Vista 64-bit or 32-bit?

[gusmahler]

With XP nearing end of life (consumers can no longer buy XP on new computers as of July 1), it looks like people will be forced to move to Vista. I'll be building/buying a computer sometime this summer/fall, with the current intent that it is solely going to be used as a media computer (video editing and photo editing), though I'll probably also stick my music files on their also so I can listen while I work. No games or other extraneous software, as I'll be using my old computer for those purposes.

With Lightroom 2 supporting 64-bit and CS4 to be available in a 64-bit version, is the time right to go to Vista 64-bit? Or have all the driver issues that were present when Vista 64 first came out still present?

Gus

[peterkrogh]

Gus,
To quote Clint Eastwood, "well, punk, do you feel lucky?"

Seriously, if you can really take advantage of what 64 bit offers (meaning you work with a lot of really large files - over 1 GB and even over 10 GB), then it could make sense to go through the extra hassle involved. 

If you're mostly working with Lightroom ACR on images n the 20-400 MB range, it might be easier to stock with 32 bit.

Mike Stewart (tech editor of the DAM Book, UPDIG tech editor) is running 64 bit happily, but he is on the far edge of the techno-geekery scale.
Peter

[SteveM]

Gus,

Another option would be to stay with XP. You could acquire a copy or transfer one you already have to the new machine, allowing you to postpone the 32-64 bit decision until later.

This assumes that XP will do everything you need.

Note that end of life means end of sales, not end of support. With the installed base of XP it is very unlikely that Microsoft will be ending support any time soon (as much as they might like to).

[Disclaimer: I use XP at work and run XP on my MacBook Pro via VMWare Fusion, but I much prefer OS X. I have minimal experience with Vista (two months on a work machine before reverting to XP.] 

SteveM

[danaltick]

I'm still under XP 32-bit and plan to stay that way for at least a few more years.  My hope is that Vista-64 bit will be mature by then with full third party driver and app support.  When I make the move, I'm hoping to kill two birds with one stone (i.e. XP to Vista and 32-bit to 64-bit).  Also, Vista is a resource hog.  I don't look forward to backing it up.  Rule of thumb is wait for Microsoft to announce the release date of thier next O/S before upgrading to the current one ;-).

Dan

[Martin Beebee]

I'm actually going through the exact same agony at this moment. Except I'm thinking of pulling the trigger in the next day or two.

One of the great things about 64-bit Vista, Lightroom, etc. is that it allows you to access over 4GB RAM (up to 128GB, depending on the version). Being able to run Lightroom with 8GB RAM sure seems like a compelling reason in itself to make the switch.

Peter: are you suggesting that, working with 5-15MB DNGs etc., having >4 GB RAM wouldn't significantly speed things up in Lightroom? If that's the case, then sticking with 32-bit would certainly be easier (and I could still use my Nikon CoolScan). But if there's a chance of getting LR to really move. . . . It's so slow on my current system I can hardly stand it.

Martin

[peterkrogh]

MArtin,
I'm not sure if Lightroom could take advantage of the extra RAW or not. I have not researched the topic, and I'm only running 32 bit OSs here.

It's pretty rare for me to put large images in LR, so I'm not asking it to do much that *requires* disk swapping.  for me, most of the wait times in Lightroom have to do with re-rendering adjusted images.  These are nearly all 10-20 MB camera originals.

Contrast that to a recent project (another gigapixel memorial project) where the image file it 20 GB.  Doing almost *anything* to the file takes forever, since Photoshop has to load a chunk into RAM, process, swap to disk and load a different chunk into RAM, etc.  A 64-bit OS would really help out here.

I know Mike Stewart has been doing a lot of HDR and stitched HDR stuff, and probably runs into the large image problem frequently, which is one reson that he's running 64.  The other is that he's a alpha geek, and its just in his nature.
Peter

[Martin Beebee]

Since LR 2 will be 64-bit compatible, according to Adobe it will be able to access RAM >3GB (if running 64-bit Vista/XP with appropriate CPU) and give a good speed bump. So the real question is: will having >4GB speed up LR for your standard 6-12MP camera RAW files, or is 4GB (and thus 32-bit XP/Vista) enough? As far as I've found, the folks at Adobe don't mention anything about the 64-bit version being good just for extra large files. But maybe that's marketing.

Martin

[gusmahler]

I'm still under XP 32-bit and plan to stay that way for at least a few more years.  My hope is that Vista-64 bit will be mature by then with full third party driver and app support.  When I make the move, I'm hoping to kill two birds with one stone (i.e. XP to Vista and 32-bit to 64-bit).  Also, Vista is a resource hog.  I don't look forward to backing it up.  Rule of thumb is wait for Microsoft to announce the release date of thier next O/S before upgrading to the current one ;-).

Dan

The next version of Windows (aka Vienna) is rumored for a 2009-2010 release date (OTOH, Vista was originally scheduled for 2003, but wasn't released until January 2007).

Gus

[danaltick]

Another rule of thumb: add 4 years to Microsoft's original release date announcement...LOL.  So 2010 is probably about right for moving to Vista64.

Dan

[gusmahler]

Gus,

Another option would be to stay with XP. You could acquire a copy or transfer one you already have to the new machine, allowing you to postpone the 32-64 bit decision until later.

This assumes that XP will do everything you need.

Note that end of life means end of sales, not end of support. With the installed base of XP it is very unlikely that Microsoft will be ending support any time soon (as much as they might like to).

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. Apparently, while you can't buy XP on a new machine anymore, you can still buy it if you're building your own machine, at least until January 31, 2009. Support will last until 2014. By then, I'll probably have a new machine anyway, so I might just stick with XP for the time being.

But I was hoping that Vista 64 would provide some benefits.

[Marc Rochkind]

At this point I think Vista is reliable, but the lack of drivers for important devices is a problem, especially for photographers who tend to have lots of exotic, expensive devices.

The 64-bit version makes this problem even worse, because it allows only certified drivers. You don't get just a warning box, you get outright refusal to install.

--Marc

[JoeThePhotographer]

I have not a read a truly compelling reason to upgrade from Windows XP, although I am open to new information.  As such, my personal suggestion would be to save the (substantial) money required to buy Vista and install an old copy of Windows XP instead.  Then when Vista 64-bit becomes (more) stable, you can always upgrade without having lost any investment. 

Joe

[Martin Beebee]

I actually just upgraded to Vista x64 with a new desktop (pre-installed) a couple months ago. I've run into a few compatibility issues with older hardware and software, but nothing too serious. (The biggest bummer was the Nikon Coolscan V, but I still have my old desktop with XP, so no worries.) And with 6MB RAM available, Lightroom really zips along! Vista has been perfectly fine otherwise, and seems just as stable as XP -- I have no regrets upgrading.

-Martin