Upgrading Vista?

[Mylofian]

I'm considering upgrading my Vista Home Premium to Vista Ultimate. I have a new Toshiba Satellite with Intel Core 2 Duo 2.00Ghz 2.00GHz, 4.00gb RAM, and the video card is Mobile Intel 965 express chipset. Do you think I will have any troubles in terms of sluggish performance or compatibility with any of my existing files or programs?





Mylofian added to this post, 1 minutes and 58 seconds later...

Also, it says I can't run the Vista Upgrade Advisor on my 64-bit system, so I don't know what it would recommend

[HackerX]

I'm considering upgrading my Vista Home Premium to Vista Ultimate. I have a new Toshiba Satellite with Intel Core 2 Duo 2.00Ghz 2.00GHz, 4.00gb RAM, and the video card is Mobile Intel 965 express chipset. Do you think I will have any troubles in terms of sluggish performance or compatibility with any of my existing files or programs?


Why on earth would you waste your money on Ultimate? You'll notice no difference what so ever, they're essentially the same thing.

[Gwydion]

Vista is going to be replaced in a couple of years anyway: hardly worth it.

[Mylofian]

Because I can get it for $20 through my university. That didn't answer my question anyways.

[Silent]

The problem comes from the video card I guess. A slightly better video card is recommended if you want to enable the eye-candies of Vista. CPU and RAM wise, you have more than enough firepower to run vista.

Well, whether you should upgrade to Vista or not depends on what kind of application you're going to use (you did not told us anything about that).

[Uberfuhrer]

I'd save my money and wait for Windows 7. Vista is actually being replaced by Windows 7 next year in June or July, I think.

[ClydeB]

Theres no difference in the core operating system between home premium and ultimate. Ultimate just has alot more add ons to it. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. has a nice marketing chart to show you the differences.

I personally got tired of the performance (or lack there of), UAC and other junk that comprises Vista. I put Windows XP back onto my laptop and have been alot happier.

Until sp3 for XP that is. But thats another story.

Clyde

[HackerX]

Theres no difference in the core operating system between home premium and ultimate. Ultimate just has alot more add ons to it. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. has a nice marketing chart to show you the differences.


This being my point. Between Home Premium and Ultimate, you're only missing out on some functionality that I don't suspect is worth the $20 to you. The core look and feel, and 99% of the core functionality is the same between them.

Will your graphics chip there suck for ultimate? yeah, but it will be no different than premium.


Now, if you were to say, you had Home Basic and for $20 could get Ultimate, then yes, go for it.

[whiteslate]

I use Ultimate on a server-connected sytem at home and the Bitlocker addon is nifty tool to have; for me the value is way above 20bucks tt you'd have to pay to get Ultimate. Qn is, tho, Mylofian, what are the value of the addons for you?

And yeah, Vista's architecture will still be unstable for a lot of prgrms, and future outlook isn't too good either - Windows 7 will be an credible improvement only for touchscreen sytems; I predict.

But consider the time you;ve taken to consider whether or not to get Ultimate, and then the minutes you spend upgrading it and re-tweaking and customizing your PC. Is it worth the $20?

[Undead Bonzi]

My personal vote would be to snag an old copy of XP if you can find the drivers to make you machine work (probably not as you laptop is too new).

Anyone else amazed at just how bloated an OS Vista is? I don't want a damn OS that is pretty, sluggish and a memory hog. I want functional, fast and inuitive with a clean look. (god if only Mac's supported half the programs I use) 2 Gigs of RAM to run an OS? It's nuts. I wont switch to Vista untill they drag me kicking and screaming.

[void]

If Home Premium runs well, then so will Ultimate. However, the transition could be time-consuming and a bit dangerous for your data. You might have to wipe and reinstall. As with any other major modification to your operating system, a full backup of your data onto a separate drive is strongly recommended.

Your programs will run as well as they always have and performance will be no worse.

[azelismia]

I am going straight from xp to 7. 7 is vastly improved over vista

[azelismia]

I am going straight from xp to 7. 7 is vastly improved over vista

Installed Win 7 tonight. it's very nifty. No critical failures yet :)

[ClydeB]

the Bitlocker addon is nifty tool to have; for me the value is way above 20bucks

I am still of the opinion of saving your $20 dollars. For $20 you get Bitlocker, or for free you can go get TrueCrypt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But, everyones mileage varies. The only other suggestion I can make is to make a backup of your current install before trying to upgrade. Personally recommend using a version of Symantec Ghost that supports Vista. Use the boot cd option and make a disk to image backup on a USB drive. That way, if all else fails, you can go back to exactly where you are today. Yes, I know that Ghost costs money. You might be able to get the same deal for cheap Symantec software that you do for the Micro$oft product. I can tell you from experience that its much better to have a working backup and not need it versus no working backup when you need it.

[AHemlocksLie]

Personally, I'd consider paying to upgrade from one version of Vista to a "better" version would be like hiring someone to step on my toes repeatedly but deciding I'd hire someone who would charge more to kick me in the crotch. You're moving from a bad situation to a worse one, and you're paying for it. The vast majority of information that I've heard/seen/read about Vista has been bad. The rest was worse.

If you want to keep Windows, I'd advise "down"grading to XP. Anything Vista offers successfully can no doubt be replicated by some sort of free program. Anything Vista fails miserably at is probably at least usable in XP.

If you're feeling adventurous or don't feel bound to Windows, you could try Linux. I have Ubuntu Linux and Windows XP both installed on this computer, and I really like Ubuntu. I spend most of my time on XP, though, because I play a lot of games. There is a program for Linux called Wine that basically provides alternate versions of all the Windows system libraries. Since Windows is so bloated, many programs and games actually function better through Wine under Linux. It is, however, incomplete software. Many, many programs and games work with it, but some still suffer some quality loss, whether through graphics, sound, functionality, or whatever, so if you use a lot of software without Linux alternatives and that doesn't work under Wine, I'd advise against Linux.

Of course, some people swear that Vista's the greatest thing ever. Some of them are competent computer users with, at the very least, a moderate understanding of Vista, its problems, and computers in general. I guess it all boils down to personal preference. I still wouldn't advise paying to upgrade Vista, though.

[HackerX]

I really love our ubuntu lovers, they're so cute and innocent.

Vista is a better system that XP.

Nothing functions better in Wine than it does it Windows.

A full desktop install of Linux is pretty damn bloated to.

I do love the whole Vista is sooooo bloated, oh, but I don't run it, I just like talking anecedotal evidence.

If you want lean, Windows 2000 is faster than XP.

Though I remember all the teething problems XP had.

[blckprljinju]

i like leopard... just got a macbook a few months ago and currently in love...
although it is difficult to find mac-compatible programs for all the windows programs I used to run...

but i'd suggest you wait until windows 7 comes out... apparently it's coming out next year, and if you can get ultimate for that cheap, 7 shouldn't be much more expensive...

[LoisAlene]

I can't be objective, I've hated Vista since the day I booted up this laptop. XP support is going away so I'd just wait for Win7 to come out. (Don't be fooled by the commercials that suggest people thought the OS was fine when it was called Mojave, it's still freekin' VISTA).

[Synapse]

Just don't upgrade as Hacker X said, it's a waste of money. You do know that you can get most of what Ultimate offers for free as 3rd party apps, don't you? ;)

Also, I have Leopard and I love it. I never really got used to Linux, I don't have the patience to learn how to completely reuse a computer that gives more power, but at a price.

If you were to use a Windows computer, I would go with XP. That is probably the best OS Windows has ever created, for ease of use and everything. I hate Vista, I tried it out at my friend's house and you need some serious system power to run it, but XP is so much leaner and runs better on less resources, seriously.

[azelismia]

I really love our ubuntu lovers, they're so cute and innocent.

Vista is a better system that XP.

Nothing functions better in Wine than it does it Windows.

A full desktop install of Linux is pretty damn bloated to.

I do love the whole Vista is sooooo bloated, oh, but I don't run it, I just like talking anecedotal evidence.

If you want lean, Windows 2000 is faster than XP.

Though I remember all the teething problems XP had.


win 7 smokes xp in speed. I've been running it something like a week now and I have nothing but love for it.

[HackerX]

win 7 smokes xp in speed. I've been running it something like a week now and I have nothing but love for it.

Interesting. I've heard similar things, I will need to get my hands on a copy.

[void]

I happen to think that upgrading to Ultimate for $20 is well worth it. The most important features added are Remote Desktop, Shadow Copy and Bitlocker. While there are many VNC applications that aim to replicate the functionality of Remote Desktop, they are either inferior or more expensive than $20. There is no third-party substitute for Shadow Copy, AFAIK. TrueCrypt is just as good as Bitlocker (I'd say better), although there is something to be said for integration. Ultimately you have to decide if these features are important to you and if you think they are worth $20.

Windows 7 most probably isn't coming for at least a year. Microsoft's current deadline doesn't carry much weight given the fact that they aren't even close to a feature-freeze. And we all saw what happened to the various deadlines imposed on Longhorn/Vista.

[LaoTzu]

Ultimately you have to decide if these features are important to you and if you think they are worth $20.

What he said... :)

I'd go for it. Not like you are gonna lose anything... just might not gain much :)


You could also try tweaking Vista: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (you can disable services you dont need. Im running vista (32) on 1G RAM (of which it eats half of it)... just do a lil' gaming on it nothin too intense either.

[RetroRick21]

Tried linux, hated it. Is there really a need for diff programs for the simple function of volume? I have Vista Ultimate...it's ok...I miss XP. Ultimate is great if you absolutely hate looking for drivers for your system, as it searches the web for you and does it better than XP. It is a resource hog though, and that makes me hate it with a passion...2 Gigs of ram wasted on the OS! Windows 7 sounds promising, and I think i'll have to download it soon as see how it flows.

[HackerX]

2 Gigs of ram wasted on the OS!

While Vista is more memory intensive, you might want to read up as to why people incorrectly think it's such a memory hog. (ps. various Linux distros are starting to do the same thing and KDE certainly has for a while for various components)

[MaleVolentworld]

Upgrade to Ubuntu.

I won Vista Ultimate in a competition some time ago and recently it started to go slow mo, I tried lots of things to get it back to normal but I failed.

So I went to install FreeBSD 7 and the mouse didn't work at all, I got fed up trying to make that work and installed Ubuntu instead and it's been good to me, so far. It takes up about 250MB just browsing, while Vista took up nearly 1GB. Also Vista would always throw a wobbly when I tried to use it on my SCSI 250GB hard drive, so I had to put it on my old 30GB drive. Ubuntu likes my SCSI drive.

The KDE desktop is very bloated, I had never tried Gnome until I used Ubuntu and it's pretty small in comparison.

The latest OpenSolaris is super slow, I don't know why, but in the forums people are saying it is related to ZFS which auto backs up your files.

[zoso80]

I feel the same way. I have XP Pro on both my boxes and lappie. It works, I'm comfy with it. I'm just not ready to dither with changing OS's.

That said, when Win 7 hits the streets I will probably be one of the XP to 7 crowd. I want to have my new quad core box up by the summer. If I like Win 7 on that box, then I'll upgrade everything else at once.




I'd save my money and wait for Windows 7. Vista is actually being replaced by Windows 7 next year in June or July, I think.

[hauteur]

I really don't see what the big deal is with Vista. I put it off forever because of all the horror stories and, really, it is great. I've had no issues with it - well, except that ZoneAlarm doesn't have 64 bit support, but I blame ZoneLabs for that.

As far as memory consumption, it will use more if you give it more. I'm running 6 Gb of DDR3 ram with a quad core CPU, which absolutely screams. At idle, I'm using about 1.8 Gb of memory. I guess I just see it as companies using the horsepower that is available. Look at storage, as an example. It wasn't all that long ago that I upgraded to a whopping 5 Gb hard drive. Medieval II Total War takes up nearly 3 times that amount all by itself

On Windows 7, I hate to tell you but it is Vista painted a different color. It has the same core architecture. If you hate Vista, you should hate Windows 7.

At any rate, look at the link to the feature comparison that was posted. If you care about the added features, upgrade. If you don't, don't. I don't think you'll see any performance difference. I'm personally running Vista Business and had thought about upgrading to Ultimate until I looked at the feature comparisons. I just didn't see the point because it only added a few things that I really don't care about.

[azelismia]

I really don't see what the big deal is with Vista. I put it off forever because of all the horror stories and, really, it is great. I've had no issues with it - well, except that ZoneAlarm doesn't have 64 bit support, but I blame ZoneLabs for that.

As far as memory consumption, it will use more if you give it more. I'm running 6 Gb of DDR3 ram with a quad core CPU, which absolutely screams. At idle, I'm using about 1.8 Gb of memory. I guess I just see it as companies using the horsepower that is available. Look at storage, as an example. It wasn't all that long ago that I upgraded to a whopping 5 Gb hard drive. Medieval II Total War takes up nearly 3 times that amount all by itself

On Windows 7, I hate to tell you but it is Vista painted a different color. It has the same core architecture. If you hate Vista, you should hate Windows 7.

At any rate, look at the link to the feature comparison that was posted. If you care about the added features, upgrade. If you don't, don't. I don't think you'll see any performance difference. I'm personally running Vista Business and had thought about upgrading to Ultimate until I looked at the feature comparisons. I just didn't see the point because it only added a few things that I really don't care about.

it's the same base system yes, but it's been very fine tuned. they were working on making it speedy and it is.

[RetroRick21]

it's the same base system yes, but it's been very fine tuned. they were working on making it speedy and it is.

Are programs that are Vista specific supported? They have to be right? That'd be lame if not...

[azelismia]

Are programs that are Vista specific supported? They have to be right? That'd be lame if not...


sure. they work very hard to make everything backward compatible (although I am very bitter that not even xp can run the graphic zork games!)

[gedreosan]

When I got my laptop last year it came with Vista on it and I gave it a shot. It lasted about a week before Ubuntu went on the laptop. The next desktop I bought also came with Vista, that lasted long enough to burn my recovery dvds before it got Linuxed as well. I do have one Windows box running XP SP2, but I use that mostly for games. Anything else I need to do gets done through one of my Linux computers. That said, I'm curious about Win7, but since I do tech support and had plenty of head-desk moments with Vista and XP when they first came out, I won't touch a Microsoft beta.

[Ryokurin]

As for the 64-bit part, you need to make sure that processor is actually 64-bit. Not all Core Duo's were. And you should also buy more memory as well as 64-bit naturally uses more memory. Also you shouldn't update if you still occasionally use 16-bit based programs as there is no 16-bit support in Windows X64.

For the most part, unless you need domain support, or want bitlocker then just get the Ultimate license and wait until you need to format to upgrade. its basically is the same that you have now and won't benefit you in any way.

[foobar]

Ubuntu is a very good operating system, it's free and it does everything I need it to do. Switching from XP, it took me a few days to get used to the new look and feel, but now I know it's quite awesome and I'm totally convinced I'll never need to dish out any cash for an operating system ever again.

My advice is, unless you are interested in playing the very latest games, get Linux.