Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Windows VISTA

This is topic Windows VISTA in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004715

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-08-2006, 03:11 AM:

A little something to share : I bought the Beta 2 copy of Windows Vista from Microsoft to try out. Very good OS for a 10 buck evaluation price (which the OS expires on the last week of June of next year..) from Bill Gates empire.

There are two DVD's - one is the 32 bit (X86) and the other is the 64 bit (X64) version that comes with the kit..including the 16 digit key to continue the install ..

So far, no bugs that came up, but do love the gadgets that are available..

...and what massive improvements that is been accomplished over any other Windows OS - including XP.

Just need a computer with at least 1G CPU, 512m of memory, DVD drive and a HDD space of 4G's. Product with either write over the existing OS as a clean install, can be as an update install to where everything can be restored from the beginning on an Vista uninstall.

Having an extra HDD, I did the clean install..still took over an hour to do the full install.

-Monte

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 07-08-2006, 05:07 AM:

Wonder if vista supports my motherboard. I can only run server OS'es, Win2k Advanced Server, Win 2003 Adv. server, linux, unix, etc. Being Vista has a 64 bit version, I'd be inclined to think they have a server version out too.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2006, 12:29 PM:

Vista will have a lot of different versions. Unfortunately the naming conventions are a little hard to understand. There's an expensive Enterprise version, which is obviously the thing to use for servers. There's two "Home" versions, which I will probably avoid like they're some kind of disease. There is a "Business" version and then there's an "Ultimate" version.

Out of these, I'm not sure which one is an equivalent product to go in line with Win2000 Professional and WinXP Professional. Do I get a PC with the "Business" version or the "Ultimate" version?

Vista reportedly has some serious hardware requirements. For some of the more flashy visual features in the interface some reviewers have suggested users will need at least a 256MB 3D acceleration card. 1GB of RAM is the starting point.

Needless to say, I won't be purchasing a copy of Vista for my notebook. They only way I'll get it is by having it pre-loaded on a new PC.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-08-2006, 12:38 PM:

What I would need to know is how well Premiere Pro will run on Vista. That program, I believe, currently only works with XP and won't even run on 2000 (or so I've been told. Never tried it myself).

XP seems to run OK for me (at work, I use the professional version for video production; however, I keep that computer off the network, so I haven't encountered any security issues).

At home, I have Windows Media Edition (based on XP) and while I have the occasional lock-up, its still way better than the problems I had with 98 (I realize that's no saying much).

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-08-2006, 02:31 PM:

I understand that this is a Windows OS thread, but I must ask your forbearance for a minute, because I gots to mention something.

quote:
Vista will have a lot of different versions . . . There's an expensive Enterprise version . . . There's two "Home" versions . . . There is a "Business" version and then there's an "Ultimate" version . . . Out of these, I'm not sure which one is an equivalent product to go in line with Win2000 Professional and WinXP Professional. Do I get a PC with the "Business" version or the "Ultimate" version

quote:
What I would need to know is how well Premiere Pro will run on Vista. That program, I believe, currently only works with XP and won't even run on 2000 . . . XP seems to run OK for me (at work, I use the professional version for video production; however, I keep that computer off the network, so I haven't encountered any security issues) . . . At home, I have Windows Media Edition (based on XP) and while I have the occasional lock-up, its still way better than the problems I had with 98 (I realize that's no saying much).

This is one of the things that have made me so ardently, smugly and defensively a Mac person. There is NONE of this ridiculous operating system guessing game. No trying to guess how much OS you need to drive your shit, or how much your current hardware will support, or whether or not you will need to upgrade later. In Macworld, it’s all just OSX, with just one level, and everything from Elmo’s Sesame Street Sing-a-Long to Final Cut Pro HD installs and runs on it beautifully. And that’s huge.

I hope Vista works out for you all, so that this winter you will be able to do everything I’ve been doing since last summer, with an absolute minimum of virus attacks. Maybe.

That’s all. Carry on. [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2006, 04:49 PM:

It took only four posts to steer this into fucking lame Mac versus PC territory.

Mike, besides Final Cut Studio and other Apple branded software, exactly what kind of programs are you running that aren't available on Windows? Even with video editing as an example, exactly what have you been doing on a Mac that no PC user can currently do (and have to wait 6 months until Vista comes out to do it)?

In the area of video editing, developers like Avid, Adobe and others have caught up to Apple. Some have even surpassed it. Apple has just slashed the over $4000 price on Shake down around 10% of its former price. That's because lots of effects houses are using better applications, like Windows-only based Eyeon Fusion 5. Apple is now working on a new node-based compositing program to completely replace Shake. Anyway, Apple is one company. They have lots of competitors in the creative software industry who are not just going to give up, quit their jobs and worship at the grand altar of the Apple logo.

Security is the biggest problem with Windows. But if the MacOS had anywhere near as many users it absolutely would be attacked just as much as Windows. Even with the security issue noted, I haven't had any problems with spyware and other threats in years, much less any virus problems. It is not difficult at all to get a Windows-based system secure. You just have to take the steps to do it.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-08-2006, 05:10 PM:

Agreed with Bobby. It seems to me that Macs serve three niche markets, and do so very well: (i) those who want an out-of-the-box all in computer which is easy to use and looks stylish, and are willing to pay more and sacrifice flexibility for that, (ii) those who want to use a small number of specialised applications, e.g. FCP, which either aren't published in Windows versions at all or where the Windows version is inferior, or (iii) those who want to make a political statement about Microsoft and again are willing to pay more and sacrifice flexibility to do so.

The people who are going to use Windows Vista probably don't fall into any of those categories, and so as Bobby says, there's no point in getting into a Microsoft vs. Apple debate in this context.

Personally I have no ideological position at all. When I built my last home PC just over two years ago, a Mac which did all the things my Windows can do for me would have cost around £3,000 in total, compared with the £1,200 I paid for the bits to build this machine and the applications software on it. Interestingly, most of the extra would have been for software. When I replaced my laptop last October, I did look at the Mac range - but there again, the equivalent Mac package to the hardware and software spec would have cost almost double. Windows-based computers deliver what I need for them more cheaply and flexibly than their Apple equivalents - end of story, as far as I'm concerned. It's like when I book with an airline, I don't decide on the basis of whether they use Boeings or Airbuses - I buy the cheapest and most convenient ticket I need to get from A to B and back again, when I need to get there.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-08-2006, 05:16 PM:

Leo, you forgot about people who just prefer the Mac OS over any incarnation of Windows.

Also, I think it is the person who responds to the first Mac post to turn it into a "debate". The two defensive Windows users here should have just ignored the post and instead talked about Vista.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2006, 06:29 PM:

Why should those who prefer a Mac even get involved with a discussion about Windows Vista in the first place? They're either wanting to start a debate or just posting something completely off topic to the thread.

Anyway, to get back on topic, Microsoft is going to have a difficult time getting lots of users to upgrade to Vista. Much of that has to do with the hardware requirements. I've had the opinion for a long time that it is usually only best to upgrade to a new version of Windows when you buy a new PC. Very often the extra hardware requirements of a new operating system will make an older existing PC just run slower.

The different 32-bit and 64-bit flavors of Windows will add more confusion to the situation. Most applications are still compiled in 32-bit form, including nearly all graphic design applications. Absolutely none of Adobe's stuff is compiled in 64-bit form on any platform (yes, all their Mac stuff is only 32-bit as well). So there is little if any need at all for any graphics folks using Windows to change to WinXP Pro x64 Edition. Further that 64-bit version breaks certain applications like Adobe Type Manager and Adobe Acrobat.

I'm going to be happy to just keep using Windows XP Pro SP2 for at least the next couple or so years. I'll probably jump to Vista sometime after the "new" wears off of it -and when the latest versions of Photoshop, CorelDRAW and Illustrator require me to use it.

If Adobe Creative Suite 3 Premium requires me to upgrade to Windows Vista then I might consider getting it. But I'm pretty sure it's going to run fine under the current version of Windows I'm using.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-08-2006, 06:38 PM:

Holy crap, first it turned into a Win/Mac debate, and now it's turning into a debate over whether it's a debate or not. [sleep]

I vote for closing the damn thread and starting over.

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-08-2006, 08:12 PM:

I've been dual booting xp / vista for a few weeks now and i really like the new interface. It's a little buggy still, but since most of my laptop drivers are beta too, its to be expected. Official video drivers are still non-existant for me. But it runs Photoshop CS2 and Illustrator CS2 just fine, GoLive and InDesign won't work though. I didn't think that I would like not having a nested tree in the start menu, Vista provides a search function to locate programs. It is actually really fast to use once you get used to it. Just type "cha" *enter and character map starts. No more, Start/programs/accessories/system tools/character map. And the improvements to Minesweeper have got to be seen to be believed! Paint is strangely "classic win 3.11" still.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2006, 09:35 PM:

Adam, are you running the 32-bit build or the 64-bit build?

Speaking of PhotoshopCS2 and IllustratorCS2 compatibility with Vista (and XP x64), I've read reports about Illustrator refusing to launch and product activation failures. Are you running Acrobat Pro under Vista and if so is it working properly?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-09-2006, 12:41 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
exactly what have you been doing on a Mac that no PC user can currently do

FWIW, I've made all of the Screen Attractions productions on PC clones - including the Digital Cinema content that was featured at the Transit Drive-In demo in May.

The first few years of titles, and the Showbiz Intermission Clock were done on a machine with just a Pentium II and 350MB of RAM.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-09-2006, 05:35 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Anyway, to get back on topic, Microsoft is going to have a difficult time getting lots of users to upgrade to Vista. Much of that has to do with the hardware requirements. I've had the opinion for a long time that it is usually only best to upgrade to a new version of Windows when you buy a new PC. Very often the extra hardware requirements of a new operating system will make an older existing PC just run slower.

That was true of both 95 and XP (i.e. they both needed a major upgrade in hardware spec from the previous generation of Windows). As a result I'd guess that the vast majority of Windows licences are probably sold in a bundle with PC hardware, meaning that, as Bobby points out, for most people, the upgrade in the OS will happen the next time they buy a new computer.

Another factor that I'd guess would reinforce this trend is that the beefed up anti-piracy measures which appeared from XPSP2 (i.e. you can't download patches and updates to a pirate copy of Windows, and the OS automatically 'phones home' to check validity whenever the PC's online), must have vastly reduced the number of illegal Windows installations, if not eliminated them altogether in the developed world. So unless MS prices Windows for bundling with new PCs very competetively, the fact that it's now a lot more difficult to use a pirate copy would instantly create a substantial market for any potential competitors, e.g. Linux.

So for those reasons I'd speculate that the only people who will install Vista as a 'software only' upgrade are home PC builders whose hardware spec is already way above the XP average, and those who are forced into doing so by applications software compatibility. I'm certainly going to give it at least 6-12 months from the public release - i.e. time for the most serious bugs and security holes to be found and fixed - before thinking about buying it, which will probably be when I next substantially upgrade my hardware.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-09-2006, 04:13 PM:

To Monte, Adam (and anyone else),

What's your user agreement like when you use a Beta version of an OS? Are you allowed, for example, to share screenshots with us? Are you required to give feedback to Microsoft or restricted from giving feedback to anyone else in particular?

Personally, I can't see myself paying for the privilege of turning my own computer into part of Microsoft's Beta experiment, but I'm open to the idea that you see things differently. So, besides bragging rights, why did you do it? And can you give more specifics about the whiz-bang, neato improvements?

Personally, I have Mac and PC machines living peacefully in the same home. And... I don't know if you ever watch VH1's Best Week Ever but this weekend they've included some rather biting spoofs of those recent "'I'm a Mac' and 'I'm a PC'" commercials. The PC finally gets a backbone.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-09-2006, 05:44 PM:

Yea, I agree. Microsoft had a seminar at the Boise Egyptian a number of years back for the beta testing for XP and they gave all the copies out for free.
If I did computers for a living I would probably take a machine and just set up Vista on it so I would know it's ins and outs by the time it hits the shelves.
Mark

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-09-2006, 05:44 PM:

Greg,

Vista Beta 2 is a public beta that MS made available on their web page. If you could handle the 3ish gig download, you could just download the iso and burn your own DVD, otherwise you could order a disc from Microsoft for about ten bucks. I don't think that there are any restrictions on use. I can post screenshots next time I boot my laptop to Vista.

Bobby,
I'm running the 32 bit build. I understand that the 64 bit version is even buggier with drivers being nearly non-existant. The on-line recommendation is that, even if you have a 64 bit processor, the 32 bit vista beta will work better. I assume this will change come release. Knowing Microsoft though... [Razz]

I only installed the trial versions of the CS2 suite, and never installed acrobat. Since GoLive wouldn't work, and thats what I need most, that meant that vista isn't yet viable for me to do more with than tinker. I did install acrobat reader without any problems, whatever thats worth.

I also have to say that IE 7 is kind of cool. Still not going to replace my Firefox, but at least it renders transparent PNG files correctly!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-09-2006, 06:13 PM:

Yea..I just did it by spending the 10 bucks for the Beta 2 release - just to see how it'd performed against XP.

Figured that the $10.50 isn't gonna kill me for a year's worth of VISTA usage and using the 32x version with this laptop.

I could easily use the Premier version due to the requirements to run VISTA are met with with this laptop, but my videocard isn't fast enough to use the AERO screen option, but the other features that VISTA offers does work quite well.

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-09-2006, 06:27 PM:

Monte, I'm in the same boat graphically. I'd like to think that its just lackluster beta drivers that are keeping my video card from working fully (vista says that no hardware acceleration is detected, when the card is DirectX 9 capable). I just keep checking windows update and hope that will get resolved...

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-10-2006, 04:54 AM:

quote: Adam Wilbert
If you could handle the 3ish gig download, you could just download the iso and burn your own DVD, otherwise you could order a disc from Microsoft for about ten bucks.

It says that the beta testing programme is now full and that they're not issuing any new product keys.

Posted by Dan Harris (Member # 1759) on 07-11-2006, 04:16 PM:

I was surprised to find that Vista has drivers for everything I've thrown at it so far, except for my display (Sony SDM-S71), which just registers as a default monitor. I didn't even initially think to look and see if it had found the correct video card, but it has and it's all working perfectly. The only thing it didn't find on first installation was the Soundcard drivers, but these came through in an update a few hours after installation.

You can still download and install the latest Vista Beta, but as Leo says they are not issuing any more activation keys. Some Beta testers had the option to request a further 9 activation keys to use on different machines, so you may find someone with a spare.

If you have a spare hard drive and just want to give it a test run, you have 14 days before you have to activate and it stops working.

MS have now released Office 2007 Beta, and are still issuing activation keys. It's time-limited until Feb 2007, but it's great - although an entirely new interface to learn!

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-11-2006, 07:29 PM:

I think the monitor thing isn't even any kind of driver. It is a text file with info about the monitor name and operating parameters so the graphics adapter can know what resolutions it can run at what refresh rates. I forgot where the files are laid down, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find them and then you can simply edit your own monitor file. Just cosmetics, of course, nothing vitally important. Only sometimes the default monitor settings don't allow you as high refresh rates as the monitor may support to give you a flicker free image at a high resolution.
But that doesn't apply when you have an LCD monitor anyway.

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 07-12-2006, 12:49 AM:

To diverge slightly from the topic at hand...

quote: Mark Ogden
This is one of the things that have made me so ardently, smugly and defensively a Mac person. There is NONE of this ridiculous operating system guessing game. No trying to guess how much OS you need to drive your shit, or how much your current hardware will support, or whether or not you will need to upgrade later. In Macworld, it’s all just OSX, with just one level, and everything from Elmo’s Sesame Street Sing-a-Long to Final Cut Pro HD installs and runs on it beautifully. And that’s huge.

quote: Bobby Henderson
It took only four posts to steer this into fucking lame Mac versus PC territory.

Come on, guys. Let's actually READ instead of going "OMFG! APPLE VS WINDOWS ULTIMATE SHOWDOWN!!!!!!".

Personally, I'm a Windows guy. Mark DOES make a very good point, however. MacOS doesn't have the different product tiers. There's just one MacOS X to purchase. Windows, on the other hand, usually has several different "tiers" of the same damn operating system, with the lower tiers crippled in one way or another. With MacOS, you install it and it "just works" for what you want it to. You don't have to fiddle around and purchase a different copy of the same OS just to get simple TCP/IP services or multiprocessor support.

Now, back on topic.

Vista will be very interesting, I think. The fully 3D user interface is overkill and unnecessary, in my personal opinion, but it does look rather cool. I guess I'll have to wait a while, though, to actually use it, since they aren't giving out any new product keys. =(

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-12-2006, 02:07 PM:

Okey .. If we really want to stir up the OS10 vs Windows thing, why don't we just call a truce (since the war will never end between the two) and mix things up some with a lot of us playing with Linux - if you really want to play with a stable OS.

Just find you a good copy of Linux that you can download an .iso file to burn on CD, set your machine to boot from CD and have some fun.

-Monte

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 04-03-2007, 12:25 PM:

I just bought a new Dell notebook with Vista already installed. It seems like IE7 is running very slowly. It takes a great deal of time to load up a few sites I go to more than once a day. Sometimes, they don't even load up at all. Anyone else experienceing slow internet with Vista?

I downloaded a 'panda gadget'. It's a live feed of the panda exhibit on the San Diego zoo. Highly worth it [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2007, 01:13 PM:

I know a few people experiencing serious some headaches with Vista on new machines.

One coworker told me he couldn't get a new store-bought desktop system to shut down correctly, and when he forced it to shut down the OS had to be reinstalled! A tech support guy spent half a day at his home fixing the thing.

Honestly, I don't think Vista is still quite ready for casual computer users to embrace. The OS is clearly in the throws of "new adopter" territory, where the end users get to serve in a broad, yet informal level of beta testing. Perhaps by this fall or year's end Vista may be more mature, stable and safe for general use.

If I had to buy a new PC today, I'd still get it loaded with Windows XP Professional SP2 and hold off on the Vista thing. It would be just like when WinXP was released. A number of vendors continued to offer Win2000 Professional as an option. Are those free Vista upgrade coupons good for a considerable amount of time?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-03-2007, 01:17 PM:

Very slow. And it's a memory hog. We get the distinct feeling this one's gonna be another Windows ME...

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-03-2007, 01:25 PM:

I bought a laptop with Vista installed about 3 months ago and so far it's great. I used IE7 for a while with no problems (loaded quickly etc) but I'm a Firefox guy. I bought my computer to do video editing so I got a higher end one, with 240gb hard drive, 2gb memory, etc. Perhaps the reason you're having trouble is because you dont have more than the minimum memory installed? I'm currently having trouble using Adobe Premiere pro 2, it takes like 3 minutes to load up, and if I switch between programs, like if I want to minimize Premiere, and check email or surf the net, and then bring premiere back up again, the program freezes up to Not Responding, then it usually fixes itself after 30 seconds or so. I've read on Adobe's site that there are compatibility problems with Vista, and that will be fixed with 3.0 this spring or summer. I wouldn't recommend anyone upgrade to Vista for the sake of upgrading, only do it if you get a complete new system with lots of memory etc.

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 04-03-2007, 02:41 PM:

One thing with the internet...

DON'T USE IE!!!

Firefox or Opera are much superior...

As far as my Vista experience, I have not had 1 single problem since I upgraded the graphics.

I have a 4.7 performance rating and everything runs smooth as silk.

The main problem is that people are going to be running Vista Premium on PC's that are only made for Basic.

Memory is used properly in Vista, something that other versions of Windows never did.

I think people need to chill out, give it a few months...we all thought XP was going to be another ME when it first came out...

For what it's worth...I'm running:

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.0ghz Dual core...
3 gig PC3200 ram
256mb ATi Radeon x1300 Pro
250gig SATA HD

I'm pulling a 4.7 with those specs...that' pretty damn good if I must say...

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-03-2007, 03:45 PM:

Richard how are viewing dvd's on your system? For a few weeks mine ran flawlessly, now I'm seeing small glitches in playback, whether it be some slight stuttering, or clear-like line glitch at the top. Very odd.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2007, 03:46 PM:

I agree, the hazard of buying a computer with hardware too weak to run Vista is definitely a very real threat. In fact, the condition has been very common with regard to Windows-based PCs for years.

Consider WinXP for example. Many computer systems have been sold pre-loaded with XP for years featuring puny amounts of RAM. 512MB might be just enough to run the operating system. Casual users typically need 1GB or more to get any decent speed out of it. Gamers, creative workers and others who demand high performance need 2GB or more of RAM.

With Windows Vista, I would strongly caution any user to have anything less than a very good dual core CPU, at least 2GB of RAM and a real dedicated graphics card (not motherboard integrated filth) with at least 256MB of on board GDDR3 RAM. That's not really a high end configuration anymore, but lots of Vista-loaded machines are being sold with far less powerful configurations.

A lot of this won't be as bad an issue by year's end when Quad Core CPUs are more common and more advances happen for RAM, graphics cards, hard discs, etc. A year or two from now just about any desktop or notebook computer you find on a store shelf should be able to run Vista without any sluggishness. We'll be seeing 8-core CPUs at the high end by then.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-03-2007, 06:44 PM:

I'm writing this from my 2004-vintage laptop (Acer Aspire 3020), the only upgrade being that it that I upgraded the memory to 1gb. Because we can get Vista very cheaply through the university where I work, I stuck it on the laptop on the basis that I wanted to get my head round Vista before it hits me for real in a work situation, but that I didn't want to put it on my main home PC (which I use for intensive applications like video editing) without knowing what the glitches, software incompatibilities etc. are first.

The upgrade advisor said that Vista should work on the laptop without any problems - and so it does, Aero shite and all. In fact, running under Vista it'll output full screen video both to the flat panel and an external projector through VGA at the same time, which it wouldn't with XP. Despite Bobby's caution about trying to use Vista on a machine whose hardware spec isn't really up to the job, it runs on my nearly three year-old laptop just fine - if anything, slightly quicker and smoother than XP.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2007, 10:37 PM:

Leo, what's the native resolution on your notebook, and what kind of applications are you running on it?

I have XP Pro SP2 on my 2 year old Dell notebook and run stuff like Adobe Creative Suite 2 and Macromedia Studio 8 on it. I'll likely get the new Adobe CS3 Design Premium suite when it ships (probably in late May). That computer has 2GB of 533MHz DDR2 SDRAM and a 128MB ATi PCI-X video card. It ran Adobe Photoshop CS2 sluggishly with 1GB of RAM. Maxed out at 2GB the lag disappeared. The prospect of running Vista on that notebook scares me.

I would like to get the new Adobe CS3 "Master Collection" suite (since I can get it for a significant discount by owning legal licenses for both CS2 Premium and Studio 8). But there's no way that massive suite will fit on the notebook I'm using. A brand new desktop machine with a ton of hard drive space would be in order. Hard drive space is definitely a major problem with notebook computers these days. I'm not buying a new desktop computer for at least another year or two. I'm spending too much money on stuff like D-SLR camera gear as it is right now!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-03-2007, 10:58 PM:

What is the difference with CS3? I have an incredibly difficult time telling the difference between Photoshop™ 7 and Photoshop™ 10 which comes with CS2. One has a feather for an icon which is not as cool as the ice blue icon with an eyeball. Feathers are incredibly lame.

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 04-04-2007, 12:10 AM:

Photoshop CS3's icon will be a "Ps" in a blue square.

In fact, Adobe has developed a new set of product icons replacing feathers, butterflies, daffodils and other cute-but-not-descriptive iconography used in the past. This new icon system is sort of a cross between a color wheel and a periodic table of the elements. Boring, but very straightforward.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 04-04-2007, 03:21 AM:

once again we are at the crossroads with OS. Like others have said, I do think I will wait till I get a new PC with Vista on it. I have too many great programs that work well on my system. My system being and old rebuilt pentium 3 with 900mhz processor and 512 ram , it is so stable and reliable and FAST!

I have 3 pentium 4 2.4ghz PC s a 1 pentium 4 2.6ghz laptop at the cinema and they are all as slow as ,15 to 20 seconds just to open a single page A$ word document. The old P3 works so much faster I would not want to loose just over a new operating system that may or may not be a good.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2007, 10:26 AM:

Out of the Adobe CS3 stuff, I'm a lot more excited about the changes happening to Adobe Illustrator than I am about Photoshop -although PhotoshopCS3 is still a pretty significant upgrade.

quote: Joe Redifer
What is the difference with CS3? I have an incredibly difficult time telling the difference between Photoshop™ 7 and Photoshop™ 10 which comes with CS2.

I've lost track of the new features put into Photoshop between version 7 and CS2, which is actually version 9. CS3 is Photoshop 10. Version CS2 added a lot of video-centric features (support for non-square pixels, video preview via Firewire, lots of video frame preset templates). New perspective tools were added to help correct camera barrel distortion. Smart object support was added so placed images from applications like Illustrator would automatically update when changed. The vector toolset within Photoshop was improved. Various interface changes were made. Anyway, it's been 2 years since that has happened. Now Photoshop CS3 is on the way.

Two different versions of Photoshop CS3 will be shipping to stores, "standard" and "extended." It's kind of like what Adobe has done with the "standard" and "pro" versions of After Effects.

Some of the items Photoshop CS3 adds over CS2
* Non-destructive "Smart Filter" effects
* Quick Selection and Refine Edge tools
* Advanced compositing (useful for motion graphics & Flash)
* A more streamlined interface
* Better RAW image processing
* New auto-stitching filters for combining multiple images
* Improved Adobe Bridge (faster, more useful)
* Enhanced Vanishing Point (clone, retouch & build objects in perspective)
* Enhanced 32-bit High Dynamic Range image support
* Faster overall performance
* Better black-and-white conversion tools

Photoshop CS3 Extended adds these features:
* 3D compositing and texture editing
* Movie Paint
* 2D and 3D measurement tools
* Enhanced Vanishing Point with 3D support

In short, PhotoshopCS3 Extended is really the Photoshop to get, especially if you do any 3D, video or motion graphics work. PhotoshopCS3 will allow you to paint directly onto 3D models and lots of other stuff.

Those who need a robust set of tools to handle many different types of Camera RAW will benefit from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, a separate application currently priced at $200.

quote: Jon Miller
Photoshop CS3's icon will be a "Ps" in a blue square.

Yeah, that's one of the first things I noticed when trying out the Beta of Photoshop CS3. I'm not really a big fan of it at all because the icons just look so plain. But I can understand the motives behind it. The Adobe CS2 applications had their own interface and icon setup, which was very different from Macromedia Studio 8. It's easier to arrive at a happy medium by doing something visually conservative. On top of that, the Adobe Production Studio applications (After Effects, Premiere Pro, etc.) had their own icon and interface design.

It's going to take a while for me to get used to the very different way Photoshop's new interface is arranged. It's supposed to conserve screen real estate better. I'm just thankful that the final shipping version will allow me to tear off parts of the interface and put them on other monitors (the beta wouldn't let you drag anything outside of the program window).

[ 04-04-2007, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 04-04-2007, 11:26 AM:

quote: Mike Heenan
Richard how are viewing dvd's on your system? For a few weeks mine ran flawlessly, now I'm seeing small glitches in playback, whether it be some slight stuttering, or clear-like line glitch at the top. Very odd.

I haven no errors with video.

I have noticed slight audio glitches, but I think that's because I'm running onboard audio

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-04-2007, 12:41 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
* Non-destructive "Smart Filter" effects

Ooooo!!! I love it when "smart" features are included. It's just so... smart! Of course, nothing is destructive when there is an undo command.

quote: Bobby Henderson
* Better RAW image processing

I don't understand why this is so difficult. Every camera manufacturer seems to use their own version of RAW that if opened with another manufacturer's software, looks like dogshit with approximately 32 flies on board. So this new Photoshop will almost get RAW right from the sounds of it. It'll better, but still not good.

quote: Bobby Henderson
* Enhanced Vanishing Point for

For what? Otherwise it sounds damn exciting!

quote: Bobby Henderson
* Movie Paint

Does this mean I can import a movie file and draw on it frame by frame in kind of like a flipbook mode? Painter has offered this for nearly 10 years. Good to see Adobe finally catching up to decade-old features. Maybe Photoshop 15 will finally support... color?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2007, 01:19 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Ooooo!!! I love it when "smart" features are included. It's just so... smart! Of course, nothing is destructive when there is an undo command.

The problem with "undo" and Photoshop's "History" palette is it works primarily in linear form. Undo back to a certain state to change something and you'll have to re-create all those other steps again (unless you were able to record them as a set of actions).

"Live" smart filter layers (along with adjustment layers, live layer effects, etc.) provides more flexibility. You can change a lot of basic things about a Photoshop layout without having to redo all the enhancements applied to them.

quote: Joe Redifer
I don't understand why this is so difficult. Every camera manufacturer seems to use their own version of RAW that if opened with another manufacturer's software, looks like dogshit with approximately 32 flies on board.

The situation is more the fault of camera manufacturers than that of Adobe. Every camera company wants to make different imaging sensors, which also equals a different flavor of RAW coming from each of them. The only area where any standardization of image sensor is happening is at the very high end. But that's only because most makers of large format camera digital backs don't have the resources to develop their own imaging sensors. They have to buy them from companies like Kodak instead.

The Canon EOS utilities for my D-SLR can, at times, do a better job of converting RAW images than what Adobe's own Camera RAW in Bridge does. But then Canon isn't doing anything to accommodate all the other imaging sensors made by other companies either. And their software doesn't give you much at all in the way of creative options. Applications like Lightroom are far more capable in that regard.

quote:
For what? Otherwise it sounds damn exciting!

Sorry about the typo. Vanishing point will allow the user to paint into or clone objects along a defined plane of perspective. If you want a brick wall to extend farther away into the background, this tool will help you do it pretty easy. You can make tall buildings a lot taller by cloning more floors. The only bad thing about the Vanishing Point tool is that it is best used only on photos with sharp focus throughout the image.

quote: Joe Redifer
Does this mean I can import a movie file and draw on it frame by frame in kind of like a flipbook mode?

I believe so. It might come in handy for Flash users. The feature is meant more to help out users of After Effects who want quite a bit more control over things like rotoscoping work. After Effects Pro has good tweening & following operations with its rotoscoping, but it doesn't have Photoshop's image editing tool set.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-04-2007, 05:42 PM:

I still don't understand about RAW. To me, RAW is a compression format. It sure as hell isn't uncompressed, though it is supposedly lossless. The camera should just start out with a huge fucking TIF (yes, fucking) straight from the image sensor and then compress it into a ZIP file or some dumbass shit like that. Maybe RAR instead of ZIP since it at least shares two letters with RAW. But RAW pisses me off, even though that's what I use since JPEG sucks insane amounts of unwiped and unshaven ass.

There is no way that a real TIF could be worse than the raw image data from the CCD.

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 04-04-2007, 05:53 PM:

RAW is the uncompressed CCD/CMOS Bayer filter sensor data (RGBG) out of the camera before the demosaic filter needed to reconstruct a full-resolution color image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

The TIFF file is generally bigger because it's uncompressed and has an R, G, and B value for each pixel position, where the RAW file only has one of them for each pixel. Losslessly compressed RAW files could be even smaller.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2007, 08:20 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I still don't understand about RAW. To me, RAW is a compression format.

RAW is very far from being anything like a standardized file format such as TIFF, JPEG, GIF, BMP, etc. The "flavor" of RAW is tied to the specific camera image sensor that created the photo. The only way that Camera RAW could be standardized at all is if all the D-SLR camera manufacturers used the same kind of image sensor in all their cameras. There's no way they're going to do anything like that.

quote: Joe Redifer
The camera should just start out with a huge fucking TIF (yes, fucking) straight from the image sensor and then compress it into a ZIP file or some dumbass shit like that.

That's essentially what RAW is, but actually better. It is raw data from the image sensor in either uncompressed or lossless compressed form.

quote: Joe Redifer
There is no way that a real TIF could be worse than the raw image data from the CCD.

It is worse because it doesn't have as much color bit depth and other proprietary image data that is resident in the camera sensor. With a RAW file, you have more to work with in terms of subtle highlights, shadow detail, etc. A picture with image problems (like blown highlights, crushed shadows, screwed up color balance) has better chances of being fixed if it was captured in RAW rather than originated in 24-bit TIFF or JPEG.

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 04-04-2007, 08:26 PM:

Vista is a steaming lump of crap. I managed to make the final version BSOD within an hour and a half. The nVidia drivers for Vista suck. This is not Microsoft's fault, but the fact remains that I get half the framerate on Vista that I got on XP on the same machine running the same games.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2007, 09:52 PM:

Vista will not make an existing computer previously loaded with WindowsXP run any faster. In most cases, software upgrades usually come with SLOWER performance. Actual programming code is rarely ever streamlined, with the software upgrade mainly consisting of thrown in features.

I haven't seen anything at all in Vista that makes me want to use it at this point.

Perhaps in a couple of years (or more) when most software is finally getting compiled in 64-bit multi-threaded form then something like Vista might be worth running to take advantage of much higher capacities of RAM. The vast majority of all computer software, including most games, is still 32-bit. All those Adobe applications previously mentioned (even all the new CS3 ones) are 32-bit. Even Photoshop in its CS3 variant can use no more than 4GB of RAM. That's it.

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 04-05-2007, 11:25 PM:

The difference between Vista and your average Windows upgrade is that halfway through its development Microsoft realized it was a bloated, unmaintainable lump of crap and rewrote half the code. Fat lot of good it did them. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-07-2007, 10:42 PM:

Bobby H posted

quote:
I would like to get the new Adobe CS3 "Master Collection" suite (since I can get it for a significant discount by owning legal licenses for both CS2 Premium and Studio 8). But there's no way that massive suite will fit on the notebook I'm using. A brand new desktop machine with a ton of hard drive space would be in order. Hard drive space is definitely a major problem with notebook computers these days. I'm not buying a new desktop computer for at least another year or two. I'm spending too much money on stuff like D-SLR camera gear as it is right now!

My laptop has 240 gb of space on 2 hard drives and with external drives you can add another 500gb. That's quite a lot of porn to store. Probably by the time you're ready to upgrade Apple will have quad core notebooks and 8 core desktops.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2007, 12:55 AM:

Well, that's a problem Mike. Because Adobe and all the other companies from which I buy my graphics software would screw me over big time and force me to buy full, extreme costly versions of licenses I already own in order to run the same programs on a Mac with no discernible increase in speed.

The only way I am buying a Mac at all in the foreseeable future is if I need to run Final Cut Studio to get any work done. Until then, I am sticking with Windows.

If Adobe suddenly decides to make all its software Mac-only, then I'll buy a Mac. I'm a cheerleader for Adobe. I will not give a shit about Apple or Microsoft. Neither of them invented the desktop publishing revolution. Neither are leaders in graphics. Adobe IS on the other hand. And I can do just fine running their software on a icky Windows-based PC.

Also, how old is that notebook? Are you talking about something brand new?

I'm not exactly excited about having to run out and buy an entirely new computer, especially a Mac based laptop that costs a shitload of extra money above what you would pay for a PC -on top of the extra cost of having to buy all my software and FONTS THAT COST A FORTUNE all over again. Nuts to that! I'm going to do within the limits of what I can do using my still very good Dell notebook and its 7200rpm 60GB hard drive. If someone's software cannot run on that, then they get NO SALE FROM ME. Here's a clue to those software developers: CONSERVE DISC SPACE! Bloatware only sucks ass.

[ 04-08-2007, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2007, 04:31 AM:

Adobe will never go Mac only. I like Adobe for the most part, though I do wish they'd let me press Apple+H to hide the programs like Final Cut Studio does as well as most other proper Mac software. Anyway, I think it would be ideal if Adobe put both the Mac and Windows versions of their suite on the same install discs. Why not? That way it would be easier for cross-platform users, no matter if they go from PC to Mac or the other way around. No need for a different license just because you have a different format I wouldn't think. All programs that exist on both platforms should have bisexual install discs.

Also, why would you have to buy all of your fonts over again? If you have the original .ttf file (or whatever it is) just bring them over to the Mac with a network cable, double click and you're done.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-08-2007, 11:53 AM:

The laptop i bought is about 2 months old (1.66ghz, 240gb hd, 256mb video, 2gb memory etc). You wouldn't have to buy a Mac at all, I was just using it as an example that their next line of systems are going to smoke any current desktop available now, I think. Issues like fonts and graphics I could care less about but I can see how it would be an issue for oyu in your business.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 04-08-2007, 12:24 PM:

Dumb question, but do Macs still have the one button mouse?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2007, 12:51 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Anyway, I think it would be ideal if Adobe put both the Mac and Windows versions of their suite on the same install discs.

I absolutely agree. However Adobe/Macromedia still aren't playing nice in that regard. My copy of Macromedia Studio8 has both Mac and Windows versions on the same disc. But! They only make the license and activation good for only one platform. One you activate the license you're stuck on that platform and have to buy another license or at least an upgrade if you want to switch platforms. That sucks.

With both Mac and Windows running natively on Intel x86 code it would seem to at least be reasonably possible for companies like Adobe to come up with "universal" installers that work on both Mac and Windows platforms. If they would ease up on the licensing thing and make it easier for users to switch platforms and use whatever machines they want without buying all their software all over again the extra competition between hardware vendors and operating systems would encourage a greater degree of improvement.

quote: Mike Heenan
You wouldn't have to buy a Mac at all, I was just using it as an example that their next line of systems are going to smoke any current desktop available now, I think.

That's always true. It's kind of scary to think just how powerful desktop computers will be in just another year or two. By the end of 2008, 8-core CPUs will be commonly available.

I love the convenience and portability a notebook computer provides. I just don't want to run out and buy another one anytime soon. If my current notebook had something more on the order of a 200GB hard disc I would probably consider getting that Adobe Master Collection suite upgrade. But I'm just going to hold off on that until I buy another desktop computer.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2007, 01:24 PM:

quote: Allison Parsons
Dumb question, but do Macs still have the one button mouse?

Kind of. They have a solid mouse with a tiny little ball on it. If you lift up your index finger, you can use your flip-off finger to right-click and it works the same as a two button mouse. But you have to lift that index finger up or it won't work. The little ball is for scrolling not only up and down, but left, right and diagonally. You can, of course, plug any USB two/three/ninety button mouse into a Mac and it will work the same as any other two/three/ninety button mouse does on the PC. I do not recommend using a PC keyboard on the Mac, though. The Mac has it's own special keys that sometimes don't remap, and when they do remap it is confusing as all hell.