XP/Vista Advice...

I need some advice concerning the 2 OS, XP and Vista in a vs. type scenario.

I have had Vista for about 2 weeks now and I have to say I am quite
impressed with the functions, design, library, etc. Very good idea for an OS.
Thing is, for my use of the computer, or an OS rather, I am usually working
in many different programs at once.

For instance, building website I'd be in Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweave, 2-3
text editors, 2 browsers, and possibly another graphic program or 2.

In Vista I can obviously run all this but it puts up some fairly extreme
lag. In XP it is screams and is lighting fast.

Again, another example would be the way the sound is set up in Vista. I run
sound programs such as Reason and Sonar on 2 different sound cards at times.
First I can't get both to run at the same time with Realtek going. I disable
Realtek but it re-enables on start up which cancels out one of my cards, for
some reason. That aside, just running an 8 track recording presents all sorts
of memory problems that my system used to never encounter. Not to mention I
cannot get a control panel for my soundcard, only the drivers, so I must rely
on Vista's mixer panel, which doesn't have half of the controls I need for
the 24+ I/O on my input interface.

My ultimate question is, with what I am expecting from a computer, a
workhorse, is Vista not the best choice yet? Should I uninstall and wait for
future drivers/updates?

I thought it best to get a second opinion other than my own on this and see
where this goes.

Thanks for listening.

PS< most if not all hardware is fairly new and up to date with drivers
(vista drivers) and is operational, just less control and most of the time it
fails as for some reason 2gb of ram isn't enough all the sudden.

It sounds to me that you are using your computer in a very special way, a
way that not one in one hundred thousand users would do.

You had a fine system before. I suggest you go back to it until all of your
programs and interfaces are known to be 100% Vista compatible.

There are still countless industrial machines that run on the DOS platform -
because it gets the job done. There is no need to try a new operating system
as everything that has to do with the machine would have to be changed.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"john" <> wrote in message
news:EDED724F-8907-40D8-BEB8-...
>I need some advice concerning the 2 OS, XP and Vista in a vs. type
>scenario.
>
> I have had Vista for about 2 weeks now and I have to say I am quite
> impressed with the functions, design, library, etc. Very good idea for an
> OS.
> Thing is, for my use of the computer, or an OS rather, I am usually
> working
> in many different programs at once.
>
> For instance, building website I'd be in Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweave, 2-3
> text editors, 2 browsers, and possibly another graphic program or 2.
>
> In Vista I can obviously run all this but it puts up some fairly extreme
> lag. In XP it is screams and is lighting fast.
>
> Again, another example would be the way the sound is set up in Vista. I
> run
> sound programs such as Reason and Sonar on 2 different sound cards at
> times.
> First I can't get both to run at the same time with Realtek going. I
> disable
> Realtek but it re-enables on start up which cancels out one of my cards,
> for
> some reason. That aside, just running an 8 track recording presents all
> sorts
> of memory problems that my system used to never encounter. Not to mention
> I
> cannot get a control panel for my soundcard, only the drivers, so I must
> rely
> on Vista's mixer panel, which doesn't have half of the controls I need for
> the 24+ I/O on my input interface.
>
> My ultimate question is, with what I am expecting from a computer, a
> workhorse, is Vista not the best choice yet? Should I uninstall and wait
> for
> future drivers/updates?
>
> I thought it best to get a second opinion other than my own on this and
> see
> where this goes.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> PS< most if not all hardware is fairly new and up to date with drivers
> (vista drivers) and is operational, just less control and most of the time
> it
> fails as for some reason 2gb of ram isn't enough all the sudden.

"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:...

> You had a fine system before. I suggest you go back to it until all of
> your programs and interfaces are known to be 100% Vista compatible.

I tend to agree. And if you bother to check my other posts, you'll see I'm a
big Vista booster. But if XP is doing what you need it to do, then stick
with it.

Two other points though:

1) Do you have a 64-bit CPU? There's something about 64-bit OSes that helps
move around big chunks of memory for video editing, sound ,etc., better than
32-bit OSes do. At least theoretically. So you might want to keep that in
mind. You didn't say if you own 32-bit or 64-bit Vista. If it's 32-bit, you
might want to look to getting 64-bit Vista at some point.
There is a 64-bit XP, but I think the general opinion is that the driver
issues won't get better with XP x64, but they will improve with Vista
64-bit.

2) When using Vista, do you turn off things like Superfetch and severely
limit the areas that Search indexes? If not, might be worth trying that to
see if you can get Vista to "scream" for you the way XP does now.

>
> 2) When using Vista, do you turn off things like Superfetch and severely
> limit the areas that Search indexes? If not, might be worth trying that to
> see if you can get Vista to "scream" for you the way XP does now.
>
>

Why would severely limiting the areas that Search indexes have a more than
minor effect on Vista zippiness? I am under the impression that once the
index is built it is not hogging CPU resources. Is that incorrect?
If so I would like to find some way to go back to the XP method of searching
(search everywhere) even if it takes several minutes. (without having to
wade through the "advanced search" dialog every time)

I personally had the same problem and ended up having to upgrade my CPU from
a 3500+ to a 5200+ X2. Now works the same as XP did with the 3500+.


"john" <> wrote in message
news:EDED724F-8907-40D8-BEB8-...
>I need some advice concerning the 2 OS, XP and Vista in a vs. type
>scenario.
>
> I have had Vista for about 2 weeks now and I have to say I am quite
> impressed with the functions, design, library, etc. Very good idea for an
> OS.
> Thing is, for my use of the computer, or an OS rather, I am usually
> working
> in many different programs at once.
>
> For instance, building website I'd be in Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweave, 2-3
> text editors, 2 browsers, and possibly another graphic program or 2.
>
> In Vista I can obviously run all this but it puts up some fairly extreme
> lag. In XP it is screams and is lighting fast.
>
> Again, another example would be the way the sound is set up in Vista. I
> run
> sound programs such as Reason and Sonar on 2 different sound cards at
> times.
> First I can't get both to run at the same time with Realtek going. I
> disable
> Realtek but it re-enables on start up which cancels out one of my cards,
> for
> some reason. That aside, just running an 8 track recording presents all
> sorts
> of memory problems that my system used to never encounter. Not to mention
> I
> cannot get a control panel for my soundcard, only the drivers, so I must
> rely
> on Vista's mixer panel, which doesn't have half of the controls I need for
> the 24+ I/O on my input interface.
>
> My ultimate question is, with what I am expecting from a computer, a
> workhorse, is Vista not the best choice yet? Should I uninstall and wait
> for
> future drivers/updates?
>
> I thought it best to get a second opinion other than my own on this and
> see
> where this goes.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> PS< most if not all hardware is fairly new and up to date with drivers
> (vista drivers) and is operational, just less control and most of the time
> it
> fails as for some reason 2gb of ram isn't enough all the sudden.

You can't change indexing to XP, except restrict its use to almost no areas,
but you are correct that after the initial indexing it has little effect,
except it seems to severely slow down any functions that involve indexing,
like deleting files, moving and copying files, etc.


"DanR" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >
>> 2) When using Vista, do you turn off things like Superfetch and severely
>> limit the areas that Search indexes? If not, might be worth trying that
>> to see if you can get Vista to "scream" for you the way XP does now.
>>
>>
>
> Why would severely limiting the areas that Search indexes have a more than
> minor effect on Vista zippiness? I am under the impression that once the
> index is built it is not hogging CPU resources. Is that incorrect?
> If so I would like to find some way to go back to the XP method of
> searching (search everywhere) even if it takes several minutes. (without
> having to wade through the "advanced search" dialog every time)
>

"Richard Urban" <> wrote in
news::

> It sounds to me that you are using your computer in a very special
> way, a way that not one in one hundred thousand users would do.

What's so special about that. PC's are used for a lot more than E-Mail,
Usenet and browsing you know.

with all you are trying to run together, would not be surprised of an extra 1gb of memory did not improve things.
since 32 bit can access only 3gb effectively, not much sense going larger if you are 32 bit.







"john" <> wrote in message news:EDED724F-8907-40D8-BEB8-...
I need some advice concerning the 2 OS, XP and Vista in a vs. type scenario.

I have had Vista for about 2 weeks now and I have to say I am quite
impressed with the functions, design, library, etc. Very good idea for an OS.
Thing is, for my use of the computer, or an OS rather, I am usually working
in many different programs at once.

For instance, building website I'd be in Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweave, 2-3
text editors, 2 browsers, and possibly another graphic program or 2.

In Vista I can obviously run all this but it puts up some fairly extreme
lag. In XP it is screams and is lighting fast.

Again, another example would be the way the sound is set up in Vista. I run
sound programs such as Reason and Sonar on 2 different sound cards at times.
First I can't get both to run at the same time with Realtek going. I disable
Realtek but it re-enables on start up which cancels out one of my cards, for
some reason. That aside, just running an 8 track recording presents all sorts
of memory problems that my system used to never encounter. Not to mention I
cannot get a control panel for my soundcard, only the drivers, so I must rely
on Vista's mixer panel, which doesn't have half of the controls I need for
the 24+ I/O on my input interface.

My ultimate question is, with what I am expecting from a computer, a
workhorse, is Vista not the best choice yet? Should I uninstall and wait for
future drivers/updates?

I thought it best to get a second opinion other than my own on this and see
where this goes.

Thanks for listening.

PS< most if not all hardware is fairly new and up to date with drivers
(vista drivers) and is operational, just less control and most of the time it
fails as for some reason 2gb of ram isn't enough all the sudden.

john wrote:
> I need some advice concerning the 2 OS, XP and Vista in a vs. type scenario.
>
> I have had Vista for about 2 weeks now and I have to say I am quite
> impressed with the functions, design, library, etc. Very good idea for an OS.
> Thing is, for my use of the computer, or an OS rather, I am usually working
> in many different programs at once.
>
> For instance, building website I'd be in Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweave, 2-3
> text editors, 2 browsers, and possibly another graphic program or 2.
..
..
..
> fails as for some reason 2gb of ram isn't enough all the sudden.

I think you identified the problem. Vista is a memory hog, and you
keep lots of programs in memory.

Are you running Aero? My Vista box refused to even install Aero because
of my toy video card, and I notice Vista runs much slower than XP on the
same machine. I've been blaming it on the lack of video power, but I'm
too cheap to test the hypothesis by buying a new video card.

Read again about his special 24 channel audio interface (that's mechanical -
inputs) that is very likely not Vista compatible.

I have worked in control systems my whole life. There are countless I/O
modules that are designed for one specific type of modified computer. The
computers are run until they burn up. The modules can not be used with
another type computer.

In the O/P's case, the module was designed for Windows XP.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"DanS" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9919BBA73F946thisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in
> news::
>
>> It sounds to me that you are using your computer in a very special
>> way, a way that not one in one hundred thousand users would do.
>
> What's so special about that. PC's are used for a lot more than E-Mail,
> Usenet and browsing you know.
>
>