OEM version of Vista

[longarm]

Looking to install Vista on my laptop (my beta has finally expired). The OEM version is a lot cheaper than the retail version, if I want to install on one computer only and am not bothered about support, then would the OEM version be okay for this. Or would I come across activation problems.

[DogfighterF22]

The first version of Vista is riddled with bugs.

Wait for Service Pack 1 (SP1) version before you 'upgrade'

If you do go for the OEM version though, you'll still get support. The only thing you're paying all that money for is a shiny retail box and a manual.

[Parapunter]

Is it? I haven't noticed that. I've got Vista Home Premium 32bit and I have noticed nothing to suggest any serious flaws with Vista. I have heard of bugs such as excessively long data transfer times, but on my copy, I shoveled 40 gigs of music across in less than twenty minutes so I don't know about that one at all.

My copy is OEM and I'vve really had no problems at all. It's ram hungry but that IMHO is a good thing - ram is faster than HDD. What is true is that there are major redesigns in Vista that have meant third party hard/software suppliers haven't caught up - woe betide anyone who has a creative soundcard for example and I understand Itunes doesn't work with it either, but I recall this was the same when XP came along, so you can hold off for manufacturers to get their act together with drivers and software I suppose.

One thing - anyone who's spent a day setting up a fresh install of XP will welcome the driver bank in Vista - install it, it detects your hardware and installs the majority of drivers before you've had time for a cup of tea. Off you go.

You will get all the MS detractors on here telling you what a waste of time it is, but I've run the OEM version Since February and I think it works just fine.

[longarm]

Thanks for the replies. I've been running the Beta version for months without problems. Do you have to activate the OEM version?

[Parapunter]

In a word, yes.

[terrain safe]

Ran Vista home premium for a couple of months. I quite liked it, there were many many good features, but the problems drove me mad. Couldn't get my Creative X-fi soundcard to work properly, Firefox had some problems, bluetooth rebooted the computer each time I plugged it in and a lot of my usefull little programs that you collect over the years didn't work. I'm now typing this on a fresh XP media centre installation. Both my sons did the same. I'll wait until SP1 before reinstalling.

[parabellum]

As above. I'm now happily back with XP. Bought a new computer, 2GB RAM, dual core 6600 Intel processor etc. A lot of supplementary programmes don't work with Vista, including security programmes that you need. I can see the day coming when they issue SP1 but if you don't have Vista installed it won't be released to you!

[slim_slag]

It's ram hungry but that IMHO is a good thing - ram is faster than HDD.But just as a general point, don't you want the maximum RAM to be available to your applications, not being used by the OS? Addressing RAM also takes a finite time and it you need to do it a lot then it adds up.

Just taken a quick look at UK Dell and they are now supplying all laptops with XP, last time I looked XP was only an option on a minority.

[Parapunter]

Well, the fact that your xfi card doesn't work in Vista has nothing to do with MS. Look here: http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board?board.id=Vista for the facts. Firefox works just fine in my Vista, so I would suggest you look at the most up to date version and thus it is pointless suggesting you hold off for SP1 when in fact the problems described all lie with third party vendors.
Now, hanging on for an update for your windows 95 tetris game would be a good reason to hold off installing vista, but it irritates me when it's suggested that it's Microsoft's fault that a creative sound card doesn't have up to date drivers for the new os.
It's not. It's Creative Labs poor planning that has caused your sound card to fail in Vista.

As for ram, you're right, it does take time to address ram, but it takes longer to address HDD. Vista is eye candy, so demands more ram to generate all those pretty 'aero' effects, but typically, having forked out for your gigs of ram, the average user is going to run with one maybe two windows on the go, so the extra ram you'll need to run it will contribute to the faster, smoother running of your system. It's an arguable point - my pov is that this is in general, where home computing is heading, so I'm happy to sign up for it. You may see it as frivolous and wasteful if so, then xp or ubuntu is your natural home.