Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will Vista and Leopard installed on one Imac slow down your Imac?
- Thread starter macsander
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You shouldn't really notice any system slow down whilst in Boot Camp, as there is only one OS running at a time. Unless, like Tallest Skil said, your HD is close to it's maximum capacity.
Also, if Windows is bogged down with viruses and spyware, that will cause a slow down.
Also, if Windows is bogged down with viruses and spyware, that will cause a slow down.
Eh? The only problem is that Boot Camp doesn't have the drivers straight off. You just have to go find them yourself like on any other Windows machine. Google search "Vista 64 Boot Camp Drivers" or something similar, as there are lists of the proper drivers for each machine out there.
I believe Apple now has them publicly available if you download the BootCamp 2.1 update. From the looks of it, it has all the BootCamp drivers (but updated over the 2.0 drivers).
http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/bootcampupdate21forwindowsvista64.html
http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/bootcampupdate21forwindowsvista64.html
Pretty sure they're all included in Boot Camp 2.1. Everything is working fine on mine. Vista 64 is awesome; noticed a difference over Vista 32, plus being able to use ALL your RAM is nice
.
XP>Vista but you'll be fine
It won't slow down your iMac as long as you are running it through BC, because each OS will have its own partition to go off of. The only thing that will happen is Vista will make your spiffy specs look not as spiffy. If I were you I would find a copy of XP instead. That was one thing that turned me off from Vista big time that programs need quite a bit more processor speed and memory on Vista than XP, but you should be fine as long as you make your 2 partitions big enough.
It won't slow down your iMac as long as you are running it through BC, because each OS will have its own partition to go off of. The only thing that will happen is Vista will make your spiffy specs look not as spiffy. If I were you I would find a copy of XP instead. That was one thing that turned me off from Vista big time that programs need quite a bit more processor speed and memory on Vista than XP, but you should be fine as long as you make your 2 partitions big enough.
Absolutely UNTRUE.
x64 will make all memory available to the user, while x32 will only make about 3.3GB available to the use.
WHY?
A few lessons in Windows Memory usage:
Windows displays TWO numbers for total memory:
a) The actual physical amount of installed memory. This is <= 4GB for x32 OS's, and <=2TB for x64 OS's. The reason for this is that x32 CPUs can only access about 4GB of memory address space, while x64 CPUs can address about 2TB of memory address space. This is number is referred to as "total installed physical memory". It does NOT include VIRTUAL MEMORY (disk space used for memory paging.)
b) The amount of that total physical memory minus Windows System overhead, including the OS itself, any shared Video memory, and any memory needed for static buffers. This is referred to as "available user memory".
Microsoft takes this amount "off the top", so it's not recoverable in x32 Vista. Task Manager adds in the amount of VIRTUAL memory (space on the HD) available when it reports available user-memory.
c) If one has Physical Address Extension enabled in his System BIOS, the amount of available memory will be >= 3.3GB (if one has 4GB of physical memory installed, in DUAL-CHANNEL mode) Otherwise, it will be closer to <= 3GB of available user memory, no matter HOW MUCH physical memory (> 3GB) is installed.
Even I, a dyed-in-the-wool Windows user, believe Microsoft's way of reporting memory is strange. But it does give a very accurate estimation of available user memory.
Hope this does not overly-confuse anyone, and it actually helps.
Donald L McDaniel
Since Windows does NOT "run through BootCamp Assistant", in ANY WAY, everything else you say is invalid also.
My "spiffy specs" are "spiffy indeed", and do NOT decrease on an Intel-based Macintosh, UNLESS the video uses shared memory (as iMacs do). So DON'T blame this on Microsoft: blame it on Apple, for using shared memory and Mobility cards which are not replacable by the user.
I can see no difference between running Vista on an Intel iMac and a stock Dell, IF they both have the same type of Video memory. Vista on a stock Dell which doesn't use shared Video memory will always out-perform an Intel-based iMac.
Its ALL ABOUT THE machine, with Vista. If you have a slow machine (all Intel-based iMacs are slow, because they use shared video memory), Vista will run not-so-well.
NEVER install Vista on a partition smaller than 32GB. You will be disappointed if you do. And NEVER install XP on a partition smaller than 20GB.
Donald L McDaniel
Please remember that this are not "Boot Camp drivers", since "Boot Camp Assistant" does not use them.
They are, in fact, "WINDOWS" drivers. PERIOD. Apple calls them the "Macintosh drivers for Microsoft Windows", NOT "BootCamp" drivers, since even APPLE knows that BootCamp has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of Windows on your Apple Intel PC, other than creating a Windows partition on your HFS+ formatted disks.
Why Apple users continue to call them "BootCamp drivers", or why they continue to claim that Microsoft Windows "runs under BootCamp" on their Intel-based Apples is completely beyond me, and appears to be one of the irrationalities found strictly among Mac devotees.
And Windows users who have taken on the language of "Macdom" are following them in their irrationality.
Donald L McDaniel
Of course you "really shouldn't notice any system slowdown while in BootCamp...", and for a simple reason: YOU ARE STILL IN OSX if you are in BootCamp Assistant.
Again, I repeat my self for the UMPTEENTH time:
"BootCamp Assistant" is a STRICTLY OS X application, and runs ONLY under OS X."
Windows does NOT "run under BootCamp", nor is one "in BootCamp" if he is at the Windows Desktop, since "BootCamp" does NOT EXIST under Windows. It CANNOT exist under Windows, since it uses the OS X code-base, and, because of this, NEVER gets installed in Windows. PERIOD.
Once the OS X boot manager hands off control of the machine to Windows, OS X NO LONGER EXISTS, as far as Windows is concerned. WHY? Because OS X is NO LONGER RUNNING when Windows controls the machine. NOT A JOT OR TITTLE Of OS X exist in memory when Windows controls the machine.
One may have EITHER OS X running, OR Windows running, but NOT both at the same time, unless he uses Virtualization software such as Parallels.
I understand WHY Mac devotees have this attitude: It is because of their long-standing inability to separate the OS from the machine in their thinking. This is strictly Apple's doing, since they've done absolutely NOTHING to teach their users properly. In fact, they ENCOURAGE their users to CONTINUE with this irrational thinking.
If one wants to run Windows on his Apple Intel PC, he must GET RID of this false concept of OS/Machine unity. Perhaps you guys should be required to go to a "reeducation camp" before installing Windows on your Intel-based Mac PCs.
Donald L McDaniel