Screw the EULA's and lets talk Vista being a big fat hog

Blurmore · October 19, 2006

First off thanks all who posted in my best non-apple notebook display thread.

After much reseach I'm leaning toward a refurb or scratch and dent Dell m90 workstation with WUXGA 17", 2.16 core duo, 2 GB ram all for about 1700 dollars.

BUT when I sent the system specs to my father (the one who claims he will disown me if I buy a mac) he sent me this 'get ready for Vista' link. Probably to emphasize that my new machine falls into the suggested requirements for running the new MS OS. Here is the link and it is not forthcoming about photo editing or organization abilities.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

Reading the specs did scare me a little. The whole 5 different platform thing first off. What I want is the most powerful and efficent platform for photo editing, and this is not mentioned or decribed anywhere in the introductions to the platforms.

Second the new 3D GUI. WHY? WHY? WHY? Do we need a 3D GUI??? MS is not known for making things lean, or stable, or things that play nice with hardware not specifically designed for its software (or nice with hardware that IS for that matter) why throw in a 3D GUI as the new basis for the OS??? Am I the only person that thinks this will render current SOA 256 and 512 video cards as only good enough and usher a new crop of 1 & 2 GB cards? Just because we decide to put high power graphics capabilities into our new systems doesn't mean we want them eaten up by DOS. I want a DOS that does 3 things....acts as a framework in which to run programs, keeps out or at least does not advertise to security threats, and 3 gets the hell out of my way.

Seriously though reading all this mess surrounding Vista AND the information from MS about the product itself has me seriously taking a chance on disownment. My wife (and her family) gets killer discount through her employer at the apple store. The features and abilities really seem more inline with what I want to do with a computer.

1st off....edit photos
2nd surf the internet/read email
3rd possibly edit video
4th run wordprocessing and business applications

So aside from the EULA are there any other PC users who are scared of Vista already?

BTW my Dad says he and his 'group' had it running on one of their overclocked uber homebuilt dork PC's already and he isn't particularly impressed.

bwg · October 19, 2006

Blurmore wrote:

Second the new 3D GUI. WHY? WHY? WHY? Do we need a 3D GUI??? MS is not known for making things lean, or stable, or things that play nice with hardware not specifically designed for its software (or nice with hardware that IS for that matter) why throw in a 3D GUI as the new basis for the OS??? Am I the only person that thinks this will render current SOA 256 and 512 video cards as only good enough and usher a new crop of 1 & 2 GB cards? Just because we decide to put high power graphics capabilities into our new systems doesn't mean we want them eaten up by DOS. I want a DOS that does 3 things....acts as a framework in which to run programs, keeps out or at least does not advertise to security threats, and 3 gets the hell out of my way.

The new graphics system for Vista actually offloads the rendering onto your video card....something which mac OS X already does. It's a way of taking advantage of the large memory and processors on modern video cards that in previous generations of windows sat mostly idle while you were doing your internet browsing/emailing/word processing etc. Unless you were gaming, you never really utilized the hardware acceleration capabilities of your video card.

My pc (3.4GHz pentium 4, 2GB RAM) with an ATI X1300 256MB card ($200) runs vista beautifully. Nothing to curse about here...it's a very good move by MS.

cmason · October 19, 2006

Ok I have plenty of experience with both Macs and PCs. I have used them both in both work and play settings, even supported them as an IT dweeb at one time in my life. The real, honest to god truth is this: there is no freakin difference. Macs crash. PCs crash. Macs run slow, Macs run fast. So do PCs. Is UNIX/OS X better? who knows? Uptime? Who cares? I shut my PC down at night, to save electricity, not interested in running it all night, whether I could or not. Its a PC, not a server. Stability? Don't believe it. Macs crash too. Unix is superior in its handling of crashes, much in the same way XP is better than Windows 98 was. I assume Vista is better still. But, don't believe you wont have crashes. Don't believe you won't have malware or viruses. Its coming.

Today, with the equivalence in hardware, there is even less difference. Mac has beautiful engineering design, but otherwise, there is not much difference at all in hardware.

It really, really comes down to your preference. Which OS are you more comfortable/productive with on a day to day basis? Once you get into Photoshop or web browsing, the experience and tasks are identical, the OS has little to do with it.

To me, it doesnt FEEL any better, and that is what counts. Day to day, what i am familiar with is Windows. I don't like it better or worse than OS X, it is what I am comfortable with. More importantly, I also have a significant investment in applications and peripherals, nearly all of which I would have to replace if I switched to Mac. That is an operation that I can not afford, regardless of how 'cool" the Mac is.

Sure, I think Mac has some cool things going in OS X, and some great apps (garageband would be a great time suck to be sure!). If Apple ever gets wise and starts to turn into a software company, selling OS X to run on a generic PC, I would buy a copy in a heartbeat. But I am not interested switching.

Oh and regarding EULA...before you consider what MS is doing with Vista, be sure to understand what Apple already does with OS X...many users are not that pleased, including restrictions that limit its use on Apple Hardware only...

DavidTO · October 19, 2006

I'm just looking in, I know nothing about Vista, other than it's made by MS and it's coming out in the not too distant future.

The only thing that I can add of any value to this conversation, is that if you are going to be editing video, I would seriously consider the Mac. PCs can do it, but being able to run Final Cut, and especially Final Cut Studio is a major advantage for VIDEO editing.

If you're just going to dabble in video, well, then, whatever you want to do is fine.

photodoug · October 19, 2006

IT dweeb? :nono

ChrisJ · October 19, 2006

As an IT Professional, I see little reason to buy Vista. Just secure yourself a copy of XP Pro and run it on whatever hardware you buy.

If you are going to do some serious video editing, Mac is probably the best option (as David said). BUT, I did finally find a PC Program that works for me, Sony Vegas... my guess is that it's inferior to Final Cut, but it does the home video thing just fine.

Once Vista is released into the wild, and all of the major bugs have been thrashed out... then I'll start to consider it, maybe 2008?

cmason · October 19, 2006

DavidTO wrote:

I'm just looking in, I know nothing about Vista, other than it's made by MS and it's coming out in the not too distant future.

The only thing that I can add of any value to this conversation, is that if you are going to be editing video, I would seriously consider the Mac. PCs can do it, but being able to run Final Cut, and especially Final Cut Studio is a major advantage for VIDEO editing.

If you're just going to dabble in video, well, then, whatever you want to do is fine.

Agree with David here...look to the apps you want to use, not the OS...

[yes dweeb...IT support, deskside support, sysadmin, network admin, dba...I was all of them rolled into one.

!]

NHBubba · October 19, 2006

Blurmore wrote:

BTW my Dad says he and his 'group' had it running on one of their overclocked uber homebuilt dork PC's already and he isn't particularly impressed.

I'm a software developer that up until about a month ago worked on a product written for M$ Windows on M$ Windows using M$ tools. We loaded one of the Vista betas up on one of our highest of highest end PCs. (The product generated very high-resolution 3D graphics in realtime. Think a badass PC video game w/ obcenely accurate/detailed texture maps. Hence our need for speed was pretty substantial.) I too was unimpressed.

I'm not excited about Vista at all. At home I still use Win2k because I was never impressed enough w/ XP to bother buying a license. When Vista goes live I plan on buying an XP license just so I have something other than Vista to run if Win2k ever stops being viable.

In fact, I was so discoraged by M$'s direction, that the target platform and dev tools was something I considered when job hopping recently. I now work for a company that develops for Redhat Enterprise Linux.. using a number of open-source tools.

DavidTO · October 19, 2006

I don't want to hijack the thread at all, just to let you know that editing video is what I do for a living, and while my knowledge is very one sided (i.e. Mac), if there's anything you want to know about that, let me know.

If you have questions about editing video on a PC, then you'll have to find someone more informed than me.

DudeX · October 19, 2006

I am dabbling in the latest beta of Vista (RC 2 build 5744) and it seems pretty snappy despite these issues - I installed it on the last partition of my harddrive (meaning it's going to be the slowest part of the harddrive) and I have modest hardware 2.8Ghz Pentium 4, and 1GB of RAM (which Vista uses up to about 44% of Physical memory).

The 3D interface (Aero Glass) is pretty fast. It's snappy and it looks nice. What remains to be seen is if fully loaded (like having multiple web browsers opened, a few text editors, and a picture viewer) will it slow it down, or affect performance. It shouldn't though.

The 2d Aero interface felt slightly slower, but it was just as responsive as XP when I discount the psychological factor. The UI has changed a lot, so it takes a while to get used to.

When I run Photoshop CS2, Vista switches from Aero Glass to Aero Basic, probably due to the way it accesses the graphic interface of the OS. When you exit Photoshop, Vista restores Aero Glass.

On another note, Vista might be the upgrade for Windows users depending on Photoshop CS3 takes advantage of the new features of Vista. Vista has what some say is a "smart CMM" (CMM = Color Matching Method/Model, in this case Microsoft's Windows Color System) to handle color matching between various devices. It remains to be seen how effective WCS is.
Also Vista supports natively high bit displays like Eizo's 10 bit and 12 bit LCDs and 10 bit HDTV displays (some high end plasma screens) and potentially HDR displays as well.

Hopefully MacOS X Leopard supports high bit displays, at least so that the Mac can be on par with Vista in that capability.

claudermilk · October 20, 2006

cmason wrote:

Ok I have plenty of experience with both Macs and PCs. I have used them both in both work and play settings, even supported them as an IT dweeb at one time in my life. The real, honest to god truth is this: there is no freakin difference. Macs crash. PCs crash. Macs run slow, Macs run fast. So do PCs. Is UNIX/OS X better? who knows? Uptime? Who cares? I shut my PC down at night, to save electricity, not interested in running it all night, whether I could or not. Its a PC, not a server. Stability? Don't believe it. Macs crash too. Unix is superior in its handling of crashes, much in the same way XP is better than Windows 98 was. I assume Vista is better still. But, don't believe you wont have crashes. Don't believe you won't have malware or viruses. Its coming.

Today, with the equivalence in hardware, there is even less difference. Mac has beautiful engineering design, but otherwise, there is not much difference at all in hardware.

It really, really comes down to your preference. Which OS are you more comfortable/productive with on a day to day basis? Once you get into Photoshop or web browsing, the experience and tasks are identical, the OS has little to do with it.

To me, it doesnt FEEL any better, and that is what counts. Day to day, what i am familiar with is Windows. I don't like it better or worse than OS X, it is what I am comfortable with. More importantly, I also have a significant investment in applications and peripherals, nearly all of which I would have to replace if I switched to Mac. That is an operation that I can not afford, regardless of how 'cool" the Mac is.

Sure, I think Mac has some cool things going in OS X, and some great apps (garageband would be a great time suck to be sure!). If Apple ever gets wise and starts to turn into a software company, selling OS X to run on a generic PC, I would buy a copy in a heartbeat. But I am not interested switching.

Oh and regarding EULA...before you consider what MS is doing with Vista, be sure to understand what Apple already does with OS X...many users are not that pleased, including restrictions that limit its use on Apple Hardware only...

How refreshing. At least I no longer feel I'm tilting at windmills alone in here.

There's nothing saying you HAVE to switch to Vista when it finally hits (I'm not holding my breath, and don't think "soon" means much); heck I have some friends who are still on 98. I've also read that the Aero theme can be turned off to reduce the heavy UI requirements. In a nutshell: don't worry about it.

Blurmore · October 20, 2006

Thanks everyone.

After that was all explained I'm not sweating Vista...and I too planned to keep XP until it's functionality was diminished or the first round of vunerabilities was closed and bugs fixed. I guess it is just my last throws of trying to convince myself to buy a mac. Spec wise I just can't see paying 20-30% more for what similarly equiped PC would cost me.

I'm pretty solid on the M90 mobile workstation beast. Despite it's heft. I plan on this computer replacing my desktop, and rigging some kind of external monitor setup in my living room where the extra monitors act like display frames of family pictures when not in use. (I believe there is a bluetooth display in the works very soon) My big problem now is my desktop is in the basement, the cold, dark, spider filled basement. I need a place to edit photos and work on business stuff UPSTAIRS where my family is. The workstation may accompany me on weddings/events that I need to run a disc off at the end of the night, and to meetings with clients. I'm not buying a laptop to look cool sending emails and browsing the web in $tarbux (I can do that on my phone). While I'm convinced that even OLDER powerbook displays are that nicest 'WOW' factor screens I have seen, I'm not prepared to fork over 3gs for a Macbook Pro. Unlike my father I don't have anything against Mac's, my limited experience has lead me to believe what anyone else believes about them in a limited encounter. The OS is slightly more intuative and friendly and the components are engineered by people who believe design AND functionality
are not mutually exclusive and creative tasks treated with serious respect not just what bored house(people) use to make cheesy iron-ons for the kids T-shirts.
Besides, this may be the FIRST computer I ever purchased (as stated before I get hooked up) but it will definately not be the last (God willing).

DavidTO · October 20, 2006

Not to quibble, but you could fork over 2gs for the MacBook Pro. no one sez you have to spend 3gs.

But that said, it sounds like you found a good solution for you.

cmason · October 20, 2006

I ran the Vista check against my PC, and it passed with flying colors. It is an AMD 3000+ Athlon, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600 with 12bMB RAM...so not a high spec machine by any stretch and no where near a dual core box, but Vista seems to like it ok. I imagine your new Dell will be just fine.

jsedlak · October 20, 2006

I am running RC1... I will probably reply more later but you will not get away with 1gb if resources remain similar to what it is right now. I am currently using 70% of my ram (1gb total) and when I am editing photos it shoots up to about 95%. I have experienced lock, the computer stops responding to clicks for about 5 minutes with CPU at 100% usage, and then everything happens and it continues on as if nothing happened.

cmason · October 22, 2006

Yeah, well I expect that Vista will require more computer than XP, its kinda been that way since Windows 3.1

!

In any case, just so you know: Vista handles memory far different than XP, in fact you could argue it is superior. Ask yourself this: if your computer is using 70% of the memory, what is the rest of the memory doing? Nothing! its wasted. Vista instead takes all the memory, and basically treats it like a big cache.

So it is hard to compare to XP. Read here for a nice explaination..

Oh and RC2 is said to reduce memory usage by nearly 50%.

In any case, since I built my own PC, memory is a very simple and cheap fix. If I need 2MB, I go buy a 1MB chip..simple

colourbox · October 22, 2006

cmason wrote:

In any case, just so you know: Vista handles memory far different than XP, in fact you could argue it is superior. Ask yourself this: if your computer is using 70% of the memory, what is the rest of the memory doing? Nothing! its wasted. Vista instead takes all the memory, and basically treats it like a big cache.

My understanding is Photoshop and OS X do this too to some extent but it leads to misunderstandings. Some people look at the memory readout and see very little free RAM and conclude either 1) their app is a RAM hog and/or 2) they don't have enough memory. What is often going on is that unused RAM is being used for caching to optimize performance. That is what has led to evaluating OS X ram usage in terms of virtual memory pageouts instead of the misleading amount of "free" RAM.

I only bring this up in case when Vista comes out everyone starts complaining bitterly about how in Vista they never have free RAM. It may in fact be giving you better performance.

Blurmore · October 23, 2006

I ordered my Dell box today.
I was pretty convinced on buying a cert refurb Dell XPS or m90, then after talking to a sales person I realized that cert refurn puter could have been in grubby customer's hands for 6 months or so...ewwww.

So we spec'ed out first an XPS then an Inspiron (after he explained that it was the same box and sceen sans flashy accents and ubergamerzlookz@meIMkewlLEDlidlitez) The Inspiron box was 1000 dollars less. Here is the breakdown.

Core 2 Duo Processor T7200 (2GHz/667MHz/4MB)
2GB ram
NVIDIA 7900 GS 256meg video card
100 GB SATA 7200 hard drive
UltraSharp Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife

all for $2176 with tax and 3 year onsite with incidental.

I think it was a pretty good deal, considering that the only 2 ghz machine I could find from newegg for aroun my target price of 1500 was 2 ghz core duo 2gb ram 80 gb 5400 128 video 15.4 inch XGA+ that said ACER on the box, and I didn't want to go there. Estimated shipping in the 31st, I'll let you know when it gets here. Thanks for all your comments and help, your opinions really shaped my decision.

cmason · October 24, 2006

That's alot of 'puter. I am sure you will really enjoy it

steveL · October 24, 2006

Vista on my computer...
I have been running Vista for a number of months now and have upgraded several times. My experience has been that it is very good. I haven't had any problems with it. If I were to buy a new computer, I would make sure that it is Vista capable-- preferrably Aero capable. I like eye candy and all the bells and whistles; that's why I like to try the different Linux OS's-- they are eye candy unless you are running in text or some kind of minimal window manager mode. I think Vista will be a winner for MS.

My only problem is that Photoshop Elements 2 isn't stable so I can't use that in Vista or at least I don't know how to do it. Doesn't matter to me though as I will dump Vista when my trial expires (June 2007?). I would keep Vista but I don't want to pay for another OS at this time-- XP works very well for me and I have never had any problems with it.

My system:
Gigabyte GA-K8U-939
AMD64 3200+
2 gb ram
250 gb Maxtor sata hdd
ATI 9600 video
Dual booting XP Pro and Vista RC2 5744

David_S85 · October 24, 2006

steveL wrote:

My only problem is that Photoshop Elements 2 isn't stable so I can't use that in Vista or at least I don't know how to do it. Doesn't matter to me though as I will dump Vista when my trial expires (June 2007?). I would keep Vista but I don't want to pay for another OS at this time-- XP works very well for me and I have never had any problems with it.

Steve, does Vista have emulation modes for legacy software like XP does? I can set up older software on my XP to run as they did in 95, 98, 2000, or XP.

Shay Stephens · October 24, 2006

Do I sound bitter?!?!
I would just like to say that I will never buy or use Vista. I will be using XP where I have to until the day comes that I am fully switched over to linux. Vista is the worst DRM, rights taking, money grab of an OS ever devised. I hope it rots on the vine from customer dissatisfaction and they wise up and come out with something that respects freedom.

:soapbox:toni

steveL · October 24, 2006

Program Compatibility Wizard...

David_S85 wrote:

Steve, does Vista have emulation modes for legacy software like XP does? I can set up older software on my XP to run as they did in 95, 98, 2000, or XP.

It has a Program Compatibility Wizard that I just tried with PSE 2. When I try to install PSE 2 to run like it did on XP, I get a pop-up that says there are known compatibility issues with TalkFax Pro 7. I might try to install a few more times because I really don't know what I am doing with the wizard-- just taking some guesses. PSE 2 windows (like layers) get flakey and the entire program becomes unstable.

steveL · October 24, 2006

Shay Stephens wrote:

I would just like to say that I will never buy or use Vista. I will be using XP where I have to until the day comes that I am fully switched over to linux. Vista is the worst DRM, rights taking, money grab of an OS ever devised. I hope it rots on the vine from customer dissatisfaction and they wise up and come out with something that respects freedom.

:soapbox:toni

I would like to run Linux all the time but I haven't got there yet. I keep going back to trying Gentoo-- maybe I will get it down right some day. It's fun to install. I will have to see how Fedora 6 works.

StevenV · October 24, 2006

I don't have PSE so I can't comment from experience, but P.Thurott was just saying the other day that the most recent release (still pre-release) fixed several application-specific issues, and mentioned Photoshop Elements specifically if I remember correctly.

tived · November 12, 2006

why slam an OS before it has even been released and so if you have to upgrade your computers, its called evolution...moving forward (could also be a step back! :-))

This is no different to what Mac had to go through with OSX, and it had and has shit loads of problems, in constant beta testing...guys, cool it and wait and see! if it isn;t for you, get something else! easy as that.

I am sure we are going to see lots of problems with Vista, but hopefull people will find more good things once they get going, and get over their 1Gb machines with 14"crt screens with 40gb harddisk, and 4mb VGA card...you don't see many Mac people complain over OSX didn't run on their classic.

Sorry to sound arrogant but treat yourself to a computer upgrade and then try out Vista or keep what you got and be merry

marlinspike · November 12, 2006

I know the Vista beta was killing laptop battery life. I would get a computer that has the "free" upgrade offer with XP Pro, that way when Vista comes out you get Vista Business (According to Acer the Vista Basic that you get via free upgrade from XP Home is bunk), plus if you decide you don't want Vista XP Pro is being supported for 5 more years while XP Home is only being supported for 2 more years.

ExposeTheMoment · November 16, 2006

Blurmore wrote:

I was pretty convinced on buying a cert refurb Dell XPS or m90, then after talking to a sales person I realized that cert refurn puter could have been in grubby customer's hands for 6 months or so...ewwww.

So we spec'ed out first an XPS then an Inspiron (after he explained that it was the same box and sceen sans flashy accents and ubergamerzlookz@meIMkewlLEDlidlitez) The Inspiron box was 1000 dollars less. Here is the breakdown.

Core 2 Duo Processor T7200 (2GHz/667MHz/4MB)
2GB ram
NVIDIA 7900 GS 256meg video card
100 GB SATA 7200 hard drive
UltraSharp Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife

all for $2176 with tax and 3 year onsite with incidental.

I think it was a pretty good deal, considering that the only 2 ghz machine I could find from newegg for aroun my target price of 1500 was 2 ghz core duo 2gb ram 80 gb 5400 128 video 15.4 inch XGA+ that said ACER on the box, and I didn't want to go there. Estimated shipping in the 31st, I'll let you know when it gets here. Thanks for all your comments and help, your opinions really shaped my decision.

WOW 2176. I just got my new Dell XPS 410 with the following.
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6600 (2.4GHz,1066FSB) with 4MB cache
4GB DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE
250GB SATA II Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Dell 13 in 1 Media Card Reader
3.5in Floppy Drive
48X Combo and 16X DVD+/-RW

Thats just the main stuff total 1,484

I upgrade my video card on my own with 512MB ram for 200.00

DavidTO · November 16, 2006

ExposeTheMoment wrote:

3.5in Floppy Drive

They still make those?

ExposeTheMoment · November 16, 2006

DavidTO wrote:

They still make those?

ya never know when you will need one lol:D

Shay Stephens · November 16, 2006

tived wrote:

why slam an OS before it has even been released and so if you have to upgrade your computers, its called evolution...moving forward (could also be a step back! :-))

I slam it legitimately for two reasons. It has bent over and is taking it from the media companies and passing that down to the users in the form of restrictive DRM in software and hardware form. Same with Microsoft's activation. It takes freedoms away and is softening up the user base for an eventual rental scheme.

Secondly, all those hardware upgrades are needed because Vista is more bloated than the Klump family after thanksgiving. You are not getting better performance, you are upgrading to have the same or worse performance than you had with XP. That don't make no sense.

...keep what you got and be merry

Might I also suggest exploring linux. You can install it even on older hardware and get a performance boost! It is not laden with DRM, respects your freedom, does not make you ask for permission to use it or reinstall it or add hardware, won't falsley call you a software pirate, and has reached a stage where it can satisfy a majority of standard users now.

I have spent some time with Ubuntu linux, and expect to completely switch over to it some time early next year.

Screw the EULA's and lets talk Vista being a big fat hog

Comments