Differences between basic and ultimate

The performance difference is negligible with a proper system for 32-bit apps, low level utilities are basically obsolete and unnecessary in 7 and any hardware that doesn't have x64 support will when customers switch brands, although if you have old hardware/software that can't be replaced (really?) then 32-bit will suit.

Frostmourne said:

...low level utilities are basically obsolete and unnecessary in 7...

What do you mean by that? Some examples of low-level utilities that in some cases won't run in 64 bits (at least for now): NextSensor (indispensable for my processor, which tends to go runaway and overheat when doing some heavy processing - encryption, video conversion, compression, etc. - regardless of what I do to physically cool it), Online Armor, several antiviruses, some PDF generators that work as virtual printers.

I don't know any real replacement for NextSensor (I looked for one extensively, and this was a major factor in my sticking with 32 bits for now), but although there are firewalls and antiviruses that do work in 64 bits (though none of them natively, as far as I know), that's limiting the user's choice. And although there are some who believe that firewalls and antiviruses are unnecessary (those "I-don't-use-condoms-and-don't-get-AIDS-because-I-choose-my-partners-well" types), I believe they are exceptions and few people would consider firewalls and antiviruses "obsolete and unnecessary".

And not only low-level apps have problems in x64: Adobe, in particular, has been a failure in that respect. Flash doesn't work in 64 bits yet, which means that you can't use Internet Explorer x64 to view YouTube videos. None of their apps, not even CS4 (released long after Vista x64 was available) has a native 64-bit version, though many users would benefit enormously from large memory spaces and faster number-crunching, especially those using Premiere, Encore and AfterEffects. Acrobat and even Adobe Reader sometimes behave erratically when run in a 64-bit system. Other than Adobe, the newly released RealPlayer (SP) works in 64 bits (though it's a x86 app), but the previous Gold version didn't. There are many examples of partially or totally incompatible software.

This, of course, is a matter of time, but Vista x64 has been widely available for almost three years now (more if you count the public betas and XP Pro x64, which never really caught much), yet most software publishers still don't appear to be exactly in a hurry to embrace 64 bits.

Frostmourne said:

...and any hardware that doesn't have x64 support will when customers switch brands...

If you are saying that all equipment will eventually become obsolete, unsatisfactory and/or will break down, and then the user is likely to get one with 64-bit drivers, I agree. And personally, I didn't have any driver problems with the hardware I have. Even my printer from 2006 worked perfectly on Windows 7 x64, with a Vista driver that Epson released in 2007. My sound and fax-modem cards, both circa 2005, worked with drivers from Windows Update.

But if you mean switching brands in the name of a cause just because the manufacturer hasn't "seen the light" and doesn't support 64 bits, that simply won't happen except with the most fanatical of technology lovers. People will still keep buying the hardware that's most convenient to them in terms of features, ease of use, maintenance, cost/quality and cost/benefit ratios, etc., and if they have no support in the OS, it's the OS that will be discarded, not the hardware. This was exactly what happened a lot with Vista (both x86 and x64), and people just went back to XP in droves to keep using what they already had.

Frostmourne said:

although if you have old hardware/software that can't be replaced (really?) then 32-bit will suit.

Replacing a system costs money, and not all people (especially today) have lots of it to spare and to change components or a whole system by a mere whim, by sport or hobby. Take my case: my PC has an Athlon 64 processor on socket 939 and a motherboard supporting only PC3200 (DDR 400) memory. Socket 939 processors are no longer manufactured. Motherboards supporting them aren't, either. PC3200 memory can still be found, but it's already hard.

So, if I replace any of these three components, I'll have to replace all three. I simply can't afford it now, especially since hardware here in Brazil is very expensive - at least twice, but up to 5 times as much as what certain items would cost in the U.S., while the average income is less. I had a friend bring me a 500-GB external HDD from the U.S. Shortly afterwards, I bought a 320-GB similar HDD here. The smaller HDD cost more than twice as much.

This is one of the reasons why desktops still sell much more than laptops in Brazil (and AMD beats Intel in market share here: benchmarks may give Intel the performance lead, but at the prices their processors are sold here, pennywise AMD gives much more bang for the buck); why branded, factory-made PCs, such as those by Dell, HP and a few local manufacturers, are mostly shunned (garage-built custom PCs assembled by friends or by an army of specialized professionals from spare components are much cheaper); and, incidentally, why most Brazilians never heard that a thing called "Macintosh" even exists.

Most importantly, I see no reason to replace my system right now. It performs very well for what I need it to do. I don't play games, I don't do heavy video editing, I don't do anything for which I feel the need of a newer, speedier system. And other than hobbyists with deep pockets, most people are like me and stay with the same PC for many, many years. And "32-bit will suit" makes it sound as if it were some incredibly slow cart drawn by an old horse. It's not - performance is very satisfactory, and 64-bit isn't noticeably faster for most day-to-day uses.

Would I gain anything by running a 64-bit system? My conclusion was that no, I wouldn't, while I would have problems I didn't need if I went 64-bit. In fact, I think it's not just me: most people don't need 64 bits. Furthermore, while 64-bit is certainly the direction where things are heading to in the long term, at this moment it's still an immature market and technology. I could brag that I was "using the technology of the future", but such vanity would cost me a lot of problems in the present.

My guess is that 64-bit will only really go mainstream when Windows 8 is looming on the horizon and Microsoft announces that it will be 64-bit only (which it is likely to be). Then I'm sure everybody will rush to adapt themselves. If things change even before that for some reason, no problem: I have my 64-bit DVD here and can easily make the switch whenever I want (even with my current hardware). But not now.

Thanks for the info!

Thank you so much for the information listed.
Much appreciated!

Home Premium for me.

I will never use legacy old hardware or apps, off to the bin, and use new software and hardware, so x64 for me was the choice, along with my gaming PC.

Back to the title of the thread:

http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp

Here is what Ultimate has that is not available in Professional:

BitLocker, BitLocker To Go, AppLocker, Direct Access, Branche Cache, MUI language packs, boot from VHD.

Here is what Professional has that is not available in Home Premium:

Domain join, Remote Desktop host, location aware printing, EFS, Mobility Center, Presentation Mode, Offline Folders, Group Policy (GP) controls, advanced backup, XP Mode.

I have ultimate and the one thing that everyones stating that is really the only difference (bit locker) I cant even use because it says I dont have a "TPM chip." What do only really high end computers have TPM chips built in?
Other than bit locker i cant understand from the Poll why everyone wants ultimate.