Topic: OT : Which Vista to get...... (Read 4278 times)

JSmithson · « **on:** May 14, 2007, 03:03:41 pm »

I'm about to get a new machine. Which version of vista do I need. Since I use jriver mc should I save $100 and get 'Business' instead of 'Ultimate'?
I know some will say stay with XP, but the future is now.

Thanks
Jim

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #1 on:** May 14, 2007, 03:31:42 pm »

I'd get home premium over bidnez. And I'd buy xp.

glynor · « **Reply #2 on:** May 14, 2007, 03:41:16 pm »

Quote from: JSmithson on May 14, 2007, 03:03:41 pm

I know some will say stay with XP, but the future is now.

Sorry... That's the only advice I have at this point.

If you insist, I personally would probably go with Business if you're going to use it in a networked multi-computer environment. There's a really nice feature-by-feature comparison on Paul Thurrott's site over here: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_02.asp

The big differences between Business/Home Premium/Ultimate are:

Business lacks parental controls
Business supports 2 physical CPUs (important if you happen to get a dual-socket workstation), Home Premium does not
All versions of Vista (even Home Basic) support Unlimited numbers of CPU cores, so dual/quad/octo core CPUs are fine. The above is only an issue if you have two physical CPUs in your machine -- like a Mac Pro or other higher-end workstation.
Home Premium lacks ShadowCopy, Image backup and recovery, Encrypting FS, and Bitlocker full drive encryption.
Business lacks BitLocker (please don't use BitLocker yet, there's all kinds of reported issues with it so far) -- Ultimate only.
Business lacks: Windows Media Center, Windows Media Center HDTV and CableCard support (cablecard is only supported on vendor built systems, you can't add it yourself later), XBox 360 Media Center Extender, Windows Movie Maker, Windows DVD Maker. It is likely that these can be purchased separately if you want them through the in-place "Anytime" upgrade feature of Vista. Ultimate and Home Premium both have all of these features. The vast majority of these features could be provided by MC and/or other 3rd-party apps.
Home Premium lacks Domain support, Offline files and folder support, and IIS Web Server. Business/Ultimate have all of these features.

InflatableMouse · « **Reply #3 on:** May 14, 2007, 03:57:57 pm »

Over here if you buy a new computer you can get the OEM version of an OS. The pricedifference between home and ultimate are only a few bucks and not 100$$, that's the differernce for the non-OEM versions.

But that's over here. Dunno how things are over there

benn600 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 14, 2007, 05:06:59 pm »

Get XP.

I'm so confused as to why Microsoft messes around with ALL the different VERSIONS! Apple has two. A desktop and a server OS...good break. With Windows, lol, it's a joke. They just want more money! With Apple, the pricing is reasonable--$130 for a whole family -- 5 computers! That's the pricing model I would be willing to pay...and there are more frequent upgrades instead of this junkie 5 years scheme.

glynor · « **Reply #5 on:** May 15, 2007, 08:13:42 am »

Quote from: benn600 on May 14, 2007, 05:06:59 pm

Get XP.

And that recommendation is coming from an enthusiast who switched to Vista pretty much immediately upon it's release. When did you say you're switching back to XP, benn?

benn600 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 15, 2007, 09:24:05 am »

I format our household computers right around this time every year. I sincerely plan on reverting to Vista.

If I could list all the reasons, I would. But I have so many reasons it's not even worth bugging everyone. I'll list 3 chief reasons:
1. Horrible network performance/generally poor performance...I bought a nice, new computer in December and Vista helps obsolete it.
2. Control panel and settings in Vista are all messed up with eerie similarities to XP...it's like Vista kinda wants to be something but got screwed half way between XP and being made a new OS.
3. Lots of my hardware has extra issues. My soundcard needs a special driver and still has occasional issues, my printers didn't work for a while until I figured out a "hack." MC is slower.

The list really goes on and on. I am glad to know more about Vista but wish I could get my ~$160 back.

BTW: I did switch immediately. I ordered the download version the day it was released and installed it that evening.

GHammer · « **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2007, 12:58:22 am »

I'd be the first to agree that, out of the box, Vista isn't the OS it should be.
A few settings, switch off system protection (restore points), a disabled Defender here, updated drivers there, and presto!

To the topic, I have Vista Business here. I do not use Windows Media Player, wouldn't use BitLocker on a bet and like the built in backup/image capability. Though I still use Acronis because I have it and I am used to it. If I did not occasionally need to access a domain, I'd go with Home Premium.

hit_ny · « **Reply #8 on:** May 16, 2007, 01:59:52 am »

Quote from: glynor on May 15, 2007, 08:13:42 am

And that recommendation is coming from an enthusiast who switched to Vista pretty much immediately upon it's release. When did you say you're switching back to XP, benn?

Heh, looks like he vindicated all the negative reviews.

For some reason i think it will be different with SP2, but even that might be not guranteed.

Maybe the cut-off date for XP just might get pushed back

glynor · « **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2007, 07:31:37 am »

Quote from: benn600 on May 15, 2007, 09:24:05 am

I sincerely plan on reverting to Vista.

I think he meant "revert to XP from Vista." At least that's what he said in another thread (and it makes more sense in the context of what else he said in that post).

Mastiff · « **Reply #10 on:** May 16, 2007, 11:47:15 am »

If the future is now, why is the future so sloooow? I was using Vista on my laptop since last fall and was patient, because it was only a beta OS. but I finally gave up when the full version turned out to be no better. I'm building a new HTPC this fall, but I'm staying on XP Pro.

hit_ny · « **Reply #11 on:** May 16, 2007, 12:19:45 pm »

Right i think its time Gates got back, Ballmer isn't really pulling it off here is he ?

KingSparta · « **Reply #12 on:** May 16, 2007, 01:45:13 pm »

Quote

OT : Which Vista to get......

This May Help You Decide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ28p-J40d0

JimH · « **Reply #13 on:** May 16, 2007, 02:01:40 pm »

Funny, but just to keep the record straight, Apple copies as well as Microsoft does. Apple stole the original MAC GUI and the mouse from Xerox's Parc laboratory.

KingSparta · « **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2007, 03:05:46 pm »

There Was Also An Issue With Atari's 16 Bit Computers The TOS Was From "Digital Research" And The Apple Mac OS Looked So Much Alike.

Quote

At this point Apple Computer sued DRI in what would turn into a long dispute over the "look and feel" of the GEM/1 system, which was in fact an almost direct copy of the Macintosh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager

Thats When You Could Put A Complete OS In A 256K Chip.

glynor · « **Reply #15 on:** May 16, 2007, 03:06:03 pm »

Quote from: JimH on May 16, 2007, 02:01:40 pm

Funny, but just to keep the record straight, Apple copies as well as Microsoft does. Apple stole the original MAC GUI and the mouse from Xerox's Parc laboratory.

Is it stealing when you hire the same guys to design it, and they implement and expand on non-patented ideas? Apple's original Lisa/Macintosh team was comprised of former members of the Xerox PARC group.

runemail · « **Reply #16 on:** May 16, 2007, 04:06:19 pm »

On a new computer with 1gb or more ram vista is as fast as xp in my experience, both my Vista machines are intel C2D. I just have 1 gb on my htpc and its as fast as xp in my experience, I run a GB wired network at home and performance is fine here.

Some of the "Ultimate" xtras like RDP have been hacked to work under Home Premium so if you don't need to access a domain the choice should be easy.

I recently upgraded my HTPC to be 1080p capable and Vista handles audio a lot better than XP in a HT environment.

The most important lesson I have had with Vista so far is STAY AWAY FROM x64 VERSIONS. Drivers are crap, codecs are a person to find and set up, setting permissions for default programs for different file types is not working the way it should. 64-bit computing sounds nice, but that future is not yet..

Bill Gates said in his keynote speech at WinHEC yesterday that:

Quote

64-bit driver support is currently "only half-way there."

And when he says that..

benn600 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 16, 2007, 05:57:42 pm »

How does Vista handle audio better? lol! Audio is based on the driver for your sound card and that's about all you actually see as an interface.

glynor · « **Reply #18 on:** May 16, 2007, 06:17:13 pm »

Quote from: benn600 on May 16, 2007, 05:57:42 pm

How does Vista handle audio better? lol! Audio is based on the driver for your sound card and that's about all you actually see as an interface.

Microsoft completely overhauled the audio subsystem of Vista. It's one of the few new "features" that I am actually most interested in. Most importantly, it drug the old kmixer out behind the shed and shot it.

Great post over here on AVS from a Microsoftie explains it all (it's a 30+ page thread but he does eventually go into great detail about all the changes beyond just the room correction stuff): http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=713073

Ars Technica did a write up on it, pimping many of the coolest features: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060907-7682.html

And ExtremeTech did a write up on the changes here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1932003,00.asp

JimH · « **Reply #19 on:** May 16, 2007, 07:04:23 pm »

Quote from: glynor on May 16, 2007, 06:17:13 pm

Microsoft completely overhauled the audio subsystem of Vista. It's one of the few new "features" that I am actually most interested in. Most importantly, it drug the old kmixer out behind the shed and shot it.

Great post over here on AVS from a Microsoftie explains it all (it's a 30+ page thread but he does eventually go into great detail about all the changes beyond just the room correction stuff): http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=713073

Ars Technica did a write up on it, pimping many of the coolest features: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060907-7682.html

And ExtremeTech did a write up on the changes here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1932003,00.asp

Dang, and just when we were thinking about writing an OS.

GHammer · « **Reply #20 on:** May 16, 2007, 10:32:03 pm »

Quote from: benn600 on May 16, 2007, 05:57:42 pm

How does Vista handle audio better? lol! Audio is based on the driver for your sound card and that's about all you actually see as an interface.

I think before deciding that Vista is Windows 3.1 you should do a bit of research.
I see all these 'terrible' problems, yet here on two very different machines, Vista is running pretty well. As I recall, XP was pretty useless until SP1 and SP2 made a huge difference, though everyone pointed at the firewall as what SP2 is all about.
The audio is one of the things I like best. Setting different volumes for different things allows me to have MC quite loud and not be jarred by Windows sounds.

benn600 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 17, 2007, 12:43:37 pm »

lol. I remember noticing the improved volume CONTROL and then thinking..hmm, that could easily have been modified with a 3rd party utility. I get sick and tired of these tiny little changes that really should have been pushed out as a free XP upgrade.

here come the flames

hit_ny · « **Reply #22 on:** May 17, 2007, 01:12:18 pm »

Did you at least try out some of the tweaks Hammer suggested ?

The impression i get so far, is if you *have* to use Vista, you find ways around things.

Mastiff · « **Reply #23 on:** May 17, 2007, 01:44:54 pm »

Yeah, but shouldn't a brand new OS work without finding your way around anything? I don't use Macs, I will never use Macs, and the way they do things annoy the hell out of me. But from what I have heard a Mac will work out of the box. And don't give me that about "they all have the same hardware", there's nothing particular about hardware anymore. The manufacturer makes a driver for the OS, and it works or doesn't work, or works badly. Still, a lot of the stuff that's annoying is just bad OS design.

glynor · « **Reply #24 on:** May 17, 2007, 03:28:19 pm »

There are still a few unique things about Apple hardware, even though they switched to x86 chips. For example, all Apple computers use EFI instead of BIOS. While there are probably a handful of other boutique Windows machines out there that use EFI, for the most part Apple has been the early adopter on that front.

Apple also does certainly go their own way with hardware design. Sometimes I like it, and sometimes it seems like it's just an excuse to force you to buy Apple-branded hardware.

As far as the OS... For the most part it most certainly does qualify for the It Just Works^TM seal. I, too, was not a huge MacOS fan when my only exposure to it had been the old OS7, OS8, OS9 lineage of MacOS. I have to say though, OSX has made me a convert. It's really amazing the polished GUI that Apple was able to plop down on top of BSD Unix and still let you access all of that power under the hood. I'd say, Mastiff... Don't knock it until you try it (and you need to really give it a good, solid, try to understand the benefits).

I still use and love Windows for many tasks. But... If forced to choose... OSX is a much better OS in many ways.

hit_ny · « **Reply #25 on:** May 17, 2007, 03:38:37 pm »

Quote from: glynor on May 17, 2007, 03:28:19 pm

I, too, was not a huge MacOS fan when my only exposure to it had been the old OS7, OS8, OS9 lineage of MacOS. I have to say though, OSX has made me a convert.

That's been my impression too, W2k was waay better than os7-9 imo.

I guess i might give it another look, but not until MC gets ported to it.

I don't have much use for a mac until then.

glynor · « **Reply #26 on:** May 17, 2007, 04:29:39 pm »

Quote from: hit_ny on May 17, 2007, 03:38:37 pm

That's been my impression too, W2k was waay better than os7-9 imo.

Yeah...

OS9 is to OSX as Windows 3.11 is to WindowsXP. Not even really the same thing at all. OSX doesn't even look or feel like it came from the same place as OS9 (because it didn't -- OSX is really NextStep + BSD UNIX).

GHammer · « **Reply #27 on:** May 18, 2007, 11:32:40 am »

Quote from: benn600 on May 17, 2007, 12:43:37 pm

lol. I remember noticing the improved volume CONTROL and then thinking..hmm, that could easily have been modified with a 3rd party utility. I get sick and tired of these tiny little changes that really should have been pushed out as a free XP upgrade.

Um, you missed the 'Entirely new audio subsystem' didn't you? Not a 'tiny little change' and certainly not something done with a 3rd party utility.

But then again, you may as well just continue thinking Vista is XP with a new desktop.
Sometimes it's better that way.

benn600 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 19, 2007, 12:03:16 am »

Lol. The only change I see is that I can change the volume on each program's audio stream. Who cares what is under the hood with audio? It just does its thing and the better quality sound card you have, the better your audio quality. Besides, most programs have independent volume control. I'm not about the go through the steps to change the Windows setting for each different program. I'd rather use the built in app one.

johnnyboy · « **Reply #29 on:** May 21, 2007, 11:32:30 am »

Quote from: GHammer on May 18, 2007, 11:32:40 am

Um, you missed the 'Entirely new audio subsystem' didn't you? Not a 'tiny little change' and certainly not something done with a 3rd party utility.

But then again, you may as well just continue thinking Vista is XP with a new desktop.
Sometimes it's better that way.

Think you have to be a pretty hardcore audio boff to care about under the hood changes - abit like those who swear you have to use ASIO for your output and cant use the normal drivers.

For the 'average' user we dont really care what happens under the hood, we just care about the visible changes that effect us in a noticable manner.

Sure Vista might be a completely re-written XP, but if the end result in terms of what we see is the same and we still get just as many bugs, albeit different ones, we dont really care if they spent $32948328432 billion re-making it - we didn't get anything new.

benn600 · « **Reply #30 on:** May 21, 2007, 01:50:52 pm »

Quote

if they spent $32948328432 billion re-making it

I heard $32948328432.56 billion

GHammer · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2007, 07:19:02 pm »

Neo-Luddites.

MadJewDisaster · « **Reply #32 on:** May 23, 2007, 03:21:34 pm »

Quote

Neo-Luddites.

LOL

But can we say than , sometimes , Microsoft is kind of Crypto-Luddism?
Making Neo-Luddites by the use of some of they products ?
And,making development slower throught not finished products and commercial goals ?

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: OT : Which Vista to get...... (Read 4278 times)