What is the difference between Vista basic and Vista home premium?

[davidsama]

Is alot of the stuff that is in Vista home premium not in vista basic?
Would you have less trouble with Vista basic than you would with Vista home premium?
Would Vista basic be the one to get if you just did not want what Vista home premium offers?
Would programs and other stuff that do not seem to work right in Vista home premium, work better in Vista basic?
Also would Vista basic run on your pc better and faster than Vista home premium, since it may not have alot of the stuff that would slow down Vista home premium?
Thank you.

[nTekka]

Might want to do some searching yourself on MS Windows Vista site, all features and benefits are listed for all builds of Vista.

As far as I can tell from Vista... Stay away from it if you can a very very very very bad investment. Not enough 'very' in there to emphasis it? pretty much means don't get it. lol

[Dv8ted2]

Might want to do some searching yourself on MS Windows Vista site, all features and benefits are listed for all builds of Vista.

As far as I can tell from Vista... Stay away from it if you can a very very very very bad investment. Not enough 'very' in there to emphasis it? pretty much means don't get it. lol

Thanks for not answering his question. :P

The differences are Premium has the Aero interface and media center properties.

Vista Home Basic -- For those content to browse the web, use email, and create and edit basic documents from their PC. Includes destop search and security tools.

Vista Home Premium -- Includes everything in Basic but also includes the Aero graphical interface, Media Center functionality, and ability to connect to Xbox 360. The version most of us will own at home.

[JohnnyMalaria]

There's more (or less???).

See:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

Bottom line: if you want to do anything remotely related to multimedia, do not get Basic.
Vista Home Basic is what it says - basic.

[redwudz]

And if you find the Aero interface slows down the computer, you can disable it. But Vista works a lot better with a faster computer, dual core especially, and about 2GB of RAM. At least in my experience it only runs a few percent slower than XP, and that's with Aero running, along with UAC.

[edDV]

From my experience,
1GB RAM is a toad. 2GB RAM in Vista is similar to ~750MB in XP.

[Midzuki]

More info about Windows Vista @:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

(free sample below)

Vista includes various requirements for “robustness” in which the content industry, through “hardware robustness rules”, dictates design requirements to hardware manufacturers. The level of control that the content producers have over technical design details is nothing short of amazing. As security researcher Ed Felten quoted from Microsoft documents on his freedom-to-tinker web site about a year ago:

“The evidence [of security] must be presented to Hollywood and other content owners, and they must agree that it provides the required level of security. Written proof from at least three of the major Hollywood studios is required”.

So if you design a new security system, you can't get it supported in Windows Vista until well-known computer security experts like MGM, 20th Century-Fox, and Disney give you the go-ahead (this gives a whole new meaning to the term “Mickey-Mouse security”). It's absolutely astonishing to find paragraphs like this in what are supposed to be Windows technical documents, since it gives Hollywood studios veto rights over Windows security mechanisms.

+++++

[JohnnyMalaria]

Yawn. That's old...

And totally unrelated to the OP's question:

What is the difference between Vista basic and Vista home premium?

If you're going to troll, at least make it relevant.

[davidsama]

Very enlightening article midzuki.

[Midzuki]

Relevance is a point-of-view.
Troll is a point-of-view.
M$ has no plans to decrapify Vista, AFAIK.
There are people who like to defend what cannot be defended,
just for the sake ( or fun ? ) of doing it.

==================

[jman98]

davidsama - I work in IT for a living. We are ignoring Vista where I work because it sucks big time. A wise man once said "Never install a new OS from Microsoft until after the first service pack comes out". There are no service packs for Vista. The first one is due out in March. Yes, there are differences between the various versions. You can get the info at Microsoft's website, but I really can't advise you to get Vista. My best friend bought a new laptop with Vista pre-installed and it's a piece of crap. He bought some new memory for his laptop and he bought the correct memory and he put it in correctly. The mere act of putting the memory in the laptop somehow caused Vista to totally flip out and his laptop will have to be totally reinstalled. It's the craziest thing I've ever seen, but it goes to illustrate why Vista sucks so much.

[Dv8ted2]

davidsama - I work in IT for a living. We are ignoring Vista where I work because it sucks big time. A wise man once said "Never install a new OS from Microsoft until after the first service pack comes out". There are no service packs for Vista. The first one is due out in March. Yes, there are differences between the various versions. You can get the info at Microsoft's website, but I really can't advise you to get Vista. My best friend bought a new laptop with Vista pre-installed and it's a piece of crap. He bought some new memory for his laptop and he bought the correct memory and he put it in correctly. The mere act of putting the memory in the laptop somehow caused Vista to totally flip out and his laptop will have to be totally reinstalled. It's the craziest thing I've ever seen, but it goes to illustrate why Vista sucks so much.

What were the symptoms? I put ram in two computers running Vista and they work perfectly. You must offer more than just saying it sucks. I also work in IT for a living. I am the only one running Vista in the company. The company I work for is about to roll out Vista on every machine. We are changing the machines into the classic mode so the end-users do not notice that much of a change.

I like the new security model that Vista has in place. By default, everyone is a standard user, instead of a admin. That eliminates some headaches.

[Nelson37]

Are you seriously suggesting that your positive experience with the huge sample size of TWO machines is actual, factual, contradictory evidence that the previous poster's experience is untrue or somehow invalid?

I have installed video cards in dozens of XP machines. At least three times, this has triggered a re-installation requirement for XP.

Indicated fact - The re-installation requirement certainly does not happen every time, or even what would be called frequently. However, it DOES happen, is not terribly rare, and indicates an inherent defect in the OS. Installing a new video card should NOT trigger a re-installation requirement.

As XP has few other quirks which lessen functionality, I can live with this one. For Vista, this is just one of many serious defects which make it absolutely unusable. MS's original plan was to allow no more than one installation. They state they have reversed this stance. For now.

[Dv8ted2]

Are you seriously suggesting that your positive experience with the huge sample size of TWO machines is actual, factual, contradictory evidence that the previous poster's experience is untrue or somehow invalid?

I have installed video cards in dozens of XP machines. At least three times, this has triggered a re-installation requirement for XP.

Indicated fact - The re-installation requirement certainly does not happen every time, or even what would be called frequently. However, it DOES happen, is not terribly rare, and indicates an inherent defect in the OS. Installing a new video card should NOT trigger a re-installation requirement.

As XP has few other quirks which lessen functionality, I can live with this one. For Vista, this is just one of many serious defects which make it absolutely unusable. MS's original plan was to allow no more than one installation. They state they have reversed this stance. For now.

No,

I am curious as to what actually happened. Freaking out is not very descriptive. I am asking so I can learn. If I roll out some statement and offer nothing to back it up, then how credible do I appear?

[TBoneit]

Keeping in mind that Vista is more sensative to bad memory than XP did you run a memory test?

It is evidently so crucial that Microsoft now has a memory testing program available last time I looked.

Windows Memory Diagnostic
http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp

[Midzuki]

Is that test more reliable than the old and good one run by HIMEM.SYS

================

[JohnnyMalaria]

Keeping in mind that Vista is more sensative to bad memory than XP did you run a memory test?

Huh? How can a semiconductor array of NAND, NOR and other gates possible have any idea what is using it? That's like saying the CPU is more sensitive. A read is a read and a write is a write. Moreover, it is controlled by the chipset, not the OS. The OS is merely a set of executable modules of code that the CPU runs. The executable code determines what memory operations the CPU should perform. For that to be worse with Vista would mean that the CPU is intrinsically aware of its environment and shares this sentient knowledge with the equally sentient memory. Damn - maybe Intel are better than anyone thought...

Now, memory problems may show up more because larger and larger amounts of memory are widely available and the higher memory addresses are being used more. But the same can apply to any OS.

[redwudz]

Really nothing do do with Vista and nothing to do with the OS at all, but some brands of motherboards seem to be more sensitive to different memory brands. I don't think it's the brands themselves, but the memory specifications. I've got a couple of MBs that just want 1.8V memory and others that can use 2.1V memory modules. If you can't adjust the voltage, you could have a problem.

Then there are different bus speeds, especially between Intel and AMD motherboards. And the memory controllers are different. Throw in dual channel memory pairs and which memory slots can be used on the motherboard, along with mixing memory brands and specs, you may have problems.

But motherboard manufacturers tell you what memory the MB needs. If you use what they suggest, there's no reason to have problems.

And I do run Vista Home Premium on two of my computers with no major problems.

[TBoneit]

When I say more sensative it is beause it uses more memory to operate.

Recently had a computer here where vista would not install.

I tested all the memory and every one showed as defective. ASUS mobo. The original memory was some type of fast memory from crucial. I put in cheapo memory and fine. My guess memory and Asus mobo were not compatible. I say that since I fond it hard to believe 4 pieces of new memory were bad.

Himem.sys could detect bad memory, no way was it thorough like modern day memory testers.