Let $\mathcal{X}$ represent your input space i.e the space where your data points resides. Consider a function $\Phi:\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{F}$ such that it takes a point from your input space $\mathcal{X}$ and maps it to a point in $\mathcal{F}$. Now, let us say that we have mapped all your data points from $\mathcal{X}$ to this new space $\mathcal{F}$. Now, if you try to solve the normal linear svm in this new space $\mathcal{F}$ instead of $\mathcal{X}$, you will notice that all the earlier working simply look the same, except that all the points $x_i$ are represented as $\Phi(x_i)$ and instead of using $x^Ty$ (dot product) which is the natural inner product for Euclidean space, we replace it with $\langle \Phi(x), \Phi(y) \rangle$ which represents the natural inner product in the new space $\mathcal{F}$. So, at the end, your $w^*$ would look like,
$$
w^*=\sum_{i \in SV} h_i y_i \Phi(x_i)
$$
and hence,
$$
\langle w^*, \Phi(x) \rangle = \sum_{i \in SV} h_i y_i \langle \Phi(x_i), \Phi(x) \rangle
$$
Similarly,
$$
b^*=\frac{1}{|SV|}\sum_{i \in SV}\left(y_i - \sum_{j=1}^N\left(h_j y_j \langle \Phi(x_j), \Phi(x_i)\rangle\right)\right)
$$
and your classification rule looks like: $c_x=\text{sign}(\langle w, \Phi(x) \rangle+b)$.
So far so good, there is nothing new, since we have simply applied the normal linear SVM to just a different space. However, the magic part is this -
Let us say that there exists a function $k:\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $k(x_i, x_j) = \langle \Phi(x_i), \Phi(x_j) \rangle$. Then, we can replace all the dot products above with $k(x_i, x_j)$. Such a $k$ is called a kernel function.
Therefore, your $w^*$ and $b^*$ look like,
$$
\langle w^*, \Phi(x) \rangle = \sum_{i \in SV} h_i y_i k(x_i, x)
$$
$$
b^*=\frac{1}{|SV|}\sum_{i \in SV}\left(y_i - \sum_{j=1}^N\left(h_j y_j k(x_j, x_i)\right)\right)
$$
For which kernel functions is the above substitution valid? Well, that's a slightly involved question and you might want to take up proper reading material to understand those implications. However, I will just add that the above holds true for RBF Kernel.
To answer your question, "Is the situation so that all the support vectors are needed for the classification?"
Yes. As you may notice above, we compute the inner product of $w$ with $x$ instead of computing $w$ explicitly. This requires us to retain all the support vectors for classification.
Note: The $h_i$'s in the final section here are solution to dual of the SVM in the space $\mathcal{F}$ and not $\mathcal{X}$. Does that mean that we need to know $\Phi$ function explicitly? Luckily, no. If you look at the dual objective, it consists only of inner product and since we have $k$ that allows us to compute the inner product directly, we don't need to know $\Phi$ explicitly. The dual objective simply looks like,
$$
\max \sum_i h_i - \sum_{i,j} y_i y_j h_i h_j k(x_i, x_j) \\
\text{subject to : } \sum_i y_i h_i = 0, h_i \geq 0
$$
Best Answer
Linear SVMs and logistic regression generally perform comparably in practice. Use SVM with a nonlinear kernel if you have reason to believe your data won't be linearly separable (or you need to be more robust to outliers than LR will normally tolerate). Otherwise, just try logistic regression first and see how you do with that simpler model. If logistic regression fails you, try an SVM with a non-linear kernel like a RBF.
EDIT:
Ok, let's talk about where the objective functions come from.
The logistic regression comes from generalized linear regression. A good discussion of the logistic regression objective function in this context can be found here: https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/29326/8451
The Support Vector Machines algorithm is much more geometrically motivated. Instead of assuming a probabilistic model, we're trying to find a particular optimal separating hyperplane, where we define "optimality" in the context of the support vectors. We don't have anything resembling the statistical model we use in logistic regression here, even though the linear case will give us similar results: really this just means that logistic regression does a pretty good job of producing "wide margin" classifiers, since that's all SVM is trying to do (specifically, SVM is trying to "maximize" the margin between the classes).
I'll try to come back to this later and get a bit deeper into the weeds, I'm just sort of in the middle of something :p