Why does Vista?....

[oscar6]

Why does Vista 64 Ultimate take so much longer than XP home to:
1. open and flip through pics
2. Show thumbnail pics in a folder full of pics (XP also kept the thumbnails cached when the folder was left then re-entered. Vista does not seem to.)

Why does Vista NOT open jpegs as regular pics in the windows pic viewer like XP does. In XP, it was easy to flip through jpegs as though they were pictures.

Why does Living Desktop in Vista Ultimate use so many more CPU cycles then any other desktop image. I would think it would use just more GPU via area. I don't use Living Desktop because of the above issue as well as very poor IQ on 2560x1600.


Vista 64 Ult for about 1 week
e4400 stock @ 2.0GHz
WD640 hdd
4GB DDR2
ATI X1950XT
Gigabyte P35

 

[zod96]

Because vista is slower at everything it does compared to xp and yes I'm sure people will say their vista systems are faster than their old xp systems, but its a case by case thing. I had vista 64 and it was much slower at doing anything compared to my xp system. I wouldn't upgrade to vista, I'll skip it and wait for windows 7

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: oscar6
Why does Vista 64 Ultimate take so much longer than XP home to:
1. open and flip through pics
2. Show thumbnail pics in a folder full of pics (XP also kept the thumbnails cached when the folder was left then re-entered. Vista does not seem to.)

Vista should browse through photos quickly. Also, it does cache the thumbnails for photos. Keep in mind, if you run the disk cleanup tool, the default is to also delete the cache of thumbnails. So make sure to uncheck it when you run it.

I'm also running Vista 64 ultimate and my Pictures folder is well over 1800 files large. I can view all the thumbnails near instantly (now that they all have been generated) and that includes BMP, JPG and NEF (Nikon RAW) format.

Why does Vista NOT open jpegs as regular pics in the windows pic viewer like XP does. In XP, it was easy to flip through jpegs as though they were pictures.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Windows Photo Gallery, the included picture viewer, allows me to view JPEG files just fine. The only thing I can think of here is that the files you are trying to view are spatial/lossless JPEG formatted files. Windows XP nor Vista can view them without a software package that can read them. Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 can't read them, neither can any version of Windows Photo Gallery. I use Paint Shop Pro to open and edit that particular format.

Just as a side note, I highly recommend downloading Windows Live Photo Gallery (works under XP and Vista) It's a better version of the included photo viewer. It can view more formats, though not lossless JPEG.

Why does Living Desktop in Vista Ultimate use so many more CPU cycles then any other desktop image. I would think it would use just more GPU via area. I don't use Living Desktop because of the above issue as well as very poor IQ on 2560x1600.

I assume you are meaning the Dreamscene Motion Desktop extra that comes as a bonus for Ultimate users through Windows Update. DWM, or Aero, uses the GPU to render the windows desktop environment. Dreamscene is actually running a video file in a loop and displaying it on the desktop. It's not much different from watching a movie in media player, quicktime or any other movie viewer. Aero is rendering the UI on the GPU, but the CPU is being used to decode the video footage being used as the back ground. That's why Dreamscene uses more CPU cycles than a set wallpaper image.

I personally don't use Dreamscene. While it's cool to have, I feel it's still a bit buggy and occasionally causes the graphics driver to crash for me when I am playing video games.

 

[Tempered81]

IMO, vista is just slower at most things than XP. In some aspects it is faster though.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: zod96
I wouldn't upgrade to vista, I'll skip it and wait for windows 7

Is Windows 7 a lot faster than Vista?

 

[Redox]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

I'm also running Vista 64 ultimate and my Pictures folder is well over 1800 files large. I can view all the thumbnails near instantly (now that they all have been generated) and that includes BMP, JPG and NEF (Nikon RAW) format.

Griffinhart, I noticed you refer to Nikon RAW format but I have read that there is an issue with Vista 64 and the Nikon RAW Codec not being compatible with Vista 64. As I own a D300, this is a consideration for going with Vista 32 bit vs. 64 bit. I'm not really familiar with the issue since I run XP currently so appreciate any comments.

Thanks!

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: zod96
I wouldn't upgrade to vista, I'll skip it and wait for windows 7

Is Windows 7 a lot faster than Vista?

Lol, I love comments like these. "Windows Vista is SO SLOW, so maybe the next version of windows will be faster (Which will be based on the previous version...)" Then once Windows 7 is released these same people will be complaining about how slow it is compared to Vista.

And the beat goes on

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Redox

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

I'm also running Vista 64 ultimate and my Pictures folder is well over 1800 files large. I can view all the thumbnails near instantly (now that they all have been generated) and that includes BMP, JPG and NEF (Nikon RAW) format.

Griffinhart, I noticed you refer to Nikon RAW format but I have read that there is an issue with Vista 64 and the Nikon RAW Codec not being compatible with Vista 64. As I own a D300, this is a consideration for going with Vista 32 bit vs. 64 bit. I'm not really familiar with the issue since I run XP currently so appreciate any comments.

Thanks!

Yeah, I know, This one actually caught me by surprise the other day. Now the codec pack lets you install it on 64bit machines. What happened to me was, I ran Windows Photo Gallery and it told me that I needed a codec to read my files. So, I decided why not.

I saw that the description still said 32bit only but it let me install it. That's actually different from the last time I tried to install it. Installing the codec didn't seem to do anything. Neither Explorer nor Windows Photo Gallery displayed my NEF files. I decided to load Windows Live Photo Gallery, which does work with NEF files. Once Windows Live Photo Gallery generated the thumbnails for all my files I noticed that Explorer was also displaying them.

Weird, I know, but it worked.

edit:
I just wanted to add, to clear any confusion on the subject. It's not that the Nikon Codec is actually required to manipulate NEF files. It just needs it to display them through the Explorer shell and applications that use the same shell.

Here's what it does for me:
Vista Version and RAW Codec in action.

 

[Redox]

Thanks for the detailed response Griffinhart.

After some deliberation, I decided to play it safe and go with Vista 32 (for a variety of reasons) but it is interesting to note your experience.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
IMO, vista is just slower at most things than XP. In some aspects it is faster though.

Yep, my browser comes up so fast I cannot believe it.

Takes many seconds in XP.

 

[oscar6]

The superfetch in Vista is a nice feature. My programs typically load very quickly.