C4D with Vista - 64-bit or 32-bit?

[chromecity]

Correction... I just found out I was wrong about my presumption that quad-core PC's had to use either XP 64-bit or Vista (out of the MS offerings). According to Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx), a quad-core should work fine with XP 32-bit. Sorry for that earlier misinformation on my part. But everything else in my post is still pertinent, because I'm still not interested in using XP 32-bit on the new box.

[AdamT]

I seem to recall that you need XP Pro 32 bit (as opposed to Home) for quad cores and above.

[chromecity]

Hi Adam,

Apparently, that all boils down to semantics (right up your legal alley). If the processor is truly a quad-core and not two dual-cores, even XP Home can run it. Here's the passage about that from Microsoft:

Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.

[chromecity]

Okay, to make this simpler, let's just make it one question:

What are the pitfalls I can expect to encounter (directly related to C4D R10.5 usage) if I decide I want to leverage more RAM and go with Vista 64-bit over Vista 32-bit?

I'm guessing some plug-ins won't work, but I don't know what else to expect. If someone has done this, can you please let us know about your experience? Thank you.

[Per-Anders]

Get XP64, I don't think that Vista is worth it yet.

[chromecity]

Hi Per-Anders,

Thanks for your input. If it has to do with general distaste for Vista, I am well seasoned with that situation. I did a lot of the beta tests over the years and cannot believe the steaming pile that they finally decided to release. It simply boggles the mind. But in terms of what will actually work or not work, is there a reason to avoid Vista 64-bit and use XP 64 instead? XP 64 seemed like it was shoe-horned together a bit, almost like a bandage and it's got no real future. As much as I despise Vista, I'm trying to go with the flow here a little bit (until I can afford about $3400 for the 8-core Mac Pro I've been drooling over).

[LucentDreams]

keep in mind that while 64 bit will offer the ability to use more ram than a 32 bit version, it also means you using up an extra 600 or so megs of memory for your os so you better be offering several gigs more to make ti worth it.

[Per-Anders]

My reasoning is simply that XP 64 works and has drivers that work, the software works on it, is stable etc while Vista does not, nor that, is not and will lead you to many headaches as things stand. I have no feelings on Vista as an OS itself, but right now it would be foolhardy to use it, it would be running beta software more or less, note the thread just one or two down about textures not showing in bodypaint in vista etc.

[chromecity]

@Kai - interesting. Thanks - I had no idea about that memory difference taken up by just the O/S's themselves.

@Per-Anders - if you spend much time with Vista, you can come to hate it as much as I have. ;) But sometimes you have to just confront the enemy and cut your losses. Hehe. Reading through that Bodypaint thread is what prompted me to start this one. Well that, and the fact that the quad-core box showed up on my doorstep yesterday...

Thank you both for your insight.

[philhoole]

I've had C4D and others run perfectly happily under XP64 and Vista64. No problems at all except for some very early graphics driver issues which have long since been fixed.

I must be one of the few people who actually like Vista! It works and has never (ever) BSOD'd on me on 3 separate machines. I really don't have any battle scars from moving to Vista and find some of the hostility towards it a bit baffling.

The thing about the OS swallowing up to 1GB is not what it seems due to the changes in the way Vista manages memory. It treats empty RAM as wasted RAM and will cache programs and data in case they are needed again. If a running application requires more memory then it dumps cached info. I don't doubt that Vista's foorprint is larger than XP64 but it is not as bad as people think. See the link below.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/03/VistaKernel/

So, I like Vista, it works and don't believe all the "horror" stories although of course there will be people who have genuine issues. Maybe I'm just lucky!

Having said that, XP64 was rock solid for me too.

But back to the original question - If you are going to go with Vista then as long as you know any plugins you require are available in 64bit then I don't see any reason not to go with Vista64. I don't know what the situation is with Quicktime I'm afraid. Probably still doesn't work at a guess.

[chromecity]

Thanks for sharing your experiences, Philip. I'll keep that stuff in mind.

[Srek]

I seem to recall that you need XP Pro 32 bit (as opposed to Home) for quad cores and above.
Not exactly. Microsoft limits the number of useable processors depending on the OS version, but not the number of cores per processor.
For example XP Home will support one CPU with as many cores as are available, while XP Pro supports up to two CPUs with as many cores as possible in each. For more than 2 CPUs you will need Windows Server.
Cheers
Björn

[RenderTITAN]

Sticking to your original post (and second) I want to comment on the QuickTime comment. I personally think you should NOT be using QT ever in C4D. Sure it has its benefits of ease upfront, but it really can have many gotchas later in yoru pipeline like not working wih 64bit, or slower upload and render times over NET (Now you have to distribute that QT to all your nodes and each one now has to scrub for the frame that you want etc). Of course the smaller the QT files, the weight becomes less, but still an image sequence is always best to keep everything working properly in all situations. IMHO. (I can't think of a situations that an image sequence is a problem.)

Usually the 64bit issue is that you lose plugins.

More memory usage can easy be overcomed with added ram which will hellp you in the long run anyway.

However, that said, WinXP64bit is our choice and I know you are asking about sticking to Vista and I just do not feel compfortable calling it stable, yet.

[chromecity]

Hi Mark,

I don't actually use QuickTime in Cinema. The only reason I mentioned it is because at least at one time, Cinema supposedly required QuickTime to be installed. I don't know the specifics (I imagine someone like Srek/Per-Anders/Kai/Adam could fill us in about that), but I just wanted to make sure I was properly prepared if I was going to 64-bits.

After seeing people's responses here - and finding out that my motherboard will only support 4GB of RAM, I'm going to try to stick with the Vista 32-bit O/S that came on the quad-core machine and see how that pans out. So far, C4D seems to be working fairly well with about 3.3GB of RAM at its disposal. That's still a big leap from the last machine which was XP 32-bit and never work correctly with the 3GB switch, so it could only have 2GB installed. After the O/S took its share, that left about half of the RAM available that I'm getting now. Thanks everyone for your responses.

[RenderTITAN]

Going to a Quad-Core will be a nice upgrade and even if you went at 64bit, it will give you at best a 15% performance increase and in many situations, the troubles may not be worth it.

For us, I have people dedicated to solving those gotchas of our network (Not all necessarily with 3D or C4D).

I am happy with my upgrade to 64bit, but at the individual artist level it is a choice. Afer all, like in your situation, you are limited by the motherboard which kinda kils the alure of upgrading to 64bit. (Then of course the whole drivers issues, and then plugins etc...)

Good Luck!
M

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.