Thanks for taking the time to test.

Since installing Vista, I haven't noticed any dropoff in 'regular' usage. Working great so far....

Yeah... I must admit, I was quite nervous about getting into Vista. But things are running much smoother than I thought they would. There are only 2 programs that I have run across that I can't get to work in vista (Wavelab lite, and Sygate firewall). And of course a minor driver shortage does exist. Everything works but some of the drivers are not quite complete yet. But this is just a matter of time.

But most if not all of the fears of vista have not at all come true (for me anyway). I fixed myself up with a dual boot xp/vista system because I thought I would still need to heavily rely on XP.... truth is I haven't touched XP in a week and I'm on all the time.

So far I have no real complaints at all... everything is going quite nicely!

"This OS is USELESS - THAT is why I'll never move to it. That is why you'd be hard pressed to make ANYBODY who has work to do and needs full compatibility move to it."

Okay... whatever turns your crank

Wow! Anger management issues aside, sounds to me like you might be more happy using FCP.

If you're talking to me, I do like FCP as well. Add to that AVID and premiere(but the UI in Vegas keeps it on my 1st call).

"Wow! Anger management issues aside, sounds to me like you might be more happy using FCP."

Yeah... my guess is that he doesn'tlike too much.... other than trying to get a rise out of the board (it's an attention getting thing)

The Aero interface is running on Vista?

I have not tried vegas on Vista yet, it is still only on a harddrive in my test PC.

I don't absolutly need to run vista with Vegas. The PC's that I only use for editing, does not need any fancy OS - they need Vegas DVDA etc. to be stable and fast. If this combination in ok with XP I stick to XP for now, but if Vista can offer more speed and the same stability, I might change.

As for my office and 'play' PC I might want to change to Vista because of the new looks too.

As for right now I stick to XP for editing. When XP came out I waited for SP1 to be able to connect my first sony camera (VX1000) - until SP1 I used W2K.

I have seen so much unstability in other NLE's over time, so now that I have some stable systems with XP I am more than happy, and will so far stick with this.

JMHO.

/Ulf

>>>I can't see moving to Vista on a production machine any time soon but I am interested in the truth, whatever it might be.<<<<

Well done. Hard data is rather better than opinion -- even mine. We all get trapped by relaying other people's opinions as fact and soon most any new machine will have Vista installed.

Thanks DDM,

Actual use and testing is a lot more useful than weird rants, and while you won't get screwed by keeping Vegas on a known working OS, some users will definitely be using Vista and will need to get the facts from people with real world experience.

Forge ahead!

(now, I wonder why you're getting faster renders on the same exact machine?)

Rob Mack

>>>So a faster render eh?...after disabling what may I ask?

For the record... In Vista, i didn't disable anything, I don't have an antivirus installed in Vista so I didn't have to turn that off. On my XP setup, I do have Nod32 installed so I disabled that before I did any rendering.

Also, Vista was running the full Aero interface at 1600 by 1200 by 32 bit color.

I'm not trying to prove any point here I just ran the tests out of curiosity. Needless to say, I found the results surprising.

This is a sincere question, because I really don't know the answer...

Can anyone explain to me, in simple lay terms, how an OS will make an application, like Vegas, work (render) faster?

Thanks!

Not sure if this explains the Vista render performance increase entirely, but... each OS has a specific memory and process management / scheduling scheme (basically how it juggles multiple applications, processes, threads, etc.). Windows Server 2003, for instance, handles these tasks differently from Windows 2000. Likewise, I suspect Vista may be tuned for better performance than XP using multi-core systems such as AMD X2 systems . XP Professional always supported 2 CPUs but was not necessarily tuned to take advantage of them the way Windows 2003 (or Vista) would.

David

>>Well done. Hard data is rather better than opinion -- even mine. We all get trapped by relaying other people's opinions as fact and soon most any new machine will have Vista installed.<<

Well, I'm sorry. I do realize my posts on Vista are in disgust of this OS "upgrade".
But it's only because I AM genuinely disgusted in MS in regards to - THIS - OS "upgrade".
The truth?...the truth is you really don't NEED anything in Vista in regards to your work. You don't. The move from W2k to XP/XP-64 was a bit of a head scratcher in itself, but it did have base in resolving some key audio card related issues (# of I/O in w2k) that made for a justified switch.

Vista may look cool on the kick around laptop, sure...go for the aero looks, but I would think users here who have been discussing vegas and a/v performance (users who have more need for a streamlined system) would see this Vista and take a left.

Please, tell me...what is Vista offering (now and even in the future) that will benefit your work/flow? Now tell me anything in Vista that might hinder your work/flow?
the need to go from W2k to XP is 50/50 depending on the type of users out there. Vista?...I'm almost embarrassed for M$ this go round in regards to Vista. Pointless OS.

jaydeeee, for starters how about the faster renders, improved indexing tools, allocation of processor and memory, limit to memory, DirectX 10, the dumping of slower, older processes like the help engine (which btw if some of you guys are actually using Vegas in Vista then why haven't you noticed this?), and (on the subject of Aero) a hardware rendered desktop via our graphic cards which now contain ungodly amounts of processing power and memory meaning meaning that your application performance is not sacrificed in the name of sweet looks?

sounds great jonathan, only one problem...I've already beta tested this thing. Upon release the choice was easy - no thanks (and WHAT were you thinking MS?).

Faster renders? No. Unproven, as of now all claims of this are complete malarky. Let's see the test scenarios and data first (not some claimed "hey, 'it's faster!").
All I've read are reports of the opposite btw. I did not use Vegas under Vista so I have no real-world render results myself.

Every system vista was installed became noticeably slower than xp, realworld usage. You are dreaming if you think the Aero was running along and everything was zippy peppy as a stramlined XP sys with the same hardware. Very wrong.
Of course, I knew I'd be disabling the aero crap asap anyway, even if I had even remotely enjoyed Vista.

The security touted wasn't of the viral combative formula, it was one of securing the system from the user...all the msgs/popups with system changes became ridiculous. This is the added security?

Then what happens?..you disable all that "security".
You've disabled the aero sludge. Suddenly you realize..."hey, I just disabled 85-90% of "Vista", why would anyone need this again?
Then what's left? Your "necessary" searching capabilities?
Saved searches? DX10 hopes and hype?

Then there are the more important driver concerns (concerns in obtaining the most compatible solid and functional drivers - very important), 3rd party driver concerns (notice I havn't even dropped in the DRM, fwall issues).

Good lord, once XP has run it's course and the vista of vista has not changed - this will be the real motivator to move to Linux/Mac...ANYTHING but this crap. Like I said W2k to XP? ...somewhat necessary depending on the audio issues you might have faced. Vista against XP...hands down NO THANKS!! F-off!

But who cares - I KNOW I'm not buying into Vista anytime soon.
There are more important threads than this Vista sh*t anyway:
click here

jaydeeee, 1. Why did you put "necessary" in quotes? 2. I _do_ use Vista and Vegas so I actually know what I'm talking about. :)

I purchased an AMD 5000+ and the Vista upgrade came with the machine, or rather, the upgrade was available for purchase before the release, and so it was a matter of waiting.

And yes, I guess that we both beta tested the POS betas; but don't you remember my posts? We disagree, but we're both coming from legit stand-points. I have an extra hard-drive floating around, so I'll tell you what, I'll install the latest Windows XP with SP2, use the same secondary drive for both tests on the same machine and give you the results. Sure, it would only be ONE new machine to give results from, but that's one more result to prove or disprove our biases.

Also, disabling the ridiculous security warnings in Vista is painfully simple, but since the OS is brand-spanking new, not a lot of people know how to do it, I guess.

9 / 13 / 2006

6 / 18 / 2006

>>but that's one more result to prove or disprove our biases<<

Buy Vista, upgrade your hrdwr to be vista compatible, then disable everything down to XP :)P

No man, you're missing the point. There is NOTHING in Vista I need. I've got work to do. That's all I have time to care about - compatibility, functionality and speed. I've given Vista it's fair shake and it fails on every level in being a "necessary" OS upgrade.

I'm sorry, further testing isn't necessary. Enjoy it yourself.
It's crap IMO. Ok?

RED vs BLUE, jaydeeee, RED vs BLUE!

what?

it's turning into: you vs. you
I don't care to give Vista another second of my time.

I'm sorry, it's an expression made popular via the internet. RED vs BLUE refers to Halo ( a game I have never played ) but the concept is simple: two competing forces who's only difference is that one side is a shade of red and the other side is a shade of blue.

Hey, you and I reply really fast, do you F5 it up, or use VegasNights?

Heheh, again ...what?
F5 it up?, Vegasnights?
I'm not that hip ;)

Seriously, I LOVED your other topic you posted (how to lose 8billion).
This Vista crap has already been decided (and pales in importance).