Difference between Vista basic and premium?

What comes on premium thats not on basic?


And what is the best screen resolution for the 1520? I won't be gaming. Also, will the the 8400M GS do the job for me? Just internet and office use. Maybe some music and dvds from time to time.

 

If you will not be gaming, just get the Intel X3100 integrated card. It is plenty fast for movies and office work, and you will get a lot more battery life.

 

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

 

Vista Basic is pointless. Might as well go with XP. Premium has Aero and a lot of other stuff.

 

Thanks for the info guys.

So, would it be smart to go with the integrated video card then? The only possible game I would ever play is Tiger Woods. The game play is never really fast though. Would I be able to play that on the integrated card? And if so, what resolution will be best?

 

any more opinions?

 

Vista Basic has Aero too, just not transparent window borders and Flip 3D (aka Aero Glass). The transparent borders do not even work when you make any app full screen, so what is the point... Flip 3D is pretty much useless as well from a usability standpoint.

 

Thanks for the replys. If anyone has anything else to say about resolution and/or video card, I would like to hear it.

Also, is it worth $100 more to go with the 160gb 7200 up from the 5400?

 

Nope, and you can always drop in another HD later anyway, takes about 5 minutes to swap out a drive.

 

Actually, what you're calling Aero Glass, Microsoft now just calls "Aero". It's the one with transparency and Flip3D, and it's not available in Basic. The theme options in Basic are called "basic" and "standard".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Visual_styles

I don't agree that Basic is pointless. Some things included in Basic that aren't in XP include: Better security all around, Vista Photo Gallery, Windows Calendar, desktop search, sidebar widgets, DirectX 10, .NET 3.0 runtime, IE 7, WMP 11, improved firewall, Windows Defender anti-spyware, improved DPI scaling... I'm sure I'm forgetting some stuff too. Sure, you can download a lot (not all) of this stuff, or equivalents for XP... but I think it's nice to get it bundled in.

 

Thanks again for the answers. Will the integrated card allow me to play simple games?

 

How simple?
Like, solitaire maybe...

 

LOL, no like I said earlier in the thread. The only game I'll probably play is Tiger Woods.

 

Also, here's another question.

Since my 2gb of memory is at 667Mhz, would it make more sense to get the T5450 instead of the T7100?

How much difference will going down from the 1.8Ghz to the 1.66Ghz make?


Sorry if these are dumb questions, but I'm usually stingy and want to make sure I'm spending my money wisely.

 

You really can't be cheap when buying a laptop. At the bare minimum you should get T7100. Never even consider a processor running at 1.66 Ghz; these days, even if it's sufficient for basic computing tasks today, circumstances could change tomorrow. You should really have a clock speed of at least 2.0 Ghz (T7300). Sorry if I'm upsetting your wallet, but it'll thank me when you don't have to replace your notebook after just one year because of a primitive processor.

 

My bad. I have been using Vista at work since it was out on MSDN so I might be stuck with some old school terms.

 

Thanks man. It's not upsetting the wallet, because I can get it, but I just don't want to go overboard, because I just need something to do basic office apps and internet work. Like I said, maybe a game of Tiger Woods here and there or DVD. Other than that, I won't do much else.

 

Well this is pretty much one of the most naive things I have read in a while. Give the same bus speed, chipset, RAM, and core CPU architecture (no pun intended), a jump from 1.6GHz to 2.0GHz bus speed is not going to prolong a system's life significantly. If we were talking about an entirely new platform AND a .4GHz increase in bus speed, then yes, the newer platform would last longer. However do not try convincing people their system is going to last a lot longer with a simple CPU change.

 

if in 1-2 years your computer performs like crap, 10% better than crap is still crap. if in 1 year its primitive, 10% better than primitive is still primitive.

Unless you run around encoding videos or music all the time, it'll be very difficult to tell the difference from a 1.6 or 2.0.

I tend to get new computers every 1.5-2 years anyways, I find this way extremely price efficient.

 

So now I'm getting its very important from some, and then others saying I won't even notice.The more opinions the better. thanks guys

 

Well, normally I'd say the faster processor is nice but not really critical. But looking at your sig, apparently you make thousands a day from your home computer... so I say why not splurge.

 

LOL, thats what I'm saying swarmer... its not a matter of spending it or not, but I don't need a ton of extra's and I'm a tightwad about spending money. I'm basically wanting to know what I need, and whether I'll notice a difference between certain things. There's no need in me spending extra money here and there for things that I really could do just fine without and not notice a difference.

 

let me ask this... how does this AMD processor below compare to the two intels individually?

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5450 (1.66GHz/667Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7100 (1.8GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache)

vs.

AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-60 (1MB/2.0GHz)


Just curious on some input on this one too

 

That's a subject for a thread of its own, AND it's already been covered, ad nauseum.

But, for your purposes, the AMD should work fine and save you a few bucks, unless optimal battery performance is important to you. The AMD runs hotter, uses more power, and performs a bit less than the C2D, BUT, if you're not doing anything EXTREMELY demanding, you'll likely never notice the difference.