# Vista unsuitable for photo editing!



## RVsForFun (May 9, 2007)

I just read an article in June 2007 Shutterbug magazine (pg. 62-66) stating that Vista was unsuitable for professional photograph editing. I find this an interesting assesment, don't you?

The reason Vista isn't usable is that when it (regularly!) pops up a security dialog box to authorize an action (every action, it seems), it dims the screen and *DEACTIVATES MONITOR CALIBRATION*! Why it does this is anyone's guess, some programmer did it and didn't tell anyone probably. In any case, the article's summation of the issue is "The effect of this is that it will interfere with editing or printing by making normal screen matching predictably impossible. .... As it stands, with this "bug", Vista as an operating system can't be recommended."

Wow - makes Macs look pretty good, yes?


----------



## sabbath999 (May 9, 2007)

Not that it takes much to make a Mac look good against a windows machine, but I am thinking that bug will prolly be one of the first to be fixed... that's just wonky.

Of course, that whole security authorization system is a nightmare... they advertised all the greater security features of Vista, yet the first thing that almost everybody does when they get it is to turn the security enhancements off.


----------



## newrmdmike (May 9, 2007)

another reason to stick with xp pro for now. . . looking back does everyone remember how crappy xp home was starting out?

microsoft really is pretty disappointing in my opinion, they sell their software half finished it seems, while there will always be bugs etc, that is somthing they surely knew about vista.

kind of like ea, another company who can't finish a product completely.

hmmm . . . macs are looking more and more attractive


----------



## Peniole (May 9, 2007)

I have vista and the only time I get a security warning is when I access a core programme, I mean registration keys and reliability monitors, virus scanners, instaling new software, not from a graphics editing programme, and no it doesn't turn off monitor calbration permanently it just switches to a dim screen and locks out everything else till you authorize or not.

The only way you'd need to authorize every action is if you go to the control panel and click a box that requires windows to do that, it's not the default by a far shot. So far it's been far superior to XP when it comes to clibration and automatic colour profile switching depending on what you're viewing and with which programme. Yes it was annoying at first, witha steep learning curve, once I knew the ins and outs that was it.


----------



## Orgnoi1 (May 9, 2007)

We run Vista on our work laptop... and it works fine for editing... the authorization box isnt something that pops up in the middle of processing... only when you start or change a program... and as far as I know it does not deactivate monitor calibration...


----------



## cigrainger (May 9, 2007)

Why would you try photo editing with Vista? It's a RAM hog.

Vista is seriously a joke.

I really can't understand anyone who would choose a PC over a Mac given the current offerings.


----------



## fotogenik (May 10, 2007)

Cause I just can't get that whole one mouse button thing down.

(Yes I know they have two buttons now)


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

fotogenik said:


> Cause I just can't get that whole one mouse button thing down.
> 
> (Yes I know they have two buttons now)



:greenpbl: :mrgreen:


----------



## HASHASHIN (May 10, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> Why would you try photo editing with Vista? It's a RAM hog.
> 
> Vista is seriously a joke.
> 
> I really can't understand anyone who would choose a PC over a Mac given the current offerings.




because you pay for the looks..not the performance


----------



## fmw (May 10, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> Why would you try photo editing with Vista? It's a RAM hog.
> 
> Vista is seriously a joke.
> 
> I really can't understand anyone who would choose a PC over a Mac given the current offerings.


 
Because you may need a PC to run other software that doesn't run on a Mac.


----------



## Corry (May 10, 2007)

I have the admin control settings turned off.  I do not get those permission pop ups.


----------



## Alex_B (May 10, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> Vista is seriously a joke.



agreed



> I really can't understand anyone who would choose a PC over a Mac given the current offerings.



because you get good PC hardware for reasonable pricing ...

and noone is forced to use vista on the PC ... .


----------



## RVsForFun (May 10, 2007)

According to the article, Vista DOES deactivate monitor calibration on a security dialog box (which happens often). That's the whole point of the post!



Orgnoi1 said:


> We run Vista on our work laptop... and it works fine for editing... the authorization box isnt something that pops up in the middle of processing... only when you start or change a program... and as far as I know it does not deactivate monitor calibration...


----------



## RVsForFun (May 10, 2007)

This will help my brother with his Vista system - he hates all these pop-ups!



Corry said:


> I have the admin control settings turned off. I do not get those permission pop ups.


----------



## karissa (May 10, 2007)

I have not been running vista very long.  I have found that Dreamweaver 2004 causes a security warning when it loads which I find really funny.  I haven't noticed any issues with photo editing.
For Raw support, they have allowed the manufactures to create codecs you can install so that your Raw files will function just like jpgs in vista.  I haven't had a chance to test that out yet but it sounds pretty cool.
As far as Ram hog, I have noticed that while it almost always uses up half the ram I have, even when I load new programs such as Adobe (also known for being a memory hog) the RAM usage doesn't change more than about 5%.
The 16 "Are you really sure?" windows are very annoying however.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 10, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> I really can't understand anyone who would choose a PC over a Mac given the current offerings.



In my case, I would LOVE to have Mac, but don't want to purchase all my software all over again.


----------



## Big Mike (May 10, 2007)

> In my case, I would LOVE to have Mac, but don't want to purchase all my software all over again.


Can't you run something like a windows emulator on the Mac, allowing you to run any software inside of that?  It would eat up more RAW but still work.

I've heard that anyway, not sure if it's practical or not...can anyone confirm.


----------



## zioneffect564 (May 10, 2007)

No on a mac you can fully run windows with both OS up at the same time.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 10, 2007)

ehh...  it still scares me.  All the troubles I had with OS9 and 9.2....  I dread the thought of trying to run old and older apps in a brand new environment....  cross platform


----------



## sabbath999 (May 10, 2007)

zioneffect564 said:


> No on a mac you can fully run windows with both OS up at the same time.


 
I run Parallels (which is not an emulator... those are slow... rather, it is a virtualization program which has virtually no impact on performance)... and CS2 runs much faster in the Windows version than the Power PC Mac version (CS 3 fixes this, of course... but I don't have that yet).

As long as you have plenty of memory, you can run MAC OS X, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro AND Linux, all at the same time on the same screen, with no performance issues. I know, I have done it.

The only thing that doesn't work well in Parallels is graphics acceleration (i.e. advanced windows games). You can, however, simply reboot into a windows partition to run those. No big deal.

People always say about how Macs are much more expensive, and you are only paying for the styling. It's nonsense. That's like saying a Nikon D200 is more expensive than a $100 4MP HP point & shoot, but the only real difference between the two is that the D200 looks cooler.

In truth, you can simply do a lot of things with the D200 that you can't with the $100 HP point and shoot... and you can do a lot of things with a Mac that you simply can't do with a PC.


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

All you guys -- The intel macs all run Windows natively. Not an emulator. All your programs for Windows still work if you boot up to windows on the Intel Mac.

OSX is not like OS9.

You definitely pay for performance, not looks. If you do run OSX, like you should, you get a far faster operating system. The machine is infinitely more capable of taking advantage of the power it's given. The 2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo Macs run at speeds comparable to 4GHz+ on PC, while using less RAM.

There are also no common viruses and no spyware.

There's a reason most graphics designers, film editors, 3D designers, etc all use Macs. And you can say what you want, but they do.

Now that you can boot Windows natively, there's absolutely no reason not to get a Mac.


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> I run Parallels (which is not an emulator... those are slow... rather, it is a virtualization program which has virtually no impact on performance)... and CS2 runs much faster in the Windows version than the Power PC Mac version (CS 3 fixes this, of course... but I don't have that yet).
> 
> As long as you have plenty of memory, you can run MAC OS X, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro AND Linux, all at the same time on the same screen, with no performance issues. I know, I have done it.
> 
> ...



Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't. :mrgreen:


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

fmw said:


> Because you may need a PC to run other software that doesn't run on a Mac.



Doesn't exist. Intel Macs run windows, not emulated.


----------



## Big Mike (May 10, 2007)

I think most people will agree with all that...but what does a '2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo' Mac cost?  I guessing it's a pretty penny.  

Like anything, it comes down to priorities and budget.  I have a camera that costs quite a bit more than my computer because that's my priority.  

I would love to have a fully loaded 5 series BMW to get around...and the specs are much better than my car...but that's not my priority and I can't afford it.


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> I think most people will agree with all that...but what does a '2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo' Mac cost?  I guessing it's a pretty penny.
> 
> Like anything, it comes down to priorities and budget.  I have a camera that costs quite a bit more than my computer because that's my priority.
> 
> I would love to have a fully loaded 5 series BMW to get around...and the specs are much better than my car...but that's not my priority and I can't afford it.



The 20" iMac 2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo is $1499 without a student discount. You can get a 17" iMac 1.83 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo for under a grand ($999 without a student discount). They're cheaper if you're a student or teacher.

That includes a gig of RAM, a good graphics card, good mouse and keyboard, 250 gig harddrive, 90 days complimentary service and a year warranty. It also comes with iLife, which is an amazing package of programs. There are also tons of great open source freeware for Macs.

Expensive? A bit, but certainly not more than a PC that is comparable in performance, can't run OSX, gets trojan viruses or spyware, etc. It's also a neat little package that has a 16:10 aspect ratio HD display, and fast CD/DVD burner.

You simply can't beat a new Mac for value:money ratio. 

And I know at least here in the UK, students can do a lease scheme, which is what I'm doing. I have a G4 Powerbook that has done right by me (except for a problematic battery), and I plan on getting a 24" 2.16 ghz iMac with 2 gig of RAM and the 3 year extended service warranty. Sounds tasty to me, for less than £50 a month with no interest, and option to buy at the end for an addition 2% of the total cost. It's within my budget as a student.


----------



## RacePhoto (May 10, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> Why would you try photo editing with Vista? It's a RAM hog.
> 
> Vista is seriously a joke.
> 
> I really can't understand anyone who would choose a PC over a Mac given the current offerings.



I'm not about to run Vista until I'm forced to. That may be never.

As for your second question. I run PCs just because all my MAC **** friends can't stand it. All they talk about all day is how the MAC does this and includes that... Except the ones who switched to PCs and discovered the rest of the world. It's tiring to hear the same cheering "Mac, Mac, Mac" every time someone asks a question about a PC.

Might as well add that I'm in the process of installing Ubuntu on a test system and may be running Linux soon. So MS Corp. can Byte Me, if they want to issue their new, untested, bug infested, memory hog, OS in the future.

Sorry, I'm not going to join the cult of MAC lovers in this lifetime. 

This thread was about VISTA, wasn't it? Oops, I'm wrong, it was another cheerleader for Macs.


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

RacePhoto said:


> I'm not about to run Vista until I'm forced to. That may be never.
> 
> As for your second question. I run PCs just because all my MAC **** friends can't stand it. All they talk about all day is how the MAC does this and includes that... Except the ones who switched to PCs and discovered the rest of the world. It's tiring to hear the same cheering "Mac, Mac, Mac" every time someone asks a question about a PC.
> 
> ...




... Except I grew up on PCs, programmed in C++, can use DOS natively, ran help desk at a major company at 16 (PC-based), and have run Linux on several machines. My dad is a CIO. I literally grew up behind a keyboard.

I'm 19 now and have had a Powerbook for just under two years. I'll never go back. I used to have a PC desktop with XP and my Powerbook laptop. No need now with an Intel iMac on the way.

Sorry, it's not "the rest of the world". Mac is far better NOW. Anything a PC can do, a modern Mac can do, and most of the time, it can do it better. You can triple-boot OSX, Windows, and Ubuntu. Sorry, you can't boot OSX on a PC, but you can boot Windows on a Mac.

It has nothing to do with cheerleading. It has to do with effective solutions, a better operating system, and better quality.

Linux, while great, is limited as well.

If you choose to avoid is just because you've decided you have to be different from your friends, well that's your loss. Don't try to speciously support that decision any other way.

Oh, and Leopard is going to OWN. :greenpbl:


----------



## Trenton Romulox (May 10, 2007)

It all really comes down to personal preferences and personal budget. 

Spec for spec, Macs are definitely more expensive than PCs, but the OS (Mac OS X) is definitely way better (to me) than Windows XP or Vista. But it really all comes down to what people feel comfortable using. For me, it's my Mac Pro all the way, any day, but for some people, it's XP or Vista. And that's fine. We can all be happy, right?


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

Trenton Romulox said:


> It all really comes down to personal preferences and personal budget.
> 
> Spec for spec, Macs are definitely more expensive than PCs, but the OS (Mac OS X) is definitely way better (to me) than Windows XP or Vista. But it really all comes down to what people feel comfortable using. For me, it's my Mac Pro all the way, any day, but for some people, it's XP or Vista. And that's fine. We can all be happy, right?



Of course. The spec-for-spec thing always gets me though. People don't realize that seemingly lesser specs on a Mac equates to equal or higher performance.

I was just saying it's kind of ridiculous to choose a PC just because other people like Macs. That's pretty unreasonable.


----------



## daisydaisy (May 16, 2007)

Hi

I'm a mac girl through and through but recently bought a PC too. It came with Vista pre-loaded on it, and it ran like a half-dead dog! It would take minutes to open a new program, had a nightmare refreshing the screen, etc and all those "Are you REALLY sure you want to open this file?" questions were driving me crazy.

So I decided to install XP over the top. But Vista said NO! I tried reformatting the hardddrive, but Vista said NO! Everything I tried to do resulted in failure. In the end, I had to run it from an XP boot disk and install it in a separate partition and then delete the original partition, but what a nightmare.

It felt like I was 'Dave' in 2001 A Space Odysee!

I would recommend to anyone thinking of installing it that they do it in a partition first, rather than getting rid of XP because it is really hard to get rid on it once it is there!

Daisy Daisy --<--@

www.shutterspeedtravel.com


----------



## ANDS! (May 24, 2007)

It takes all of 10 minutes to get Vista running the way you want it to.  It amazes me that people will spend hours learning one thing, but toss up their hands in regards to others.

I have Vista running on a Pentium M cpu and 1gig of ram - it is a significantly better experience than Windows XP.


----------



## RVsForFun (May 25, 2007)

I started this thread to mention a monitor calibration issue with Vista and it's turned into a Mac discussion. Based upon one post, I *did* discover the User Account setting that greatly reduces the number of security dialog boxes Vista gives you (but doesn't eliminate them entirely). While this helps a lot, there's no reason for Vista to disable monitor calibration profiles after the box appears (that was the point of the entire thread).

As for Macs, I have no doubt they work better with their hardware, less driver problems, etc. No doubt at all.

What's irritating for me, however, is the inability of Mac owners to recognize WHY PCs are 95% of the market and Mac's aren't - single sourcing. PCs are extensible and there are literally thousands of suppliers, hence the wider selection of software and hardware. Since Macs come from one place, they can control everything about their architecture but at a higher price. I'm not saying I won't use a Mac, but 20 people making video cards is a better choice than 3, for example. 

Again, Macs are wonderful machines and you're not making a bad choice in getting one. I nearly got one for my daughter's HS graduation a few weeks ago, but deferred to PC so that she could have the standard software - Word, PP, Excel and whatever else the college wants her to have.


----------



## Eric Piercey (May 25, 2007)

Ap-ple Ap-ple ..I love Ap-ple! Ra Ra Ra! 

sorry just felt like being a PITA


----------



## Jeffm73 (Jun 20, 2007)

I would buy a Mac if they were simple to upgrade, change hardware, and add hardware. It just isn't


----------



## BAB (Jun 20, 2007)

fmw said:


> Because you may need a PC to run other software that doesn't run on a Mac.


 
I have used Mac for years and not had a problem getting software to serve my needs.


----------



## jstuedle (Jun 20, 2007)

Is it true that Vista strips off the meta data from raw files when it opens them? I don't know if this is a real problem, a problem with Nikon RAW, or a problem with all RAW files. I have resisted upgrading my laptop OpSys due to this reported issue.
     BTW, I still run Win 2000 Pro on my edit machine. It is very stable and has been bullet proof since installation. I have built PC's for some time now and feel very comfortable with the hardware, and the proven versions of Windoz. My first experience with a Mac was a small 10" B&W screen and a puny keyboard. That turned me off on Mac's right there. At the time I ran a  color EGA 17" monitor and felt the platform and OpSys were simply better. Now with a couple laptops, a few desktops and a file server, I can't justify changing computing platforms any more than changing camera platforms.


----------



## jstuedle (Jun 20, 2007)

BAB said:


> I have used Mac for years and not had a problem getting software to serve my needs.



I have a client that owns a sign shop. All his software requires a PC. As a matter of fact, one program requires Win 95. This machine drives a plotter/cutter that is used to cut lettering for signs. Another client is my vet. His lab equipment is all run by PC's only. He does DNA, all typical and specialized blood-work and other tests specific to exotic animals and all this is  PC based. I own a direct to garment Tee-Shirt printer that likes the PC version of it's driver software much better than the Mac version, many features of the software have not made it to the Mac version yet.


----------

