Digital BW, The Print

I've noticed occasional references to Vista and also to XP.  Does anyone
have experience with both?  Are you able to opine as to which operating
system is best for photos? 

BTW, I also own Macs so let's not open the war.  I'm only wondering about
Vista vs: XP.

 

Many thanks,

Tom



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Like that is not a war too?
:)

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Aug 3, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Tom Fielder wrote:

> I also own Macs so let's not open the war.  I'm only wondering about
> Vista vs: XP.

I use both, XP on my workstation and Vista on my laptop. I move easily
between the two, and see no real advantage or disadvantage between them -
they both allow me to get my job done :)
 
Mike

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Fielder
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 2:44 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Vista v. XP??



I've noticed occasional references to Vista and also to XP. Does anyone
have experience with both? Are you able to opine as to which operating
system is best for photos? 

BTW, I also own Macs so let's not open the war. I'm only wondering about
Vista vs: XP.

Many thanks,

Tom

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I also use both. Primarily because at the time I upgraded, XP was no longer 
offered. My Vista machine, a desktop, stays off the internet and solely used 
as an imaging computer. When Vista was being released, I had hear horror 
stories about it monitoring proprietary content and other things. I even 
have a graphic that shows the pathway for downloads on the Vista 
architecture. Hence no internet for this computer. Also, I can't get vista 
to recognize my CF slot nor my D1x. Later cameras are ok, but the older 
ones, unless some trigger is turned off, are not seen.

My XP is a laptop and used for internet and field work when in the bush or 
on the road with my cameras. It recognizes all of my cameras, is rock solid 
in performance, but a bit slower than the Vista.

Take care out there,
Gregory
www.fireframeimaging.com
www.ebbtidegalleryofgifts.com
http://soundexposure.org

Tom, this is another of those areas in which you'll no doubt encounter 
fierce opinions, and while I've no intention of wasting time or energy 
debating the issue, I'll be glad to share with you my experience.

After having used XP since its introduction, and having considered it 
the best ever release of Windows (I've used computers since '83, and 
well remember when major advances in DOS were heralded as miracles), I 
finally, this spring, wound up with two high-end HP laptops equipped 
with Vista.

I'll spare you the horrifying details of the month and a half I spent in 
"Dell Hell", resulting from the obscenely premature death of a 
3-month-old $5,000 Dell laptop, but when it was finally over-- at least 
until my proposed national holiday, "Put-A-Bullet-In-A-Dell" Day, gets 
off the ground-- I went to HP.  The two laptops run very well, but they 
run on Vista, and I loathe it.

I'm convinced that Microsoft designed and intended Vista for people who 
use it to play games, send and receive badly spelled email, download a 
little porn, and perhaps share their truly dreadful photos of their kids 
with other people who take equally dreadful photos of their own 
children.  Inotherwords, the 90% of the home PC-owning population for 
whom the computer is a toy with which to play, rather than a tool with 
which to work. 

The OS is so voraciously power-hungry, and its own absurdly unnecessary 
(but "cool"-- don't forget "cool"!) bells and whistles are so demanding, 
that the standard 1 or 2 gigabytes of RAM with which it's usually 
equipped cannot handle much beyond those minimal requirements placed on 
it by the average user. 

In each of my laptops I have 4GB RAM, and a version of the OS that 
allows every bit of it to be accessed.  Despite this, I have problems in 
Photoshop (CS3) that never occurred with XP.  When working with a file 
of more than 500MB (pretty common) or with more than 50 layers (ditto!), 
there are problems.  Vista also has intermittent issues with all three 
of my Epsons, Corel Painter (the other major graphics app I regularly 
use), and several longtime favorite plugins for Photoshop (which I've 
used since '92) will no longer run at all.  (They worked perfectly in 
XP.)  Although I bought a new Intuos graphics tablet a couple of years 
ago, my older version-- a 9x12"-- will not work properly with Vista, 
despite having downloaded new drivers and a boatload of patches. 

Vista is a step backward, not forward.  Its appearance is slicker, but 
its usability is atrocious, and for someone who places a lot of demands 
on his or her system, it's a nightmare.  The less you play and the more 
you work, the worse it becomes.

Best wishes,

Shoshanna
Gold Beach - South Coast of Oregon
http://www.pbase.com/shoshanna
http://mindworksunlimited.com/shoshannaspeak/







Tom Fielder wrote:
>
> I've noticed occasional references to Vista and also to XP. Does anyone
> have experience with both? Are you able to opine as to which operating
> system is best for photos?
>
> BTW, I also own Macs so let's not open the war. I'm only wondering about
> Vista vs: XP.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Tom
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Shoshanna Moser wrote:

> The OS is so voraciously power-hungry, and its own absurdly unnecessary
> (but "cool"-- don't forget "cool"!) bells and whistles are so demanding,
> that the standard 1 or 2 gigabytes of RAM with which it's usually
> equipped cannot handle much beyond those minimal requirements placed on
> it by the average user.

I turned-off Aero and tweaked the settings so that the desktop
is basically around the same bells and whistles level as XP, and
found that performance is at least on par with XP on the same hardware.

Dana

> 
> > The OS is so voraciously power-hungry, ...

I have used XP for years and like it. The laptop I had to buy last 
year had Vista, and it was a awful until the upgrades finally solved 
some problems.  Now, I can notice some productivity improvements that 
are nice.  The workflow and profiling is actually easier now on Vista 
than XP -- more drag and drop compatibility, for example.

On the power issue, I'd urge getting the maximum ram as well as a 
good graphics board.  I understand there might still be some issues 
in that department.  On the recent laptop I bought for my daughter, I 
had a graphics board put in just to relieve the ram of the video drag 
the build in board puts on it. 

My MS relative says part of the reason for some incompatibilities 
stems from MS's decision to force writers to get the data out of the 
Program Files directory.  For security reasons they are trying to 
isolate the programs, but many programers are still storing data 
there.  If access to this directory is stopped, it apparently really 
helps with security.

So, there are still some problems, but I'm actually beginning to see 
some advantages to Vista.

I might add that I'm still using my old Windows 95 FTP program on the 
Vista machine.  I appreciate this backward compatibilty. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

First and of the utmost importance. We need to coordinate your "Put a bullet
in a Dell" day with my "Call an Airstrike on Round Rock" festival. Have your
people call my people.

Secondly, Microsoft is letting manufacturers' market what they call a "Vista
downgrade to XP." We just brought a new Toughbook 30 online. It came with XP
Pro installed with a Vista Business disk included should we decide to
"upgrade." Possibly when pigs fly. Most of our software support is not even
providing input other than to say, reload your XP Pro.

I started with DOS also and one thing you could say about that OS. It sure
discouraged amateurs. Vista was a very simple case of fixing something that
was not broken and it was all about profit.

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Shoshanna
Moser
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 7:14 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Vista v. XP??

 

Tom, this is another of those areas in which you'll no doubt encounter 
fierce opinions, and while I've no intention of wasting time or energy 
debating the issue, I'll be glad to share with you my experience.

After having used XP since its introduction, and having considered it 
the best ever release of Windows (I've used computers since '83, and 
well remember when major advances in DOS were heralded as miracles), I 
finally, this spring, wound up with two high-end HP laptops equipped 
with Vista.

I'll spare you the horrifying details of the month and a half I spent in 
"Dell Hell", resulting from the obscenely premature death of a 
3-month-old $5,000 Dell laptop, but when it was finally over-- at least 
until my proposed national holiday, "Put-A-Bullet-In-A-Dell" Day, gets 
off the ground-- I went to HP. The two laptops run very well, but they 
run on Vista, and I loathe it.

I'm convinced that Microsoft designed and intended Vista for people who 
use it to play games, send and receive badly spelled email, download a 
little porn, and perhaps share their truly dreadful photos of their kids 
with other people who take equally dreadful photos of their own 
children. Inotherwords, the 90% of the home PC-owning population for 
whom the computer is a toy with which to play, rather than a tool with 
which to work. 

The OS is so voraciously power-hungry, and its own absurdly unnecessary 
(but "cool"-- don't forget "cool"!) bells and whistles are so demanding, 
that the standard 1 or 2 gigabytes of RAM with which it's usually 
equipped cannot handle much beyond those minimal requirements placed on 
it by the average user. 

In each of my laptops I have 4GB RAM, and a version of the OS that 
allows every bit of it to be accessed. Despite this, I have problems in 
Photoshop (CS3) that never occurred with XP. When working with a file 
of more than 500MB (pretty common) or with more than 50 layers (ditto!), 
there are problems. Vista also has intermittent issues with all three 
of my Epsons, Corel Painter (the other major graphics app I regularly 
use), and several longtime favorite plugins for Photoshop (which I've 
used since '92) will no longer run at all. (They worked perfectly in 
XP.) Although I bought a new Intuos graphics tablet a couple of years 
ago, my older version-- a 9x12"-- will not work properly with Vista, 
despite having downloaded new drivers and a boatload of patches. 

Vista is a step backward, not forward. Its appearance is slicker, but 
its usability is atrocious, and for someone who places a lot of demands 
on his or her system, it's a nightmare. The less you play and the more 
you work, the worse it becomes.

Best wishes,

Shoshanna
Gold Beach - South Coast of Oregon
http://www.pbase. <http://www.pbase.com/shoshanna> com/shoshanna
http://mindworksunl <http://mindworksunlimited.com/shoshannaspeak/>
imited.com/shoshannaspeak/

Tom Fielder wrote:
>
> I've noticed occasional references to Vista and also to XP. Does anyone
> have experience with both? Are you able to opine as to which operating
> system is best for photos?
>
> BTW, I also own Macs so let's not open the war. I'm only wondering about
> Vista vs: XP.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Tom
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Dana,

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'd already done that, and while it did 
turn off the unnecessary nonsense, it did nothing to improve the 
problems with my printers, stylus/tablet, and software-- and that makes 
its performance considerably SUB-par when compared to XP.  As far as I'm 
concerned, Vista can only be accurately described as unacceptable, 
detestable, and best done away with as quickly as possible. 

At this point, I'm thinking that Apple has no greater promoter than Bill 
Gates.

Best wishes,

Shoshanna
Gold Beach - South Coast of Oregon
http://www.pbase.com/shoshanna
http://mindworksunlimited.com/shoshannaspeak/


 

Dana H. Myers wrote:

I turned-off Aero and tweaked the settings so that the desktopis 
basically around the same bells and whistles level as XP, andfound that 
performance is at least on par with XP on the same hardware.
>
>
> Dana
>
> __._,



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have been using XP since it was released and I started using Vista in
February. XP is on two desktops and one laptop and Vista is on a desktop. My
beef with the Vista system was the *&$%^ permission issue that once you know
how to turn it off, the unit has not been an issue at all. I subscribe to
the by small but competent as the systems are still tumbling in price. There
is little need for most users to pump up their machines. 

I have seen many users that have boat loads of layers too. I rarely get more
than 10, but still have plenty of files around 300 to 500MB. I use the Vista
machine as my primary unit running LR 2, CS3 ext, with two external HDs. I
have two internal 500GB HDs and 4GB RAM. I decided to stay with 32 bit until
the next new machine to allow all those add ons to catch up. I run Vue Scan,
Nikon Scan, Epson Scan, Epson 4800, R200 and 2200 printers. 

 

It does take a little getting used to it, but it is OK. The improvement that
XP was over the horrendous 95, 98 and ME, Vista is not.  I too disabled aero
and my machine runs OK. 

 

As to the guns, bullets and Dell; that is an idea I can get behind
especially when it comes to laptops. 

 

Eric

 

Ps  I did spend time on Apples too going back to Apple IIe, although I am
currently not really using a Mac. 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pr_roark
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 7:21 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Vista v. XP??

 


> 
> > The OS is so voraciously power-hungry, ...

I have used XP for years and like it. The laptop I had to buy last 
year had Vista, and it was a awful until the upgrades finally solved 
some problems. Now, I can notice some productivity improvements that 
are nice. The workflow and profiling is actually easier now on Vista 
than XP -- more drag and drop compatibility, for example.

On the power issue, I'd urge getting the maximum ram as well as a 
good graphics board. I understand there might still be some issues 
in that department. On the recent laptop I bought for my daughter, I 
had a graphics board put in just to relieve the ram of the video drag 
the build in board puts on it. 

My MS relative says part of the reason for some incompatibilities 
stems from MS's decision to force writers to get the data out of the 
Program Files directory. For security reasons they are trying to 
isolate the programs, but many programers are still storing data 
there. If access to this directory is stopped, it apparently really 
helps with security.

So, there are still some problems, but I'm actually beginning to see 
some advantages to Vista.

I might add that I'm still using my old Windows 95 FTP program on the 
Vista machine. I appreciate this backward compatibilty. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I concur completely with the sentiments expressed below. Vista treats 
the user like an idiot, demanding that certain files be placed in "I 
know better what you want than you do" directories. I had my first 
desktop in 1977, a Digital Group machine (Z-80), so I consider myself 
reasonably experienced. Vista is so bad that I'm never going to buy 
another Windows machine. Never.

Roger

Shoshanna Moser wrote:

> 
> 
> Tom, this is another of those areas in which you'll no doubt encounter
> fierce opinions, and while I've no intention of wasting time or energy
> debating the issue, I'll be glad to share with you my experience.
> 
> After having used XP since its introduction, and having considered it
> the best ever release of Windows (I've used computers since '83, and
> well remember when major advances in DOS were heralded as miracles), I
> finally, this spring, wound up with two high-end HP laptops equipped
> with Vista.
> 
> I'll spare you the horrifying details of the month and a half I spent in
> "Dell Hell", resulting from the obscenely premature death of a
> 3-month-old $5,000 Dell laptop, but when it was finally over-- at least
> until my proposed national holiday, "Put-A-Bullet-In-A-Dell" Day, gets
> off the ground-- I went to HP. The two laptops run very well, but they
> run on Vista, and I loathe it.
> 
> I'm convinced that Microsoft designed and intended Vista for people who
> use it to play games, send and receive badly spelled email, download a
> little porn, and perhaps share their truly dreadful photos of their kids
> with other people who take equally dreadful photos of their own
> children. Inotherwords, the 90% of the home PC-owning population for
> whom the computer is a toy with which to play, rather than a tool with
> which to work.
> 
> The OS is so voraciously power-hungry, and its own absurdly unnecessary
> (but "cool"-- don't forget "cool"!) bells and whistles are so demanding,
> that the standard 1 or 2 gigabytes of RAM with which it's usually
> equipped cannot handle much beyond those minimal requirements placed on
> it by the average user.
> 
> In each of my laptops I have 4GB RAM, and a version of the OS that
> allows every bit of it to be accessed. Despite this, I have problems in
> Photoshop (CS3) that never occurred with XP. When working with a file
> of more than 500MB (pretty common) or with more than 50 layers (ditto!),
> there are problems. Vista also has intermittent issues with all three
> of my Epsons, Corel Painter (the other major graphics app I regularly
> use), and several longtime favorite plugins for Photoshop (which I've
> used since '92) will no longer run at all. (They worked perfectly in
> XP.) Although I bought a new Intuos graphics tablet a couple of years
> ago, my older version-- a 9x12"-- will not work properly with Vista,
> despite having downloaded new drivers and a boatload of patches.
> 
> Vista is a step backward, not forward. Its appearance is slicker, but
> its usability is atrocious, and for someone who places a lot of demands
> on his or her system, it's a nightmare. The less you play and the more
> you work, the worse it becomes.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Shoshanna
> Gold Beach - South Coast of Oregon

I agree that getting the data out of the program area is a good idea, 
too bad MS is "forcing" me to do what I've done for years--no sense 
backing up program files when all you really want to back up is data. 
(You image the programs once.)

But it makes me crazy that Vista will only do a slide show on files that 
are in the pre-mandated "photos" directory. It won't recognize the 
directory name "photos" if it's under a user-created tree.

Roger

pr_roark wrote:
> 
  ...

> 
> My MS relative says part of the reason for some incompatibilities
> stems from MS's decision to force writers to get the data out of the
> Program Files directory. For security reasons they are trying to
> isolate the programs, but many programers are still storing data
> there. If access to this directory is stopped, it apparently really
> helps with security.
> 

> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Roger wrote:
> 
> 
> I concur completely with the sentiments expressed below. Vista treats
> the user like an idiot, demanding that certain files be placed in "I
> know better what you want than you do" directories. I had my first
> desktop in 1977, a Digital Group machine (Z-80), so I consider myself
> reasonably experienced. Vista is so bad that I'm never going to buy
> another Windows machine. Never.

30 years in programming has taught me the folly of saying
"never".  "Dell will never ship AMD.  Intel will never work
with Sun." etc.

:-)

Dana (who pays the bills as a long-time Unix kernel developer,
but has ported CP/M-80, CP/M-86, MS-DOS and a few flavors of
Unix to a few different machines).

Robert W Shearer wrote:
>
> First and of the utmost importance. We need to coordinate your "Put a 
> bullet
> in a Dell" day with my "Call an Airstrike on Round Rock" festival. 
> Have your
> people call my people.
>






We'll definitely coordinate on this.  I'm currently designing a series 
of greeting cards to promote and celebrate "Put-A-Bullet-In-A-Dell" Day, 
and will be glad to expand the series to include those that serve the 
same purpose for your "Airstrike On Round Rock" event. 

Microsoft's so-called "downgrade" (I'd consider it an upgrade) is not an 
option for me-- I bought my new laptops three or four months ago-- but 
I've just about decided to either track down a purchasable copy of XP, 
dig through my files, find my old copy, and install it (illegally-- I no 
longer give a damn) in both laptops, or, in a worst case, download a 
pirate copy and do the same (ditto).  Enough is enough, and I'm sick to 
death of having expensive equipment and necessary software compromised 
or made unusable by this unspeakable piece of crap.

I usually purchase new systems every 18 months or so, but this time I 
think it will be less than a year-- and the new ones will be Macs.

As for your observations about DOS, I wholeheartedly concur.  There was 
much to be said for the days in which, in order to run a computer, you 
had to be able to understand a command line.

Best wishes,

Shoshanna
Gold Beach - South Coast of Oregon
http://www.pbase.com/shoshanna
http://mindworksunlimited.com/shoshannaspeak/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>As far as I'm
>concerned, Vista can only be accurately described as unacceptable,
>detestable, and best done away with as quickly as possible.

There is clearly something wrong with your setup then, or your computer is 
too old. I'm running Vista64 on two desktops in dualboot mode with XP Pro 
and it is very rare that I go back into XP any more. V64 is far superior. I 
don't even need a 3rdparty virus checker or firewall any more; not used one 
since April. I also have two new laptops using Vista32, and another using XP 
Pro.

If you don't like the GUI, just turn it off. For years the first thing I do 
when installing a new version of Windows is to choose 'Classic Mode' in 
everything. So I don't lose any efficiency running 'visual makeup', and 
Vista is more stable, more secure, and far better than XP! Just my 
experience of course.

And with 64 bit LightRoom out, and 64 bit Photoshop nearly here, I can use 
all my 8GB ram and hardly use the old 'scratch disks' any more.

Of course if you are trying to run the latest programs on an old laptop or 
desktop, you will have problems, and since the generation time for 
processors, chipsets, and the like is about 6 months, a three-year-old 
machine is six generations out-of-date! It needs upgrading/replacing to use 
the latest and best software. Otherwise stick with the old software that was 
designed for the old hardware.

Horses for courses!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shoshanna Moser" <equinox@...>

>> -- and the new ones will be Macs.

'Out of the frying pan into the fire' and 'another whole can of worms'  or 
'the grass is  always greener on the other side' spring to mind!        ;)

Do you ever read any of the Mac lists?

And no 64bit Photoshop for another 2 yrs.

But they do look prettier.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shoshanna Moser" <equinox@...>

I guess I'm of the minority opinion but I love Vista!
As a computer hobbyist I've built probably 70 computers or more for 
family and friends.

Dont get me wrong, XP is still great as well.

It seems it takes a good two years for MS to refine a new OS to the 
point where it is stable for everyone. It took years for diehard 98 
fans to finally make the switch to XP. (the XP to Vista jump is not 
that dramatic however)

I think Vista is there, at least for me. With tweaks and cautious 
application installs it is a very secure and stable OS.
Sometimes it's applications and resident memory programs that cause all 
the trouble, especially on preconfigured installs from the big boys. 
When I get a preconfigured puter I always get rid of all the extra 
useless stuff and usually just boil it down to the basics. Most of the 
time I just reformat and install my own OS to make sure I get right.

Anyway I vote for both XP and Vista.

Ditto.  I bought a new laptop a year ago and XP was not an option. 
Even with Aero disabled, it takes forever to book and shut down. While
the widgets are neat, the cost in terms of time to book makes them
unusable.  It denies me access to directories on what seems to be an
ad hoc basis and constantly asks for permission to do anything.  I
find it clunky and less dependable than XP which I run on desktops at
home and at school.  While I am not an expert, I bought my first Apple
in 1982 and have had computers since.  I seem to spend much more time
dealing the the OS than I ever do with XP. It seems as if I use every
Ango-Saxo word I know every time I turn it on, and a few I don't.

I know the grass always looks greener, but I am ready to try a MAC for
PS when it comes time to upgrade the computer I use for photography. 
(That is a comment on Vista and not a request for MAC - PC comparisons.)

Steve





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roger <user1@...>
wrote:

>
> I concur completely with the sentiments expressed below. Vista treats 
> the user like an idiot, demanding that certain files be placed in "I 
> know better what you want than you do" directories. I had my first 
> desktop in 1977, a Digital Group machine (Z-80), so I consider myself 
> reasonably experienced. Vista is so bad that I'm never going to buy 
> another Windows machine. Never.
> 
> Roger
> 
> Shoshanna Moser wrote:

[Start] > [Settings] > [Control Panel] > [Security Center]

AND disable <User Account Control>

OR 

[Start] > [Settings] > [Control Panel] > [User Account]

AND <Turn User Account Control On OR Off> AND turn Off UAC

then go to

[Start] > [Settings] > [Control Panel] > [Personalization]

select <Window Color and Appearance>

Then choose: <Windows Classic>

and adjust the schemes/colors to your heart's content.

Cheers.

----- Stephen Kobrin <kobrins@...> wrote:
> Ditto.  I bought a new laptop a year ago and XP was not an option.

Just a little MAC/Win concept.

MAC is a vertical computer system, albeit more applications are becoming available, Win is richer and more feature ladden, hence the complexity and having to learn the system/programs.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Fielder"
<tfielder@...> wrote:
>
> I've noticed occasional references to Vista and also to XP.  Does anyone
> have experience with both?  
> 

I'm passing on Vista and keeping Windows XP until Windows 7 comes out
in 2010. As long as all my peripherals are supported by Windows XP, I
see no reasons to migrate to Vista.

Of the 1162 IT managers recently polled by King Research, 60% have no
immdediate plans to migrate to Vista. Even more interesting is that
92% of the respondants declared that Service Pack 1 hasn't modified
their views on Vista.

Even more interesting is that only 10% of the respondants have a plan
for a complete change over to Vista. Others are looking at Mac OS X,
Red Hat Linux and Ubuntu as an alternative.

Cheers,
André

> As long as all my peripherals are supported by Windows XP, I
> see no reasons to migrate to Vista.

So better stability and better security are not important to you?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andre Moreau" <andre1moreau@...>

I bought a refurbished Dell laptop with Vista on it. I didn't much care  
for it and could never get it to talk to my other computers on my home  
network. I finally loaded Kubuntu Linux it and it has been working great.

Also, of note, I maintain a couple web sites of local organizations, and  
when I review the site stats, the overwhelming majority of visitors are  
still running XP and IE6. I am not saying that that is smart, just that  
there still hasn't been a wholesale "upgrade" to Vista.

On my Windows computers, I still run Win2000. It is quite stable and does  
what I need on an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and 1G of memory. For security, I run  
ZoneAlarm, Avast!, ThreatFire, and I use Opera for web browsing, all free  
programs. So far I have not seen any compelling reason to "upgrade" to  
either XP or Vista.

Steve


-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

I'm curious.  When you say Vista security is "better" than XP, are you 
suggesting that Vista standing alone is better than XP with properly 
functioning and updated antivirus and firewall programs (which I assume 
most of us have and use)?  If so, is there an easy explanation for why 
it's better? 

I have no doubt that a newer OS will incorporate improvements in 
security compared to older models, so would not doubt that Vista 
standing alone is "more secure" than XP standing alone.  But I have to 
wonder how many (serious) XP users have not deployed antivirus and 
firewall programs on their machines.  And compared to THAT 
configuration, I have to wonder how Vista makes a system more secure.

I'm a user, not a computer seller, builder or software engineer.  This 
is just a question.

Cheers,
Kip

Bob Frost wrote:
>
>
> So better stability and better security are not important to you?
>
>  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>I have no doubt that a newer OS will incorporate improvements in
>security compared to older models, so would not doubt that Vista
>standing alone is "more secure" than XP standing alone.  But I have to
>wonder how many (serious) XP users have not deployed antivirus and
>firewall programs on their machines.  And compared to THAT
>configuration, I have to wonder how Vista makes a system more secure.

There a lots of security improvements in Vista, too many for me to repeat 
here, but if you want to read about them, then here is a reasonable MS 
paper:-
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=6FB28358-68D9-43E9-B574-6A0D377BBA34&displaylang=en

I don't run XP without ZoneAlarm Security Suite; I turned it off once in a 
hotel when I couldn't work out whether it was ZA playing up or the hotel's 
system - I got a virus in the 5 minutes or so that it was off!

I now run Vista64 on two computers, and have not had any 3rdparty 
virus/firewall running for the last 4 months - just the stuff built into 
Vista64. No viruses/trojans etc. Since this is/was an experiment (provoked 
by a Macite who was rubbishing Vista security compared with Macs),  I run a 
scan with SpyBot and Kaspersky viruschecker about once a week, but they have 
never found anything. Then I turn them off again.

The User Account Control is a bit tedious at first, with its frequent 
prompts for permission to run non-signed programs, but if you turn it off 
that is another layer of security gone.

Why don't I still run ZA on Vista? Well, for a start they didn't have a 
version that did run on Vista64, so I tried Kaspersky which did run. But all 
these virus-checkers slow the computer down, so if you don't need them the 
computer will run faster without them, sometimes much faster. They are also 
IME the source of many instability problems, although Vista64 does stop them 
furkling in its innards, which improves stability no end.
V64 is more secure than V32, and more stable. I haven't yet tried running 
V32 without any 3rdparty protection. I'll try it soon perhaps, but it hasn't 
got as much security as V64.

I initially set up a dual boot with XP and V64, but hardly ever boot into XP 
now. It took a while to get all the 64bit drivers for my stuff, and to 
change a printer that was never going to get an upgraded driver, but now I 
can run just 64bit LightRoom and see the computer using 6 of my 8GB. With 
64bit PS just round the corner, which will use the extra ram instead of its 
scratch disk, things are improving.

Bob Frost




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kip Babington" <cbabing3@...>

I would have probably move over to Mac many years ago, but I have so much 
invested in PC format, that I would have to start all over again. And, Macs 
are more expensive.

Take care out there,
Gregory
www.fireframeimaging.com
www.ebbtidegalleryofgifts.com
http://soundexposure.org

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost"
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> > As long as all my peripherals are supported by Windows XP, I
> > see no reasons to migrate to Vista.
> 
> So better stability and better security are not important to you?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
Hope you not relying on Microsoft's firewall for your computer's
security. Microsoft OS are full of holes when it comes to security.
Maybe Microsoft will get it right with Windows 7.

Cheers,
André

Roger,

JFYI, I have no problem running programs or data files in ANY directory of MY choice in Vista.

FWIW, I also have a RAM disk within the memory, and can run/store files programs within the memory's capacity in RAM.

There must be some other issues here.

Oh, yes, it's also much more stable, and sleeps nicely.....

-= CB =-

----- Roger <user1@...> wrote:

> But it makes me crazy that Vista will only do a slide show on files that 
> are in the pre-mandated "photos" directory. It won't recognize the 
> directory name "photos" if it's under a user-created tree.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Fielder"
<tfielder@...> wrote:
>
> I've noticed occasional references to Vista and also to XP.  Does anyone
> have experience with both?  Are you able to opine as to which operating
> system is best for photos? 

I see lots of replies, but what I consider the most important issue
has not (yet) been covered, and that is availability of drivers. Any
hw more than a couple of years old might ot be able to operate under
Vista as Vista drivers are not available.

This highlights to me one of the serious drawbacks of digital to the
serious amateaur. It is not only fully functioning cameras that become
obsolete, but also fully functioning printers, etc. Professionals will
probably have the throughput that would otherwise require them to
replace these peripherals more frequently, and "less serious"
amateaurs will probably not have a significant investment in these
type of peripherals.

So, use Vista, and replace all your essential peripherals! And then
you will probably have to do it again a few years down the line with
the next version of Window$.

I built myself a new PC recently, and I chose XP over Vista for mainly
this reason.

Steve

The only reason I would consider Vista is the Ram limit on XP. XP64 is 
an option, but also has compatibility issues from what I hear with sw 
not supporting 64bit.  So sooner or later I will want Vista. Maybe 
there is an emulator that can run the XP specific peripherals?

Phil

>Hope you not relying on Microsoft's firewall for your computer's
>security.

Of course I am - 4 months and counting. With Vista64.


> Microsoft OS are full of holes when it comes to security.

Methinks you generalise too much. Vista64 is not the same as Vista32, which 
is not the same as XP, which is not the same as ME, which is not the same as 
98SE, which is not the same as 98, which is 
........................................!!

Anyhow this is getting a bit offlimits for B&W, so we'd better stop.

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andre Moreau" <andre1moreau@...>

Just what has this thread got to do with B&W Printing???????
Time to drop it!!!!!


Vinny





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost"
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> >Hope you not relying on Microsoft's firewall for your computer's
> >security.
> 
> Of course I am - 4 months and counting. With Vista64.
> 
> 
> > Microsoft OS are full of holes when it comes to security.
> 
> Methinks you generalise too much. Vista64 is not the same as
Vista32, which 
> is not the same as XP, which is not the same as ME, which is not the
same as 

> 98SE, which is not the same as 98, which is 
> ........................................!!
> 
> Anyhow this is getting a bit offlimits for B&W, so we'd better stop.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andre Moreau" <andre1moreau@...>
>

>Just what has this thread got to do with B&W Printing???????
>Time to drop it!!!!!

Didn't you read my last line?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vincent Orlando" <orlandovl@...>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Indeblanc"
<afterhourpwr@...> wrote:
>
> The only reason I would consider Vista is the Ram limit on XP. XP64 is 
> an option, but also has compatibility issues from what I hear with sw 
> not supporting 64bit.

Whilst some sw might not support 64 bit, most, if not all, should
still run fine. Note that the Photosghop memory module does support 64
bit so that memory above 3.5 GB is available to it. There is also the
option of dual booting between Xp & XP64.

Also note that 64 bit sw is not necessarily better - it can often be
slower.

Does Vista (32 bit) offer greater memory support than XP? I understood
that the meory limit is due to the restrictions of memory
addressability due to the max size of 32 bit integers. If that is te
case, ther shoukld be no significant difference between 32 bit
versions of Vista & XP.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent Orlando"
<orlandovl@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Just what has this thread got to do with B&W Printing???????
> Time to drop it!!!!!
> 
> 
> Vinny

It has as much to do with B&W digital printing as many applications do.

Steve