hey guys i have an old pc (still vista ready though) and i was wondering if i should put win 7 home or ultimate on it? i need 32bit bytheway. ty for help
Home Basic or Home Premium? We cannot know what OS you "should" install, its all up to you what you want and need, normally a user probably doesnt use so many functions or software that comes with the OS. And there's 3rd party apps for pretty much all software in windows. Its your choice.
Tbh, I'd go with ultimate. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I have ultimate on a couple of netbooks, and it runs perfectly. You can always turn features off if need be.
you don't need ultimate, no one "needs" ultimate unless they run a business and a business network with their pc, and even then ultimate is unneeded. go with home premium, your performance will thank me...
alright. for the latest version i go here right? Windows 7 w/o SP1 and SP1 Media Refresh - ​Direct Download Links
The performance diff between home premium and ultimate is very small to even equally, so no reason not to install ultimate actually. And if it really feels to slow afterwards you can always install home basic.
i've used both and i completely disagree with you. there's roughly 300mb of RAM usage at idle between the two (out of the box)
I have a desktop pentium 4 2.8GHz 1Gb ram, over 10 years old running win 7 ultimate and running fine!!
Just look at the different features in each version here, windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare If you feel that you need them, install ultimate.
Most people don't need 'ultimate', even those that think they do Out of the box I'd definitely disable some of the windows features and services. Doesn't ultimate take more disk space too? Might be a consideration considering the specs of the computer... It should run Windows 7 faster than Vista, but it will still be slow as 1GB isn't really that much - and you should consider that in determining your needs vs wants in regards to whether you go Home Premium or Ultimate, and what features etc you leave enabled.
They don't think they do, they know it makes them l33t to have it. I have Ultimate for this exact reason - everyone looks at my computers and turns green when 'Ultimate' is tagged after everything. OH, and DreamScene... *giggles* Not much (the size difference in INSTALL.WIM from Home Basic is only a bit over 1GB). I agree with what stayboogy said (hxxp://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/30335-home-edition-or-ultimate-for-outdated-computer?p=509814&viewfull=1#post509814) - the major gain is having less useless services running. Or, as you said, SERVICES.MSC and Programs And Features -> Turn Windows Features On And Off is your friend. True. It's a practical minimum for 7, and Vista is barely usable at 1GB. From your description, it sounds about a DDR2-era board. The RAM is starting to get expensive, but you'll be in downright ecstacy if you can scrounge up another 1GB for it. To be brutally honest, if I were stuck with 1GB RAM, I would run XP. Longhorn derivatives aren't much fun at 512MB-1GB, whereas XP is quite sporty with that amount of RAM. Just my AU$0.02.
If it were the case of a recent-ish computer with an okay amount of RAM etc, I would have recommended Ultimate, since there is 'no' cost difference between them. Besides that, you no doubt paid for Vista as part of the buying the laptop, you should get Windows 7 free as a form of compensation If you really want to go XP, use Server 2003 instead (the 32-bit version) which can be modded into XP by using a program (forgotten the name) which changes a setting (it doesn't install anything) that means when you boot it shows the XP logo, XP start menu and features etc (basic XP stuff is included in Server 2003, just not utilised), and you can then install WMP, IE, Directx, and after fully updating (using the server 2003 updates which install no problem) you will have a better system than what it would be with XP. Its faster and more stable, and has a longer life expectancy.