HEADS UP if you're buying an HP w/ VISTA

Make sure you pay the $35 extra and get the Windows Vista Home PREMIUM.

The Basic version does not have Aero and many other features. Vista Premium is considered to be "the real Vista" not the Basic version.

It's pretty ridiculous that they even offer a Basic version. One of the main reasons I like Vista so much is because of Aero and how it makes everything run a lot smoother.

So just a heads up for everyone.

 

The question is if Aero will really run smooth on a middle of the road nVidia 7400 graphic card built in to most of the t6000 and below. Aero is very graphic card dependent so the more juice you have the smoother things go.

 

I've tried the RTM version of Vista on my new dv6000t already. it runs perfectly fine with aero.

I didnt however know that Home Basic didnt include Aero. this is seriously disappointing, because i didnt order Xp pro or media center with it, i got Xp Home becuase it was included, and i have a licence for Xp Pro from another PC anyways.

Sigh. I have my Vista upgrade completed thru hp now. maybe when i get it, i'll look into some sort of upgrade for it.

*shakes head* you see, this is the type of stuff that drives people to bootlegging.

 

Windows Vista Home Basic still supports Aero, just without the fancy effects. The desktop window manager (dwm.exe) will still be used as will 3D acceleration.

It'd be nice if Microsoft offered a 3D-accelerated Windows Classic theme for those annoyed by fancyness.

Aero will run fine with any recent graphics solution, including Intel GMA950. GMA950 Aero support is pretty good; since it supports up to 224MB shared memory, it doesn't run into the resolution limit some GPUs will with 64 or 128MB of dedicated VRAM.

The only chips that may have issues are some S3/SiS/VIA integrated GPUs, but those are found on only the cheapest systems and I believe the latest ones do support Aero.

 

I'm not talking about that washed up, wannabe Aero, I'm talking about the real Aero Glass, with "all the fancy effects" That will not be available in Home Basic.

 

I'm still wondering what vista (with aero glass) is going to do to battery life. With all that extra graphics card usage there has to been some difference.
Also here a couple, or actually three, different charts on what each version of vista will include, each contains different information.

Vista Editions: Microsoft
Vista Editions: CNet
Vista Editions: Extreme Tech

 

The real Aero Glass starts in Home Premium. Basic is supposed to be the budget OS for people who can barely afford a PC.

 

What does RTM mean?

 

Release to Manufacturer

 

If I understand all of this correctly...

If I buy my laptop Monday (HP6140ca), and it has Microsoft Media Center, paying the shipping for the Windows Vista will get me the premium version?

 

I was playing around with the dv6000 at CompUSA today, which had a 1.83GHz C2D, GeForce 7400 and Windows Vista Home Premium.

Aero seemed to perform just fine on it; I didn't notice any sluggishness or anything like that.

-Zadillo

 

With regards to the Vista UI issue, Ed Bott's blog on ZDnet is one of the most straightforward I've seen, and if you'd like to know in advance what Home Basic has and doesn't have, I suggest you give it a read.

In a nutshell (for the lazy):

Vista Home Basic does not come with "Aero." It comes with a UI that kinda looks like Aero (called Vista Standard) but it does not support any of the dwm 3D effects of Aero -- including Flip-3D.

Here's what each version comes with:

Home Basic:
Vista Standard
Vista Basic
Windows Classic

Home Premium, Business, Ultimate:
Aero
Vista Basic
Windows Classic

A couple things to note:

While the more advanced versions don't include the Vista Standard UI, there is an option to turn off all the "transparent" effects in Aero, effectively giving you the same look while retaining Flip-3D and all the other advantages of Aero. This could be a good choice for the battery-conscious.

Vista Standard as such is only found on Home Basic. Why they didn't call that one Vista Basic is utterly beyond me.

Vista Basic is quite possibly the ugliest UI ever conceived by man. Of course, that could be just my opinion. The "developing market" versions of Vista will be locked into the Vista Basic UI, giving them one more reason to hate the US.

Windows Classic in Vista is a very close second in the Ugliest UI Ever contest. Check out the massive gray slab of sidebar, which is like a big, friendly welcome to the year 1994.

Finally, if you want to compare and contrast the four different UIs in one place, check out this site.

 

Hrmm, I've got to be honest, from looking at that site, Vista Basic doesn't look THAT different to me from Vista Standard or Aero Glass; it seems like the fundamental UI look is the same, and it's just the lack of the "shiny" or "transparent" effects that are different. I have to admit I'm not sure that I can see how Vista Basic is fundamentally that much "uglier" than Aero Glass or Vista Standard.

 

I have to agree with Zadillo. So what IS the whole deal with Aero then??? It's a pimped up XP with customizations? (Only speaking in graphical terms here)

 

Well I guess Aero specifically is supposed to be noticeable for its transparency and glass effects, etc. But personally, I think from those screenshots at least that the Vista UI looks just fine (or at least no better or no worse) with a solid color. I'd chalk the transparent glass effects up as being sort of a nice effect, and that's probably about it.

I guess fortunately though people can choose which UI to use.

I think that Aero though is also responsible for other effects/etc. in the UI that do benefit from the GPU, animations, things like the Flip3d stuff, etc. (similar to the "Quartz Extreme" effects in Mac OS X), so that is probably the bigger deal.

 

Maybe it is just me, but there's something about the fatter-than-they-need-to-be window borders and haphazardly-placed buttons in Vista Basic that just looks... unpolished. Aero (and by extension, Vista Standard) seems more streamlined by comparison. I actually think that XP's Luna is a much nicer-looking UI, and that Vista Basic is a step backwards.

And, IMHO, Aero Glass looks a lot better in other colors than it does in the default "clear" tint. It's also a little nicer looking in person than in these 2D screenshots. The transparency effects don't do anything for me, though; I just like the way the windows themselves are drawn. And I'm really happy that Microsoft is finally (re)incorporating the ability to customize your color scheme out of the box. After 5+ years of staring at XP, I'd just as soon never see that shade of blue again!

 

When you say "Vista Basic" are you referring to something else? The Window borders and button placement in the Vista Basic screenshots on the site you posted look identical to me, with the only difference being that in Aero they are transparent, while they are a solid color in Vista basic.

EDIT: Sorry, duh. I didn't notice it before but I see what you mean now about the button placement. I guess it does look a little worse, and I kind of wonder what the point is - I don't see any reason why the Vista Basic look has to shift the buttons into a different placement. I will say that the window borders still look the same to me... the only difference I see is that making them a solid color makes them look like they are taking up more room than they actually are, even though the actual pixels used look to be identical to Aero.

-Zadillo

 

I should clarify my previous response... I was reading up a bit more on Aero, and Aero is in fact responsible for some of the fancier effects, etc. as well. Aside from the transparency, this also does include the Flip3d functionality, as well as the ability for it to show a little "screenshot" when you hover your mouse over a task in the taskbar. So it is responsible for more than just the "look".

 

You're right, of course, about the actual pixels. I'd made my mind up about Vista Basic a couple of months ago, based on some other (larger) screenshots, and after flipping that comparison site a couple more times, I see that the borders really are the same. But I think the perceived difference (i.e., the Vista Basic inherent crappiness) might have something to do with that "baby gunmetal robin's egg" color that they chose for the default. That, combined with the inexplicable change in button and text placement (so the window name's at the bottom of the title bar? yeah, that'll be great in the "cascade" layout...) just leaves me scratching my head.

Also, am I the only one who thinks that there's an inherent lameness to the faux-glass glare/shimmer on the non-transparent Vista Standard ("Aero Lite")? Maybe I'm just thinking about it too much...