p.1 #3 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
Well, at that level of RAM and processor speed, you probably won't see any difference betwen Vista and XP, but theoretically, since XP takes up less memory than Vista, XP would be faster.
p.1 #4 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
I just made a move from XP to Vista and have 6GB of ram and can still add 2 more gigs. It is faster than XP with all else being the same. The only thing I see about Vista is all the warnings it has but after you get used to hitting proceed all is well.
Handles full size Tiff files without a problem from my 5D.
p.1 #5 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
If your plan is to use this primarily for photography, then there is no possible reason not to use 64-bit Vista. The 6Gb RAM is a waste with a 32-bit OS. Furthermore, I would get the Ultimate version for both it media capabilities and hardware failure features.
Yes, it might still be a bit more work to find the drivers you need, but that is a rarity now adays. PS and LR will run well on the 64 bit machine, and PS CS4 will run faster since it is has native 64-bit drivers/apps. I would guess LR will also in the near future.
p.1 #7 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
Thanks. I did not know that Lightroom is up to 2.2. I think I'll be doing the Vista Box. Will see if I can get an X64 version at a reasonable price..
Dec 19, 2008 at 01:05 AM
prof_fate Offline • • • • • [X]
p.1 #8 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
I'm running LR2 on an XP box (XP pro 32, intel dual 2.33 or 44 Ghz, 4Gb ram, nvidia 8600, dual 19" lcd) and on the new box, Vista 64, intel quadcore 2.33 (.1 slower than the xp box), 4Gb ram, nvida 8600, dual LCDs. Vista rates it at 5.6 overall.
Both have 3gb sata drives for data plus C drives ( the new box mirrord 750s, the old one a single 500 and very very very fractured).
The vista box is faster. 20% maybe...hard to judge as I've not measured one against the other. The biggest difference I see are on import and export.
Vista64 is the same price as 32, or if you have 32 the 64 bit version is a free DL from MS.
I am typing this on my newest box for my sales room. it only has to do invoices and projection sales, but the software will only run on 32bit OS so I went vista32, 2 gb ram, an AMD (duaclcore 5200 2.7Ghz) proessor and a dumber video (nvida 8200 on the mobo). It rates lower across the board except disk (sata 3gb). In the 5s except for the video.
So i'd say don't skimp on the video. I went quad core only because it came that way (costco, an hp box). The AMD is a build - I tried to salvage parts from an old box...ended up with a new box. Oh well)
I've had to hunt for some drivers for my printers, and dealing with Vista's security crap is a PITA. More so cause I don't know where to turn it off!
p.1 #9 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
Thanks for your comment. Looks like I'll be building a new box.
Going with the new i7 processor 6 gig Ram, and going to try vista 64. I should have this running be the end of the year. I'll post some of my experiences
p.1 #10 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
nathanlake wrote:
If your plan is to use this primarily for photography, then there is no possible reason not to use 64-bit Vista. The 6Gb RAM is a waste with a 32-bit OS. Furthermore, I would get the Ultimate version for both it media capabilities and hardware failure features.
Yes, it might still be a bit more work to find the drivers you need, but that is a rarity now adays. PS and LR will run well on the 64 bit machine, and PS CS4 will run faster since it is has native 64-bit drivers/apps. I would guess LR will also in the near future. ...Show more →
x2. Vista 64 runs CS4 very, very well. Especially with a newer Nvidia card that can take advantage of the new GPU direct processing.
p.1 #11 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
Premium Home Vista is okay, the number one benefits are going to be 64 bit support native processing and direct x10. But Vista has it's issues, it can be a PITA sometimes.
p.1 #13 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
Also, I'd stay away from LR 2.2 and stick with 2.1 for a while. 2.2 is insanely slow and uses tons of ram if you keep it open for a while. I've had it use up to 3.25 gigs of ram after only an hour or so of light use. 2.1 was much better in the memory department.
p.1 #14 · Questiion - Lightroom 2.0 on xp vs vista?
I went to LR 2.2 from 1.4, and I think I like it. Not 100% sure.
I'm on 64bit Vista Ultra on a quadcore with 6gb memory. I've a catalog with 98k images (RAW's from 8gb to 10gb cameras).
If I click on a folder name, it' very quick, but if I try to filter the images by keyword across all folders, it can get very very slow (3 to 5 seconds response times).
