Vista or XP?

[kevindosi]

Hey -
I just upgraded to a macbook with 120gb, 2gb ram, 2ghz processor. i want to run windows on there occasionally, but not sure if i should get vista or xp. i'd like to get vista, because it's so damn pretty (i think). ideally, i'd like to have vista ultimate on there. but i don't want to get vista if it won't run quickly and efficiently on my mac through parallels. should i just stick to old-fashioned xp?

 

[overanalyzer]

Hey -
I just upgraded to a macbook with 120gb, 2gb ram, 2ghz processor. i want to run windows on there occasionally, but not sure if i should get vista or xp. i'd like to get vista, because it's so damn pretty (i think). but i don't want to get vista if it won't run quickly and efficiently on my mac through parallels. should i just stick to old-fashioned xp?

Everyone I know who's gone to Vista regrets it, and several downgraded back to XP. There's also not much in the way of improved functionality in Vista over XP, and there are a large number of software and hardware compatibility issues wth it. Besides, OS X should be enough prettiness for your MacBook I say stick with XP. Of course you could always install both on separate partitions or via VMs and try it out for yourself.

 

[Spartan-117]

Stick with xp as it's more robust, if you want eye candy just get the porgram window blinds http://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/ also xp will be less of a resource hog as vista will munch at ur ram like no tomorrow, and vista is still pretty expensive compared to xp.

 

[kevindosi]

Of course you could always install both on separate partitions or via VMs and try it out for yourself.

that's a good idea - i think i'll do that. i have a feeling that vista will run too slowly for my taste, though. vista does have some cool features that i'd like to have - the whole expose-type feature would be great (i can't go 5 minutes without using it on a mac). plus, maybe it's silly, but i like to always have the latest version of the software i use. maybe it makes me feel cool, i don't know.

 

[contoursvt]

I'm not sure if this is valid for this discussion but everyone I know with a PC who has gone Vista has stayed with it. Some had driver issues with older hardware but sorted things out. I've been running it since it came out and have had no issues. Its been stable and compatible with 99% of applications and games I've tried.

Now as for performance, I actually dont feel that its much slower. Its a little heavier but if the computer has 1GB+ then it should be fine and 2GB would be great.

Everyone I know who's gone to Vista regrets it, and several downgraded back to XP. There's also not much in the way of improved functionality in Vista over XP, and there are a large number of software and hardware compatibility issues wth it. Besides, OS X should be enough prettiness for your MacBook I say stick with XP. Of course you could always install both on separate partitions or via VMs and try it out for yourself.

 

[Exodemia]

I think XP because it should run pretty much perfectly, you can get it down to 50MB memory usage with only 13 services running and compatibility is near enough rest assured. Vista is full of unnecessary crap and is a memory hog to say the least.

 

[Veritas&Equitas]

Well, I had Vista Ultimate installed via Boot Camp, and it's sheer size (14 gb!) and bloatiness forced me to delete it (had it for about 4-5 months). I went back to installing XP; it's over 10 gb smaller, more stable, and just more efficient to use on my MBP (it also doesn't make my MBP get nearly as hot as Vista does).

 

[Exodemia]

Yup stuff like Windows Cardspace or something I mean why do I want that for?

 

[darkcurse]

I just dislike Vista. No concrete proof, but my gut feeling. Everytime I start up my Dell with Vista I cringe. And I can't wait to get back to my MBP

 

[LMO]

Well, I had Vista Ultimate installed via Boot Camp, and it's sheer size (14 gb!) and bloatiness forced me to delete it (had it for about 4-5 months). I went back to installing XP; it's over 10 gb smaller, more stable, and just more efficient to use on my MBP (it also doesn't make my MBP get nearly as hot as Vista does).

I agree with most of the comments in this thread, although some points may be overstated. For example, Vista uses a different type of installer from XP, copying everything to the disk and installing from there, which is why it requires 15GB free to install. After installation it consumes about 6GB or so (6.07GB in my Boot Camp install of Vista Ultimate) for system files. You can remove unneeded files and cut that back further if you want.

As to the heat issues, I understand that it is because Vista does not control the system fans (Boot Camp support for Vista is still experimental). I would expect that to be fixed in the released version of Boot Camp, but either way there is a utility called InputRemapper that addresses the fan issue.

Performance is mostly comparable to XP *if* it has plenty of RAM. The driver model is much more complex than with XP and it's still fairly new, so the driver situation is not as good yet. Of course that doesn't matter *unless* a driver you need is not available or doesn't work well.

Security should be better with Vista, which you may want to consider when allowing Windows onto your Mac. The admin bumps can get to be a bit annoying.

An important consideration to me is that Microsoft is phasing out support for XP: no OEM installs on new machines after this year, and retail sales ending the following year. At some point you'll need Vista to run newer versions of Windows apps or just because it is being supported.

My bottom line: if you enjoy playing with new OSes, you should be fine using Vista. If you don't care about the latest stuff and just want to get work done, go with XP and move to Vista in another year or so.

 

[kevindosi]

ultimate?

I was thinking the same thing - sooner or later one will need vista rather than XP anyway. If I do get Vista, should I get ultimate\premium\basic? Will Ultimate or Premium even run on my computer? If I run it in parallels, I guess I have to split up my ram for the two operating systems, right? So 1gb for Vista and 1gb for OSX. I've already got XP, and I'm going to get Vista and see how it runs.. just don't know if I should get basic or a premium. And if the install takes up 7gb... is there any way to slim that down? Can I custom install and just leave out a lot of the junk?

 

[contoursvt]

I'd just get the home premium. Dont go for the basic. Even if you install ultimate and your computer doesnt support Aero, it will still run. Business and Ultimate edition also have "complete PC backup" which is an image based backup but if you dont need that, then you can definitly just go with home premium.

Also you're only splitting up the ram while you're running Vista in a virtual environment. Now if you dont plan on multitasking between the two OS's while in Vista, maybe you can try giving it 1.5GB RAM - making sure of course you've got nothing else big running in OSX.

I was thinking the same thing - sooner or later one will need vista rather than XP anyway. If I do get Vista, should I get ultimate\premium\basic? Will Ultimate or Premium even run on my computer? If I run it in parallels, I guess I have to split up my ram for the two operating systems, right? So 1gb for Vista and 1gb for OSX. I've already got XP, and I'm going to get Vista and see how it runs.. just don't know if I should get basic or a premium. And if the install takes up 7gb... is there any way to slim that down? Can I custom install and just leave out a lot of the junk?

 

[SkyBell]

An important consideration to me is that Microsoft is phasing out support for XP: no OEM installs on new machines after this year, and retail sales ending the following year. At some point you'll need Vista to run newer versions of Windows apps or just because it is being supported.

True, but consider product life.

Windows 95 lasted for 6 years.

Windows 98 lasted for 8 years (Supposed to be dumped in 2004, but they extended it another 2 years when Google reported about 40% of the hits it received were from 98)

ME for 6

2000 isn't due to be phased out until 2010 (Although they could extend that like they did with 98: that would make it supported for over 10 years!)

I imagine XP will be supported for at the very minimum, another 5 years, (I'd guess 7 or 8) Mostly because it's the most used at the moment. Vista will pass it in about 2 years, but it will be supported.


I say go with XP. There's no reason to go to Vista at this point in time.

 

[stallion187]

Lets put it this way, vista was the reason I sold my dell laptop and bought a MBP

That said, unless you want to play vista only games, there really isn't a compelling reason to run it.

Vista offers some nice features over XP, but they pale in comparison to OSX.

With your mac, I'd say stick with XP sp2. It's solid, not as bloated as Vista, and will do the job just fine.

 

[LMO]

If I do get Vista, should I get ultimate\premium\basic? Will Ultimate or Premium even run on my computer? If I run it in parallels, I guess I have to split up my ram for the two operating systems, right? So 1gb for Vista and 1gb for OSX. I've already got XP, and I'm going to get Vista and see how it runs.. just don't know if I should get basic or a premium. And if the install takes up 7gb... is there any way to slim that down? Can I custom install and just leave out a lot of the junk?

If you're thinking about running Vista as a VM in either Fusion or Parallels make sure the version you get allows for this--aren't Ultimate and Business the only versions that will run in a VM?

 

[webgoat]

If you're thinking about running Vista as a VM in either Fusion or Parallels make sure the version you get allows for this--aren't Ultimate and Business the only versions that will run in a VM?

if you plan on using windows as a virtual machine you have to purchase either ultimate or business as he said since these are the only versions microsoft allows to run virtually

 

[webgoat]

windows

if your running vista that is.. no problem with any of the versions of xp

 

[flopticalcube]

Given the restrictive hardware and disk space of our MacBooks, I would say they are better suited to XP than Vista. XP is proven stable and works with a greater range of software. You could always buy a Vista upgrade later on.

 

[Blank]

I put Vista on my mac and believe me I was so happy to see xp again. So my advice; DONT DO IT.

 

[grafikat]

XP is what I'm running....Don't need any more bells and whistles for what I do.

I'm not overly wild about Vista...seems bloated and slow, at least listening to my cube mate that just got a new machine.

 

[blackslayer]

Don know why though, Xp seem to cause my mac osx to be lag. vista don't.

 

[mrblu]

XP vs Vista

On another forum someone said that XP doesn't support the dual cores, but that Vista does. Anyone here know about that? I'm just interested in the best gaming possible on a MBP 2.4 and Bootcamp. Which should I buy, Vista or XP?

Thanks!

 

[flopticalcube]

Dual cores work fine for me in XP. fusion or bootcamp.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

Hey -
I just upgraded to a macbook with 120gb, 2gb ram, 2ghz processor. i want to run windows on there occasionally, but not sure if i should get vista or xp. i'd like to get vista, because it's so damn pretty (i think). ideally, i'd like to have vista ultimate on there. but i don't want to get vista if it won't run quickly and efficiently on my mac through parallels. should i just stick to old-fashioned xp?

Old Fashioned XP? More like Still-Works-XP. Vista is a mess, don't waste your time if you'll only be using Windows occasionally.

 

[crazycat]

Vista is nice and pretty but its not that a big of an improvement if you ask me. I use Vista daily and i like a lot of things in it but i am also getting sick of other parts. With XP you will have no problems, with vista you might get a few but you can get past them.