Getting a new Desktop...Vista or no?

[siafirede]

I am going to be getting a new Desktop through Dell, and as much as I don't want to get Vista, I am wondering if I should just go ahead and get it anyway. Dell offers some computers that come with an XP "downgrade" and I was thinking of going that route (to stay with the faster, familiar, and less bugy XP), but that option isn't available for the newer top of the line comps. Are most of the kinks worked out in Vista and would those problems even make a noticeable difference if I had a 64bit operating system and 8gb of memory? I know Vista is much slower, but I wonder if I would even notice with that kind of hardware. Any thoughts?

Is it a major mistake to go the route of Vista if getting a semi top of the line desktop?

[dudewithasock]

I have 4gb of RAM and a 32bit, and vista works great for me.

[1-wheeled-grape]

I've got a dell vista laptop... it's not slow at all. Vista is way better than XP... I haven't had any problems at all with it.

[Tak]

Is it a major mistake to go the route of Vista if getting a semi top of the line desktop?
If you don't want Vista preinstalled, and you feel confident installing an operating system yourself, you can always order with no OS and install your favorite.

Keep in mind that a 32bit windows install won't support more than ~3GB of memory.

Don't forget to evaluate other computer vendors and/or other operating systems to make sure that what you're about to purchase will best meet your needs.

[ntappin]

Wait for windows 7!

[forrestunifreak]

I love Vista. As long as it has enough RAM there's no problems with it's speed. And as far as I'm concerned there aren't any real bugs to worry about.

That's my opinion.

Keep in mind that a 32bit windows install won't support more than ~3GB of memory.

Doesn't it support slightly over 3 gb, like 3.4 or something?

[peleschramm]

I think I have only 2gb of memory and Vista works fine for me. I suppose more memory would be better though. I would go for Vista, especially if you have 8 gb of memory.

[1-wheeled-grape]

same here... 2gb RAM, dual core, 120gb hard drive.
I have the best computer in the house :D

[ezas]

Another vote for Vista. Some things are different, but most are better/easier and that's what I want. Home network sharing (non Domain) is MUCH easier. Also amost anything you don't like can be turned off, or reverted back to the way XP did it. The key is dual core and 3 GB or ram and the performance will be fine, at least is has been for me on my new HP laptop. The only eye candy I turned off was the windows transparency. Otherwise I have all eye candy turned on.

[johnfoss]

If you MUST buy a Dell, I think you'll do best with Vista at this point. Going by everything I've read from John Childs, Vista is built to be more secure than previous versions of Windows, and a lot of the early problems had to do with other software not being up to speed with the Vista architecture. All versions of Windows start out rough, then get fixed up. By the time Windows 7 comes out, Vista will be where you'll want to be, probably for another year or two from that point. :)

[Tak]

Doesn't it support slightly over 3 gb, like 3.4 or something?
Yeah, something like that.

[Klaas Bil]

Doesn't it support slightly over 3 gb, like 3.4 or something?I read that all 32-bit versions of Vista support 4 GB. However, some of it is set aside for something else, so the reported ram in that case is usually around 3.5 GB. See http://compreviews.about.com/od/memory/a/Vista4GB.htm

[videotoast]

Some legacy programs and hardware will not work with Vista...drivers are harder come by, as well, even for little cheap webcams....

It is a decent operating system, but I still like XP that I have on my office machine and home video editing suite better than Vista on my Sony laptop....(can't even get drivers for an old Sony MiniDV camera (TRV-950).

[Jerrick]

Vista is amazing.

I would only stay away from it if you plan to do a lot of audio recording. Not vistas vault, but quite a bit of VSTi arent working on vista yet.

Other then that, it is a fantastic OS, specially after you update it. Great support all around. DX10 really makes games look nice as well. =p

EDIT: If you can, wait for windows 7. Basically it is vista with a ver service pack updates. Like going from windows 98 to 98se. But better.

And with 4 gigs of ram or more, and using the 64bit OS to use all of that ram, vista is way faster than XP. I miss it, but because I cant record with ym software on it Im not using it. I should dual boot but have been to lazy to do that.

[fairypenguin22]

Vista works just fine for me, I haven't noticed any bugs really.

[SHAY_CAM]

Vista is just not for me i guess. I hate the 'user firendly' interfaces and the ease of access controlls. Scripting is also weird on them too.
By the way, vista does have a huge bug, and you might be noticing it,(because you guys all have 2gb ram) but vista takes 50% recources right away if you are running one program. So you pull up fire fox and go intot the task manager, 40-55% recources will be in use.

[john_childs]

That's easy. Get Vista unless there is a specific absolute need for Windows XP (software that you need to run that recommends XP instead of Vista). The kinks have been worked out of Vista. Most of the kinks in the early days were due to bad drivers and bad applications. The bad drivers have been updated, the bad applications have been updated.

Stick with Vista 32-bit unless you have a specific absolute need for Vista 64-bit (software that you need to run that needs 64-bit or will run better with more than 4GB of RAM). 64-bit Vista has restrictions and fewer drivers. Very few home users have a need for 64-bit Vista.

Vista is plenty fast, especially when given enough RAM. There are features in Vista that you get used to and find you really miss when you have to use XP. Things like the way the Start menu works and the desktop search. Then there are the things behind the scenes that make Vista more secure than XP.

[john_childs]

By the way, vista does have a huge bug, and you might be noticing it,(because you guys all have 2gb ram) but vista takes 50% recources right away if you are running one program. So you pull up fire fox and go intot the task manager, 40-55% recources will be in use.

Vista does some dynamic caching that XP does not do. The caching is dynamic which means the cache grows and shrinks as needed. Some of the memory that you see in use is the dynamic cache. When another application needs the memory the cache will shrink.

Vista does a better job of keeping RAM in use with caching instead of leaving the RAM empty and idle. Idle RAM is wasted RAM.

[zogola]

That's easy. Get Vista unless there is a specific absolute need for Windows XP (software that you need to run that recommends XP instead of Vista). The kinks have been worked out of Vista. Most of the kinks in the early days were due to bad drivers and bad applications. The bad drivers have been updated, the bad applications have been updated.

Stick with Vista 32-bit unless you have a specific absolute need for Vista 64-bit (software that you need to run that needs 64-bit or will run better with more than 4GB of RAM). 64-bit Vista has restrictions and fewer drivers. Very few home users have a need for 64-bit Vista.

Vista is plenty fast, especially when given enough RAM. There are features in Vista that you get used to and find you really miss when you have to use XP. Things like the way the Start menu works and the desktop search. Then there are the things behind the scenes that make Vista more secure than XP.

I agree with every word of that. I had some minor issues early on, mostly with things (software and hardware) that were made before vista existed. Other than that I have been completely happy with Vista. I wouldn't suggest that anyone pay to upgrade an older computer to Vista, but I don't think most people should hesitate to buy a computer with it installed. I see those Apple adds that refer to "fixing Vista" and my immediate reaction is "I didn't know it was broken."

Kurt

[Jeremy R]

Im going to be that @$$hole who goes and says to you, "Your better off with Linux, try Ubuntu".

[timbob1907]

You should get a Mac Pro. Way cool. Much better too.

[zogola]

Im going to be that @$$hole who goes and says to you, "Your better off with Linux, try Ubuntu".

Yep, there's one in every crowd. Only one... no matter how big the crowd.

I listened to an @$$hole like that once. Never again.

Kurt

[evil-nick]

Stick with Vista 32-bit unless you have a specific absolute need for Vista 64-bit (software that you need to run that needs 64-bit or will run better with more than 4GB of RAM). 64-bit Vista has restrictions and fewer drivers. Very few home users have a need for 64-bit Vista..

I'd go with 64-bit. It's becoming the default version to ship with PC's, since almost everything except the netbooks are 64-bit now anyways. I admit I have barely touched Vista in any form (I used a friend's Vista laptop today for 15min, I think that's the most I've used it) but I listen to Paul Thurotts Windows Weekly netcast on the TWIT Network, and from what he's said, Vista 64 is fine. He also spent Vista's first year and a half or so bashing it non-stop until they got the kinks worked out, so I'm inclined to believe him when he says Vista is as good or better than XP (when pre-installed on a system rather than upgrading an XP machine).

And true, very few users have a need for 64-bit Vista... but how many people *need* a dual-core 4Gigs of RAM 500Gig hard drive machine for the home anyways? Video editing and graphics stuff is cool, but Photoshop used to run on 33Mhz Windows 3.1 machines, and I edited video on a 300Mhz K6 with 64M of RAM and an 8Gig hard drive. Same thing when Windows '95 came out, how many people "needed" 32-bit? ;)

And Linux is fscking awesome, though *may* not fit your needs (Open Source Software FTW!)

[Tak]

Stick with Vista 32-bit unless you have a specific absolute need for Vista 64-bit (software that you need to run that needs 64-bit or will run better with more than 4GB of RAM).
The 4G limit isn't the only reason to run a 64bit OS and software when possible. The AMD64 (aka x86-64 aka x64) architecture improves on 32bit x86 in several ways, for example, by alleviating register starvation.
For that reason, exactly the same software will generally perform better when built as 64bit than as 32bit on the same hardware.

[john_childs]

The 4G limit isn't the only reason to run a 64bit OS and software when possible. The AMD64 (aka x86-64 aka x64) architecture improves on 32bit x86 in several ways, for example, by alleviating register starvation.
For that reason, exactly the same software will generally perform better when built as 64bit than as 32bit on the same hardware.

True, but that would only be for software specifically compiled for 64-bit code. Regular 32-bit applications would not get that benefit.

Have you seen any stats for how much of a performance benefit 64-bit code can have over 32-bit code? I haven't read anything about that.

[SHAY_CAM]

Vista does some dynamic caching that XP does not do. The caching is dynamic which means the cache grows and shrinks as needed. Some of the memory that you see in use is the dynamic cache. When another application needs the memory the cache will shrink.

Vista does a better job of keeping RAM in use with caching instead of leaving the RAM empty and idle. Idle RAM is wasted RAM.

Thank you for stating what dynamic means. :p
You did a nice job in explaining yourself,but anyways;
I already knew this, yet it doesnt seen to work correctly like they want it to.
Opening firefox or internet explorer taking the 50%cpu recourses is to much for one program, it doesnt need that much! Use that much causes the rest of the machine to lag behind, and create drag.
The way i explained it might not make sense.

I might have to explain my option further, just tell me.:)

[Jerrick]

How much ram do you have Shay?

I only have 4gigs of ram and that does everything I want fine except for audio work. I have over 500gigs of audio samples/libraries that are loaded into the VSTi' I have. And a lot of those VST programs cache as many sounds into the ram as possible, cause you dont want to have any lag getting the sound to have. Recording with latency is recording in hell. So my 4 gigs fill up quickly, luckily I can turn off a track when im not working on it to free up a gig or two of ram needed for the next couple of instruments.

Vista surprised me at first when about a 1 gig of ram was used up, but like John said, its how its supposed to be, and allows my comp to run faster.

If you only have 2gigs I can see how half of that being used up could drag you down, specially if you havent set your comp to startup with the minimal amount of processes it and you need.

Luckily ram is super cheap. Once a few more of the programs I have switch to vista ill switch to it, or Windows 7, then ill go out and buy 12 more gigs of ram. :)

[SHAY_CAM]

I have 256mb ram on my Windows ME and it runs faster than my 2007 vista (generally speaking vista should be better than ME)

Specs are as follows:
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/2360/specsou6.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=specsou6.jpg)http://img90.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

[Jerrick]

Well, the specs in there, for the OS its running, is below the Vista system requirements (1gig of ram for Premium). It makes sense that when Vista uses ram how it does and should, that that system would run slow.

256mb is well above the 64mb required by Windows ME. The minimum recommended for ME is actually 32mbs. So of course your comp that has ME is going to run better than your comp that has vista because your ME comp is above the system requirements, and your vista comp is below.

On a side note. Check vistas computer test it can do. I get all 5.9s, and its rather accurate unless your looking for detailed benchmarks. And another fun test to do is 3dmark06 or superPi. Going to CanYouRunIt.com is fun. Its all games I think, but you can select one and see where your computer stands compared to the game specs and see if you need to update or can even play the game you picked.

[Tak]

True, but that would only be for software specifically compiled for 64-bit code. Regular 32-bit applications would not get that benefit.

True, but you'd always get the benefit for the core OS.
Out of curiosity, on a 64bit windows OS (I don't have one), are the bulk of the microsoft-provided applications 64bit or 32bit?
For comparison, on a 64bit linux installation, nearly all the software will be 64bit, with only a few proprietary applications being odd men out (in my case mainly commercial games (although UT2004 shipped with a 64bit linux build) and the goddamned flash plugin).

Have you seen any stats for how much of a performance benefit 64-bit code can have over 32-bit code? I haven't read anything about that.
It depends on the code in question - it appears to be as much as 100% for code that's doing a lot of complex mathematical operations (music/video encoding, file compression, encryption, ...).
A quick google lead me to http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1665&page=6 among others.

[Tak]

Well, the specs in there, for the OS its running, is below the Vista system requirements (1gig of ram for Premium). [...] The minimum recommended for ME is actually 32mbs.

It's unfortunate that the memory requirement for just running the system with no applications has gone up 3000% in the last six years between two systems that essentially perform the same function and run the same software.

[siafirede]

Thanks for all the responses. It seems that I should go with the 64 bit Vista then instead of a XP "downgrade". I don't plan on getting Microsoft Office, I am going to try out Open Office 3.0 since I hear great things about it and I don't really use the Office suite at home at all.

I will also probably splurge and get a 22" or 24" flat screen monitor.

Once I get it all set up I should be able to work from home more frequently. Remoting in now on a slow computer and poor monitor simply isn't productive.

[SHAY_CAM]

Well, the specs in there, for the OS its running, is below the Vista system requirements (1gig of ram for Premium). It makes sense that when Vista uses ram how it does and should, that that system would run slow.

256mb is well above the 64mb required by Windows ME. The minimum recommended for ME is actually 32mbs. So of course your comp that has ME is going to run better than your comp that has vista because your ME comp is above the system requirements, and your vista comp is below.

On a side note. Check vistas computer test it can do. I get all 5.9s, and its rather accurate unless your looking for detailed benchmarks. And another fun test to do is 3dmark06 or superPi. Going to CanYouRunIt.com is fun. Its all games I think, but you can select one and see where your computer stands compared to the game specs and see if you need to update or can even play the game you picked.


Thanks, that is useful, ill have to try it.

[mscalisi]

Vista in it's current state is OK. Then again, so is XP SP3. I think Vista as an OS will be largely forgotten about when Windows 7 comes out. I manage about 160 computers and I'm not putting a single one of them on Vista as there are still application compatibility issues and performance is degraded, especially if you try to run Aero with a system without an appropriate video card.

Unless you have specific apps that need XP, I think Vista is OK for home use given a powerful enough computer. I run it on my el-cheapo gateway laptop, but I have disable all effects in order for performance to be acceptable.

In the office, I'm holding out for Windows 7, as most IT managers are It's said to be 100% compatible with Vista apps, and it gives my vendors a little more time to work out application compatibility issues and more time to weed out legacy applications. It also has performance comparable to XP.

That being said, I order my Dell computers with XP, but they come with both disks so if I ever wanted to install Vista on them, I'm able to.

Regarding 64-bit. I've noticed more and more Vista computers targeted for home use come with the 64bit version. I think in a couple years, that will be the way to go, but I'm not convinced it is today. For my users that don't have a use for more than 3.5GB of ram, I stick with 32-bit for compatibility reasons. For my high-end Matlab users, 64bit is the way to go. (Windows and Linux)

[john_childs]

64-bit Vista hasn't been a viable option for me at home so I haven't looked much into it. An important function of my home computer is audio playback. It is the heart of my stereo system. I use an M-Audio Firewire 410 audio interface. M-Audio only has beta divers available for 64-bit and those were only available in March of this year. I'm not willing to run beta drivers. I'm also not keen on doing a full reinstall of Windows and all my apps just to move up to 64-bits. So I'm sticking with 32-bit.

Many applications for Windows are still 32-bit. Even some open source applications like OpenOffice are 32-bit. So you'll end up running primarily 32-bit apps with just a select few 64-bit apps.

[mscalisi]

I have the the 410 also! I regretted getting vista (32-bit) for a while because m-audio only had beta drivers and they worked very poorly. The new drivers seem to work well.

64-bit Vista hasn't been a viable option for me at home so I haven't looked much into it. An important function of my home computer is audio playback. It is the heart of my stereo system. I use an M-Audio Firewire 410 audio interface. M-Audio only has beta divers available for 64-bit and those were only available in March of this year. I'm not willing to run beta drivers. I'm also not keen on doing a full reinstall of Windows and all my apps just to move up to 64-bits. So I'm sticking with 32-bit.

Many applications for Windows are still 32-bit. Even some open source applications like OpenOffice are 32-bit. So you'll end up running primarily 32-bit apps with just a select few 64-bit apps.

[john_childs]

I have the the 410 also! I regretted getting vista (32-bit) for a while because m-audio only had beta drivers and they worked very poorly. The new drivers seem to work well.

I stayed with XP till M-Audio had final release drivers. It was the one thing holding me back from upgrading immediately to Vista when Vista was released.

I could replace it with something else if I really wanted to go to Vista x64, but I don't see the need or a compelling reason to do so.

[john_childs]

Thanks for all the responses. It seems that I should go with the 64 bit Vista then instead of a XP "downgrade". I don't plan on getting Microsoft Office, I am going to try out Open Office 3.0 since I hear great things about it and I don't really use the Office suite at home at all.

OpenOffice works well for home use. If you don't absolutely need MS Office at home there is no reason to spend money on it. I use MS Works and OpenOffice for my home needs. All I need at home is a little bit of word processing and occasional quick and dirty spreadsheet applications.

If you need to open and save MS Office documents you may find some formatting and compatibility issues. If that is critical for you then you may need to splurge on MS Office.

[siafirede]

Regarding 64-bit. I've noticed more and more Vista computers targeted for home use come with the 64bit version. I think in a couple years, that will be the way to go, but I'm not convinced it is today. For my users that don't have a use for more than 3.5GB of ram, I stick with 32-bit for compatibility reasons. For my high-end Matlab users, 64bit is the way to go. (Windows and Linux)

Do you think it will be more harmfull then good to get the 64 bit Vista?

[Jerrick]

It's unfortunate that the memory requirement for just running the system with no applications has gone up 3000% in the last six years between two systems that essentially perform the same function and run the same software.
Same software? No no no.

For me, the software, hardware and everything has increased a lot in what it can do and what it needs to do it.

If it didnt, I wouldnt need 4+Gigs of ram, a quad core cpu (OCed 3.2ghz) or a HD4870.

:)

[Jerrick]

I stayed with XP till M-Audio had final release drivers. It was the one thing holding me back from upgrading immediately to Vista when Vista was released.

I could replace it with something else if I really wanted to go to Vista x64, but I don't see the need or a compelling reason to do so.


I think im going to go out and buy another 500gig-1kgig drive, put two partitions on it and dual boot with vista and XP. Vista for casual use cause its a lot faster on my machine than XP and to take advantage of DX10 and it will be able to use all the specs of my graphics card. Pixel shader 4.1 and stuff. Then switch to XP for recording and everything else.

Until people make their audio software and hardware better for vista and for me, 64bit, then Vista is only good for a fast general use and sweet sweet gaming.

[evil-nick]

I think im going to go out and buy another 500gig-1kgig drive


You mean a terabyte? ;)

[Jerrick]

You mean a terabyte? ;)

Yep. When typing 500gig-terabyte drive just didnt feel right for me though haha, so I changed it to 1kgig.

Both are cheap enough that the only difference is another week of saving up. After that I wont have any more IDE cables in my case. Everything is Sata II/3g.

[john_childs]

Both are cheap enough that the only difference is another week of saving up. After that I wont have any more IDE cables in my case. Everything is Sata II/3g.

What about outside your case? I have two external drives connected with SATA. My optical drives though are still IDE.

If only Windows could boot from a secondary drive. I have Linux installed on a partition on one of the external drives. Linux boots and is happy with that. Windows can't pull off that trick. It needs to be installed on the primary drive. So to dual boot a second version of Windows (like x64) would require an inconvenient repartioning of my primary internal HD.

[Jerrick]

Outside my case sits a modem on top, and infront of that is my preamp.

I can have two eSATA drives connected, but I havent connected the adapter. Id rather just keep it all inside.

[mscalisi]

It's hard to say. I would have some concerns about compatibility issues. Obviously, If you're buying a system with the 64-bit OS, it would include drivers for the purchased hardware, but you'd need to double-check that your peripherals, current and future, also have drivers.

Software compatibility is also an issue. Software that works with 32-bit windows usually works with 64-bit also, but not necessarily.

You can check here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/

Do you think it will be more harmfull then good to get the 64 bit Vista?

[evil-nick]

True, but there's often that problem going between versions of 32-bit windows as well.

[Mikefule]

I had to change my computer recently, and foolishly changed to Vista. So much of my old software is incompatible. Can no longer operate my printer, scanner, camera, mobile phone downloads, MP3 player. I'm sure I could find the software on the internet, but it's such a ball ache. I had to buy new anti-virus and a new PDF writer. Latest AOL software seems not to work with it.

And every so often, my PC just locks up and I have to switch it off with the reset button.

Many people I know have made a positive choice not to go with Vista.

Microsoft are discontinuing Vista soon because it is so unsuccessful.

[Jerrick]

I dont think its unseccesful, I think for the most part, people just dont get it. And still to this day are many people who have never tried Vista, and just based on others peoples thoughts about it, they decide they hate it.

What are your specs Mike, and have you done any of the updates for vista yet?

Luckily for me, Vista runs all of my software and hardware better and without a problem except for one program. Not vistas fault though.

500gig hardrives are slightly above $60 so ill get one of those, dual boot with it and be set.

[evil-nick]

I had to change my computer recently, and foolishly changed to Vista. So much of my old software is incompatible. Can no longer operate my printer, scanner, camera, mobile phone downloads, MP3 player. I'm sure I could find the software on the internet, but it's such a ball ache. I had to buy new anti-virus and a new PDF writer. Latest AOL software seems not to work with it.

The same thing happened when people went from Windows 3.1 to '95 to '98 to ME or 2000, to XP... It happens every time there's a new windows version. I don't get hit with it as bad because until this past spring I had no printer, I have no scanner, and my first digital camera had a hardware failure, so I *had* to use a card reader for cartridges, which I found to be more convenient then plugging it it in, so I eject the card to this day, 2 cameras later ;) I use AVG anti-virus, and I use OpenOffice for creating PDF's (though you might have creation needs it doesn't fill).

Anyone here heard of Microsoft Mojave? ;)

And for the record... The core of Windows Vista, the kernel, is version 6. The kernel for Windows 7 is 6.1. Windows 7 is Vista, but tweaked.

[Jerrick]

EDIT: If you can, wait for windows 7. Basically it is vista with service pack updates. Like going from windows 98 to 98se. But better.


Hehe.

[evil-nick]

More like going from Windows 2000 to XP. Same basic guts, but tweaked to be better (Windows 2000 was version 5.0, XP was 5.1).

[harper]

Wow. I just bought a box pre-loaded with Vista for my wife. It has no OS CD or DVD. How annoying. Maybe I can make an image of the new system with DriveImageXML and burn it to DVD. What else do you do if you need to reload your OS? It is an eMachines box and their instructions ask you to rely on the restore points alone. I think I will petition them for an OS disk. I think I paid for that. Maybe they think not.

We had two XP boxes on a home network. The slow one was wireless using an IDE adapter and the faster one was wired by CAT-5 to the router. XP fought me a little bit when I tried to set up the network but I eventually won that battle. Vista is fighting me tooth and nail. How could something be made so much more difficult after an "advance" in the OS? Vista, for one, refuses to recognize XP over the network. I had to install some "recognition" software in the XP box and it still doesn't work.

I have a USB wireless adapter that I will be getting for the Vista box in a week or so. The box has no IDE expansion slots so I can't use the wireless adapter I have now installed in my XP box. I will eventually set the home network back up with the XP box wired with CAT-5 to the router. Then I will make the Vista box search for wireless networks and beg to get on rather than turn up its nose and refuse to let the XP box on. That is unless I can figure this out or get some tips from you Vista ga-HEEN-yasus.

The new box has Vista Home Premium SP1.

[siafirede]

Hmm, yeah that sounds quite annoying.

Update for me: I ordered the new Dell Studio XPS desktop. It will have Vista x64 Ultimate, hopefully I won't have a lot of problems.

[Tak]

Wow. I just bought a box pre-loaded with Vista for my wife. It has no OS CD or DVD. How annoying.
Wow, that's pretty bad. The major distributors have just been giving "system restore" discs for a while (ones that will let you reimage the machine to the way it was when you bought it (incidentally, the last one I had, for my ancient compaq laptop, didn't work when I needed it)) instead of real install media, but this is even worse.
Restore points aren't any good if you have a disk failure.

Maybe I can make an image of the new system with DriveImageXML and burn it to DVD.
That might be your best bet, outside of "illicitly" acquiring an install disc.

[harper]

The major distributors have just been giving "system restore" discs for a while (ones that will let you reimage the machine to the way it was when you bought it (incidentally, the last one I had, for my ancient compaq laptop, didn't work when I needed it)) instead of real install media, but this is even worse.
Restore points aren't any good if you have a disk failure.



I spoke with eMachines support. They told me that they no longer ship a system restore disk. Apparently I can make one on my own. I can see how this might work with an HDD failure but in the event of a motherboard failure this might not work. I had installation disks with a prior computer and, after having to replace the motherboard, the disks did not work.

[evil-nick]

If you can find the license key (used to be on a Microsoft sticker somewhere on the system), you can find a disc online and use that. Remember, you're not actually paying for the Windows disc, you're paying a license to run the software, otherwise they would give you a disc. The trick is to make sure that the disc you download is the right version, with Windows 2000 and XP, there was an OEM version (it had "OEM" in the middle of the license key") and retails versions. You can't use the OEM key to install off a retail disc and vice versa. But using the key that came with your machine with the right version of Vista should work & be legal.

We did this in university when the student run lab wanted to install Windows, but the IT department wouldn't give us keys (the university had a site-license). Instead we used an OEM 2000 disc and the keys from the computers in the Linux lab (which were not running Windows 2000, but had come preinstalled with it). Nice & legal :)

Oh, by IDE do you mean PCI or ISA? IDE is a hard-drive interface, PCI is for add-on cards, and ISA *should* never have been in that machine... it was phased out almost a decade ago ;)

[harper]

Oh, by IDE do you mean PCI or ISA? IDE is a hard-drive interface, PCI is for add-on cards, and ISA *should* never have been in that machine... it was phased out almost a decade ago

Sorry, Nick. I sometimes type fast and loose and subsequently stick with the wrong terminology consistently through an entire post. Yes, I meant PCI slot.

[harper]

If you can find the license key (used to be on a Microsoft sticker somewhere on the system), you can find a disc online and use that. Remember, you're not actually paying for the Windows disc, you're paying a license to run the software, otherwise they would give you a disc. The trick is to make sure that the disc you download is the right version, with Windows 2000 and XP, there was an OEM version (it had "OEM" in the middle of the license key") and retails versions. You can't use the OEM key to install off a retail disc and vice versa. But using the key that came with your machine with the right version of Vista should work & be legal.


Nick-

Just such a sticker does exist on the back with the OEM embedded in the key as you said. How to obtain the installation disk given this information is not quite clear to me. If you remember the process of obtaining it could you PM the details to me?

Thanks.

[Jerrick]

You can find a torrent of a vista disc. Just the original disc, no cracks or activations, or modified bootloaders. Just the clean installation or repair disk.