Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Activity Forums Adobe After Effects Xp or Vista for After Effects on a Quadcore PC

  • Xp or Vista for After Effects on a Quadcore PC

    Posted by Deleted User on December 22, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    Hello,

    I am trying to work out any dis-advantage on using Windows XP PRO 32bit on the following system

    Intel Quadcore Q6600 2.4ghz CPU
    4x1gb of 1066mhz ddr2 ram
    Nvidia 8800gtx 768mb ddr3 ram graphics
    Asus Motherboard P5N32-E SLI Plus

    Using this Quadcore setup with After Effects CS3, would my system be using the full speed of this Quadcore setup, or would Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit give me any improved performance and spped with rendering?

    I can’t seem to find much info on the benefits of XP or Vista, I know Vista is pretty new and many editors are not using Vista. I have tried Vista and it seems fine no issues so far with Adobe Production premium CS3.

    Is there any benchmarks for After Effects cs3 on Quadcore systems on XP and Vista? Any improvements running Vista over an older XP operating system?

    Thanks,

    Leo

    Sney Noorani replied 17 years, 8 months ago 5 Members · 4 Replies
  • 4 Replies
  • Bill Clotz

    December 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    Well first, I would recommend using 64-bit vista or xp if you want to use your full 4gb of ram. On a 32-bit operating system, it can access about 3.2GB at most.

    That said, vista itself is a lot bigger and more bloated than xp is, and that could eat up a few hundred MB of your ram in itself. Also, early reports are saying that the upcoming service pack 3 for windows xp makes it significantly outperform vista at many tasks.

    That said, I’m running Vista 64-bit myself. I don’t particularly like it, but I also don’t hate it enough to want to go through the trouble of switching back to XP.

  • Brendan Coots

    December 24, 2007 at 7:01 am

    I agree with baclontz, Vista is a bloated resource hog. Upon opening Vista (no apps running) people report it using 700-900MB RAM, just to run! That is nuts, and is 3 times more than my XP machine uses.

    Also, I have heard many stories of Vista issues with graphics apps, compatibility problems etc. While some people have no problems at all, others can barely get things working because they happen to have a particular piece of hardware or the “wrong” software installed so Vista completely flips out.

    As baclontz commented, you are better off getting the 64-bit version regardless of which OS you decide on.

  • Scott Keck

    December 26, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    Stick with XP. There’s a reason Dell and many other OEM sellers have had to continue offering XP as an available OS with their machines – demand. Adoption of all flavors of Vista is lagging far behind Microsoft’s desired migration pace. Compatibility issues and the need to totally upgrade your hardware (because Vista is such a resource hog) are the two top reasons people list for NOT changing from XP to Vista. And yes, you’ll have difficulty getting your machine to boot to a stable Windows environment if you try 32-bit XP with 4 GB of RAM installed. I am running 3GB with 32-bit XP, very stable. But add that 4th GB and no dice.

    Improviz in SF

  • Sney Noorani

    November 11, 2008 at 7:06 am

    hey,

    I’ve just bought an almost identical setup to what you describe,

    q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz
    4GB DDR2 Ram
    P5Q-E Mobo
    nvidia 9500 GT

    which did you pick out of Vista and XP? I’m currently running XPPro 32bit, but I only just learned about 64bit versions of OS’s being able to access more than 4GB RAM, so I’m thinking of switching OS’s.

    Did you ever use AE under Vista? did you ever switch to a 64bit OS? and was it worth it?

    cheers

    S /

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy