Will Premiere run on Windows Vista?

Trenton Scott · February 14th, 2007, 12:24 PM

Here's a balanced Vista review, showing both the good and bad. They give it an overall score of 9/10, noting important improvements over XP. On the downside, there's a 10% drop in overall system performance due to early, generic/non-optimized device drivers, but gains in the user interface, security and stability outweigh this slight drop, which as they reviewer notes, is not noticeable for users with strong hardware:

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/01..._review/7.html

As for Mac OSX comparisons, much of Vista is old news, but it's not old for long-suffering XP users...

Wes Coughlin · February 14th, 2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Wagner

I've given it plenty of time through all the betas and final code = still crap.

Me not being a major in computer science, I'm curious what specifically do you fell that the final code of vista is lacking?

Marco Wagner · February 14th, 2007, 08:34 PM

Well driver support first off (but that is not Vista code). It has been months since the RTM came out and most OEMs and other manufacturers had plenty of time to get a stable Vista driver off the shelf. Creative and Nvidia still lack in that area as history dictates. MS didn't make it ANY better by delaying and constantly changing what the final product would actually become. It is totally different from what they promised it would be. They essentially rushed it out the door in time for OEMs to advertise x-mas specials, when it should have been held for another month or five. MANY beta and RTM testers were complaining and suggesting refinements –MS didn’t listen. If you look on theregister.com and theinquirer.net, among other sites, you will see that (1) gamers are having issues with Vista. (2) Security folk are having issues/nightmares with Vista. (3)Some companies are outright recommending NOT getting Vista until SP1. (4)They burned XP64bit basically; who’s going to right media based drivers for an “outdated OS” now? Nvidia can barely get out Vista divers that don’t BSOD your box. But alas, these are not OS code issues.

The coding in Vista lacks in that all they did was add/steal a few features you can already get for XP or native in OSX. It is NOT built from the ground up as they would like to have you believe, a friend who is an analyst said she was still spotting Win3.11 code in some areas that 3rd party anti-virus companies actually remove/edit from kernel or near kernel level. Vista made this much harder for those people too, but it could be a necessary ‘evil’. By definition the Security Center is malware! I got Vista running pretty quick and stable on my machine recently (it ate 358MB more ram at startup but hey). The only problem was the extent of crap I had to go through that ordinary people haven’t a clue about –and my hardware is less than a year old. XP wasn’t nearly this bad when it was new and shiny…

It is nowhere near being implemented at my work, a military funded LARGE company. I think our release date is historic too, a full year longer than when XP was rolled out -2009ish est.. We have a link on our intranet home page that lists what Vista is incompatible with that we use (everyday hardware and software like any large co. would use). The list got too long and we had to simply switch to not supported for the status as we have hundreds that work from home that went out and bought Vista.
Hey I’m all for a new OS with new cool stuff, but this is REEEEDICULOUS. It’s like a really good looking pizza that came out of the oven too soon and still has raw dough inside, lol. I’ll cross my fingers and hope that they work the bugs out over the next year, as always. I’m just glad I don’t have to pay for any of the versions of Vista, I’d not be happy shelling out the cash for Ultimate. I failed to mention the DRM infection, the EULA that is written by aliens, and the lack of anything worth a costly hardware upgrade for most.

Salah Baker · February 14th, 2007, 08:43 PM

Well if you want to try your Adobe purchase on a OS that Adobe dosnt support ....feel free
99$ bucks vs. a proven workflow...do the math

Marco Wagner · February 14th, 2007, 08:46 PM

Very true.

Wes Coughlin · February 14th, 2007, 11:59 PM

--Marco--

When talking about driver support, is it mostly just for the x64 version of vista that is causing the problems? or are there x86 driver problems as well?

And I'm 100% with you about Microsoft taking ideas(even maybe code ideas) from OS X, as in the 5 years of development vista has very few--if any original features. But for me (not apart of a huge military founded server crazy setup), vista seems to run smoother and better then XP. and its prettier.

Marco Wagner · February 15th, 2007, 10:45 AM

It seems that way as many are reporting being able to use some XP drivers for 32bit Vista. I don't know exact numbers though.

It also seems, IMHO, like AMD and Intel are killing 64bit dev. with multi-cores. I read an article somewhere where the author made a good point -why are we throwing two, four, and eight+ cores at an OS that can barely properly cope with one (see DEC ALPHA). We should be writing better code such instead of just putting more engines in the car. Now don't get me wrong I LOVE my dual core -but I wonder how quick my editor would run if it were 64bit on a 64bit OS with my 64bit single core vs. my dual core running everying 32bit...

John Miller · February 15th, 2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Wagner

Nvidia can barely get out Vista divers that don’t BSOD your box.

Strange. My nVidia drivers work just fine on my Vista Ultimate RTM. The feature set of the configuration tools, on the other hand, is lame compared to the XP versions. But, the hardware drivers work. I've been using Vista RTM everyday for hours since November - not a single BSOD.

Quote:

The coding in Vista lacks in that all they did was add/steal a few features you can already get for XP or native in OSX.

"They stole this, they stole that." WTF? Apple have "stolen" from Microsoft, too. And they have both "stolen" from Xerox and Sinclair (seriously! - Sinclair QL - January 1984 - true pre-emptive multitasking 32-bit OS - about 6 years ahead of Microsoft and more than a decade ahead of Apple.)

Quote:

It is NOT built from the ground up as they would like to have you believe, a friend who is an analyst said she was still spotting Win3.11 code in some areas that 3rd party anti-virus companies actually remove/edit from kernel or near kernel level.

Much of Vista *IS* built from the ground up. The GUI is tightly integrated with the Direct3D pipeline. That's a major change. The audio layer is COMPLETELY NEW. There are a host of other new frameworks as well - all of which you can learn about at Microsoft's web site.

Quote:

It is nowhere near being implemented at my work, a military funded LARGE company.

Why's that remarkable? In a VERY LARGE company that I have worked for (>100,000 employees), we used NT4.0 until about 4 years ago. By-passed 2K and implemented XP in 2004. SP2 finally came along in mid-2006.

Clearly, you don't like Vista. Fine. Don't buy it. But enough of the emotive nonsense. Plenty of people do (and will) like it. It was the same when 95 came out. And XP.

John Miller · February 15th, 2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Wagner

why are we throwing two, four, and eight+ cores at an OS that can barely properly cope with one.

Huh? Microsoft's NT-based OSes have been "properly coping" with multiple CPUs for more than 15 years....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Wagner

We should be writing better code such instead of just putting more engines in the car.

Why? Porting legacy 32-bit apps to native 64-bit can be a time-consuming and expensive business. For many ISVs, it just isn't worth the investment. However, with 64-bit CPUs becoming de rigeur, *new* applications should be written to be able to be compiled for native 32-bit and native 64-bit platforms. But, compared to just a few years ago, it's more cost-effective to add hardware.

Marco Wagner · February 15th, 2007, 11:59 AM

Quote: