Differences between basic and ultimate

[goyta]

Special needs here, still unsure

For now, I'm running an... er... "unofficial" copy of Windows 7 Ultimate, but I do intend to buy a license very soon. However, I'm undecided between Home Premium and Ultimate. Professional is ruled out, because it would give me no real advantage, and its price here is just a little bit less than Ultimate's, so why bother?

My situation is somewhat unusual and different from most folks on this forum, and this is why my decision is also more difficult. First of all, I live in Brazil. Here, upgrade licenses are not being sold - only the full (FPP) ones. Family packs, student licenses? Forget it. Windows Anytime Upgrade is also unavailable here, so I can't start with Home Premium and later upgrade to Ultimate if I decide so, except if I buy a pricey full Ultimate license anew and lose my entire previous investment. And prices are higher here than in the U.S. With such policies for Brazil, Microsoft is on its knees imploring for Brazilians to pirate its system, don't you think so?

Now, I live alone, work from home as a technical translator (English-Portuguese and vice versa), live almost a hermit's life, rarely going out, and when I do, my cell phone serves me well. So, I don't have a laptop because I don't need one, and BitLocker is useless to me. (And if I had a laptop, TrueCrypt might not have the same strength as TPM encryption, but I have no military or millionaire trade secrets, and TrueCrypt would do very well against the petty street thieves who would just want to sell the PC for peanuts to buy dope, and who would be my only concern in that case.) I have only one desktop PC and no home network; so, network backups won't be missed. Besides, even the Starter edition can run a third-party program to do that - you only can't use Windows 7's native backup utility to save your backups to a networked location.

Likewise, my old Athlon 64 3800+ processor is not compatible with XP virtualization mode, but while I do need to use a few XP-only apps, free VMware Player 3.0 does the same job very fast and efficiently here without any problems (tested and approved, with excellent performance even with my 4-year-old single-core processor and 2 GB RAM). And VMware can run on any Windows 7 SKU, without requiring any hardware virtualization support.

Considering that an Ultimate license costs almost twice as much as a Home Premium license here (about U.S.$ 390 vs. U.S.$ 230 -- and the damage to the pockets in local currency and at local income levels hurts more than this sounds!), Home Premium would be a no-brainer for me, except for one thing: the multilingual user interface (MUI) feature that only Ultimate offers.

In my translation and localization work, sometimes I need to have the exact wording the system displays in messages, menus, screens, etc., in both English and Portuguese. Sometimes screen captures are handy, too, and I have had to ask friends to get them for me. I am using a U.S. edition of Windows 7; I have tested the Brazilian Portuguese MUI in it, and it was perfect - even system folders like Program Files were renamed Arquivos de Programas, while maintaining compatibility and switching back to English flawlessly later.

Of course, Windows 7 copies available for sale here are all in Brazilian Portuguese. So, I'm wondering if I can activate an "unofficial" English copy of Windows 7 Home Premium with a Brazilian key (meaning I don't know both if it would work and if it would be legal). Such work assignments where I need screens and messages in both languages are not very frequent, and I could create a partition image, briefly install the Portuguese version (I'd have the genuine DVDs, after all), get what I need, then restore the original partition. Much more troublesome than just activating a MUI, but it would work.

Weighing all the pros and cons, I think Home Premium will be my most likely buy. What would you do in my place, guys and girls?

 

[Elfie]

I got Pro 64 bit throught the univcersity i'm at for £0 one of the factore in getting it
(also the only opsions avalible were pro 32bit and 64bit)

 

[TomH]

When I purchased this laptop (Acer Extensa 5230) it was running Windows Vista Home Basic - I chose to upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate a few days after it was released and I have to say, I am extremely impressed! I'm using a 32-bit edition because 64-bit would be pointless on a lower-end PC like this. I'm thinking about upgrading my desktop to Windows 7 Ultimate as well - it is currently running Windows XP Professional.

 

[fishnbanjo]

Ultimate 64 on the main PC and pro 32 on one laptop, I have a copy of Home Premium 64 that I'm trading for Home Premium 32 for the other laptop. Found I am enjoying it so much on the laptop that when the XP Pro bootmgr failed I didn't even care!

 

[Frostmourne]

Full retail copy on my laptop, buying Ultimate for my desktop and buying Ultimate OEM if I build my new pc. All x64.

 

[goyta]

I decided to downgrade from Ultimate to Home Premium. The latter does everything I need, and paying almost twice the license price for Ultimate wasn't worth it. Also using 32-bit because my PC is four years old, has only 2 GB RAM (see full specs on the link below), and the disadvantages of 64-bit in terms of incompatibility and software driver programs would outweigh the advantages for my present configuration and situation.

I'm organizing my finances to replace my PC with a more up-to-date configuration next year (such things are not simple down here in Brazil, where hardware is VERY expensive, due to excessive taxation and other reasons), and maybe then I'll change my mind and go 64-bit, but not for now.

And @fishnbanjo, I can understand you very well. I just reinstalled Windows 7 anew three days ago, this time for good (after a few early test installs), but it feels like I've been using it for years. I'm running a few (VERY few) incompatible legacy apps I need for my work on a Windows XP virtual machine under VMware Workstation 3.0, and the performance is surprisingly good, even with my old machine configuration. (See, not even XP Mode was a good reason for me to go Pro or Ultimate - my current processor is incompatible anyway...)

 

[paliometoxo]

i payed nearly 200 euros for the ultimate version but the beta version of ie 8 was better then the full version this one crashes so easily..

 

[mastr55]

hey i want to know what dif 32 bit ,64bit , 86 bit

 

[Bf2multi100]

32bit and 86bit (in your mind, but there is no 86bit unless your comparing x86 (a.k.a. 32bit) to x64) are the same thing. For example say you have a pc that has a quad core pc with like 6gbs of memory or more, the 32bit version of windows 7 ONLY supports a dual core processor and 3gbs of memory, if you want the full FORCE of that pc you have go to the 64bit version of windows 7 (weather it is pro or basic e.t.c.)

 

[goyta]

hey i want to know what dif 32 bit ,64bit , 86 bit

I'm afraid this is going to be a long explanation, but I hope it will be simple and understandable enough. I will try to be the least technical possible.

---

First of all, there is no "86-bit". You are probably confused by the "x86" term. Consider it a synonym for "32-bit". It stems from the old Intel 8086, 80286, 80386, etc. processor models, whose architecture is still used today in backward compatible form by all processors that can run Windows. If you want more details, Wikipedia has an excellent article about it.

---

Now, what are "32-bit" and "64-bit"? The terms refer to the amount of data that the processor can get and process at each working cycle. The more data it can get at once, the speedier it will be able to work. A processor working in 64 bits can process twice as much data at once than if working with 32-bit chunks of data.

(In case you are wondering, nearly all modern processor models - roughly, launched and manufactured in and after late 2004 - can work in both modes, 32- and 64-bit, but to work in 64 bits, both the processor and the operating system - in our case, Windows - must be compatible.)

Additionally and even more importantly, however, as a side effect of that and an added bonus, 64-bit systems can use much more memory than 32-bit systems. This is because each memory position must have an address in order to be referenced and accessed, and this is done in numeric sequence. But computers always work in the binary system at their lowest, innermost level. They can display and accept decimal data for your (human) convenience, but the decimal number is always internally converted to binary for the actual processing.

So, the address of a given memory position is referenced as a 32- or 64-bit binary number like, say, 10110010 11101100 00010111 10010001 (a random example with 32 binary digits, or bits). A 32-bit processor will be able to take a 32-bit long binary number as the address of a memory position; conversely, a 64-bit processor will be able to take a 64-bit long binary number, and this is not twice, but the square of the number of possible addresses in 32 bits.

So, a 32-bit processor can address up to 2 raised to the power of 32 (2^32) memory positions. That's 4 gigabytes (GB), or about 4.3 billion bytes. This sounds like a lot, but it's actually standard today. Windows 7 needs about 1 GB just for itself, to work minimally well; this doesn't include the memory necessary for programs and data. You can have more than 4 GB memory installed in your computer and run a 32-bit system on it, but everything above 4 GB will be ignored and not used. (Actually, due to some Windows design features in the 32-bit versions, only a maximum of about 3.5 GB will be used in practice.)

By contrast, a 64-bit processor can theoretically address 2^64 memory positions. That's 16 exabytes (EB), or about 18.4 quintillion bytes - a number with 20 decimal digits. This is a lot of memory, many orders of magnitude more than needed by even the biggest military and scientific computers and applications of today. There isn't even a computer today whose design allows it to actually use all that. And by design, Microsoft has set an actual limit of 192 GB for 64-bit Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise and Ultimate, and 16 GB for 64-bit Home Premium. But very few of today's computer motherboards accept 24 GB memory, with 16 GB being the upper limit for most of them, including the most expensive, high-end ones. While 4 GB may be too little for some people, especially gamers and people who do heavy graphics and video editing, 8 GB are enough for the vast majority of today's users and applications. (Of course, I'm not talking about enterprise servers here, which often need much more, but they won't use Windows 7.)

---

Memory, memory, memory... Why all this talk about memory, you must be asking? Because memory is an electronic circuit that is much faster than a hard disk drive and its mechanical moving parts (now there are also the new solid-state drives, or SSDs, whose technology is similar to USB key drives and have no moving parts, but while they are much faster than mechanical hard drives, they are still no match for memory circuits).

When the amount of memory in your computer is not enough for what Windows and the running programs need at a given moment, Windows starts using parts of the much slower hard disk as additional "fake memory" (or, in proper technical terms, "virtual memory"). This process is called "paging to virtual memory". With more available real memory, this happens less often and your computer runs much faster. It will also be able to run more applications at once and have more data stored in memory at a time, instead of fetching them from the hard disk all the time. And there are other technical details that can make it run faster in 64 bits, too. Running 32-bit programs is (mostly) not a problem - 64-bit Windows can run them, too, if needed.

---

So, in theory a 64-bit system performs much better than a 32-bit system, mostly because of the memory advantage. In practice, however, there are other considerations, and you will notice on the left that I chose to use 32-bit Windows 7 myself, at least for now. This was because:

• My PC is 4 years old and has only 2 GB memory. With 2 GB, there is little to no advantage in using a 64-bit system, because that still falls within the capabilities of a 32-bit system, and a 64-bit system will have the same constraints of that amount. And I don't want to invest further in an old system, by adding more memory or otherwise; I intend to replace it next year, and then things may change.

• I wrote above that a 64-bit system can run 32-bit programs as well, but there are some exceptions. These are mostly programs that need to access the system at a much lower level than, say, a word processor or a Web browser. For example, firewalls, antivirus programs, some system utilities like one I use that prevents the processor from overheating at times of very intensive processing. Some of them don't have 64-bit versions yet, and the 32-bit version is not compatible. Some other applications, like Adobe Acrobat, may behave strangely at times when run on 64-bit Windows. I did test 64-bit Windows 7, but I found many low-level applications I use to be incompatible, and such problems to happen often enough to be a considerable nuisance.

• Another and special case of such exceptions is device drivers, the little programs that tell Windows how to communicate and control your printer, scanner, camera, sound card, etc. I didn't have any driver problems myself, but there are other people having them, because 64-bit Windows treats drivers differently from the 32-bit versions. First, it requires specific 64-bit drivers, and not all device manufacturers or models have one available. Second, it requires all drivers to be digitally signed, and even some large and well-known brands don't do it (take Creative Labs, for example: only recently did it start signing the drivers for its SoundBlaster cards). There are workarounds for this, but they are somewhat technical and involve some trade-offs. The older your peripheral devices are, the more likely you are to have problems. If upgrading an old laptop (2006 or earlier, meaning launched before Windows Vista), you are almost certain to have them.

• Finally, although 32-bit programs can be run, in order to get the full advantages of a 64-bit system, the program must have been specifically made for 64 bits. Otherwise, the system will still be able to run more of them at once with good performance, but each of them individually will run on a simulated 32-bit environment and have the corresponding constraints. The number of native 64-bit applications is increasing, but at this moment they are still relatively few and don't include some important ones. For example, there is no 64-bit Mozilla Firefox or Office 2007 (Office 2010 will have a 64-bit version). 64-bit Windows 7 comes with both 64- and 32-bit versions of Internet Explorer, but you won't be able to view YouTube videos with the former, because Adobe hasn't yet launched a 64-bit version of Flash, required to view YouTube videos.

So, for the time being, in my specific case and under my current conditions, I found that there would be more disadvantages and problems than advantages in using 64-bit Windows. But of course this varies a lot and depends on your specific needs and conditions. If you have 4 GB or more memory, if you like to play heavy games like Crysis, if you don't run incompatible programs, if you do heavy video processing, then you should go for 64 bits without hesitation. But if you, like me, run an old system with less than 4 GB memory, doesn't use such heavy programs and have incompatible applications or no driver support for your peripherals, then 32-bit Windows will certainly be better for you.

Like I said, this was long, but hopefully clear and understandable enough.

 

[Frostmourne]

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.

 

[goyta]

...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.

...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.

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.

 

[gutaryasha2075]

Thanks for the info!

 

[D3ftOn3Z]

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

 

[CarlTR6]

Good info. Thanks for the post. Now all I have to do is learn what the heck all of these features do!

 

[chernij]

Home Premium for me.

 

[Frostmourne]

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.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

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.

 

[heres2ferrari]

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.

 

[noobvious]

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.

Because it is the top of the line, perhaps?