[mcoto]

Hi,

I'm a long time XBMC user. I am running Live on a couple of nettops and have been pretty satisfied with everything. I just got a slim line blu ray player and would like to be able to play the occasional disk I don't have time to push to the server or what not (now that the latest build support blur ray disk and .iso playback). Obviously Linux won't work for me but windows should (I have anydvdHD to do the decryption).

I have copies of both Vista ultimate and Win 7 lying around and I'm wondering which would be better. I think the Vista is 32bit and the Win 7 is 64

Hardware is going to be a acer Revo 1600 with 4gb RAM. Acer external bluray player. Almost all my media is going to be streamed from a NAS.

Any help or tips would be nice. i've got XBMC up on my main desktop as a testbed and it seems to work quite well (the netflix streaming is a nice benefit as well).

Thanks
M

[dan1son]

Windows 7 is incomparably better than Vista for normal use. For XBMC though, it doesn't really matter since they'll both support the DXVA2 stuff you need. I dual boot Ubuntu and Windows 7 on a Revo 1600 with 2gigs of RAM with no problems. I wouldn't call Windows 7 speedy on it, but it gets the job done just fine.

[elitegamer360]

I would go with Windows 7, it uses less memory compared to Vista. I tried on an older P4 System and "7" ran smoother than Vista.

Cheers,
EG.

[mcoto]

Thanks. 7 it is

How has stability been for you guys. the one thing I like about live is I never have to reboot (My Live setup locked up ONCE in the last 12 months). Do you have any problems with the remote? Does suspend and wake work well

I had originally been running a XP setup but I ran into random lockups so I switched to live.

Thanks
Kupe

[elitegamer360]

"7" is very stable for me and if by "Remote" you mean a remote control and not Remote shares, then an RC6 remote is the best you can use although you can use any learning type remote like the Harmony with a proper RC6 receiver like the very popular HP IR receiver. Suspend and wake works very well when looked at it as a function without the implications it has on XBMC.

Although I do not send my systems in to that state very frequently but I do not deny that there are many posts in the forum about XBMC UI major slow downs or video stuttering after resume. Currently the only solution is to restart XBMC after a system resume, I do not say that I had any of those issues because I do not.

Cheers,
EG.

[mcoto]

Thanks. I'll give it a shot this weekend

[NexXxus]

I have a system with Atom 330 and ION Chipset as well and 2gig ram.
I own a unused copy of Windows Vista Home Premium, but not Windows 7.
So is there any noticable difference in performance for 1080p h264/x264 videos when I use XBMC on Vista instead of 7 on that system?
I currently have XP on that system and use Mediaportal with the CoreAVC codec, and it has a small lag like every 1-2 seconds, especially noticable on camera movings.

[natethomas]

As far as video playback is concerned, Vista and 7 should be approximately equal. Both use the exact same dxva2 decoder.

[TomPiXX]

Vista == 7 beta

[NexXxus]

As far as video playback is concerned, Vista and 7 should be approximately equal. Both use the exact same dxva2 decoder.

okay thanks.
But I may buy Windows 7 then cuz I find it more comfortable to use.

[dukey]

Vista == 7 beta

The difference between Windows 7 and Vista is the difference between Windows Xp and Windows 2000.

ie not a lot

[TomPiXX]

The difference between Windows 7 and Vista is the difference between Windows Xp and Windows 2000.

ie not a lot

Sorry, but you're completely wrong.

In times of Windows 2000, Microsoft develops to structures of client opterating systems.
One for professional / business clients (NT based, mostly used in a client-/server network) and one for home users like Windows 95 / 98.

Since Windows XP, Microsoft wants to combine both and creates "editions" of the OS (Home and Professional for example).

So, Windows XP was the first OS that should serve home users and companies. And this worked well for a long time.

Windows Vista was promised as "THE" revolution.
Everything would be better, less hardware requirement, efficient usage of all hardware components and many many many many more features.

Fact is: Vista was not able to handle not even 50% of those promises.
Instead, home users were abused as beta-testers, companies skipped Vista and the main development continued.
Shortly after Vista, Windows 7 was born with the promised features (or at least most of them).

Really less hardware requirements, MUCH(!!) more stable than Vista, extensive changes of handling the system and finally usable in a client / server network. And the installation takes a lot less time.

Example: If you want to work smoothly with Photoshop CS4 (x64) you had to install 12 GB of RAM at least in Vista.

The same hardware configuration needs just about 6-8 GB of RAM in Windows 7.
That's not an opinion that's a measurable fact.

Okay... it seems to become to much off topic but don't forget:

The differences between Windows Vista and Windows 7 are bigger as you may suppose.



Tom

[natethomas]

okay thanks.
But I may buy Windows 7 then cuz I find it more comfortable to use.

As always, when it comes to OSes, you should do what you find most comfortable. There's really no reason to make it harder than in needs to be. So I approve!