Home Premium vs. Ultimate- help me decide

System Restore -- I always use Norton Ghost, so this is a redundant feature for me.

Fax and Scan -- no real use for either (obviously could come in handy in the future, but I can't justify paying more for this feature)

Remote Desktop -- no forseeable need

BitLocker -- I can't see a need for my personal use, unless someone else offers advice to the contrary (I am totally open to suggestions)

And just to make clear, either can be upgraded to 64 bit for free from MS if I desire, but Ultimate includes the 64 bit in the package? So I guess lastly, in relation my other (redundant) post, does 64 bit in either version offer me anything? My use will be productivity, internet, torrents, Blu-Ray, and ripping/burning DVD's mostly.

Ultimate includes the 64-bit DVD in the packaging, whereas Home Premium requires you to order it from Microsoft for a nominal fee.

And as for 32-bit vs 64-bit, 64-bit lets you exceed the 4GB RAM limitation and offers minor performance increases with select applications, but poses additional software/driver compatibility issues.

John

Some benefit can be had from the 64-bit version of Vista based on what you describe. If you can find a 64-bit video player for your DVD/Bluray playback, it will lessen the burden on the CPU somewhat. Probably not as much as all the SSE2 and SSE3 instructions, but it will lessen it a little.

And it might improve DVD ripping speeds, depending on whether or not you're encoding them into some other format. If yes, video encoding should see a pretty significant boost from a 64-bit OS... Assuming your encoding app is also 64-bit. Of course it seems like just as we start moving into the wonderful world of 64-bit, the focus becomes on using the GPU for video encoding, and even decoding. So, depending on the app, may not be as much benefit as there might have once been.

Just don't be scared off by people who say app and driver compatibility is less. App compatibility, by and large, should be the same with both versions of Vista. There will be some specific exceptions, but for the overwhelming amount of software, if it runs on the 32-bit version of Vista, it will run on the 64-bit version of Vista. Finding 64-bit drivers can be a bit more difficult, but the hidden benefit to that is that a lot of the cheap and junky hardware that you probably don't want within 50 feet of your computer, is less likely to have a 64-bit driver... Whereas the nicer, albeit often more expensive, hardware does.

You shouldn't see any benefit on anything Internet... Most browsers are 32-bit anyway because a) there's little point to a 64-bit version, and b) some plugins like Flash won't work since they're 32-bit only.

Torrents are the same deal. There's nothing about a 64-bit torrent client that is going to make your downloads any faster. And some specific aspects of productivity apps may benefit from 64-bit, but on the whole, probably very little benefit.

Games can and will benefit if they have any kind of 64-bit extensions.

Generally, only things that use a lot of 64-bit variables are going to benefit, and probably the biggest uses of those are in multimedia apps. Video and audio encoding being probably two of the biggest examples. The catch is, you need three things to make it all work: A 64-bit CPU (a P4 with EMT64 or anything with the Core branding from Intel, and the Athlon64 from AMD), a 64-bit OS, and a 64-bit app. Two out of three won't cut it.

Most of my work consists of (in no particular order) MS Office 2007, DVD Shrink, Nero 7, Zune software, Windows Media Player, BitTorrent, NeroVision 4, and a bit with Photoshop and Premiere Elements. Do these benefit from 64bit instructions? Also if you have any suggestions for DVD rip programs that take advantage of 64 bit (if DVD Shrink doesn't) that would be most appreciated!

Not sure on most of those. The main thing is, there won't really be much of a performance hit if you take a 32-bit app and just recompile it as a 64-bit app. This is unlike a 32-bit app trying to do 64-bit operations.

So if there's a 64-bit version of some program you use, you may as well grab it and use it unless it's something like the 64-bit IE. You'll either get little to no benefit from it or a pretty good amount of benefit, depending on the program.

Photoshop CS4 will be available in a 64-bit enabled version, but it hasn't completed beta testing yet. The others are a simple no. I will add, though, that DVD Shrink is prohibited in the US while most of the content on BitTorrent is illegal, so watch yourself.

John

IF basically all of my commonly used programs cannot/do not take advantage of 64 bit, then it seems like 64 bit does not do much for me at the moment. However, if/when I decide to migrate to 64-bit, is it relatively simple, a la upgrading Windows via SP's?

The higher marks go to 64 bit enabled apps.

This is OBSERVED and timed with a stopwatch over the few machines we were able to do this.

GAMERS will part with thousands of bucks for 2 percent so let's hear it for them!

There is no upgrade/conversion path from 32-bit to 64-bit...you must backup your files, reformat, install all applications from scratch, and restore your files from backup. Best to pick one and stick with it unless you have the time on your hands and do not mind the repetition.

John

Not at the moment, though you COULD replace the giant bloated mess that is Windows Media Player with a nice 64-bit version of MediaPlayer Classic HomeCinema. Virtually all the features of Windows Media Player, plus a large number of others, all packed into a single binary file of under 5MB. Toss in a 64-bit version of ffdshow, and you're good to go for virtually any audio or video file you can throw at it. So far as I know, even in Vista x64, Windows Media Player is a 32-bit app.

But you will need to pick one or the other now, unless you don't mind formatting later, as already said. There's no upgrade path, only formatting and starting over. Right now you buy Vista x64 for the potential it brings down the road once more 64-bit apps start rolling out.

FWIW, I have a friend who has the 32-bit Vista, and honestly my system runs considerably smoother with Vista x64. Given my friend is probably every bit as competent as me with computers, I'm inclined to put it down to his system being an HP. In case you missed the memo, always avoid HP/Compaq systems or you're bound to wind up regretting it.

True , you DO have to start from scratch for the OS, but you do not need to wipe your hard drive before you do so... Vista will back up any files you tell it to before conducting upgrade. You can name this folder whatever (old stuff from days of yore, be creative!) After you upgrade, you will notice 2 different program files folder, Program Files and Program Files(x86). The second folder is where your 32 bit apps will go.

Have been running 64 bit Home Premium for about a year now and definitely notice a more stable system. And ignore the remark about HP/COMPAQ.... I have run HP computers in my business and home for years and really no better / worse than Dell, Gateway, (Insert favorite brand here). And yes I have 2 Dell Laptops, a Gateway and a Acer at home, so I can speak confidently on this subject.

And while I wish I could argue against, mostly everything on BitTorrent is hacked so be careful.

So then what about ALL the people here, and on other forums elsewhere on the Internet, who have HP/Compaq systems and experience large numbers of problems? It's not like I just came up with this out of nowhere, since I'm a reluctant Dell owner and prefer to build my own systems. It's just my old system died very unexpectedly (thank you UPS) and I didn't/don't have the time to research parts for a new system or have a good place to assemble a new system. The comment to stay away from HP/Compaq systems is based on observing that there seems to be a disproportionately high number of issues reported on places like this by people who own HP/Compaq systems... Not so much people who own Dell, Apple, Lenovo, or Toshiba systems.

But I suppose because you have a couple of HP systems that don't give you any problems, that should discount the experiences of scores of others who have had problems. Clearly all those people are just delusional, or are just seeking attention, and your experiences should trump theirs. You don't have to look very far to find evidence of self-bias do ya folks?

Take a look around these forums and some others you find on the Internet. Keep a running tally of how many issues are reported with HP/Compaq systems compared to other brands. And obviously it's no fair going to say the Dell support forums and then claiming that you never saw a single person complain about anything but Dell systems. We're talking generalized forums like this one, that cater to any make and model. I bet you'll find that HP/Compaq makes up more than it's fair share of reported problems. I haven't actually tabulated any results, but I'd say HP/Compaq accounts for probably around half of all problems reported. So even if you split that over the two brands, ignoring that it's the same company producing them... Just among the major brands of Apple, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Dell, Gateway/eMachines, Acer, and obviously HP/Compaq... That's a total of 8 major players in the computer OEM market, so with an even distribution you'd expect each OEM to experience about 12.5% of all reported problems. If you boost that to 10 brand names, and HP having both HP and Compaq brands, then you could expect them to account for 20% of complaints using an even distribution. If you remove Toshiba from consideration because they really only make laptops, then you're looking at anywhere from about 14.3-22.2% of complaints for HP/Compaq. That's assuming each vendor had an equal number of complaints... So, really, HP/Compaq seems to have around 2X its fair share of complaints, using my informal estimation of around 50% of complaints being about HP/Compaq systems. But if you want to conduct a more formal study, be my guest. We'll keep it simple, since you're only one person... Find 4 other forums like this one, and observe them for a full month. Keep track of every brand reported in the initial problem report, and then we'll see which one has the most in the end. Assuming there aren't any issues where one company gets a bad batch of parts and has to issue a recall. As those are generally isolated events, they would unfairly skew the results.

Maybe it is because more HP systems are sold. A lot of problems are from people who have no idea how to use a computer must less solve problems.

I personally own HP laptop, Dell laptop, Gateway desktop, MacBook, and two desktop PCs I built myself. I have had no problem with any of them.

Cheers!
Misha

Please keep on target. This discussion was not about which PC's, etc., have problems.

Besides counting number of complaints (in forums, etc) is totally unfair. You must know complaints per units sold within given time periods further quantified by OS/hardware componets used and the end-users technical level before you have a clue of good -vs- bad vendors/systems/software products.

In these forums you will consistantly see low-tech users complain about problems with vendors/hardware/software when the problem is them ... ie: people who run unknown registry cleaners and blame them when they hose over their system (after they gave the cleaner the 'go' to delete registry entries without looking/understanding the impact).

The question was about pros & cons regarding different Vista releases. I for one have found several answers informative and I thank those who offered real info.

Goodtime Charlie, VA

It's a good rough estimate to check other forums to see which systems seem to have higher numbers of reported issues. It's not a perfect figure, and the margin of error will certainly be higher, but the goal here isn't perfect accuracy, but rather just a good general idea.

I do wholeheartedly agree that there is a lot of misplaced blame out there. Microsoft is the primary whipping boy for virtually anything that happens with a computer. Sometimes it's deserved, most of the time it's nothing to do with Microsoft, or Bill Gates. Bill Gates probably hasn't written any significant bit of code in over a decade, yet somehow he's responsible for every little thing that goes wrong with Microsoft software.

Still, there are a lot of issues that are clearly the result of poor quality hardware. If you take Windows completely out of the equation, and you try and install Linux on an HP/Compaq system, you will likely encounter far more problems than you would trying to install Linux on say a Dell system. Not to mention you're more likely to encounter runtime issues with Linux programs far more often on an HP/Compaq system. Errors that again, point to dodgy hardware.

In any case, in a holistic way, this is very much an "on target" discussion. Not every problem reported is the result of something stupid the user did. And what do you suppose is the next logical question after you decide on which version of the operating system you want?

Finally, I do always find it amusing when someone complains about keeping some discussion on topic, and in doing so, contributes to the very problem they're complaining about. Never ceases to bring a smile to my face. My grin is particularly broad today, since you dredged up such an old discussion just to spend all by the last sentence complaining about keeping the discussion on topic. Yes, yes, I know... I have a warped sense of humor. Always have, always will.

System Restore -- I always use Norton Ghost, so this is a redundant feature for me.

a. Not a feature you can choose to not install. Common to ALL versions. You can turn it off.

Fax and Scan -- no real use for either (obviously could come in handy in the future, but I can't justify paying more for this feature)

a. Uninstall or choose not to. If this feature is considered bloat, why are you not going for XP?

Remote Desktop -- no forseeable need

a. An optional item you can choose later.

BitLocker -- I can't see a need for my personal use, unless someone else offers advice to the contrary (I am totally open to suggestions)

a. Research more about so you can decide.

And just to make clear, either can be upgraded to 64 bit for free from MS if I desire, but Ultimate includes the 64 bit in the package?

a. Yup.

I think I also read somewhere that Home Premium does not support logging onto Windows domains, while Ultimate (and Business) does. Is this true? I'd say this isn't a big issue, but more and more, it seems that domains are becoming more popular - the computers at the community college I used to attend now log into a domain (I found that out through a friend), and I just helped the place that I work transition to a domain. Both school & work have XP Professional, since the Home version does not support domains.

Which leads me to a question: is there any way to get third party support for domains? Such as ... if I wanted to log in to the domain with an XP Home machine or Vista Home Premium machine, download some software that could connect me to the domain?
How about using Ubuntu - can I connect to the domain then?

It would appear so... Home Premium does not appear to have a mechanism for joining a domain. I highly doubt Microsoft would sit idly by and allow someone to cut into their Business and Ultimate sales by offering some kind of means to allow the cheaper Home Premium to join a domain. They would likely get a nasty letter from Microsoft's lawyers in no time.

I don't know if SAMBA on Linux can join a domain, or just function as a domain controller, but that would be your best bet on Linux for a Windows domain. Otherwise, it tends to favor the open LDAP, which is basically the same thing as a Windows domain.

In XP, various features of Pro have been replicated by 3rd parties for Home users.
Pro has Remote Desktop features that Home does not, but VNC will allow Home users to do remote sessions without any monetary cost.

In Vista, Ultimate has the hard drive backup program that can create a mirror image of the information, but so can Norton Ghost (usable in Home Premium), as has been mentioned. MS hasn't called Norton with a cease & desist.
Vista Ultimate has DreamScene, which is an animated video wallpaper, and I'm pretty sure there's 3rd party software that can do similar functions. Linux has it, too, though it's a little more difficult to set up, and desktop icons aren't supported when the wallpaper is animated.

Network domains are in large software, so I can't see it being difficult to write a piece of software that could connect to a domain. Of course, I'm not a super-advanced software writer (I only have one semester of C++), so I couldn't accomplish such a goal.

Those are different. It's all about money in the business world. Remote Desktop and whatever else are nothing compared to the money Microsoft makes selling Active Directory licenses.

Plus, Telnet very well predates Microsoft, and is fundamentally the same idea as Remote Desktop. Otherwise, VNC has been around for at least a couple of years before Microsoft came up with Remote Desktop. DreamScene, aside from being incredibly pointless, and an epileptic's worst nightmare, is predated by things like Xsnow by around 10 years at least. Norton Ghost predates Microsoft's backup program by several years... So aside from Microsoft not having no hope of getting a court ordered injunction barring the sale of these products, Microsoft doesn't really SELL these products. They're just little bits tossed in to try and get people to buy Vista Ultimate. Virtually every product Microsoft has ever made, is a poorly done clone of an existing product. Even Active Directory is just a proprietary LDAP server, but it makes them money and so they will protect it quite fiercely.

I was just giving examples of various things, but you're right - active directories are definitely a bigger feature than the other things.

But certainly a client could be easily made to connect to the server? Maybe I'm not aware of how difficult it really would be, since the software does have to communicate on the network, and not just on its own machine.

I'll just comment -- and some people will undoubtedly get upset about it but that's their problem -- that probably half of your problems are related to poor hardware quality and poor design that is typical of HP/Compaq systems.

In particular, the BSOD issue is likely directly related to the rather shoddy quality control that has long been a hallmark of HP systems.

The upgrade issue was likely just one of those network issues that can, and does, happen from time to time. That's why any time it's a large installation, like a service pack, I'll download the full installer, not some download manager.

Personally I'm more of a build it yourself sort of person, but thanks to UPS and some other circumstances, I find myself the owner of a Dell running Vista x64. So far, it's been just fine. No BSOD issues, no real issues of any kind aside from the ATI Catalyst Control Center no longer working, but it appears to be a bug that predates the launch of Vista by about half a year give or take.

Microsoft deserves quite a lot of flack for the numerous stupid things they've done. Both from a legal standpoint, and from a software engineering standpoint. However, aside from saying that Windows needs to be more fault tolerant, there's really only so much you can do to keep software running when the hardware it depends on is spitting out unpredictable results... Because it's defective.

Vista is nothing terribly special, especially if you have a system already running XP... But it's not this horror story that people try and make it out to be... IF you run it on non-defective hardware. Which is why I always say to stay away from HP/Compaq and Acer systems. There is a reason they offer better on paper specs to other models at a significantly lower price, and it's because they cut every conceivable corner, INCLUDING quality control.

I appreciate your comment and can see that you have a low opinion of HP computers.
I take no offense to this at all, because I really don't care about brand names (in most cases), but rather judge their individual products on a case-by case basis. I have seen some highly-praised makers come out with some true lemons, while some disrespected brands have put out high-quality products. Most larger manufacturers have profit motives and stockholders' interests as top priority, and they realize that neglecting quality control ultimately costs them far more money than it saves, so they at least try to avoid it. But there are some that seem to care more than others.

The manufacture of system components today is so highly automated and integrated that quality control is not the issue that it was when components were individually installed and checked by specially-trained technicians. PCs nowadays are really more of a generic commodity without nearly as much distinction between brands as there used to be.

I've shopped PC brands since 1985, and have bought them in a wide range of prices and brand-name recognition. Sometimes, I've been burned by laying out lots of extra cash for a well-known brand with a great reputation, only to be disappointed when it breaks down and I get crappy service. Other times, I've bought stuff with the same specifications at a fraction of the price, and it was trouble-free. So, to me, the old saying, "you get what you pay for", is not always true. I go by the specs of each unit, not brand name.

I have an eMachines desktop that came with XP Home that I bought in 2001 from Best Buy on closeout for $250 that was my main PC for 4 years, and I used the crap out of it. Since then, it's been "the main family PC", and it still works fine. I've never had to reinstall the OS, just defragged it and protected it with free firewalls, antivirus and spyware controls.

I replaced that as my personal PC in 2005 with a cheap Acer laptop from CompUSA, with a single processor at 1.7 ghz. It came with XP Home also. Unbelievably, that machine is still actually FASTER in most cases than the Vista HP laptop I bought to replace it. The HP dv9207 has a Centrino Duo running at 1.77 ghz.. It's the first HP PC I ever bought, after I researched the dv9000 series and couldn't find any significant negatives about the hardware itself. I liked it so well, I bought my wife one just like it at the same time. Her screen had a problem after 10 months. We shipped it to HP at no cost and we had it back, fixed, in 4 days, so I have no problem with their service. As I said, I'm not loyal to any brand, but I have had several of their printers, including a Deskjet from 1985 that still refuses to die.

I just think it's more than coincidence that those 2 CHEAP XP machines have served me so well, and I've had so much trouble and aggravation with Vista, on a machine that has no hardware problems.

Oh, absolutely even the top tier companies can have problems from time to time, but HP/Compaq and Acer seem to have disproportionately high occurrences of problems compared to other vendors.

I won't deny that you can get a system that will run extremely well from HP or Acer, I'm merely saying that it's a crapshoot whether or not you'll get a good one or one that will be an absolute nightmare.

I don't really share your sentiment about modern business. Unfortunately, short-term profit goals are all that matter anymore, and if that means sacrificing long term profitability or whatever else, that's usually what's done. I personally place the blame on the stock market, where the whole mentality is on making a quick buck by buying and selling stock. This puts immense pressure on businesses which have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, and misguided bonus structures whereby a low level manager's job or quarterly bonus is likely tied up in whether or not they meet some projections. We wonder why we can't compete with the rest of the world in the US, and we never seem to look at the numerous ways we sabotage our own efforts. The stock market is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the US economy. Copyright and patent laws play another huge role, but another discussion for another time.

My main point is that if you take a look around these forums, and probably other forums you may find on the Internet, you will find that certain brands seem to make up the bulk of reported problems. You don't see a lot of Dell owners in here complaining about things that are clearly some sort of hardware issue, and you very rarely see anyone complain about their Apple or Lenovo systems suddenly crapping out on them. At least not anywhere near the same frequency you see HP/Compaq owners complaining about such things for example.

While it's true the assembly process is largely automated, there IS often a difference in where parts are sourced. Companies like Apple and Lenovo may not always go with short-term contracts with whomever is the lowest bidder that week, but go with long term contracts with a company. Their systems may be a little more expensive as a result, but the parts they are sourcing will likely be quality. When you do short-term sourcing, you increase the odds that you're going to end up buying some parts from what is essentially a dummy company selling off stolen parts that were slated for being disposed of for failing quality control. This does actually go on quite often. A couple years back, a fairly high ranking AMD executive was convicted of doing just that. Diverting CPUs slated for destruction to someone else for resale as new parts. There's also a huge market for "fake" flash memory cards on ebay. Sometimes these work extremely well, but most of the time they cause people problems when they try and use them with their handheld game consoles or digital cameras.

Anyway, I can just say that while until very recently, for the past several years I built all my systems personally. They were always incredibly stable whether I was running Windows or Linux. Meanwhile, people around me would have brand name systems, and be suffering one problem after another. An old roommate of mine got to where he had a weekly ritual of formatting his HP system once a week.

I don't think you can completely dismiss the "you get what you pay for" notion, but it's certainly not a hard and fast rule.