Which version of Vista do you use? Tell the truth. Don't be embarrassed.

[gll99]

My old pc p4 1.6 is limiting my ability to capture divx/xvid the way I would like. I was looking at a couple of desktops that are not leading edge but at least come with a P4 3GHz dual core cpu with Vista Home premium installed. I might save a few bucks by building myself but a similar unit without Vista would cost me close to the same thing just for the parts.

I wouldn't trade my XP so expect to get a full version. I'm guessing that version is priced around $130 to $150 Canadian if bought separately but that's just based on a few online prices I saw. Last year it was supposed to be priced at $299.

My question is not what machine to buy but is the Home Premium good enough for video capture and editing etc..? The kind of stuff we do here with this hobby.

What version do you guy's use when you say you run "Vista".

[guns1inger]

Home Premium or Ultimate. Home Premium has pretty much all the video capabilities that Vista gets by default. That said, for video capture and editing you are better off with XP. Many of the legacy capture cards (read anything released up to last December) don't have support or have very poor support for Vista, and many of the better editing tools don't yet support Vista either.

[jman98]

I work in IT for a living as a Unix systems administrator. My office also has guys who support Windows on PCs. They hate Vista with a passion. I run Windows at home and I refuse to run Vista. It's XP for me at home and my company at work. A wise man once said this - NEVER NEVER NEVER install an OS from Microsoft before the first service pack comes out. There are no service packs for Vista. The first service pack is due out in the first quarter of 2008.

Do you enjoy having things that used to work in XP with no problems simply refuse to work all? Like having driver issues that have no resolution at all? Then Vista is for you my friend. If you run Vista despite all the warnings you will get not to do so, don't come crying back here when you have problems. We warned you.

[redwudz]

I have Home Premium. I couldn't see any advantage to the higher price of Ultimate. Of course you can always upgrade it to Ultimate. Vista gives you that option within the OS.

I agree, compatibility and drivers for capture cards (and a few other hardware cards) are a weak point for Vista. I wanted to put it on my HTPC, but no drivers for my HDP-130 card were available yet. And without HDTV it wouldn't be much of a HTPC. So I put XP in it instead. But when and if a driver comes available, it's going to have Vista installed.

[Dv8ted2]

I am an assistant network administrator, security specialist and desktop support specialist at work. I use Vista Ultimate Edition at work. At home, I use Vista Home Basic and XP Pro.

[gll99]

I should add a bit more...

Unless MS limits the number of transfers of Vista, I was thinking that if I go with a pc which includes Vista I would transfer it to my P4 1.6 and move my XP to the new machine which I would use for video capture etc... The older machine might not run everything Vista has to offer but I could practice with it and when Vista is more usable with drivers etc... then I could switch back again.

Does that make sense? Of course that depends on how many roadblocks MS has put in the way of moving Vista from one machine to another.

Before I dreamed this up I had to know if that version was even worth it and then what issue would I face to pull a switchover.

[jagabo]

Unless MS limits the number of transfers of Vista

If you don't buy the full retail version you will be limited. You may be able to get around this by calling the activation line and telling them your motherboard died and you had to replace it. But what a PITA.

I was thinking that if I go with a pc which includes Vista I would transfer it to my P4 1.6 and move my XP to the new machine

If you buy a system from Dell or some other big OEM you're copy of Vista may be locked to the computer it came with.

I have Vista Ultimate installed on one computer (multi boot) but I never use it. I use XP Pro on three computers.

[redwudz]

I have the 'OEM' version of Vista Home Premium. It's says plainly on the box that it can't be transfered to a different computer. But I have no plans for a transfer as I built the PC specifically for Vista.

[gll99]

jagabo wrote

If you don't buy the full retail version you will be limited.

That's something I never even thought of.

It says it comes pre-installed. Why should that be a factor in either case the version is paid for whether through upgrade trade or outright at the register. I didn't know they had limited usage licenses and another category for full licences.

If you buy a system from Dell or some other big OEM you're copy of Vista may be locked to the computer it came with.

What about HP or Acer do you think the OS is locked to the unit for those companies? I'm pretty sure I saw some units from those that come preinstalled. Do names like Gateway or Aspire desktop ring a bell?

[gll99]

I have the 'OEM' version of Vista Home Premium. It's says plainly on the box that it can't be transfered to a different computer. But I have no plans for a transfer as I built the PC specifically for Vista.

Just saw this after I posted my previous comment.

Bummer I don't want to be locked in to hardware like that. You never know what could happen. I don't mind renewing to confirm validity of the license on the switch but having to keep a mobo alive or some other unknown piece of hardware is risky.

[TBoneit]

Working in a computer store, repairs, upgrades and Custom new, I have Vista Ultimate OEM (Price was right, Free from a good customer) and XP Pro on a computer at work.

Now that I said that I mainly stay in XP. When I changed the motherboard to a different make and type, Intel to AMD X2 I ended up having to make the call and convince them it was for repair purposes before I could activate. The first motherboard kept eating the Vista, The RMA replacement did the same, The Third one an Asus seems OK.

Vista seems to be different in the way it activates since I never had an activation problem until I changed the motherboard despite activating it 4 or 5 times on the same hardware.

The Problem with Pre Installed is it usually won't be installable on a different brand of computer. IE Dell Install CDs seeem to crash on other brands.

[jagabo]

It says it comes pre-installed. Why should that be a factor in either case the version is paid for whether through upgrade trade or outright at the register. I didn't know they had limited usage licenses and another category for full licences.

Microsoft argues that the OEM version is sold at much lower prices, hence the "one computer" limitation. The real reason of course is that Microsoft is a monopoly and can do whatever they want.

[gll99]

Thanks guys

I only wanted Vista to play with but I didn't want it for my main computer.

With this information the best option right now is to start looking for the new hardware but stick with xp until Vista becomes more mainstream in the video processing community.

From comments I've read in various forums here and elsewhere that may be a while yet.

[redwudz]

I went in knowing the limitations of the version of Vista that I was looking at. So I have no problem with that. Hopefully others will do a little reading before they commit to a new OS.

I really like Vista. But it has a ways to go. So did XP with it's initial release. Hopefully most people will make their own judgement.

[gll99]

Good point redwudz

I wasn't an early XP adopter and even after installing it I kept a dual boot win98 and slowly increased my time with XP as some of my favorite tools and hardware caught up their drivers or I found something to replace them. Even today I still have a copy of win98se on my system although for a long while now I've only booted there once or twice to fix a crash issue.

My Vista concerns aren't just learning a new OS I'm sure it probably has many features similar to all the other NT flavours I've used. The problem I have is making sure I get the right version for the long term that will do what I need now and in the future. Also I want to be able to switch hardware as it has to outlive more than one computer's life. I don't want something that has to call home all the time in case I want to principally use the pc offline while I expose my older pc to the ills of the internet.

[yoda313]

@ gll99 - you'd probably want PREMIUM than. That's pretty much middle of the road of all the VISTA variants. Of course you'll have to decide if you need the 32bit or 64bit version.

I have vista premium and like it. One other note that I don't think is mentioned is Premium comes with Windows Media Center. That way you can use it like a htpc. Though I don't believe that is preinstalled in Basic version.

I think the only feature that Premium doesn't have that Ultimate or higher has is that video feature that can make a video clip into your desktop background. Now obviously there is more to it than that but I haven't had any limitations with Vista Premium that I know about. Just my opinion

[wtsinnc]

I've just finished six months of evaluation with Vista (RC1), am now back to XP, and don 't plan to try Vista again until/unless MAJOR changes are in place with that OS. Having spent the vast majority of my casual internet time using Vista (I tried all 4 versions), I had forgotten the relative simplicity and almost universal acceptance of XP. Whenever possible, I now opt for free security software because my personal experience has been no noticeable difference versus the "paid-for" applications. With Vista, I never found a useful free third party firewall and only three free antivirus programs (AVG, AVAST, and AVIRA) which provided real-time protection. Vista (at least RC1) is incredibly easy to install, but the lack of useful and compatible free security software was a killer. Among Vista Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate, I found absolutely no difference in ripping/burning dvds, or compatibility with a variety of internal and external burners. I used 1 click dvd copy 5, 1 click dvd copy Pro, dvd 43 DVD Decrypter, Ripit4me, DVD Shrink, Imgburn, DVDFab HD Decrypter, and some instances of Nero ver. 6.1 (Nero Burning Rom was incompatible but pretty much everything else in the suite worked). If you truly need and can accomodate Bitlocker Drive Encryption, Ultimate is the only way to go. If you are enticed by the "Complete PC Backup and Restore" feature in Ultimate and Business editions, take my word for it; you'll be much better off buying Home Premium and using the money saved to buy Acronis 10. Even better; buy Home Premiun and use the money saved to buy a second hard drive and use the free downloadable software from Seagate (Discwizard or the Maxtor Maxblast) to clone your hard drive for a truly complete and foolproof backup solution. Acronis will give you more options, but it isn't free- your choice. In closing, Vista was an interesting experience, but always accompanied by uncertainty and a level of frustration I was not willling to endure just for the sake of a slick interface. If you can, stay with XP. The home edition is the cheapest and unless you need those administrator and/or multimedia features found only in the Pro and Media Center editions, offers pretty much everyrthing else. BTW; XP Home Edition does have file the exact same backup program as XP Pro and Media Center Editions; it's just not a default installed program. You can add file backup to XP Home by accessing the "Value Add" folder and install.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Ultimate (both 32- and 64-bit)

Don't go lower than Home Premium and for multimedia stuff don't use Business.

[Super Warrior]

When i bought my new Dell laptop, i got good ol'XP! To hell with vista IMO.

[redwudz]

wtsinnc, I use the new freeware version of Zone Alarm with Vista. It works much better than the mostly useless Vista firewall. And AVG free for antivirus.

With Nero, you need to use Nero 7 with Vista. But why use Nero when there are freeware burning programs like ImgBurn that work well with Vista? I have never used anything but Nero Burning ROM from the suite anyway.

[Faustus]

Home Premium. My only real complaint is that it didn't include fax software only business or ultimate does and thats dumb.

Thats what I use but to be quite honest if you are worried about vista you do realize you can still get a XP OEM license really easy right?

[wtsinnc]

Thanks for that redwudz. On several occasions, I downloaded the Vista compatible ZA free firewall and always encountered a conflict during or post installation. Two telephone calls to Microsoft plus an e-mail to Zone Labs produced no answer, but I know others have successfully used the free ZA with Vista. I believe the final release of Vista corrected whatever compatibility problem existed with the RC1 build. I am a big fan of the Zone Alarm firewall design as long as the application is firewall only; no integrated virus or spyware scanner. About Imgburn over Nero Burning Rom; I totally agree. Imgburn is about as good as it gets for burning software although I really like Alcohol 120% and am considering buying it because of it's versatility and it's support for multiple burners. Anyone know of other programs that have multiple burner support ? I'm pretty sure Pinnacle has a program, but from what I remember, it costs about $90.00; more than I would ever be willing to pay. Anyway, thanks for the info.

[redwudz]

wtsinnc, I didn't have any problems with Zone Alarm free and Vista. I also used their beta version while they were testing.

Faustus, the program i have been using for several years for faxes is Mighty Fax. It interfaces with my scanner and word processing programs and works great. It also has a lifetime upgrade policy, so it's well worth the small price. http://www.rkssoftware.com/mightyfax/overview.html

Their Vista version is here, same price: http://www.rkssoftware.com/rksfax/overview.html

[gll99]

That's what I use but to be quite honest if you are worried about vista you do realize you can still get a XP OEM license really easy right?

If I just get the new box with no OS, I have XP on my current pc so I'll transfer it to the new one. I can then use win98se on my current P4 pc. I also have an Athlon 1.1 that I'm using to try out a few Linux distros but I'm not ready to commit to that on a full-time box.

I don't think I'd buy another XP copy. If I was buying an OS it would be Vista but under the conditions and for the reasons I stated. It would have been financially advantageous if it came bundled with the box and I could then transfer it to my current pc and use xp with my new machine but that seems very unlikely now based on what's been posted here about OEM Vista not being transferable or reusable because it's tied to a specific brand of proprietary hardware.

Now a couple of you have mentioned the issue of 32 vs 64 bit versions and that never crossed my mind. I might be able to use a 64 bit version on a new box since I've read that most new processor are x64 capable but then I couldn't transfer it to my current p4 1.6GHz. I don't think it can run on a 32 bit machine or am I wrong?

I don't know much about it but if I read this right, it might be harder to run 32 bit apps because even in 32 bit mode many device drivers still have to be recompiled for the x64 platform.

Anybody here with Vista running 64 bit versions?

[DereX888]

Which version of Vista do you use? Tell the truth. Don't be embarrassed.

The truth: NONE.
And I'm not embarrassed.
I already own few legitimate copies of every Vista version (and for free :P ), but I'm not and won't be using it (dont ask, I dont want to get involved in another OT ), thats all.

I wouldn't mind a copy of a last Longhorn beta though...

[redwudz]

I'm fairly sure you can't run a 64 bit OS on a 32 bit CPU.

My worry about Vista 64 is I have XP 64 and there's still not that many programs and drivers to take advantage of it. And it's been around for some time. I'm thinking Vista 64 will be really difficult, especially for drivers.

But with Vista 32, I've only got a HTPC card that I couldn't get drivers for yet. All the video programs that I normally use run fine.

[rotten apple]

I went in knowing the limitations of the version of Vista that I was looking at. So I have no problem with that. Hopefully others will do a little reading before they commit to a new OS.

I really like Vista. But it has a ways to go. So did XP with it's initial release. Hopefully most people will make their own judgement.

Do you find people mostly agree with your view point? - perhaps its so subjective its doesn't really matter ?... but to me although the comparrison is there with XP as is natural/inevitable i assume with any major OS release/(suposed upgrade) transition, the scale of the frustration and stress with Vista is on completely another level while the major current advantages offered by Vista in return to put up with the negatives are aesthetic ones it seems to me. I remember a "long term" buzz for XP right from the start with POSITIVE pre-public release views (a complete contrast to Vista with the Doom and Gloom of DRM even before the impracticalities of widespread slowness,instability + incompatibility reared their ugly heads) - yes some people have been lucky and not had problems but that doesn't negate the significant numbers that have. I don't remember XP being slow and having incompatibilities to the degree Vista has been preinstalled on a prebuilt systems. XPs sweet spot might be 500MB physical memory but that didn't stop it consistently working lightening fast as a fresh install on my 125MB SDRAM, 1GHZ Sempron, 20GB Seagate HDD - and guess what?- people still have speed issues with the needlessly(in terms of positive customer experience - hello endlessly breakable DRM etc) bloated Vista with a modern multi GHZ proccessor and 1GB of DDR. I noticed the OP made a cf. of upgrading to Vista from XP with XP from win98 but surely the size/nature of the jumps aren't fairly corressponding. XP gave much more than pretty looks over the ORIGINAL W2K - stability,usability/user friendly/logical lay out,more features and functions and that was like where Vista is now before any sp's.


Naturally from what you've said, you find the limitations exceptable of your Vista version - is that paying full price for it, could you imagine most people ( Gen public) finding these limitations exceptable in return for what Vista offers over XP or Vista looses cf. XP. I notice a few posters expect prospective buyers to do some background reading before purchase although this topic was about our views by bringing in expectations of others it is no longer ; i'm not sure if a majority of windows users/buyers have sufficient knowledge to make a solid judgement - we computer geeks/freaks are an extreme minority.People have other interests, life/familly/job demands to be learning about the finer points of OS function - i think such a product used by the general public SHOULDN'T NEED THEM TO FIND OUT what a major headache their PCs OS could likely cause them - problems are inevitable but they shouldn't be so widespread as to need esoteric research - surely M$ is charging enough for the product for all this to be more ironed out at this stage regardless if things improve greatly with an SP later down the line..anyway i get enough problems to solve(with software itself and its interactions with the OS etc) by my naturally evolving PC activities and i need an OS to be a firm,supportative and efficient tool to facillitate the softwares performance and intereactions NOT CREATING EXTRA PROBLEMS BY ITSELF!!!

So it looks like my free upgrade to Vista Home premium ( and XP/Vista dual boot city) will be remaining unopened in the bottom of a cupboard and NOT comming to a computer near me in the near future - i actually have stronger personal interest in exploring win98 - i already have an image prepared for S: 2y 8)


PS. I thought any Personal Windows copy (Retail not just OEM) is for one computer at a time only (you can transfer to a new computer but the old one's copy won't receive updates, be validated etc once you reactivate on the new one)- is that not a Main part of the EULA (perhaps i'm confused only ever having used OEMs). You only get one key/serial number per copy????Then XP can only "mould" itself to one specific hardware it records on activation.For biz packages etc the same install copy is needed for convience so modification to gen public buying proccess - think uses "sys prep" tool with image - similar arrangement for OEM copy production.

[gll99]

@rotten apple

Like many others I'm still confused about Vista's current licencing policy and even if favorable to the consumer whether that could change at their whim and fancy hidden in some obscure clause. Early on there were strong indications that (MS)Vista would limit it's licence to one piece of hardware only. I'm not talking about someone deviously reusing the copy on another machine while keeping the original but someone who wants to remove it from one computer and move it to another. I recall some early uproar about that along with a supposed frequent call home feature that would cripple a computer that didn't allow this to happen. That would make offline use of Vista impractical if not impossible without resorting to frequent phone calls to some foreign country and risking the misunderstandings and the "he said she said" arguments that invariably occur with unwritten telephone communication. On the other hand sending licence information and private information over email has never seemed secure or appealed to me so I wouldn't like that option any better. Hence, I made a conscious decision to stay away from even considering Vista and any other software that uses this one sided take it or leave it "agreement". It doesn't mean that licensing can't be verified when the user decides to connect for updates as happens with XP but being forced to do so on an MS fixed schedule is what I object to. I was under the impression that this had changed for Vista but if not then I'm back to square one.

Moving from win98se to XP felt more like moving from win3.1 (via win95) to win98se. Those using win2000 or other NT flavours probably had less to gain when already operating 32 bit apps. As XP became more in vogue the amount of compatible software and hardware drivers made it more attractive for even some of the diehards to switch over.

Moving from 32 bit XP to 32 bit Vista is not so clear. Is most of it window dressing? Is it all eye-candy. Are we being sold higher security when MS really means they are just herding us to an environment where users can be more easily controlled, ie.. licencing, drm, HD content etc....

What are the big points of 32 bit Vista that don't exist in XP and that hasn't been copied from 3rd party software which I may already possess anyway. Don't say a video desktop Heck I can do that in VB using simple api commands in win98se and XP. Xp as it stands is pretty mature and stable so what's the real gain for the user?

[JohnnyMalaria]

Moving from 32 bit XP to 32 bit Vista is not so clear. Is most of it window dressing? Is it all eye-candy. Are we being sold higher security when MS really means they are just herding us to an environment where users can be more easily controlled, ie.. licencing, drm, HD content etc....

Superficially, Vista does seem to be a dressed-up XP, especially since most XP software runs just fine on Vista (most, not all!)

However, in the evolution of Windows, Vista represents a new major version of the OS. Programmers don't use the OS names but rather the official version numbers to differentiate the OS version (e.g., to check a certain feature is supported before running). The version codes are (starting with NT 4.0):

NT 4.0 = 4.0
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1 (i.e., XP was a minor upgrade to Windows 2000. Both are the same family.)
Vista = 6.0 (i.e., a mjaor upgrade over XP, akin to going from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000).

The fact that the vast majority of previous NT code runs on Vista is testimony to Microsoft. One thing they do well is ensure as much backwards compatibility as possible.

There is a lot of new technology "under the hood" of Vista that most end users will never know about - and they shouldn't need to know. However, software developers have been given a new set of tools to generate new, more powerful applications more quickly and more robustly.

You can read about some of these features here:

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars

(It's a l-o-n-g read but definitely worth it if you want to rest assured that Vista is not just a tarted up XP!)

BTW, I develop software for XP/Vista. Writing for XP has been straightforward. Porting to Vista has been a royal pain due to the subtle differences in places. However, given the move from what is NT5.1 to NT6.0, I'm impressed that the changes haven't been worse. Going from NT4.0 to 2000 was much more frustrating.

[DereX888]

Moving from 32 bit XP to 32 bit Vista is not so clear. Is most of it window dressing? Is it all eye-candy. Are we being sold higher security when MS really means they are just herding us to an environment where users can be more easily controlled, ie.. licencing, drm, HD content etc....

Superficially, Vista does seem to be a dressed-up XP, especially since most XP software runs just fine on Vista (most, not all!)

However, in the evolution of Windows, Vista represents a new major version of the OS. Programmers don't use the OS names but rather the official version numbers to differentiate the OS version (e.g., to check a certain feature is supported before running). The version codes are (starting with NT 4.0):

NT 4.0 = 4.0
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1 (i.e., XP was a minor upgrade to Windows 2000. Both are the same family.)
Vista = 6.0 (i.e., a mjaor upgrade over XP, akin to going from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000).

The fact that the vast majority of previous NT code runs on Vista is testimony to Microsoft. One thing they do well is ensure as much backwards compatibility as possible.

There is a lot of new technology "under the hood" of Vista that most end users will never know about - and they shouldn't need to know. However, software developers have been given a new set of tools to generate new, more powerful applications more quickly and more robustly.

You can read about some of these features here:

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars

(It's a l-o-n-g read but definitely worth it if you want to rest assured that Vista is not just a tarted up XP!)

BTW, I develop software for XP/Vista. Writing for XP has been straightforward. Porting to Vista has been a royal pain due to the subtle differences in places. However, given the move from what is NT5.1 to NT6.0, I'm impressed that the changes haven't been worse. Going from NT4.0 to 2000 was much more frustrating.

The main difference I could see are just shuffled old ones and few new variables, a usual thing to come out from Microsoft with every new NT release.
The new stuff 'under the hood' are just DRMs and WGA crap that is completely unneccessary and unneeded by any single user.
Other than that Vista is still the same OS/2 kernel with Microsoft's additions...
Try running some OS/2 software on it - I *bet* it is possible (even though Msoft finally removed OS/2 subsystem in XP SP1 or SP2). What does it tell you - that it is such 'backward compatible' or that nothing (or not much) has changed in the heart of operating system?

So, Vista being the same 1986 IBM's OS/2 "new technology" (with gigabytes of Microsoft's crap dumped on top of it) is no different from Windows 2003, XP, 2000, NT4 and NT3 before it.
Yeah, it just looks different than i.e. NT3 did, but just because Msoft always develops newer/more colorful GUI for the same NT kernel (same as they did with DOS and newer GUIs called "Windows 95/98/ME" LOL) and they always call it "new Windows version", but not everyone can be fooled so easily
What really NEW is there that cannot be added or worked out on earlier NT-line operating systems? Except for DRM-related and WGA-related crap there is NOTHING new. Just the GUI, thats all

OTOH Longhorn, before it was scrapped, was almost entirely new operating system (although still with roots in OS/2 too). Perhaps Msoft one day will get back to it and finalize it - which will make it FIRST and ONLY operating system created completely by Microsoft (after 30 years in business its about time LOL).
But if 20,000 coders couldnt finalize Longhorn in so many years, and all they could come up with in the end is this Vista (which is Windows 2003 with Apple's skin) then IMHO it will never happen.
Unless some other company will make some new advanced operating system from scratch, and Microsoft (as usual) will buy it, rename it, and start selling as "new Windows", otherwise there is no chance for Microsoft to come up with any really new operating system ever...