which vista version should i get?

Message

fr0zenmon · #1 Post by **fr0zenmon** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:41 am

I think home basic is enough for me but vista is so confusing. i will be managing a website, taking notes and tests. and creating publications and designs w/ quarkxpress and adobe suite. and is it true that vista-64 has operability problems with applications designed for intel-32?

SHoTTa35 · #2 Post by **SHoTTa35** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:11 pm

Applications designed for 32bit OS should work fine, the problem comes in with apps designed with 16bit in mind and those wont work in 64bit at all.

In what ways are Vista so confusing? It's still a Windows OS so most of it should be familiar at the first boot up. There are some changes yes but if MS kept everything the same forever then everyone would complain still. A 2008 car vs 2001 works just the same for fundamentals, somethings are changed but the main stuff (turning, driving, reversing) all work the same in both

For managing a website and all that you said any version should be fine. Adobe might benefit from 64bit though because they aren't locked down to 2GiB per application in 32Bit mode. FYI - only Home Premium, Business, Ultimate (and Enterprise but you wont see that) is available in 64bit.

Trekk69 · #3 Post by **Trekk69** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:43 pm

fr0zenmon wrote:I think home basic is enough for me but vista is so confusing. i

I still like the interface of "classic windows" and use classic start menu and theme.
I just wasn't a fan of the Vista look.
I found the transition from XP to Vista for me was smooth and was enjoyable, because every now and than a Vista feature would come in handy that was not in XP

fr0zenmon · #4 Post by **fr0zenmon** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:55 pm

the ui is pretty smooth. I cant tell what specs are needed to run aero. but i decided that im going to get the cheapest version even if it means i wont have fax and scanning capabilities out the box.

Trekk69 · #5 Post by **Trekk69** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:01 pm

Windows Fax and Scan comes only in Biz.
Check out: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/produc ... hoose.mspx to compare the features

#6 Post by **GomJabbar** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:10 pm

FYI...

Microsoft wrote:The retail package product ships on DVD with 32-bit edition software, but two forms of alternate media are available to help meet your specific requirements:

32-bit CD
If your system features a CD drive but no DVD drive, you can order Windows Vista on CD-ROM. The installation files span multiple discs, so unattended installations are not possible.

64-bit DVD
If your system features a 64-bit processor, you can take advantage of its advanced design by ordering 64-bit software media. You'll get the same interface, features, and functions, but you'll get them in an operating system that takes advantage of access to vastly more memory. All installation files are on a single disc. Please note that 64-bit media is included in the box with the purchase of Windows Vista Ultimate. [Red color added to text.]
---------------
You can order either of these alternate media for a minimal fee, including shipping and handling. To order, you'll need to supply the 25-character product key that came with your purchase.* You'll find the product key on a yellow sticker on the back of your DVD media holder.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1 ... fault.mspx

Additionally, you will be pleased to note that the price of Vista has dropped since SP1 came out. Vista Ultimate full retail box used to be $399 and now is $319. I understand the price for the other versions of Vista dropped as well.

hellosailor · #7 Post by **hellosailor** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:29 pm

Vista-64 is getting no great praise. 32-bit applications apparently run faster on the 32-bit OS, and there aren't many 64-bit versions of most apps. I wouldn't waste my time on it.

I did pay the extortion for Vista Ultimate though, because I just don't want to find out every couple of months "oh, you can't do that, you need another version". Now, if all you are doing isw working solo on web sites, ANY version of Vista (or XP) should work for you. Just be real [censored] Sure that your apps are fully Vista-compliant. Some major vendors still can't figure it out.

Quark told me that my old QXP4.x wouldn't work under Vista--but it works perfectly. Adobe told me that my old PM6.5 wouldn't work but their new CS3 suite would import and run the files perfectly. Except, their live trial version couldn't open them at all and they couldn't explain why that might be. They also didn't know the right "filter" name to open them.

Check the bullet-list of features in different versions on the MS web site, make sure you are buying eveyrthing you MIGHT want. And check sources, if you qualify for an educational version, a not-for-profit employee version, etc., there are substantial discounts available to many people--from legal channels.

#8 Post by **bill bolton** » Fri May 02, 2008 9:56 pm

hellosailor wrote:Vista-64 is getting no great praise.

How did you determine that?

The Vista x64 users here seem very happy with it on ThinkPads!

Cheers,

Bill B.

hellosailor · #9 Post by **hellosailor** » Fri May 02, 2008 10:50 pm

Bill, it seems to depend entirely on what apps you are running and what hardware. Elsewhere, I hear consistent reports that running Win32 apps under Win64 makes them run SLOWER than in native mode. And of course, if the laptop can only hold 4GB of RAM and Win32 can deal nicely with 3GB, which exceeds what most users need, Win64 isn't ever going to really shine with so littel memory compared to what it could run on better hardware.

The users here may be very happy with it, the question is compared to what and for what tasks. The folks I've heard from have compared a wide variety of apps on a wider variety of hardware, and find Win64, like the Itanium processors, may be a product before it's time. When and if the native applications catch up, and if the user is using them, it might be another story.

I stayed with Win32 because I couldn't find any solid reasons for Win64--until my apps are all 64-but and can make proper use of it.

#10 Post by **jdhurst** » Sat May 03, 2008 6:43 am

If one had 32-bit Vista, I can't see any overriding reason to change.

However, for me to start Vista in the first place, and buy a new computer, 64-bit seemed the way to go. I don't see any slowdown of my 32-bit applications.

... JDH

#11 Post by **erik** » Sat May 03, 2008 7:03 am

it depends on what you're doing...

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=242891

personally i think server 2008 x86 feels faster than vista SP1 x64 on my X300 but haven't done an official test. i'm going by the seat-of-the-pants dyno here. even if the 64-bit version was faster, i like having the benefits of 32-bit app/driver compatibility. on my former T61p, vista x64 did feel faster than x86 but again i didn't do any official tests.

with that said, i plan to go back to 64-bit when i get my hands on a copy of 2008 x64.

#12 Post by **bill bolton** » Sat May 03, 2008 8:28 am

hellosailor wrote:Bill, it seems to depend entirely on what apps you are running and what hardware.

Why didn't you make mention that then!?!

fr0zenmon · #13 Post by **fr0zenmon** » Sat May 10, 2008 10:50 pm

i can live without the features. although there are a couple that i think are really nice. i.e. Windows Meeting Space, Windows DVD Maker , and Windows Fax and Scan . are there solutions for this?

msb0b · #14 Post by **msb0b** » Sun May 11, 2008 3:39 am

Ultimate has all 3 of the Meeting Space, DVD Maker and Fax and Scan features you desire. Business edition has Meeting Space and Fax and Scan. Business plus a third party DVD authoring program will work just as well.

Personally I don't like either of the Home editions. They can't join AD domains nor use policy editor (gpedit).

which vista version should i get?

which vista version should i get?

Re: which vista version should i get?

i mean the versions of vista is confusing

i went with vista basic

Who is online