And what was that comment?

I should have an apples to apples answer next week with a dual boot machine I'm finishing up. Based on working at the Happy M in Redmond I don't hold any hope for 32 bit Vista beating XP.

Now when 64 bit vista gets mature and you can address more than the 3.49GB of RAM I've got usable in Vista 32 then Vista 64 should be a winner.

I sure hope its compatible as a lot of us have upgraded computers and are stuck with Vista and seeing its been out since the beginning of the year I would expect the V8 to be able to work with newer computers... at least I'm hoping for this....

Bet I'm not alone......in this circumstance of hobbling along for now with some stuff working and other stuff not ....

Eileen

Well, the line from the CreativeMedia people has been that everything after Vegas 7 would be Vista compatible. Nobody has said it would work better in Vista than it does in XP.

There was never any statement that Vegas 8 would be a 64-bit program, but Vegas has been usable on 64-bit systems in the past, with a couple of hoops needing to be jumped through. Personally, I don't know what the hoops were for XP-64 or what they will be for Vegas Pro 8.

Rob Mack

I wish I could find it. I'm sure we'll hear plenty about this in the weeks to come.

Basically the comment amounted to XP being a nimbler evironment for Vegas.

Rob Mack

Rob, you're heading in the right direction.

It's not a matter of compatibility or 32-bit vs. 64-bit. My question is under which OS does Veas Pro 8 perform at its peak?

Sounds like Konrad will be able to give you a good comparison soon.

I've got a couple of Vista 32 test systems at work that I'll be able to load VegasPro 8 on (Time allowing, I'm slammed right now). What I'm interested in is a comparison of Vegas under Aero vs Vegas under Vista in it's most win2k configuration. I've played a little with Vista and know it can be stripped down a lot.

What I won't be able to do is the apples to apples comparison.

Rob Mack

Vista requires far more resources for its basic operations than does XP. This would typically mean that any software is going to perform worse on Vista than on XP. The exception would be if Vista has new features not available to XP needed by the software to take advantage of advanced hardware.

As far as I know, in the video editing realm, there isn't anything Vegas takes advantage of on Vista that it can not do on XP. That would logically mean that Vegas on Vista is going to perform, at best, as well as on XP, more likely its performance will suffer slightly under Vista compared to XP.

I don't know if this is a normal issue with XP and the video capture. But I would always have trouble if I did to much multi-tasking during a capture. The cause of a frame drop seemed to be when dragging the windows around to fast.

In Vista nothing screen related seems to affect the video at all. I assume that's related to the desktop rendering being done almost completely on the graphics card with little to no cpu involved for changes to the view.

I don't know if XP required the CPU to make screen updates or not, but Vista runs much smoother in that respect. Course that's about the only respect I've noticed in Vista that runs smoother than XP.

While you can multitask until your hearts content when editing (I frequently run Vegas in multiple instances2-4, Photoshop, Internet, Digital Juice Juicer, and maybe Sound Forge) when capturing the good rule of thumb is to leave the machine alone. Think of how files get fragmented. Your computer knows where they are, but it has to go all over the place looking for them. With capture it needs an interstate travelling at 65 and every time you multitask, pull off on an exit, you run the risk of getting off path and getting back on the road going the wrong direction.

Screen drawing is an area where Vista has offloaded things to the graphics card, and in this respect, Vista should perform better than XP. This was a good thing with the Vista upgrade. Sadly it appeared that Microsoft wasn't thinking as clearly with other aspects of the OS. In most other cases Vista seems to have taken, at times a significant, hit in performance over XP.

Will Vegas Pro 8 run faster/better under Vista as opposed to XP (presumming all else is equal)?
==========
Does anything?

John

Screen drawing is an area where Vista has offloaded things to the graphics card, and in this respect, Vista should perform better than XP.

Good thinking!

Except recent reviews say it still takes 22% of a typical high performance CPU's performance to run Aero (Vista's ugly eye candy).

Bjorn, or whomever, in Vegas, we've always been able to "turn off" certain lesser functions to enable Vegas to use resources better, and therefore function more efficiently.

Can this be done with Vista? For example, is it possible to turn off Aero allowing the OS to operate more efficiently thus allowing Vegas to operate more efficiently?

I assume you can. One of my co-workers was testing Vista last fall. I heard him exclaim over the cubicle wall, "hey, it's a real, usable OS now!" I asked what happened to make it usable and he said he found out how to turn Aero off.

Then later on he turned it back on, and spent the rest of the day mostly laughing at it.

Yes, you can turn Aeror off and get the OS down to a point where it looks and acts pretty much like Win2K. In that respect its a lot like XP. Getting rid of the XP-ness of XP is pretty much the first thing I do to a system.

Rob Mack

I find that rather amusing because i find the XP interface, in Windows Classic mode, to be much nicer than Win2K. So the first thing i usually do with an XP system is to convert it to a Windows 98SE look & feel. I find that to be the peak of usefulness in the range of Windows versions. 2K and ME added a lot of little tweaks that were supposed to help the user but ended up making the experience much more annoying and click-consuming.

I can give a 32 vs 64 bit comparison on same hardware once the nice email to upgrade comes my way. Naturally, this version not being native 64 should not do much - but if it's wanted, I can give a comparison.?

I installed Vegas 8 and DVDA 4.5 on Vista64. No alarms or error messages. Only thing I have noticed on Vegas 8 so far, is that the MM did not install - not sure why. I do have Vegas 7e installed as well - without MM installed. Not sure if the two are related somehow.

I have installed on both 32 and 64 bit (on same system, dual boot method). Previously (and still installed) Vegas 7e [on both].

Installed v8 on both - no problems.

The crunch time - performance differences.. Using a pure multiple generated media test project file (the same on project on both "systems") with same render settings etc.
Render time for 32bit. 3m02s
Render time for 64bit. 3m02s.
Result: Suprise for some perhaps, less so for others.

The benefit to me: 64bit handles more memory - so Vegas is effectively using up less of my RAM (as a %, not allocation in MB before anyone starts... - 32bit ran up to 73%, 64bit went to 67%). Both were running CPU at 100% for the whole render time.

HTH some people looking for a comparison

Ken