Customer Reviews

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit English 1pk

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Received it from Amazon in 4 days. I would buy from Amazon again, but I would not buy this product. I loaded it up with no problem, it activated
itself (it was checked to activate). When I tried to install a better video card it had to be reactivated. Microsoft refused so I had to phone a number and recite 56 numbers to a computer. Again I was refused and I had to wait for 30 minutes to talk to a human. He told me I wasn't permitted to update my hardware with the oem edition. He finally gave me 56 more numbers to type in. I used win64 oem and never had this problem ( I have update the hardware many times). Vista 64 works fine ( a little slower than win xp)but knowing I can't update to new hardware means I'll be going back to win xp64 from now on.

Vista is good. Alot of people talk trash but I enjoy the features, but then the computer I built to go along with this OS is real highspeed-lowdrag (AMD 2.31 GHZ phenom quadcore, 4 GB DDR2 1066HZ RAM, 2x NVDIA 8800GT in SLI configuration, all on one of the worlds best mother boards the ASUS crosshair II formula.)

I needed the 64 bit version to read all of the system memory that I have, since 32 bit will only read 3GB total, including what you have on your video cards. Buying this version instead of the regular version is what will save you money. You are allowed to buy this product even if you arent a system developer or whatever arbitrary term microsoft uses, the draw back is is that you cannot tranfer windows once you have installed it on a computer. Essentially the PIN number becomes tied to your mother board. Your mother board dies or whatever and so does your version of windows.

So yes, this is cheaper, but it comes with a slight risk. I took it and Im happy.

Vista x64 is a necessity if you want to use more than 3.5GB (or so) of RAM (2GB per application). It's rock solid and has better driver support now (1-1/2yrs after introduction) than when I bought it, but even then, it ran flawlessly on my MacBook Pro and Mac Pro. My Mac Pro has 6GB of RAM, and Vista x64 sees all of it. This is a plus for people who use Photoshop and other high-intensity applications. To tell the truth, I'm not really sure why Microsoft didn't make Vista 64-bit only, since all processors in modern computers are 64-bit. Vista 32 alone takes up over half the available max RAM, and doesn't leave much for applications.

FYI: If you want the best available (non-gaming), fastest Vista computer, get a Macintosh! There have been several tests and comparisons that show that regular PCs, with their outdated BIOS, serial ports, and parallel ports (and sometimes even <shudder> floppy disks!), can't keep up with a modern, EFI-based computer like all current macs. And Vista was made with EFI (not BIOS) in mind. This, plus the expandability of the Mac Pro to the currently available 32GB of RAM, make it a no-brainer, unless you're strapped for cash. If you want, you can even reformat the Mac to run Windows-only, though why you'd want to, I have no idea...

Summary: If you MUST use Windows, don't believe the haters! Get Vista x64, and get the Home Premium version and save some cash over Vista Ultimate x64. XP is not nearly as secure, and WinXP x64 still has driver issues. Drop 6 to 10GB RAM from Crucial.com into a Mac Pro, and you'll have the best Windows computer available.

Some notes about Vista in light of previous reviews: Programs more than five years old likely will not run on it.

-- Vista will not run 16-bit programs.

Any Vista -- 64-bit, 32-bit, Home, Business, Ultimate, etc. -- will NOT run 16-bit programs.

How do you know if a program you use is 16-bit? That's hard to say. If you got the program when you were running Windows 95/98, Windows ME or Windows 2000 / NT4, there's a good chance the program is 16-bit. If the program is more than four years old, some or all of a program's parts may be 16-bit.

Windows XP, Microsoft's first true 32-bit operating system, was capable of running 16-bit programs in compatibility mode. Therefore, it's the last Microsoft OS capable of running such programs.

-- Any Vista will run 32-bit programs. That constitutes the vast majority of software for sale over the last few years on store shelves / over the Internet. Anyone claiming a 32-bit Windows program will not run in 64-bit Vista is simply wrong.

There are rare occasions, namely when installing 32-bit DLLs from the command line, where Vista 64-bit installs require extra effort. The average computer user will never face this issue.

-- Vista does not allow unfettered access to the kernel.

Anyone who's used Windows 95 / 98 / ME is intimately familiar with the Blue Screen of Death. That was caused by software sending bad instructions to the kernel -- the core part of Windows. Mostly, it was caused by bad drivers (the mini-software that controls things such as printers, monitors, etc.).

Beginning in Vista, Microsoft no longer allowed just anyone to write software that talks directly to the kernel. Only select companies who have been given special permission can write such software.

This change means that some older software won't work, because it tries to talk directly to the kernel but doesn't have this special permission. That is actually a step forward for computer security, because it allows Microsoft to terminate bad software developers who make software that causes crashes.

Most of the people complaining here about Vista are having problems with running older software. It's akin to complaining that an automobile won't go, no matter how hard you hit it with a crop. The same way you can't hook a horse-drawn plow to a tractor and expect it to work, you can't install ancient software on Windows Vista and expect it to run.

That said, Vista 64-bit is a vast improvement over all previous Windows distributions. It is considerably more stable; the average home user may only need to restart the machine once a week.

Security, as previously noted, is vastly improved. The biggest change is user access control. That feature prevents software from installing itself or making significant changes to the system without your express permission -- which should help to significantly reduce the problem of worms, viruses and spyware.

The 64-bit software allows users to address more memory, and as more 64-bit software comes on line, you'll notice a significant increase in program performance (those of us who use 64-bit Photoshop have seen this first-hand).

No, you cannot run your copy of dBase III on Vista. Office 97 won't work, either. But any program you can buy off the shelf at any big-box retailer will run on it just fine ... no, better than fine; better than ever before.

Work great and fast with my Athlon 64. But drivers are still lacking for scanners and other peripherals. Nobody tells you ahead of time that lots of things won't work with a 64-bit system. This may be a product for the future. But the future ain't here just yet!

Having recently (Apr 09) built an Intel DX58SO (i7)-based system, I wanted to see full performance from day-1. All my historical software has been compatible with 32-bit Vista, and after reading a lot of (hate to use the term, but) whiney reviews about 64-bit Vista being incompatible with "all my important software" and "no drivers available" I still decided to dive into 64-bit Vista with the intent to upgrade to Windows-7 when it is released later in the year. An OEM version is highly restrictive, but it's not that difficult to anticipate needs and install all the necessary hardware prior to installing that version, especially in view of a highly praised upcoming new release, and an OEM version saves a significant amount of money. I like to keep in mind that it is NOT Microsoft's responsibility to write drivers for every peripheral in the world, it is the OEM's responsibility to write a driver for their product to provide compatibility with the reigning OS of the day, and to keep them upgraded as new OS hits the horizon!!!!

NO REGRETS!!

Pioneer CD/DVD DVR2920 ran without a hiccup. My four year old wireless Logitech keyboard & mouse worked from power-up. 64-bit drivers for my Canon iP6600D printer readily available. Likewise for an LiDE100 scanner and a CanoScan 9950F scanner (all tested, all working without problems)! The RAID controller on the Mobo set up flawlessly once the Intel drivers were installed.

Adobe Photoshop Express installed in 32-bit emulation mode and is running like a champ. Even dropping in a couple of fairly obscure plug-ins were no issue! Nero-9 installed in 32-bit emulation mode and is running like a rocket sled!! Plugging in a Sony DV camcorder received a nearly instant "installing drivers" pop-up and thereafter Nero was in control of the camcorder for DV downloads: smooth as silk.

Quicken-8, no problem.

I'll edit this review in the future (until Windows-7 is released) if I run into any problems, but so far this is a dream! I feel bad for all the nay-sayers, but I'm convinced a lot of folks have a real problem doing basic pre-purchase research and are unwilling to take personal responsibility for their own flawed decisions or assumptions.

The caveat:
All my comments are strictly relative to Microsoft products.

I bought this OS after a year with an HP Pavilion that was produced during the great Vista wars when all the branded folks were refusing to build drivers for the new OS. HP had no compatible drivers, even for their bundled peripherals. After a nightmare year in which MS, to their credit, tried mightily but vainly to get my system to install SP1 and zero help from HP, I decided to wipe out every character of that nasty HP bloatware code. It worked. I'm now 100 percent HP free and my system is compatible with the world of computers. It's also much more stable. The problems with 64-bit are largely gone now and I am happy with my system. Anyone fighting with brand name crap-ware should, IMHO, spend the hundred bucks, do a clean installation and get on with life. There are 64-bit drivers galore available now. I've had no problems since the upgrade.

Vista 64-bit home premium came preinstalled on a new laptop. I purposely selected this option because I wanted a laptop that would be current for about five years. Have used it for about 6 weeks now and it's not as difficult to use as I thought it would be. However, yesterday I ordered a new desktop -- NOT with Vista 64-bit. Am tired of having to upgrade fairly new software just for Vista 64, tired of not being able to hear streaming music, not being able to use my Slingbox, not being able to see certain HTML effects, and not being able to get help for any of this. I also needed something that would work with my other hardware such as printers, scanners, etc. for which there are no Vista 64-bit drivers. By the time Vista 64-bit is ready, five years will likely have passed. Don't buy this unless you're running something that truly needs it or you have another PC that you can count on.

Finding Vista 64-bit supported hardware was difficult. Many hardware vendors would say Vista is supported, but only for 32-bit Vista. The most difficult item to find was the wireless network card. GUI is colorful and interface is easy to use. But it is also processor and memory pig. The operating system would take about 1 GB so you would need about 2 GB of memory to run applications. Most 32-bit applications will run well under Vista 64. The purpose of operating system is manage the system resource. The operating system eats up most of resource so there isn't much to manage so I guess this is consider as good... I use it for my HTPC, only runs few applications for video and image processing.

I have been using Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit version patiently for several months now. The "performance indicator" says my Windows Vista experience is a 5.6 out of a possible 5.9 -- this is supposed to be some indication of how fast my hardware is. So, my hardware is top notch -- brand new HP quad core Phenom 2.4 GHz processor with 8GB of RAM. As a matter of fact, all my hardware gets a 5.9/5.9 except my video card. But, as soon as I boot, I notice the OS is using 1.5GB of RAM, before I touch anything. If I leave Internet Explorer open, it has a memory leak that gets progressively worse and completely overtakes the system within a few hours. I tried to play a movie, and it struggled to decode it fast enough -- playback suffered immensely.

My patience has run out. I'm reverting back to Windows XP, or at least installing a dual boot configuration, because this machine is just silly slow. I have brand new, top-of-the-line 64-bit hardware and a crazy amount of RAM; and this machine feels slow. I'm amazed at how inferior of a product this is.