Vista or XP? [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

kevindosi

Sep 15, 2007, 11:48 PM

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

Sep 15, 2007, 11:51 PM

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

Sep 15, 2007, 11:52 PM

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

Sep 16, 2007, 12:01 AM

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

Sep 16, 2007, 01:29 AM

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

Sep 16, 2007, 08:54 AM

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

Sep 16, 2007, 08:56 AM

Exodemia

Sep 16, 2007, 09:00 AM

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

darkcurse

Sep 16, 2007, 09:30 AM

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 :D

LMO

Sep 16, 2007, 02:49 PM

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

Sep 16, 2007, 10:21 PM

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

Sep 16, 2007, 10:52 PM

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?

Cassie

Sep 16, 2007, 11:16 PM

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

Sep 18, 2007, 07:13 PM

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

Sep 19, 2007, 05:07 PM

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

Sep 20, 2007, 08:08 PM

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

Sep 20, 2007, 08:09 PM

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

flopticalcube

Sep 20, 2007, 08:18 PM

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

Sep 20, 2007, 08:22 PM

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

grafikat

Sep 20, 2007, 08:36 PM

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

Sep 21, 2007, 02:00 PM

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

mrblu

Oct 1, 2007, 03:31 PM

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

Oct 1, 2007, 03:34 PM

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

GimmeSlack12

Oct 1, 2007, 03:45 PM

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

Oct 1, 2007, 04:10 PM

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.

Osarkon

Oct 1, 2007, 04:22 PM

flopticalcube

Oct 1, 2007, 04:57 PM

Last I checked XP home didn't support or utilize dual cores, but XP Professional does.

No. Cores ≠ Processors. In Microsoft lingo a processor is one socket as anyone with even a quad core CPU and XP Home can verify. ;)

GoodWatch

Oct 1, 2007, 05:09 PM

Although it mainly depends on what your purpose with Windows is I would recommend XP. I’ve been using the (not available through retail) corporate version of Vista for a couple of moths now and it has been mixed blessing. I’m particularly disappointed in the likes of HP. My 3 year old scanner and photo printer are only partially, read: very basically, supported in Vista. Very opportunistic. My almost 4 year old PC, in spite of having 2 GB of RAM and 320 GB of disc space doesn’t cut it anymore. Anemic display adapter being the main cause. XP with the latest service packs and drivers plus one of excellent free anti-virus programs can still do the trick nicely. It is very stable and will run any program.

GimmeSlack12

Oct 1, 2007, 05:30 PM

Vista is really not that pretty. I use it everyday, and hearing this 'pretty' comment is like hearing that Macs are better at graphic design. It holds very little weight.

OS X is tons prettier.

ksmith80209

Oct 1, 2007, 05:39 PM

After trying to get Vista Ultimate to work properly in both Fusion and Parallels, I finally ditched Vista and loaded XP Pro in Fusion. I haven't benchmarked it or anything, but it feels like it runs twice as fast as Vista ever did. It boots faster, suspends faster, resumes faster, and the applications all run faster. Of course, the first thing it did was download over 80 updates, but that's MS for you...

Go with XP.

Exodemia

Oct 7, 2007, 03:45 AM

It has to be XP if you are any kind of purist because Vista is bloated, a resource hogger, has not fully optimised drivers, generally worse like for like graphics performance, and Microsoft can't even update icon resources with old icons still present from back in the old days of Windows 2000! You're best to stick with what you know is best and that's XP. Vista = unwanted crap.

sushi

Oct 7, 2007, 03:53 AM

Go with Windows XP.

Here's why I suggest this. Windows XP:
- is a proven and mature OS
- has less driver issues
- will have less software issues
- will run faster

Wild-Bill

Oct 7, 2007, 04:02 AM

Go with Windows XP.

Here's why I suggest this. Windows XP:
- is a proven and mature OS
- has less driver issues
- will have less software issues
- will run faster

Absolutely. Go with a "known quantity". Vista is still teething, and will continue for some years. Look how long it took XP to get to the level of stability and security it is now!

Exodemia

Oct 7, 2007, 07:04 AM

Yup it's common sense :)

Steve Jobs=God

Oct 7, 2007, 07:24 AM

Was in the same situation as the OP before reading this thread, want a Windows OS to run in Parallels, was swaying towards XP as not to fussed about all the fancy stuff in Vista, and when i went on my brothers Vista laptop it just confused me!

So after reading this i've definatly decided to go XP, but i can't find anywhere that sells it! anyone know of somewhere in the UK that sells XP?

Exodemia

Oct 7, 2007, 09:06 AM

eBay? LOL

sushi

Oct 7, 2007, 09:50 AM

Look how long it took XP to get to the level of stability and security it is now!
So true!

I hated Windows XP until SP2 was released. Prior to that it was Windows 98SE or 2K for me.

jackc

Oct 7, 2007, 09:58 AM

Is there a security advantage to using Vista?

VideoFreek

Oct 7, 2007, 02:35 PM

Well, I guess I'll be the contrarian here, but I really like Vista so far!:eek: I'm an experienced Windows user who has recently "embraced" OS X--I refuse to say I'm a "switcher" because I happily run both platforms, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. I've loaded Vista Ultimate on my new 24" Alu 2.8 GHz C2E using Boot Camp, and it runs fine. I don't find it to be particularly slow, though obviously XP is faster.

Most of the moaning you hear about Vista is the same as you heard about XP when it first appeared--"bloated" code (compared to Win2K or Win98), lack of drivers, compatibility problems, etc. These issues are real indeed, but to be expected whenever a major OS overhaul comes along. Vista will mature over the next few years, and these problems will become a distant memory. Of course, XP will be around for a long time, too. But, as time goes on, the compatibility balance will slowly tilt in favor of Vista.

So, what to do? The advice I'd give anyone is as follows: if you have a copy of XP laying around that you can legally install on your Mac, then by all means do it. There is nothing you NEED in Vista right now, and you'll benefit from the maturity of XP. However, if you need to buy a license anyway, the decision becomes more difficult. Vista IS the future--like it or not, Microsoft drives the Windows world (and therefore most of the computing world), and Vista will become the dominant desktop platform over the next few years. Although I originally intended to install XP on my Mac, when it came time to shell out a few hundred bucks for a license, I reconsidered and decided to look forward instead of backwards. No doubt I'll have to put up with the growing pains that Vista will bring, but so far I'm glad that I've taken the plunge.

eric55lv

Oct 7, 2007, 02:36 PM

vista i have it on my imac and its better than xp on a mac

Exodemia

Oct 7, 2007, 02:41 PM

What spec iMac may I ask?

GoodWatch

Oct 7, 2007, 03:25 PM

Well, I guess I'll be the contrarian here, but I really like Vista so far!:eek:

That is what I thought a couple of months ago. There are some improvements, certainly. Little things, like leaving out the extension if you right click on a file to rename it. Important things like ‘previous version’, the desktop implementation of volume shadow copying. Because of my job, I’ve been using the corporate version (it has all the goodies) since its release. Microsoft has been getting a lot of opposition because of the less than secure implementation of user rights. In a standard XP setup, the default user has admin rights. In Vista that issue has been addressed. But the execution is very awkward. I bet nine out of ten users disable the feature with devastating results.

I have only two issues with Vista, naming system requirements and lack of driver support from major manufacturers. :mad:

sushi

Oct 10, 2007, 08:38 PM

If history is any indication, the second iteration of Vista will be much better.

Case in point:
- Win 95 SR2
- Win 98SE
- Win XP SP2

Personally, I'm waiting for Vista SP2.

italiano40

Oct 10, 2007, 08:39 PM

Linux, Ubuntu

mm1250

Oct 20, 2007, 12:32 PM

I have been using Vista for about 4 months now I think. I have it installed on both my Office PC and my home PC. The first month using Vista was awkward. The change in the control panel and some of the GUI. The most interesting change is the start menu going under the programs menu has made it hard to adapt.

After using it I have found it to be perfect and I see the advantages from XP. Most people here will say bad stuff about it becuase of the adaption to new a new GUI.

I wont' ever go back to XP now that I have Vista. Once Vista SP1 is released which is very very soon it will really make things better.

The Flashing Fi

Oct 21, 2007, 01:33 AM

I've been using Vista since september of last year (yup, before Vista was released. I was using Release Candidate 1). I personally like it.

Before using it, if you have any peripherals that you'd like to use in Vista, make sure there are drivers for it.

I think Vista gets too much flack from people who simply don't know what they're talking about, never have used Vista or blame MS for other companies mistakes.

A common example is that Vista uses a lot of RAM.

This is actually due to something called Superfetch, which can account for about half of your RAM being consumed after a few hours of use (and is why Vista's RAM usage may start out as 500 megs when first starting up to soaring to close to a gig after a few hours). Superfetch caches your most commonly used programs in memory to help them load faster.

When you use an application that needs memory, Vista will release memory for the program. However, 2 gigs of RAM is really needed for Vista. I used my Dad's laptop, which has only 1 gig of RAM, and it was pretty slow, but then again, it was mainly because Lenovo loaded a bunch of crap onto it.

sal

Oct 21, 2007, 02:03 AM

Go with Windows XP.

Here's why I suggest this. Windows XP:
- is a proven and mature OS
- has less driver issues
- will have less software issues
- will run faster
Correct. All good points. It seems vista is hit or miss with people. Some people will have no compatibility problems/issues, others will.

I say just stick with XP for the reasons mentioned above. Furthermore, You might want to wait for XP service pack 3. It will be released in the coming months. You'll thank yourself because right now the install for xp sp2 takes a few restarts to get all the updates/patches. Quite annoying.

contoursvt

Oct 21, 2007, 01:02 PM

Useless answer with regards to the OP's question.

Linux, Ubuntu

Cerebrum

Oct 25, 2007, 09:04 PM

XP - Compatibility.

Ariez

Oct 25, 2007, 11:41 PM

If youre technical at computers go with Vista. I use it on desktop and will not go back to XP.

ivnj

Nov 2, 2007, 07:10 PM

I installed XP on my dads mbp 2ghz intel core duo 1.5gb ram.
XP refuses to start. Unmountable boot volume. I was uing it and all of a sudden it crashes. Vista is much more stable. Never got a blue screen on my mini for 3 months while I had it.

ivnj

webgoat

Nov 2, 2007, 07:22 PM

ctakim

Nov 2, 2007, 08:17 PM

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.

Yea Boerne! Go Greyhounds!:D