Vista 32 or 64bit ( x86 or x64 )

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

If you do not intend to use Media Center, don't get Ultimate. One of my big beefs with Vista is that the very first time Media Center is launched, regardless of whether you ever plan to use it again or not, it starts up a bunch of services and adds stuff to the startup. It really blows away the "secure by default" principal at MS when you suddenly, *quietly* introduce a bunch of new running code that for 99% of the time serves absolutely no purpose.

Vista Business doesn't come with Media Center. It does come with most of the other stuff though.

This is reversible, isn't it?

[TQ]

Reversible?

Vista Home Premium also comes with the same Media Center stuff as Ultimate...at least I have all that media stuff opening on that new HP laptop I just got.

[johnrr6]

I like all the media center stuff----but I have an HP Windows Home Server and an HP MediaSmart High Def TV which all link and use the media center stuff and extenders.....

If you don't have a need for it----or all the DVD burning stuff and codecs....

Business would be the way to go.....

I think that with 8 gigs of RAM----you really don't care what functions/services are running in the background....

With a laptop---and 2 gigs----it may still be an issue----but with 8 gigs---who cares....it doesn't slow down anything....

I made a quick tune up guide for Vista when it first came out----and I still use it for laptops and machines with less than 4 gigs of RAM....

John's Quick Vista Tuneup Guide

But if you have a fast C2D or a quad---with 8 gigs-----I really don't use it any more and just leave everything on except the sidebar and UAC...

And I may give the sidebar a go again now based on TQs comments as I'd like to see the weather and some other stuff constantly on my desktop.

[johnrr6]

Originally Posted by zapionics<alt>

While we're on it; what is the experience with Vista 64 and quad versus duo? Anyone able to say if one is better than the other for performance?

Good question!

I really can't say Zap----I had both on 32 bit (E6600 and a Q6600)----and I definitely liked the Quad better----eveything just "felt" zippier----but I never ran any benches to back that feeling up....

I will say this-----I like 64 bit so well that I'm thinking of wiping my Q6600 rig with 32 bit Ultimate----buying 8 gigs of cheap DDR2----and loading Vista Ultimate 64 Bit on it.

Ultimate 64 on my new garage rig (an AMD 9850 BE Quad)---with 8 gigs----just plain zips....

But those cheap and fast newer Intel Dual Cores look very tempting from a price/performance standpoint.

If I didn't do a lot of video editing for my HS Baseball team-----I probably wouldn't even need a quad....

[ctal]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

But those cheap and fast newer Intel Dual Cores look very tempting from a price/performance standpoint.

If I didn't do a lot of video editing for my HS Baseball team-----I probably wouldn't even need a quad....

With a Wolfdale dual core, you might find a quad unnecessary even for video editing. I do extensive video editing using Sony Vegas 8 Pro, running on XP, for my wife's Public Access cable TV program. My recent build using an E8400 overclocked to 3.8gHz, with 4gB RAM and a Gigabyte GA-EX38-DQ6 motherboard, gives me render times close to four times faster than the P4 2.8C/Asus P4C800 Deluxe system (overclocked to 3.25 gHz) that I had been using.

Thirty minute programs with fairly complex timelines now build in around 16 minutes in dv format, 16 minutes in 56 kbps wmv format, 20 something minutes in 350 kbps wmv format, and 45 minutes for two-pass vbr mpeg2. All of these numbers were nearly four times slower on the previous system, which was no slouch in its day.

With Vegas and other good video editing programs able to take advantage of 4 cores, yes these numbers might be a bit better with a 45 nm quad. But I went with the dual core because, at least for me, this kind of performance is more than good enough; and because for most other purposes with most other software the dual core is probably faster; and because of the considerably lower price.

Regards,
-- Al

[TQ]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

And I may give the sidebar a go again now based on TQs comments as I'd like to see the weather and some other stuff constantly on my desktop.

This is a nice weather gadget and it's signed by the Weather Channel...

[johnrr6]

Originally Posted by ctal

With a Wolfdale dual core, you might find a quad unnecessary even for video editing. I do extensive video editing using Sony Vegas 8 Pro, running on XP, for my wife's Public Access cable TV program. My recent build using an E8400 overclocked to 3.8gHz, with 4gB RAM and a Gigabyte GA-EX38-DQ6 motherboard, gives me render times close to four times faster than the P4 2.8C/Asus P4C800 Deluxe system (overclocked to 3.25 gHz) that I had been using.

Thirty minute programs with fairly complex timelines now build in around 16 minutes in dv format, 16 minutes in 56 kbps wmv format, 20 something minutes in 350 kbps wmv format, and 45 minutes for two-pass vbr mpeg2. All of these numbers were nearly four times slower on the previous system, which was no slouch in its day.

With Vegas and other good video editing programs able to take advantage of 4 cores, yes these numbers might be a bit better with a 45 nm quad. But I went with the dual core because, at least for me, this kind of performance is more than good enough; and because for most other purposes with most other software the dual core is probably faster; and because of the considerably lower price.

Regards,
-- Al

Impressive Al.....

That is exactly what I have been thinking as well....

With those new dual cores so cheap----just how much more juice do you get out of four cores....

Price/performance is not an insignificant thing.....

I noticed in the paper today a TON of new systems being offered by HP, Gateway etc....

And they were all sprouting 64 bit Vista, AMD 9550 Phenoms with SIX gigs of RAM For around 7-800 dollars---one even had the monitor included and Vista Ultimate 64.

I am impressed with my 9850 Phenom....VERY solid---doesn't overclock like the C2Ds----but even then performance seems just a shade off what Intel is putting out----and man are they cheap----and the AMD 780G board I have has the BEST onboard graphics I have ever seen---although I went to an AMD/ATI 4850 because......I can.....

Maybe this is where AMD stays in the game----price/performanceas and it appears that both HP and Gateway have "bought in"to their Phenom line-----in a big way.....

Probably got them from AMD CHEAP!!!

[johnrr6]

Originally Posted by TQ

This is a nice weather gadget and it's signed by the Weather Channel...

Thanks TQ------will give her a shot....

Just as soon as I get my Sprint Mogul PPC phone back up to snuff.....

There was a new ROM out.....

and you know me------I like the newest......

14 hours later I'm STILL trying to get all my "customizations" loaded back on the phone...

What's the old saying: If it ain't broke----don't fix it!"

You know----the one I never heed!!!.....

[zapionics<alt>]

Well I think both of you, Jonrr6 and TQ, have persuaded me into a Vista 64Bit install, although I wont be getting 8GB's of DDR since I will be going with a DDR3 based board. Sounds like the C2D will suit me fine, I'll probably pickup an E8500, thanks ctal for relating your experience.

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by TQ

Reversible?

Vista Home Premium also comes with the same Media Center stuff as Ultimate...at least I have all that media stuff opening on that new HP laptop I just got.

Sorry for being so vague. When I asked if it was reversible, I was referring to this part of S.SubZero's post: "...the very first time Media Center is launched, regardless of whether you ever plan to use it again or not, it starts up a bunch of services and adds stuff to the startup..."
I have x64 Ultimate and am considering putting it on my Asus P5B Deluxe. Just wanted to confirm that the changes that media center makes (services, start up items, etc.) are reversible, as they would be in XP.

[TQ]

Originally Posted by PeterT

Just wanted to confirm that the changes that media center makes (services, start up items, etc.) are reversible, as they would be in XP.

I'm sure they would be, as long as you're certain you don't need them. If you don't you might want to consider Vista Business. It doesn't have all the media center stuff in it. You do, however, have to enable Vista's Games Explorer as it's disabled by default in Business.

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by TQ

I'm sure they would be, as long as you're certain you don't need them. If you don't you might want to consider Vista Business. It doesn't have all the media center stuff in it. You do, however, have to enable Vista's Games Explorer as it's disabled by default in Business.

Thanks TQ.

[S.SubZero]

Originally Posted by PeterT

Sorry for being so vague. When I asked if it was reversible, I was referring to this part of S.SubZero's post: "...the very first time Media Center is launched, regardless of whether you ever plan to use it again or not, it starts up a bunch of services and adds stuff to the startup..."
I have x64 Ultimate and am considering putting it on my Asus P5B Deluxe. Just wanted to confirm that the changes that media center makes (services, start up items, etc.) are reversible, as they would be in XP.

It's reversible, but it's not something where a click of an icon clears it all up. There's things to remove from msconfig, and services that need to be stopped. Of course doing all this will break Media Center, either partially or completely (I haven't run it again since I cleaned up the mess it left) so to run Media Center again may involve re-starting all the stuff it seems to want.

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

It's reversible, but it's not something where a click of an icon clears it all up. There's things to remove from msconfig, and services that need to be stopped. Of course doing all this will break Media Center, either partially or completely (I haven't run it again since I cleaned up the mess it left) so to run Media Center again may involve re-starting all the stuff it seems to want.

Thanks for the clarification.

[chuckbam]

Just disable UAC and set to classic view and you will be all set. Why all the memory for XP?

I only set up older computers with XP. Why do you think win 07 will be all that great when it first comes out? I think that Vista has come a long way since it came out. I get long up times with no important errors.