have an HD camera at the moment as I am still shooting SD format, but am looking to the near future - The challenge probably is that I will need to upgrade completely just to acquire and edit HD since I am running a lowly P4 2.4 with 1.5GB RAM. I am currently doing research on AMD -vs- Dual Core Intel right now - I wish I could really justify the price tag of AMD right now. Even the dual 3800's are pricey (I'm on a tight budget right now).

If someone could point me to documentation that Win2K can acquire and edit HD I would be grateful

Cliff

Question: Can you run the Vista 64bit Beta alongside of XP 32bit on a seperate drive or partition and choose which one to boot up? Anybody tried?


Yes! And Yes!

I don't belive it's Win2k that is the limit, it's that the recomended capture codec is XP only But, V6 has that internal SDI/HDV capture utility (be nice if it was simular for DV), someone hsould just try that. I don't have an HD camera to test. :(

Yikes- Everybody dislikes Vista. I loved it. It actually seemed faster on my system (which is vista ready). It definately ran alot smoother than XP. it would not accept programs that would slow it down (usually old programs) and kept running fast as programs accumulated in the system tray. Much Fewer Deadly lockups and any are usualy fixed by Ctl-Alt-Del. My joy ride ended after 48 hrs when I installed dot net to install Vegas. Everything slowed way down and started being unreliable like xp. till then it was Rock Solid. I dont blame Vegas but Dot Net was the culprit. and battlefield 2 looked way better in vista, smoother, more detail. even my gaming addict son said wow about the BF2 look in vista. I think though the Wisdom here, is to use the operating system that came on the computer. So come January Ill probably by a bigger, badder computer with Vista, till then I still have my memories of the future.
Steven

"it would not accept programs that would slow it down (usually old programs)"

That kills Vista dead for most users right there. Legacy software is way more important than most people realize.

i thought that was kind of funny, that line there... it won't accept any software that slows down the operation of the PC so it won't allow video editing with Vegas because then the speed ofthe PC slows down. :) Usefull! You'l always be running a snappy OS w/o ANY software because it uses resources!

I'm dual booting XP64 with Vista 32. Vegas runs great under it. The preview is less croppy and nearly keeps pace with 29.97 which it wouldn't do under XP64. DVDa won't work though - haven't figured out why.

The only thing Vista complains about with slow programs is the Aero interface. It'll ask you to disable it if it thinks the system is not responding quickly enough. This will probably go away once the video drivers are fine tune.

The initial disk thrashing is from indexing (which I haven't figured out how to turn off on the C drive) and that Vista runs a defrag shortly after install.

All in all for a beta OS it's not all that bad and shows a lot of promise.

Vista will work better on newer hardware - loading it onto an old machine is not fair - it's would be like trying to load Win98 on to an old IBM DOS machine.

>but gimme a break - the jump from a stock install of XP is like 4GB - Vista stock install is 12.3GB!!!

I really know nothing about Vista, but if it is a beta release, the software is probably compiled with debugging options turned on. The final release may be a good bit smaller.

Debug options have been turned off since 533x. It really is that huge of an install.