Should I Upgrade to Vista?

[ofield]

Hi,

I have been using Windows Xp and was wondering if I should
Upgrade to Windows Vista, because I am not familiar with this new
OS System.

Or,should I wait and Upgrade Later.

Thanks for any Input.

[Ranguvar]

I would definitely not upgrade.

Look at the price tag, and then seriously consider what you get. Incompatibilities... Pretty interface... really...

If you're looking for something faster and more stable, I'd definitely check out the (free!) (K)Ubuntu Linux (try a LiveCD, it'll be slow, but you can try without changing your current system). If you like it, you can dual-boot with XP.

My point is, there's no real meat in Vista. As long as you have up-to-date protection on XP, it's not all that much more secure either. So, if you were going to invest time into learning something new, I'd definitely try a Linux distro first, so you can put that time towards something that does have meat :)

[blutach]

I'll never "upgrade".

Regards

[MfA]

Do you need/want more than 3 GB memory main memory? (And have hardware with Vista64 driver support.) Do you want to play with DX10? (As a developer, actual games support is trivial and irrelevant at the moment.)

Apart from a shiny new interface those are the only real big selling points at the moment. For me just having a shiny new task bar (the only part of the interface I regularly see) isn't worth the upgrade.

[Dark Shikari]

XP to Vista is not an upgrade.

[deets]

nope i wouldn't suggest it either, even though i use it.

as an oem purchase, i would maybe suggest it over XP, but there is little to justify the price from XP to vista as an upgrade

[Ranguvar]

Yeah... DX10 is the only real thing that Vista has that is even remotely interesting. And right now, with only the beefiest of machines able to play DX10 at reasonable framerates, and those DX10 games are almost indistinguishable when running in full DX9 mode, it's worthless.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Mileage will vary.

I have been using Vista since November 2006 as my primary OS. I have had one BSOD (due to an ageing soundcard that I was determined to use on an XP install). I also develop software on it so it gets a good thrashing.

It takes some getting used to - most people don't bother and poo-poo it.

Much of the media/blog hype about DRM etc is bogus.

As of now, the 64-bit advantage simply doesn't exist and people will be sorely disappointment when the first ports of existing 32-bit apps to 64-bit don't offer the extra memory as promised (a little known issue that no-one seems to care about).

However, unless you really need to upgrade, there's no point.

[SallyDog]

NO
You should leave well enough alone.

[jeffy]

As of now, the 64-bit advantage simply doesn't exist and people will be sorely disappointment when the first ports of existing 32-bit apps to 64-bit don't offer the extra memory as promised (a little known issue that no-one seems to care about).



Could you please explain a little? Thank you.

[ilovejedd]

If by upgrade you mean pay for a retail upgrade copy of Windows Vista that will probably work slower on your existing hardware, then no.

If you're getting a new computer with Vista pre-installed, I guess it's not really that much of a nightmare. Quirky and annoying, yes. Absolute crap, no. Well, it's better than Windows ME at any rate.

[Ranguvar]

Yes, it is a nightmare... they do all sorts of lovely things to keep you from going back to XP if you get an OEM Vista.

And to Johnny... yes, DRM comes with Vista. Yes, it does nothing ATM. No, I'm not going to use any Microsoft OS beyond XP. Or Apple, actually. I don't like the concept of DRM right in the OS very much, thank you...

[MfA]

DRM is doing something already ... making the driver situation on Vista 64 FUBAR.

[Sharktooth]

no, it's not worth upgrading. there are multiple reasons (too much to be listed here) to not do that and only one real reason to do it (dx10).

[SeeMoreDigital]

Nope!

If you are familiar with the workings of XP, you'll find Vista far too frustrating to use!

It's awful...

[JohnnyMalaria]

DRM is doing something already ... making the driver situation on Vista 64 FUBAR.

But that's trivial to get around with a boot option fully documented by MS.

[JohnnyMalaria]

And to Johnny... yes, DRM comes with Vista. Yes, it does nothing ATM. No, I'm not going to use any Microsoft OS beyond XP. Or Apple, actually. I don't like the concept of DRM right in the OS very much, thank you...

I didn't say it didn't. I was refering to the hype especially by that fool at the University of Auckland whose self-indulgent ramblings in the guise of academic research have been debunked quite thoroughly.

In the 13+ months I've used Vista, I've never had a DRM-related issue prevent me from doing what I want when I want.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Could you please explain a little? Thank you.

Sorry for the delay - New Year and all that!

It's similar to the /3GB issue with 32-bit applications.

Probably 99.9% of all applications out there have been written assuming a 32-bit world. By default, the various compilers people use generated code that imply two things:

1. All memory addresses are 32-bit
2. All user memory addresses go from 0 to 2GB - 1. The addresses from 2GB to 4GB -1 are used by the OS for such things as device drivers and OS-controlled resources like bitmaps, handles to files etc.

In binary, the difference between the two ranges is simply the highest bit and many programs assume the if the highest bit is set then what ever it refers to is in the OS's memory. It could be a file handle or relate to a driver in some way. Most programmers simply test things this way. To support 3GB (on 32-bit Windows), programs have to test the highest two bits, not just the one. This requires specific effort on the part of the programmer and most programmers don't need/bother to.

If such a program is written, it needs to be able to tell the OS that it wants to use the extra memory space and it needs to ask the OS if the extra memory option is available (i.e., is the /3GB switch set). The program tells the OS via its header which is the first thing the OS looks at when launching a program. The OS then knows whether it can provide the program resources such as bitmaps that are guaranteed not to fall in the extra memory space.

That's for 32-bit.

Porting 32-bit apps to 64-bit requires considerable effort because many programs store addresses to things as 32-bit - this uses 4 bytes and many of the program's functions assume this 4 byte addresses. 64-bit requires 8 bytes and many parts of the program need to be rewritten before they can be compiled as 64-bit applications that won't break.

New applications can be written from scratch that automatically support 32-bit and 64-bit code but they are few and far between at this time.

Assuming you get beyond this hurdle, you then need to write the code in such a way that it can make use of all the extra memory space that a 64-bit application can in principle. It requires a similar exercise as for the 32-bit/3GB option.

Therefore, in my mind, it will be some time before a significant number of applications become available that make full use of 64-bit. Most likely, they will be applications written from the ground up and will require compilers that fully support the new 64-bit opportunities. There will no doubt be a few exceptions but not many.

HTH

[Adub]

You don't even need Vista for Direct X 10. It is being hacked right now to run on other OSes, just check out the following links.

http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/
http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/compatibility/

So, as so many people have said before, NO, you do not need to "upgrade". I am with blutach on this one. I will NEVER upgrade. It's linux for the rest of my life.

[MfA]

But that's trivial to get around with a boot option fully documented by MS.
Having to enable it each time you boot is a PITA ... there is a permanent option, but they seem to accidentally break it (or break other stuff when it's enabled) every so often.

The more onerous they make the use of unsigned drivers the less likely hardware manufacturers will even distribute them.

[Ranguvar]

I didn't say it didn't. I was refering to the hype especially by that fool at the University of Auckland whose self-indulgent ramblings in the guise of academic research have been debunked quite thoroughly.

In the 13+ months I've used Vista, I've never had a DRM-related issue prevent me from doing what I want when I want.
Yep. It's not activated yet.

More of a morals thing for me anyways :)

[Zarxrax]

Regarding 32/64 bit, also keep in mind that it doesn't necessarily matter that much if a single program can access more than 2gb of memory. People run multiple programs at once, so having a larger pool available to ALL applications is definitely beneficial.

[Shakey_Jake33]

I went from XP32 to Vista64 on release. While I've felt no real need to go back to XP as such, I'd not bother to upgrade from XP if I didn't already have Vista.

I'd like to switch over to a Linux-based OS, and my secondary machine is running Ubuntu 7.10 so I can learn it. I'll be keeping my main machine on Vista 64 for now though simply because I've got it configured how I want, with all the codecs/splitters/etc sorted, w/ AnyDVD, Daemon Tools, CoreAVC, and other stuff which I use on a daily basis. But one day I'll bring that over to Ubuntu too, once I feel confident that I know enough about Linux.

But in answer to the main question, don't bother. Vista is much better now than it was on release, but doesn't offer anything you cannot do in XP really. 64-bit will become a relevent issue at some point in the future, at which time you can make the decision between Vista 64, or a 64-bit open source OS.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

no, it's not worth upgrading. there are multiple reasons (too much to be listed here) to not do that and only one real reason to do it (dx10).

DX10 is not a "real" reason, it's an "artificial" reason!
M$ could easily offer DX10 for WinXP, but they want to have something they can use to force people to "upgrade" sooner or later.
One could call that blackmail :mad:

I personally do have a Vista license (32-Bit and 64-Bit Edition). Got it for free from university via MSDN-AA.
But I don't see a reason to install it! A lot of my friends from university installed Vista and "downgraded" to XP a few days later :p
No need to waste my time with that. I stick with XP x64 edition for the time being!

[TECK]

I use CentOS 5.1 on one box and on the other Windows Vista Ultimate x64, licensed. Even if I use Vista mainly for Photoshop 7.0 usage and Visual Studio development... I will NEVER go back to XP. Vista x64 is way more stable... forget about the gadgets, I don't care about them.

So I don't regret one second the 250$ OEM price tag I paid for my Ultimate license. Ultimately, it depends what you do with your PC.

But since we are dealing with movie stuff here, I love how fast and stable is Vista while encoding at 7 frames/sec in CCE.

[Sharktooth]

you could get xp64 as welll.. i ensure you it would have been more stable and faster than vista64.
also i hope you wont change the motherboard for any reason... or your OEM license will become useless as trash.

[dragongodz]

I was refering to the hype especially by that fool at the University of Auckland whose self-indulgent ramblings in the guise of academic research have been debunked quite thoroughly.

hahaha no it wasnt. however people can read for themselves

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119761

that is also where they should discuss it if they want to take it any further.

ofield - there are 2 questions you need to ask yourself.

1. is there a program you need/want to use that only runs on vista and not xp ?

2. do you specifically want to play the few games out there that have directx10 options in directx10 mode ?

if you answer no to both of those there is absolutely no reason to "upgrade" at all.

[JohnnyMalaria]

you could get xp64 as well.

Hmmm. How exactly - legitimately, I mean. :)

[blizard]

Hmmm. How exactly - legitimately, I mean. :)

MS still have a free trail version on their site and there is still web shop that offer Windows XP professional 64 bit edition.

[squid_80]

Porting 32-bit apps to 64-bit requires considerable effort because many programs store addresses to things as 32-bit - this uses 4 bytes and many of the program's functions assume this 4 byte addresses. 64-bit requires 8 bytes and many parts of the program need to be rewritten before they can be compiled as 64-bit applications that won't break.
Rubbish. I've never seen a program check the highest bit on a pointer - what reason is there for doing this? And if parts of your program assume a memory address is four bytes long, you're a bad programmer. Use pointers instead of integers or longs, that's what they're for.

[Ar3d]

If not necessary, it is still better to stick on xp professional... it good for better performance of your personal computer.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Rubbish. I've never seen a program check the highest bit on a pointer - what reason is there for doing this? And if parts of your program assume a memory address is four bytes long, you're a bad programmer. Use pointers instead of integers or longs, that's what they're for.

It's not rubbish. I know what a pointer is, thank you.

Read MS' whitepapers on porting 32-bit apps to 64-bit. The vast majority of 32-bit programs implicitly assume pointers are 4-bytes. Casting pointers to DWORDs etc is a common trick and certainly not bad programming. For true 32-bit/64-bit transparency, the new DWORD_PTR and related types should be used.

As for the 4GB memory space limit for 64-bit apps on Windows, again read MS' own documentation on the matter.

Clearly, you do not seem to have read either.

[SallyDog]

But since we are dealing with movie stuff here, I love how fast and stable is Vista while encoding at 7 frames/sec in CCE.

7 fps?
And that's a good thing :confused:.

[bluebird]

i must say i like working with it at work, but for my own allround computer no thx..

[Morte66]

Reasons I've considered Vista:

- XP32 doesn't let you address more than about 3.5GB total or 2GB per thread. I've found this adequate for video, even denoising and reencoding 1080p VC-1. But I do know a photographer who will open dozens of pictures at once in Photoshop and put them through assorted processing with multilevel undo. The 2GB limit has Photoshop thrashing its temp files.

- If you're into high quality video playback, XP will not run VMR9 renderless on the secondary monitor of a dual monitor system. If you have two monitors, or a monitor and an HDTV, you need to keep switching which is primary (takes a few seconds). If you want both at once, no joy. Vista doesn't suffer this issue.

- The API for GPU video decoder acceleration is somewhat better on Vista, it can pass the encoded stream to the GPU and say "decode/deinterlace/denoise/sharpen that" whereas things have to be broken into small stages with XP. This has translated into better driver and software support under Vista. But IMO you're better off doing software decoding on the CPU if it's fast enough -- you're not locked into a few (indifferent) players, you can get better control of what's going on. So IMO this only really matters if your PC is right on the borderline for HD playback, and it needs all the hardware help you can give it.

If these don't apply to you, I'd stick with your current OS for now.

[squid_80]

Clearly, you do not seem to have read either.If I had, I probably would have dismissed them as irrelevant. I'm talking from experience rather than relying on being told how things are. If everything MS said was true, using MMX and FP math in x64 wouldn't work - yet it obviously does.
I've ported plenty of apps and plugins to 64-bit and estimate less than 5% of the time spent is occupied with the issues you mentioned. Certainly no huge rewriting like you propose. Am I fortunate enough to have good code to start with? Yes. Are the authors of this code (avisynth, x264, xvid, virtualdub, dgdecode, huffyuv, tdeint etc...) part of some minority (as opposed to your "vast majority")? No. They're regular developers. Was anything special done to support the larger memory space? No...but it works anyway. (http://216.75.63.164/andrew/codec_mem.jpg)

[Sharktooth]

nitpick: XP32 may be set to support more than 3.25GB of ram...
Add /PAE switch in your current boot.ini entry and it will be happy to address more than 3.25GB...
Also have a look at the /3GB switch... but not all softwares are happy with this one...
the same is for Vista32.
The need for 64bits OSes is restricted to ppl who needs a SINGLE program accessing more than 2/3GB of RAM.

[JohnnyMalaria]

They're regular developers. Was anything special done to support the larger memory space? No...but it works anyway. (http://216.75.63.164/andrew/codec_mem.jpg)

The 3.3GB shown in Task Manager is less than the 4GB that I mentioned and certainly isn't worthy of the Holy Crap! moniker. Hardly harnessing the full potential of 64-bit.

[prOnorama]

It's getting time to upgrade my good old Celeron 900. It's getting a bit old now (no HD, x264, playback, only old games run etc.)

If I buy a new PC I want it to last a few years (min. 3 probably 5)

I guess I can still get a PC with XP installed but most of them ship with Vista now. I have to say XP has always served my needs well and runs very stable (I haven't even bothered upgrading to SP2).

I'm still in doubt as Vista supports DX10 and maybe has or will get better overall support and is maybe better for HD stuff.

[Sharktooth]

as you can see some ppl is working on making DX10 work on XP too and why on earth should be an OS better for HD stuff?!? On the contrary Vista is NOT better for HD stuff (even if it's an OS), since most of the HD content is DRMed...

[squid_80]

The 3.3GB shown in Task Manager is less than the 4GB that I mentioned and certainly isn't worthy of the Holy Crap! moniker. Hardly harnessing the full potential of 64-bit.
The picture was uploaded for a different thread. The Holy Crap! writing is there because that amount of memory usage was rather unexpected for what I was doing. The usage went over 4gb but crapped out shortly after when it reached the maximum size of my page file. The point is there's nothing special needed for a 64-bit app to go over 2gb, while a 32-bit app is limited unless specifically written otherwise. 32-bit Avisynth for example can crash on systems with >4gb memory since it tries to use over 2gb for the cache. Compiled for 64-bit though, with nothing special added, it works just fine.

[mitsubishi]

- If you're into high quality video playback, XP will not run VMR9 renderless on the secondary monitor of a dual monitor system. If you have two monitors, or a monitor and an HDTV, you need to keep switching which is primary (takes a few seconds). If you want both at once, no joy. Vista doesn't suffer this issue.

What does this mean? I don't seem to be limited like this?

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8288/53729823cq4.th.png (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=53729823cq4.png)

I'd welcome any information about renderers and things, was looking again yesterday since the very little I could find about color levels seems contradictory.

[Sharktooth]

VMR9 on secondary monitor (TV) works here...

[JohnnyMalaria]

What does this mean? I don't seem to be limited like this?

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8288/53729823cq4.th.png (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=53729823cq4.png)

I'd welcome any information about renderers and things, was looking again yesterday since the very little I could find about color levels seems contradictory.

Perhaps there is confusion between use of the VMR9 and hardware overlay. Typically, XP only permits one instance of a hardware overlay though I have come across some that allow two - it depends on the graphics hardware.

VMR9 will try to use a hardware overlay when possible. When it is already in use then a traditional GDI-type renderer is used - but it is still VMR9.

Under XP, it comes down to available DirectDraw (i.e., 2D) surfaces. Vista does away with DirectDraw and all graphics use the 3D pipeline.

There are two easy ways to tell on XP if the hardware overlay is being used:

1. Drag the window around the screen - if the video seems to lag behind then it is using the overlay

2. Print Screen and see if the video portions of the screenshot are empty (black) - if so, it is an overlay.

In the example screenshot, it looks like neither window is using the overlay unless a more sophisticated screenshot app was used.

Even on Vista, though, if you drag a renderer window across the monitor boundary, it will cause the video to disappear momentarily unless the software in question deliberately disables mode change notification. Unfortunately, that means that the application will have to recreate the renderer if the video mode changes.

[JohnnyMalaria]

The point is there's nothing special needed for a 64-bit app to go over 2gb.

I agree - it is the 4GB barrier I'm refering to - the one that gets you up to 1TB - which really does deserve the Holy Shit! accolade. :)

[squid_80]

4GB is nothing special either.
http://216.75.63.164/andrew/codec_mem2.jpg

[Nil Einne]

Yeah... DX10 is the only real thing that Vista has that is even remotely interesting. And right now, with only the beefiest of machines able to play DX10 at reasonable framerates, and those DX10 games are almost indistinguishable when running in full DX9 mode, it's worthless.

This claim while often made isn't really true. I have an 8600GT and a A64 939 X2 clocked at 2.5ghz with 2gb RAM. This is obviously hardly what most would call a 'beefiest of machine'. However I am able to play BioShock with DX10 settings on with a more then decent framerate. It helps greatly that I have a 17inch CRT so 1024x or 1152x is all I ever really want.

Of course, from what I've most of what is DX10 in BioShock and indeed in most games is achievable with DX9.0c. But while interesting, this doesn't change the fact that you are forced to have DX10 to see these differences. Also from what I understand DX10 can fairly easily have performance advantages. This may not necessarily outweight the performance disadvantage of having Vista but it is an important point to consider.

But if you have a DX10 card it's definitely worth considering that it is easily possible you will get something out of DX10 in Vista despite what people often claim that you need a 8800 to notice anything.

Personally I wouldn't upgrade if you have to pay a significant amount of money. But if you are buying a new machine and you have a choice then I would go for Vista. Or if you have a volume license agreement with Microsoft (although in that case I somewhat doubt you'll be asking here to decide). Or whatever...

[Nil Einne]

I didn't say it didn't. I was refering to the hype especially by that fool at the University of Auckland whose self-indulgent ramblings in the guise of academic research have been debunked quite thoroughly.

In the 13+ months I've used Vista, I've never had a DRM-related issue prevent me from doing what I want when I want.

I've used Vista for a long while too and have no intention of going back to XP. And no, I haven't encountered any DRM problems. But there are very well problems with DRM and Vista and very real risks. Like it or not, the reality with DRM is that it significantly reduces the control you have over your computer. Yes there's no such thing as fool proof DRM but it doesn't change the fact that it's there. The biggest problem with DRM is probably that often you don't notice it until it's too late (either because it's not currently used e.g. ICT or because you aren't currently doing something which is affected). The simple fact is, those who want DRM aren't stupid, they know if they make it too onerous people are going to notice and not upgrade. So they do things in ways that you don't notice it but it's there and can and will be used in the future more and more. And it will negatively affect the consumer and stop them from doing things they are legally entitled to do. And Vista has a lot more of the DRM crap then XP. As I mentioned in another post, I'm not saying people shouldn't upgrade to Vista if they can do it cheaply. But I am saying that people should be aware DRM isn't just hype, it's a very real concern.

[Nil Einne]

<snipped>In binary, the difference between the two ranges is simply the highest bit and many programs assume the if the highest bit is set then what ever it refers to is in the OS's memory. It could be a file handle or relate to a driver in some way. Most programmers simply test things this way. To support 3GB (on 32-bit Windows), programs have to test the highest two bits, not just the one. This requires specific effort on the part of the programmer and most programmers don't need/bother to.

If such a program is written, it needs to be able to tell the OS that it wants to use the extra memory space and it needs to ask the OS if the extra memory option is available (i.e., is the /3GB switch set). The program tells the OS via its header which is the first thing the OS looks at when launching a program. The OS then knows whether it can provide the program resources such as bitmaps that are guaranteed not to fall in the extra memory space.

That's for 32-bit.
Actually large address aware apps can use up to 4gb on 64 bit versions of Windows. It's not just something for 3gb on 32 bit versions of Windows. And from what I've seen many apps that need it are large address aware. E.g. Supreme Commander and a number of games, Photoshop, 3DMax. So I don't know whether's it's accurate to say many programmers don't bother since many of those that need to do (why bother if your app is never going to use even 1gb?).

Porting 32-bit apps to 64-bit requires considerable effort because many programs store addresses to things as 32-bit - this uses 4 bytes and many of the program's functions assume this 4 byte addresses. 64-bit requires 8 bytes and many parts of the program need to be rewritten before they can be compiled as 64-bit applications that won't break.

New applications can be written from scratch that automatically support 32-bit and 64-bit code but they are few and far between at this time.

Assuming you get beyond this hurdle, you then need to write the code in such a way that it can make use of all the extra memory space that a 64-bit application can in principle. It requires a similar exercise as for the 32-bit/3GB option.

Therefore, in my mind, it will be some time before a significant number of applications become available that make full use of 64-bit. Most likely, they will be applications written from the ground up and will require compilers that fully support the new 64-bit opportunities. There will no doubt be a few exceptions but not many.

Can't say much on the difficulty of porting apps to 64 bit code since I don't program. From what I do understand, it depends a lot on your code. If it's heavily optimised with chunks of assembly and other optimisations then it's difficult especially since you don't want your 64 bit code being worse then your 32 bit code. If your code is designed to be portable to different machines then obviously a lot less so. 64 bit support in apps is definitely flacky at the moment. A lot of stuff doesn't need it and won't benefit from it much so programmers are probably reluctant. Some stuff like games and compressors, which do are starting to move in that direction. One of the biggest hurdles as I understand it at the moment is the lack of open source 64 bit compilers and 64 bit libraries. This means that most open source software isn't getting 64 bit versions.

P.S. In case it wasn't obvious I'm referring to Windows only in the above thread

[noclip]

Should I Upgrade to Vista?

Absolutely not.

I bought a major OEM computer that came with Vista and ended up installing XP after my "system stability index" hovered around 3.2 (out of 10) from the first time I booted the machine to the last day before I installed XP, a half year later.