Is XP better to use than Vista

[donald17]

I am buying a new MBP and want to use an Ancestry.com genealogy program (Family Tree Maker) that will only work on a PC. I know nothing about Windows and don't know what OS ie.. Vista or XP to buy. I ordered Parallels 3.0 and will have 4GB on my MBP. Can you offer any advice on what I should get.
Thanks in advance
Donald

[SDDave2007]

Stay with XP... your geneology program will run just fine with XP, and technically you are not allowed [per the Microsoft License] to run Vista under Virtualization anyways.

I have a MacPro with Parallels 3.0 and XP runs great. My wife is getting one of the new MBP laptops and we plan on doing the same thing there. There are just some programs we still need XP to run...

[iCharlie]

I personally find vista one of the worst operating systems i've used. All be it the interface looks smooth & smart. The errors and security settings are too extreme for my liking.

[Neil321]

Bit of a can of worms this one,me i'll always go XP as in my opinion VISTA SUCKS,also id ditch parallel's and go fusion again,my opinion

Let XP vs Vista & Fusion vs Parallels debate begin

[kkat69]

XP hands down. More stability, more compatibility, in my opinion faster since it doesn't use as much overhead as Vista does.


You said you had 4g of ram, keep in mind XP 32bit will only see 2g, while XP 64bit (not totally compatible with most software) will see all 4g. No biggie since your running in Virtual Mode.

and technically you are not allowed [per the Microsoft License] to run Vista under Virtualization anyways.


Actually you can, unless they lifted the virtualization license running Vista will cost you more since you'll need the Business versions rather than the Home/Personal versions as MS decided they didn't want people running the cheaper version in a virtual machine. The license issue was only restricting home/personal editions, business and higher can be ran in virtualization.

As far as Parallels/Fusion, eh, they bost cost the same and since your only doing it for a few small apps, I don't think one or the other will matter. Lots of people here use virtual windows for more than just one or two apps so they/we tend to be biased to a particular software *cough*fusion*cough* but I think you'll be fine.

Recommendation: XP

[velocityg4]

Also save yourself a bundle of money and buy an OEM copy of XP. Unless you have a specific need for Pro just get the Home edition. The main difference I think is just some networking options for businesses like attaching to a domain based network.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2060350368+50001149&Configurator=&Subcategory=368&description=&Ntk=&srchInDesc=OEM

[hurriance]

You said you had 4g of ram, keep in mind XP 32bit will only see 2g, while XP 64bit (not totally compatible with most software) will see all 4g. No biggie since

Actually, the consumer versions of 32-bit Windows XP and Vista have a stated limit of 4 GB RAM, but a practical limit of about 3.1 GB.

[donald17]

I will definitely buy XP to run my Ancestry.com genealogy program based on all the great advice given here. I assume I should purchase the Home edition but wonder if it can let me search the internet for Census data etc that Ancestry.com offers. I guess Parallels 3.0 would easily accommodate switching over to the Mac for that function. When I buy XP what other things or features such as "Home Edition" should I ask for?
Your help to a newbie like me is so appreciated, I can't say thank you enough.
Donald

[kkat69]

Actually, the consumer versions of 32-bit Windows XP and Vista have a stated limit of 4 GB RAM, but a practical limit of about 3.1 GB.

Key word "STATED."

They'll take it yes, but Windows will only use about 2.5 ~3 leaving 1g behind technically unused by the OS.

I will definitely buy XP to run my Ancestry.com genealogy program based on all the great advice given here. I assume I should purchase the Home edition but wonder if it can let me search the internet for Census data etc that Ancestry.com offers. I guess Parallels 3.0 would easily accommodate switching over to the Mac for that function. When I buy XP what other things or features such as "Home Edition" should I ask for?
Your help to a newbie like me is so appreciated, I can't say thank you enough.
Donald

Home edition is just fine. You shouldn't worry about "searching" the differences between it and pro are transparent to the normal avg user.

There are no "features" to ask for. In the XP world your either gonna get Home or Pro, that's it. It's not Vista with the 20 choices. Just NewEgg.com and look for Windows XP Home OEM and that's ALL you need. When installed inside Parallel's it'll act just like your old windows machine with little to no difference.

[kfordham281]

If you plan on running XP in Bootcamp make sure that XP has SP2 on the disk. Otherwise you'll have to slipstream SP2 onto the disk.

[Flowero4ka]

I am buying a new MBP and want to use an Ancestry.com genealogy program (Family Tree Maker) that will only work on a PC. I know nothing about Windows and don't know what OS ie.. Vista or XP to buy. I ordered Parallels 3.0 and will have 4GB on my MBP. Can you offer any advice on what I should get.
Thanks in advance
Donald

I think you make a great choice. I heard that Parallels is ok for both OS. So it's your choice, but as about me I prefer XP :)

[lucky3killer]

Hate to say, I prefer Vista over XP because of XP would end the mainstream support in next year such as no new update and Apple would maybe or not release new version of iTunes, Quicktime and Safari after end mainstream support in 2009.

[lucky3killer]

Key word "STATED."

They'll take it yes, but Windows will only use about 2.5 ~3 leaving 1g behind technically unused by the OS.



Home edition is just fine. You shouldn't worry about "searching" the differences between it and pro are transparent to the normal avg user.

There are no "features" to ask for. In the XP world your either gonna get Home or Pro, that's it. It's not Vista with the 20 choices. Just NewEgg.com and look for Windows XP Home OEM and that's ALL you need. When installed inside Parallel's it'll act just like your old windows machine with little to no difference.

I have 3GB RAM on Vista 32 bit and shown as 3GB on it, not 2GB or 2.5GB.

[lucky3killer]

I personally find vista one of the worst operating systems i've used. All be it the interface looks smooth & smart. The errors and security settings are too extreme for my liking.

It's quietly not true, you can configuration on security setting to make turn down, I had disabled all of them and runs so very good, plus haven't get error after updated massive of update to fix the bugs. Now, Vista seems more stable than last year and new SP1 would going be rocks.

[Neil321]

It's quietly not true, you can configuration on security setting to make turn down, I had disabled all of them and runs so very good, plus haven't get error after updated massive of update to fix the bugs. Now, Vista seems more stable than last year and new SP1 would going be rocks.

Have you ever tried using it in a work based environment its a piece of "crap"

[crazycat]

I used to use Vista with my MacPro but its a pain, you are better off with XP, you will also save on space.

[cohibadad]

Have you ever tried using it in a work based environment its a piece of "crap"

I use Vista at work and hate it. Now, IT at work won't support Vista so I can't even update it because they "unwittingly" block Vista update, so I hope it starts to work better once the updates start rolling in. It does work better on my home machine, but I still don't "like" it. The only things I've seen in Vista that are an improvement are the sleep function for laptops and wireless networking. I scratch my head on the rest and wonder why they changed what they changed from XP. Anti-productive at least for me.

[tersono]

Stick with XP for sure - better software compatibility, better performance. I just bought a large number of PCs for work (I'm the systems admin / I.T. manager there), and specified XP - we trialled Vista but it's a bit of a sluggard in many ways.

Interestingly, ALL of the I.T. pros I know - both professionally and socially - are sticking with XP - there's just not enough good reasons to 'upgrade' and a LOT of good reasons to stay put.

[kfordham281]

Interestingly, ALL of the I.T. pros I know - both professionally and socially - are sticking with XP - there's just not enough good reasons to 'upgrade' and a LOT of good reasons to stay put.

I work in a fortune 500 company and I seriously doubt we'll go to Vista until the end of life for XP nears. As an enterprise, there is absolutely nothing that Vista offers for us over XP.

[Neil321]

I use Vista at work and hate it. Now, IT at work won't support Vista so I can't even update it because they "unwittingly" block Vista update, so I hope it starts to work better once the updates start rolling in. It does work better on my home machine, but I still don't "like" it. The only things I've seen in Vista that are an improvement are the sleep function for laptops and wireless networking. I scratch my head on the rest and wonder why they changed what they changed from XP. Anti-productive at least for me.

You and me both,i work for a college,the college supports it ( it has to as its courses are windows based) but it drives me frigging mad.Vista is a lame excuse for a OS ( not that i ever slag it off )
Its that bad that when im at work i dont mind having to use the computers that run XP now thats
gotta be saying something

[Hankster]

XP > Vista.

[Whorehay]

XP > Vista.

I feel sorry for all of my friends with Vista. And I'm running Windows better... on my Mac.

[RHD]

Oh Phew!
I just agonized over this and today ordered 64 bit XP Pro because I'm running programs that need to see all the RAM.
I only need to run two or three programs on it and iTunes etc I'll run on OSX.

[lucky3killer]

Have you ever tried using it in a work based environment its a piece of "crap"

No idea.

I just need Vista because of Halo 2, only exclusive to Vista.

Vista is running so fast on my MBP after updated all updates to fix the bugs.

[contoursvt]

1/10th our company of 120 users is now on Vista. No issues, no drama, no hassles. Not sure what you're experiencing but we've had no issues. Our software developers are still on XP but some of our designers who are using the creative suite packages are over on Vista as are some sales people and a couple of the VP's.



Have you ever tried using it in a work based environment its a piece of "crap"

[methodmano]

I prefer XP, but most of that is due to Vista not having any feature I'm interested in. The drawbacks of Vista (including the performance of Aero) don't really justify an upgrade for me.

[hurriance]

Key word "STATED."

They'll take it yes, but Windows will only use about 2.5 ~3 leaving 1g behind technically unused by the OS.


I was mainly referring to the fact that you said it could only see 2g while in reality it can see 2.9~3.1.

[Smoogz]

to tell you the truth I'd just use XP.... like everyone else has said... Its been out for a long time. Its already on SP2 its about to get SP3 (says PC Magazine) It has alot more compatability to variouse hardware and applications... other than that Vista is XP just not as matured, with a few more bells and whistles, and a nagging permisions system (UAC) thats gonna haunt you until you turn it off.

XP= Basic functionality and a more stable enviornment.
Vista= Pretty, oh oh look at me GUI, and a not quite up to date library of drivers as XP.

[The Flashing Fi]

I've been using Vista since RC1 and it's perfectly fine and great improvement over XP IMO.

Many of the initial problems have been ironed out (I'm currently running SP1 on my Mac and SP1 RC1 on my desktop, which I need to install SP1 on... someday).

Vista's memory management is far superior to that of XP. Anyone who claims Vista is a memory hog either has an outdated computer, or they have no clue as to how Superfetch works.

Many of the issues with Vista aren't with the OS itself. Many manufacturers like HP, Dell, IBM load their computers up with a ton of bloatware crap that loads up at startup. Out of all the manufacturer's, I'd say IBM is the worst when it comes to bloatware (they make awsome laptops though). A lot of the bloatware may also inadvertently crash as well.

My desktop was built, by me in July of 2006, and it runs Vista like butter. I'm going to need to RMA my 7900GT since Nvidia never got their act together with the 7 series and Windows Vista, but once again, it's an issue with Nvidia, not Vista. The key is to install a non-bloatware version of Vista. My Macbook Pro also run Vista like butter and I haven't had any issues with drivers, ect.

Many of the software problems people complain about is with software designed for XP. Don't complain to MS when your program doesn't work. Go write adobe, or whoever made the program a nasty letter urging them to patch their program, and if you're running old software, upgrade.

I also take IT people complaints with a grain of salt. They complain about anything if it means more work for them. Windows Vista means they have to learn something new, and with XP the standard for 6 years, they got soft.

Also, MS recently changed the licensing of Vista, and now you can virtualize any version of Vista.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1122

[thunderclap]

I don't have any problems with Vista on my Mac. I do like it's GUI better than XP but besides there really isn't a big difference between the two except for DX10.

As for virtualization someone here recommended Fusion. I have Fusion and have only had problems with it. Half the time it can't find the correct drive to boot from, other times it will boot but Vista senses a change and won't allow Vista to work properly. (And yes... I know Vista isn't covered by the license agreement.)

But for what it sounds like you need XP is the safest, easiest bet.

[Hankster]

There are a lot of users who make it a point to stick with the previous version of any software/OS because it's always more stable than the "newest and greatest". I would use XP over Vista for the simple fact that it's been patched and tested more than Vista, which is still being patched and updated for security issues, etc.

[The Flashing Fi]

I would use XP over Vista for the simple fact that it's been patched and tested more than Vista, which is still being patched and updated for security issues, etc.

XP is still being patched and updated for security issues.;)

I personally try and stick with the latest OS. While the previous OS may be more "tested," it will be replaced. I find that the latest OS is able take advantage of system resources better than older OS's. At some point in time, you have to upgrade. If we all never upgraded, we'd be running MS-DOS and the old Mac System OS's

[mkrad]

Does Fusion allow access to more RAM and microprocessor resource than Parallels? I can run a stripped-down XP or Vista OS VM with Parallels, but as soon as I start adding needy apps (e.g., Creative Suite 3), the VM won't load.

[Neil321]

Does Fusion allow access to more RAM and microprocessor resource than Parallels? I can run a stripped-down XP or Vista OS VM with Parallels, but as soon as I start adding needy apps (e.g., Creative Suite 3), the VM won't load.

Fusion has dual core support, parallel's does not

[crm114]

to tell you the truth I'd just use XP.... like everyone else has said... Its been out for a long time. Its already on SP2 its about to get SP3 (says PC Magazine) It has alot more compatability to variouse hardware and applications... other than that Vista is XP just not as matured, with a few more bells and whistles, and a nagging permisions system (UAC) thats gonna haunt you until you turn it off.

XP= Basic functionality and a more stable enviornment.
Vista= Pretty, oh oh look at me GUI, and a not quite up to date library of drivers as XP.

you can get xp sp3 now if you go to the microsoft site and search for it - there was a link from another thread but i cant find it...

sp3 apparently fixes the 2.0 gig (or whatever you all are getting) limit on XP. I am getting XP installed this week - COD4 is waiting.