DC7 and Vista

[DougMac]

I did a search on this and it looks like most of the threads are pretty old, dating back to when Vista was introduced.

I'm about to rebuild my computer that got clobbered by a virus. One suggestion my son made (he makes his living from computer security) is to install Vista, which he feels is safer than XP.

I was wondering if more folks were running DC7 on Vista now and if they are having any issues. Did Vista SP1 address some of the speed issues?

Thanks,
Doug

[Geebster]

Yeah.... I'd like to know too. In a couple of weeks, I will be switching over to Vista as well. It would be nice to know if anyone is having any issues.

[Craig Maier]

I do not have any statistics, but we run both XP and Vista. Besides feature differences in the operating systems (everything seems to be in a different place or very hard to find in Vista, especially Windows Explorer) the big difference is speed. Vista is slower than XP and that difference is discernable when using Diamond Cut v. 7 products. I can not say how much slower, however. We have not benchmarked it.

[Dan McDonald]

I'm running Vista on my little palmtop with only 1 gig ram. DC7 seems to run ok with it, so I would imagine that it's fine with a desktop. I have found the way Vista has reorganized everything to be the most frustrating thing. I also understand that there will be a new operating system next year also, so if you haven't upgraded yet, you may want to wait.
Dan

[Geebster]

I'm running Vista on my little palmtop with only 1 gig ram. DC7 seems to run ok with it, so I would imagine that it's fine with a desktop. I have found the way Vista has reorganized everything to be the most frustrating thing. I also understand that there will be a new operating system next year also, so if you haven't upgraded yet, you may want to wait.
Dan

If I had a penny over the years for every time I heard that, I would be worth more than Bill Gates right now......

I'll believe the new OS when I see it!

[Brian]

I'll believe the new OS when I see it!

The computer press has been given an early version of it so it is "in the works", but GB is right - MS never makes a release deadline.

To me, the stronger reason not to count on the new OS is the condition in which MS releases their products - full of bugs, unsafe, crashing, etc. -- and (as Craig ponted out) in the case of Vista, a shuffling of of locations of features without, rhyme, reason, or utility. What a great idea, make all your customers go through a massive learning curve just to appease your designers sense of "cool".

[DougMac]

I Think I'll Sit Tight

My other XP boxes are doing OK, not infected.

I'll think I'll rebuild the sick box with XP and implement some policies (non admin signon, careful surfing, frequent scans with multiple programs) and see what happens. All that is possible with zero OS outlay.

With the money saved, I think I'll buy another 750 gig external e-sata drive for the alternate box.

Thanks for all the input.
Doug

[Geebster]

The computer press has been given an early version of it so it is "in the works", but GB is right - MS never makes a release deadline.

To me, the stronger reason not to count on the new OS is the condition in which MS releases their products - full of bugs, unsafe, crashing, etc. -- and (as Craig ponted out) in the case of Vista, a shuffling of of locations of features without, rhyme, reason, or utility. What a great idea, make all your customers go through a massive learning curve just to appease your designers sense of "cool".

Yeah... I've always waited at least a year after a new OS comes out before using it regularly; that way most of the major bugs are ironed out.

I remember all too vividly when my Brother had to be the first on his block to get Vista. Not one of his peripherals had drivers available for it. He had to wait months before he could use everything with his computer and his new OS.

[jfritz]

I've been running it on Vista from the beginning. Because I'm interested mainly in music originally recorded on 78s I work mostly with 3 minute files one at a time. It may be a little slower than DC6 which I also ran on Vista, but I think the performance is just fine.

I have no idea what the performance might be like with long files or batches. The stuff I fool with doesn't lend itself to that. I think that if there's a performance difference with Vista that's the only area where it might make a difference.

I didn't see any changes after applying SP1. That doesn't mean there aren't any, only that in my style of use there was nothing perceivable.

I may be the only person in the know universe who thinks Vista is OK. Since I disabled user account control everything is copacetic. That level of security on a home pc is insane.

[sus4chord]

While I generally like XP better (for performance and ease of use), I do like a number of aspects of Vista. It definitely got much better once SP1 was released (so you really need to take some of the web comments with a grain of salt...Google searches still pull up a lot of pre-release beta comments, and even though post-release had issues, much has been fixed with SP1 and hardware vendors catching up with their drivers. I'm not saying it's great; but it's not awful.

I also disabled UAC, and for me that made it much more XP-like in terms of what I could or could not do. I have a mult-boot machine (XP, Vista, and Ubuntu Linux), and I bounce around between the three of them. I figured that Vista or something like it is going to be the future, so I had better learn it. The hard part of multi-boot is keeping things up-to-date and synched. I keep all my data and common files on a separate drive, so that makes it a little easier.

But all in all, just about everything I run on my XP partition, I also run on my Vista partition.

I used a disk imaging product to take periodic image backups, so if something crashes of fails, I can restore to the most recent backup in a matter of, oh, less than an hour - with the O/S and all applications fully restored.