Cesar R Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 What edition and how does it run? Im thinking of getting "business" since I don't need the media center stuff from ultimate. And correct me if I am mistaken but that is the only think missing correct? what about home premium? I can a little confused here; I run a Xeon 64bit. Revit / sketchup / photoshop / max / illustrator / flash / acad mostly for school work at this point since I don't have time to freelance that much anymore. (I know its sad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antisthenes Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 i like everyone else will probably tell you DON'T DO IT just take 1 look at how much less performance it gives in benchmarks at tomshardware based on everything i read this OS is bound to fail. just the fact there is no OpenGL makes it pointless itself to upgrade if you want any professional graphics acceleration. when they say business they mean word not 3d or professional application anything. i would recomend windows 2003 64 bit for your machine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I wouldn't recommend it, actually. Get XP or XP64. Two reasons: -Vista has a lot of overhead. You'll lose RAM headroom and user processes will get less CPU time. -No OpenGL support. Max will be okay in Direct3D mode but Revit will be much slower. I asked one of sales reps what Autodesk was planning to do to address the problem and his response was "nothing, I think". Not going to speculate on what exactly the implications of that would be... but for Revit (and most CAD and 3D) users XP is preferable to Vista. If you really want Vista, I think the Business features would be more helpful than the Home Premium ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaPixel Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Let alone the lack of Vista driver support from most of the peripheral industry which means half of your devices probably won't work yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anvaraziz Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it. bolding of text added http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html I guess XP is the 'ain't broke' choice here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Funny that - it's taken years but now with Vista coming out it finally feels like XP is a mature technology. The 64-bit version works well, everything I have works on it except MacDisk (which would be nice for the sake of an external hard drive I've formatted for Mac), they've basically worked the bugs out and it's secure enough for my taste. Meanwhile Vista's got enough issues to make me not want it. The same thing happened when XP was released - it took a while for hardware to catch up with it and it had bugs that needed work, and meanwhile Win2k worked very well. I think the last Windows release that was worthwhile on day 1 was 2k - I upgraded to that and never wanted to look at NT3.x or 98/ME again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 last Windows release that was worthwhile on day 1 was 2k - I upgraded to that and never wanted to look at NT3.x or 98/ME again. So true. W2K----necessary XP-Pro--necessary evil Vista----evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Gallardo Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 NT 4.0-heaven??? it was for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antisthenes Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 ya i was running 2k in RC1 it was so good. of course i always kept my copy of 98lite handy... and when xp/2k lite came out that was long awaited there are much faster better of builds of windows based on 2003 now from my eXPerience well worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now