Manual Install WinXP 64bit

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by MBX, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. MBX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #1
    hi

    so i'm trying to install win-xp 64bit manually by starting off directly from the win-xp installation disc. however when pressing the option-key in the beginning of computer start-up it doesn't show the disc at all. i even tried the c-key on boot-up, didn't work either.

    am i missing something?
     
  2. Siron macrumors 6502

    Siron

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #2
    Is XP on a separate disc or a partition of your main disc? This may be the reason. I installed Vista 64 on a separate drive without BC and it shows up when I hold the Option key at start up. The C key boots to a CD/DVD so if there's not on in the drive it will not show up. Are you holding down the Option key or just pressing it?

    On a separate note, why did you buy XP 64? It has relatively few drivers and is much slower than Vista 64. Many people have told about problems getting their peripherals to work under XP 64 whereas Vista 64 has support for most, if not all, of the latest stuff. I've had absolutely no problems with running Vista 64.
     
  3. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #3
    well i've heard these stories, you know, about vista being crap.

    do you really believe vista 64bit is superior over win-xp 64bit on a professional level?
     
  4. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #4
    oh by the way. i don't mean the hard-drive but the installation-cd disc. doesn't show up when i try to hold (not press) down the option-key.

    what could it be?
     
  5. stainlessliquid macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    #5
    XP 64 is a disaster. Its a very bad OS that is nothing but trouble.

    Vista 64 is the best version of Windows. Ive heard stories about Leopard being crap too, doesnt actually mean anything.
     
  6. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #6
    Actually i believed the Leopard rants weren't justified at all. But in case of Vista, mhmm i don't know man.

    Of course if mac users say Vista-64 is better than XP-64 then i guess it must be true.

    What i'd like to avoid is Vista eating up all the resources as i heard it's supposedly a chunky OS.

    But maybe not?
     
  7. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #7
    You've heard but you've never tried Vista yourself. Awesome way to make a decision. All the people telling you that "Vista uses too many resources" know next to nothing about Vista.

    In Vista, there is something that's called Superfetch. It basically caches your commonly used programs into memory to make them load faster (XP does not have this). So yes, Vista will use more memory. But read on. When you actually NEED the memory for a program, Vista will release the memory.

    In a few ways it's similar to Mac OS X's memory usage.

    I've had my laptop on for a few days and I'm downloading a Torrent file.

    If I was obsessed with having as much free memory as possible, I would absolutely hate Mac OS X.

    Currently, I have 10.4 MB of free memory. Free memory is memory that is not being used and that's available. Free memory is actually wasted memory. It's not doing anything. If you buy 10 gigs of RAM and you only use 1 gig of it, the rest of the memory is wasted.

    Right now, I have 1.08 GB of Active memory. Active memory is memory that is being used. Similar to opening up the task manager in XP and adding up the memory of each task being used.

    I also have 735.98 MB of Inactive memory. Inactive memory is something that's NOT seen in XP. Inactive memory is in Mac OS X is very much like Superfetch in Vista. Inactive memory is memory that is being occupied by program(s) that AREN'T in use. These programs are loaded into memory so that when you want to use them later, they'll load up quicker (RAM is a lot faster than the hard drive). When a program needs that Inactive memory, Mac OS X releases it. This is how Mac OS X can feel so responsive, even when you have something like 10 MB of RAM left. Vista uses memory in the same way. When you open a program and close it, it's cached into the memory. When that memory is needed, Vista releases it. Hopefully this makes sense.

    The reason why people are "hating" Vista so much is because this is a new feature that nobody has ever seen before and many people aren't aware of how it works. I've had Vista crash on me a total of 2 times in the 1.5+ years of using it (I used it when it was in RC1, so it's more like 2 years, and RC1 never crashed on me either, but I didn't use it as my main OS due to lack of drivers). 1 time was a driver issue, and the other time was due to me using extremely buggy alpha software. Much of the early hate for Vista was due to immature drivers (the reason why XP didn't suffer from this is because XP used the same driver model that was used since Windows 98). This had since changed. The drivers are pretty much on par with XP's drivers.
     
  8. stainlessliquid macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    #8
    That pretty much sums it up. Vista also uses your video card just like how OSX uses it with Core Image/Quartz. XP uses the processor for all the GUI stuff, which makes for a slow and clunky experience when messing with windows no matter how fast your computer is. The videocard does practically nothing during non-3d tasks in XP, so its really wasted, in Vista its able to take on some of the load and provide smoother animations similair to OSX. Anyone with a modern computer to make use of these features should get Vista over XP, it will be faster overall.

    But XP64 still sucks for reasons different than Vista being better, it sucks because its just a very bad OS. Its not nearly as good as XP 32bit, its pretty much a beta where they are testing 64bit in a consumer environment. Its just a very unpleasent experience that feels much slower than XP 32. I installed it a long time ago to try out Far Cry 64, Far Cry worked alright but the way it handles 32bit programs was horrible (which is pretty much all programs), and even the OS itself like explorer.exe behaved erratically. Im surprised its still being sold, when ME came out it was miles ahead of XP 64, its the most bug ridden OS Ive ever used.
     
  9. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #9
    Here's the thing. XP Pro 64-bit is not built off the same platform that 32-bit XP Pro is. It's built off of the Windows Server 2003 64-bit code base. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but Windows Server 2003 was never intended to be a consumer OS. It's a workstation/server OS. All MS did was strip XP 64-bit of the server tools and enable features (that are in Windows Server 2003) that are disabled by default in Windows Server 2003 (such as themes, and setting the processor priority from background tasks to those in the foreground).
     
  10. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #10
    Ok ok thanks for all the info.

    I got a Vista 64bit version CD now but that one doesn't boot either at start-up. What am i doing wrong? I tried both holding down the option-key and holding down the c-key. Both just don't work and prompt me to the Os-X login screen.

    Any suggestions?
     
  11. jerryrock macrumors 6502

    jerryrock

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Amsterdam, NY
    #11
    You need a 2008 MacPro or MacBook Pro to install Vista64 bit with SP1.
     
  12. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #12
    Yes. XP 64 is crap. You'd have to be insane and/or a masochist to want to run XP 64. XP is dead. It's a dinosaur of an OS that was built to run on Pentium 4's and similar hardware. Vista 64 (rather Vista in general) had a rough start, but that was 2 years ago and much has changed/been fixed since then. Now Vista 64 is awesome. I highly suggest you try it.
     
  13. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #13
    Really? So my Macbook Pro c2d 2.4ghz from mid-'07 can't run Vista64 with sp1?
     
  14. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #14
    Try it. Apple has the Boot Camp drivers on their website for Vista 64-bit. Just put it on a flash stick, run the boot camp setup in Windows. It may take 10 minutes to get the utility to run. I suggest disabling UAC to install the drivers to help speed it up a bit. The only thing you have to lose is your time.

    As for getting it to run. Delete your current Boot Camp setup using Boot Camp Assistant in Leopard. Then start over. Re-run Boot Camp Assistant, follow the on-screen instruction. When you restart, you don't need to hit any buttons. It may take a while for Vista's setup to run.
     
  15. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #15
    The problem is bootcamp assistant only let's me use the internal harddrive but not a external firewire harddrive.

    And i have no idea how to make it work without bootcamp assistant if booting up procedure doesn't want to load the windows cd's so i could at least manually access the Vista installation procedure and formatting of the harddrive & setup.

    Any more outlined suggestions heavily apperciated.
    Thank you
     
  16. Siron macrumors 6502

    Siron

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #16
    I totally agree. I am running XP Pro 32 and Vista Business 64 on separate drives and Vista is much faster.
     
  17. jerryrock macrumors 6502

    jerryrock

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Amsterdam, NY
    #17
    No, it can't boot the disk and will not install due to a firmware incompatibility with the EFI boot installer on the disk.
     
  18. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #18
    Wow, so only a slighter newer intel cpu generation mac and it's not possible to install Vista-64bit even though it was out so much before the mid-'07 c2d mac's.
     
  19. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #19
    What the "Eff..i". So i can't even install Vista-64bit with Vmware Fusion? I tried and it doesn't work.

    Is that too because of the efi thing that only works on this years macs?
     
  20. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #20
    This is where you give Apple the finger and yell "fix Boot Camp so that 64-bit Windows/drivers will work with any Mac", because it's pretty much all on Apple's shoulders at that point.
     
  21. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #21
    That is indeed ridiculous. What are they thinking? I'm sure the boot-camp team at Apple has it's **** together. But this is very stupid.
     
  22. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #22
    I guess Apple feels only "pros" run 64-bit Windows Operating Systems so only "Pro" machines need it. :rolleyes:
     
  23. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #23
    Well it only works on early 2008 model Macs (Mac Pro, MBP, iMac). Very stupid. I've read that people have installed the 64-bit drivers that come with the Mac Pro on systems that are not early 2008 and have gotten it to work though.
     
  24. nospamboz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    #24
    Do you mean running a Vista-64 boot camp partition as a VM in Fusion?
    You're right, VMware doesn't support that yet. I think one problem is
    getting around the activation-on-a-new-system problem, which they've
    only solved for 32-bit.

    As far as running Vista 64-bit in a regular VM in Fusion (VMDK disk image,
    etc), that works fine, provided you don't mind the reduced graphics ability
    of the emulated hardware (no Aero). I've had that going for a long time. I
    also have a XP-64 VM working well.

    As you've probably found, it is possible to use the "new-Mac-only" 64-bit
    boot camp drivers on any C2D Mac, provided you can get hold of them.
    I'm guessing that Apple will do a general release with 10.6. When they do,
    then I'm pretty sure VMware will be able to support Vista-64 boot camp
    partitions in a VM.
     
  25. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #25
    I am quite happily running Windows Vista Ultimate x64 from my Boot Camp partition in VMWare Fusion as I type on my MacBook Pro.
     

Share This Page