XP or Vista?

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by TheYankees1903, Apr 29, 2008.

  1. TheYankees1903 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    #1
    I have a new iMac that I got yesterday which has:

    24 inch screen
    3.06 GHz CPU with 1066 Front Side Buss
    4 GB RAM @ 800 MHz
    500 GB Hard Drive @ 7200 RPM
    8800 GS Graphics Card with 512 MB
    Apple Keyboard
    Apple Mouse

    I want to install Windows on this new iMac but do not know whether to install Windows XP or Windows Vista.

    What do you guys and gals suggest I install on this new iMac?

    XP or Vista?

    Please Advise,
    TheYankees1903 :apple:
     
  2. David G. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Location:
    Alaska
    #2
    If you have games that use DirectX 10 use Vista, otherwise use XP.
     
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #3
    those are almost the exact specs of my machine

    2.4ghz quad
    8800gt 512
    500gig 7.2k
    4gig 800mhz ram
    1066mhs fsb

    i use vista.....halo 2 is why
     
  4. TheYankees1903 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    #4
    Does Anyone Agree With This?

    I don't play to many games... Does anyone agree with this?

    Let Me Know,
    TheYankees1903
     
  5. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #5
    then xp for sure over vista
     
  6. TheYankees1903 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    #6
    What about...

    What about the fact that XP is being discontinued come June 30?
    What is more secure?
    What is faster?

    Please Let Me Know,
    TheYankees1903 :apple:
     
  7. VideoFreek macrumors 6502

    VideoFreek

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Location:
    Philly
    #7
    It seems like there have been dozens of threads in this forum covering this question ad nauseum. I suggest you read through those.

    The bottom line, however, is that most (but not all) people feel XP is faster, more stable, and more compatible. On the other hand, a minority seem to like Vista as it's more future-oriented. Regarding security, XP SP3 (which is to be released any day now) is reported to incorporate most or all of the supposed security advantages of Vista into XP, so security is not really a compelling reason to choose Vista.

    In my case, I installed Vista Ultimate via Bootcamp, and it runs on my 24" 2.8 gHz iMac really well natively. It should absolutely smoke on your new machine (as long as the bootcamp drivers have been updated for the new hardware). Unlike the naysayers around here, I rather like Vista. However, I found it to be a bit sluggish for my liking when running under Fusion, so I've decided to use XP for running under virtualization.
     
  8. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #8
    Vista is more secure. XP is "faster." The older the OS, the less resources it uses. If you wan the fastest OS, go back to MS Dos.

    Vista makes better use of your hardware and, while I hate using the word, it's more "future-proof." XP is a 7 year old OS. It's had a great run. If you're using software that has issues with Vista, then I would get XP. But if the software you plan on using works with Vista, I see no reason not to use it. I have it on two computers. My Macbook Pro and my custom built desktop that I built 2 years ago. Service Pack 1 definitely improved Vista and drivers have come a long way. I see no reason why not to use it unless you have software that won't work with it.

    Many of the people recommending XP are recommending it because it's all they've ever known their "knowledge" of Vista only comes from what they've read on the internet.

    I personally find that program start up time is improved with Vista (thanks to Superfetch which caches your commonly used programs into your memory, but don't worry, if you have a program that needs the RAM, Vista releases it). I also find that the registry is a bit more "robust." With XP, I've noticed, and many others have noticed, that over time, it tends to slow down, even if you run registry cleaners. I have had Vista installed on my desktop since it came out (I installed it a few days after it was released), and have been through numerous drivers, I even installed release candidates of Sp1, uninstalled and installed numerous programs, and I haven't noticed any slow downs over the year I've had it installed. I can't exactly say the same for XP. I've put my Vista install through hell and back. At one point I corrupted the boot loader for Vista while trying to set up a triple boot of XP, Vista, and Ubuntu (friggin Grub was at fault there), and fixing the bootloader for Vista was much easier than doing it for XP. It was pretty much automatic.

    If you don't mind, I'll explain a few benefits that Vista has over XP that aren't exactly noticeable to the user on a daily basis.

    First of all, the driver model in Vista is vastly improved over that of XP. XP's driver model is pretty darn old. It's the same driver model that is available in Windows 98. This means that driver written for Windows 98 can be used in XP (but it doesn't work the other way around, as there are new features introduced in later OSes). Anyway, in XP, the drivers would work entirely at the kernel level. What this means, is if a driver is poorly written, it has the potential to bring down the entire OS (cause a BSOD, usually with the error message, DRIVER IRQL_LESS_THAN_OR_NOT_EQUAL_TO). In Windows Vista, the new driver model moves much of the driver code out of the kernel into the user land. The little bit that's left in the kernel is there to provide low level functionality, which vastly improves stability. Now, whenever there is a driver error, you don't get a BSOD, you get a error box that tells you a driver has crashed (tells you the driver) and I believe it even tries to reload the driver. You can save all your work and you lose nothing. A game may crash to the desktop, but the entire computer didn't go down.

    A full screen 3D application also can run in a windowed mode with very little performance loss. In XP, usually you suffer a large performance penalty for running in a windowed mode. This is due to XP switching between 2D and 3D. XP handled all desktop animations with the CPU, not the video card. So it's basically switching between CPU and video card for on screen rendering. I'm sure, you can understand this can create a performance hit, compared to running in full screen mode at the same resolution. In Vista, the new Driver Model runs everything in 3D. On screen desktop rendering is no longer handled by the CPU, it's handled solely by the video card. So, if you're running a 3D application in Windowed mode, there isn't much of a performance hit.

    Hopefully this puts things into perspective. Vista isn't as bad as everyone says, especially people on these forums.

    Oh, and the last thing I said about the performance hit of 3D applications in windowed mode in Vista, there is a video at a MS conference that demonstrated this in a very early build of Vista (at the time Longhorn). The driver model in Vista was something that was being worked on for a long time. The build of Longhorn that was used to demonstrate this was build 4074, which I think it was sometime in early 2004 (not to mention they restarted Longhorn shortly after 4074), so it is something that was worked on heavily.
     
  9. ncc1701d macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    #9
    Thanks for posting TFF, that's a great read. Cheers!
     
  10. Neil321 macrumors 68040

    Neil321

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Britain, Avatar Created By Bartelby
    #10
    Maybe until you get to this bit



    Which to be honest i resent alittle,as i have to work with Vista on a daily basis,and it's a complete pain in the ass,it's fine to run on Mac's as they even got voted the best PC to run it on
     
  11. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #11
    Resent it all you like, but I said "many," not "all." ;)
     
  12. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #12
    Dude, there is so much FUD about Vista it's not even funny. I've been running it on my MacBook Pro and everything runs perfectly (games, of all ages...even Oregon Trail, internet browsing, etc.). People that say it's slow are trying to run it on 9 year old computers. Your system will have no issues. I mean think about it, XP is 2001 technology. Saying we should all boycott Vista and run XP "because it's faster" is like saying we should all ditch OS X because "OS 9 would totally be faster".
     
  13. Neil321 macrumors 68040

    Neil321

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Britain, Avatar Created By Bartelby
    #13
    Ok i'll carry on resenting it


    Dude apple only introduced intel processors in 2005-6ish so that statement about 9yr old computers is false as people are moaning about it on there Mac's,granted on anything else apart from
    a Mac it's a dog,the dells i use at work are no more than a year old and its still a dog
     
  14. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #14
    I don't know what you're doing if Vista is a "dog." Perhaps its all the crap Dell loads on their computers?
     
  15. Siron macrumors 6502

    Siron

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #15
  16. Neil321 macrumors 68040

    Neil321

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Britain, Avatar Created By Bartelby
    #16
    Yer your probably right,but all these people who run Vista on there Mac's probably haven't tried running & using it on anything else and as OS and not just for gaming.I think me & you
    talked about this awhile back i think i seem to remember i said i wouldn't say it sucks
     
  17. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #17
    Yeah, we did.

    I read an article a while back and someone bought a Sony laptop (a relatively good one too, dedicated video card, decent processor, and I think 2 gigs of RAM). However, the thing was "dog" slow. So slow, they didn't bother with it very much. The person who wrote the article, was given the laptop to toy with, and he ended up reformatting the hard drive with a fresh Vista DVD and installed only the drivers from Sony. The owner reported it being much better. I think the article was posted on Neowin.

    My dad bought a IBM Thinkpad late last year (it was about a 1000 dollar laptop, but it had like a 600 dollar rebate on it, I know, heck of a deal). As I'm sure you know, the Thinkpad is a business oriented laptop. It doesn't really come with much bloatware compared to, Dell or HP's consumer desktop/laptop line, but it does come with "productivity" applications. You know, half baked back up utilities, the little green battery indicater, ect. I think it came with a 1.6 Ghz Core 2 Duo processor, 1 gig of RAM, an Intel x3100 integrated GPU. Nothing that's really capable of any gaming, besides some old games and internet flash games, but perfectly capable of using the internet and word processing. Anyway, the thing is slow. All of IBM's half baked applications bog the thing down to a crawl. It can take 5 minutes for it to start up and be in a useable state (compared to about 10 seconds on my desktop and laptop). He even disabled Aero and I believe other services, but in all honesty, it didn't really make a difference.

    When my first Macbook Pro got destroyed, he took the RAM modules out and filled up that extra slot (the module that was already in there was the same exact RAM that is found int he Macbook Pro). It still didn't make any difference. 2 Gigs of RAM is more than sufficient to run Vista for your "basic" applications. Heck, I even play games with 2 gigs of RAM in Vista on both my desktop and MBP, and they run great. It just amazed me that Lenovo put so much crap on the laptop and it slowed it down to a crawl.

    Had I never used Vista before, I would probably be in here with everyone slamming Vista, just by that experience alone. I'm suprised that MS lets these computer manufactures load all this crap on their computers with Vista, because it just gives Vista a bad name.
     
  18. Neil321 macrumors 68040

    Neil321

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Britain, Avatar Created By Bartelby
    #18

    Nice write up,this is were i think you hit the nail on the head,at work i don't have admin privilege's so i have to deal with all the crap it throw's at me,what makes matters worse is,i think i told you before i work in a small college in the UK teaching basic IT skills to old ( ish ) people,some of which have learning disabilities.So you can imagine somedays my life is hell with "neil this has happened,neil what's this bla bla bla"
     
  19. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #19
    Ouch. You never mentioned that. I could see where you could get a bit frustrated. Not only are you trying to teach people how to use a computer, but you're also trying to learn the new OS at the same time, and to be honest, MS changed the control panel and quite a few other stuff, where it can take a while to learn where everything is.

    When I loaded up Vista RC1 back around October or 2006, I went into the control panel and was like "Cool, nice icons." Then, a few seconds later, I was like, "alright... where do I go to change my display settings..." It took a while for me to figure out where everything is, and it still takes me a few seconds to find the icon that takes me to the "Add/remove program" page. I guess that's what happens when you've used XP for 7 years, and Vista is the first time the control panel got a real make over since, what? Windows 95. After 13 years, you get used to some things.
     
  20. beast macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    :(XP???? Vista???? What's the difference??? Underneath the new shiny facade of Vista remains that same old XP interface :(
    I assume that you bought an iMac because you like using OS X and the only reason that you are installing a windows OS is because you need to run one or two windows only applications.... if this is the case, surely is makes next to no difference which you choose.

    I use XP, for the sole reason that a copy of XP was cheaper than a copy of Vista. :D
     
  21. Neil321 macrumors 68040

    Neil321

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Britain, Avatar Created By Bartelby
    #21
    Yep it drives me nuts i tell ya :eek: and to make matters even worse some of computers run XP & others Vista,so by the time i get home im well confused :eek: it then takes me awhile to think hay im back
    on OS X calm down
     
  22. sash macrumors 6502a

    sash

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    #22
    Hi,

    I was one of these guys asking here which is 'faster' -- xp or vista. What I meant was actually: which OS is able to better use the whole potential of my machines.

    I've installed Vista Ultimate 64 on Mac Pro. To be honest, I'm just pleasantly surprised. It not only looks better than the old XP, but it's actually even faster (especially after RAM upgrade from 2 GB to 10 GB)...

    I still have XP on MBP, but it's only a matter of money, especially because I'm not using windows that often. Otherwise I'd installed Vista also on MBP.

    sash
     
  23. Tralfamador macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
  24. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #24
    Exactly! People jump to conclusions so fast it's ridiculous. Vista x64 is well worth it. (Vista x86...not so much, stick with XP for now). There is plenty of driver support for Vista x64 too. People need to get their heads out of their @#$& and give it a fair chance, but that's asking a lot from the average Mac lover. They're mostly ignorant and think "Micro$oft is teh devil". Dual-booting Leopard + Vista x64 = heaven.
     
  25. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #25
    Right, and XP is faster? By that logic we should all be running OS 9 instead of OS X "because it's faster on the same machine". Just because you had one bitter experience with it ≠ the OS sucks. The Dells at your work must suck if they can't handle it.
     

Share This Page