Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ProwlingTiger

macrumors 65816
Jan 15, 2008
1,335
221
For a student who is only loading windows to occasionally use Visual Studio, do you really think he is going to have stability issues?

Doesn't sound like he will be a hard core windows user...

So, just because he's a student doesn't mean he needs something more stable? Hard-core or not, XP would do him better either way.
 

aross99

macrumors 68000
Dec 17, 2006
1,540
1
East Lansing, MI
What I mean is that Vista seems to be stable for pretty basic use, so why not go with the latest OS?

To me, if you are going to use the MS development environment, why not use the OS they recommend?

I don't think Vista is going to go away any time soon, so why not start using it now?
 

flyinmac

macrumors 68040
Sep 2, 2006
3,579
2,465
United States
I've got a lot of experience with all versions of Windows and Just about every version of Mac OS ever released.

And, I can tell you that in comparison to Leopard, Vista is no more resource intensive than OS X.

Check my specs in my signature.

On my system, Vista Ultimate 32-BIT consistently works faster and accomplishes tasks faster than OS X (keep in mind that in Windows 32-BIT only 3 GB of my memory is available for use).

I run Windows both natively in Bootcamp and in Fusion's virtual machine environment. In BootCamp, Vista clearly leaves OS X in the dust for just about everything I ask it to do. Much snappier and more responsive.

In Fusion, Vista is slightly less responsive, but not enough to really be noticeable. The startup routine takes longer in Vista than with OS X. And, it takes a little longer when being booted in Fusion than when done in BootCamp.

I general, I don't find OS X slow enough to complain about it. And, I usually don't notice that it's less responsive until I happen to switch over to Windows for a bit and do the same thing and find Vista getting the job done almost before I've asked it to.

The only complaint I have about Vista is the End User License. I don't like that the Vista license limits you to transferring the retail version of Windows Vista a single time. In my opinion, the retail box should be freely able to be moved to any other computer as many times as you like (provided you remove it from the prior system first).

The only other complaint I would have is tied to Windows regardless of Vista, XP, ME, 98, 95, etc. That complaint would be that Windows has portions of every program you install running all the time regardless of whether that program is actively in use. So, you can have situations where background tasks and programs you are not using interfere with what you are trying to do.

But, aside from those, the only complaint I would have is that it boots too slowly. But, if left running like I leave OS X running, then I would never see that anyway.

As for annoying, I don't find it to be. Vista does have things moved around, but you get used to where things are, and that isn't such an issue.

As for the Security prompt that everyone complains about, I see it less frequently than the password / authentication prompt in OS X. And, it's easier to dismiss in Vista because I don't have to type anything.

Of course, my performance observations are just that... "Observations". Benchmarks mean little unless the benchmark executes the same code, compares the same things, and is identical in both tests. You can't directly do that between OS X and Windows since the benchmark programs would be different programs. Sure, they might measure similar things, but they would be different test programs, and as such create a variable.

So, all you can really go by is how it feels. And, honestly, Vista "feels" more responsive to me than Leopard does on the same system.

Does that mean I love Windows? No... I still predominantly use OS X on this system. And, that is simply by preference. But, if I objectively look at it, I will usually find that many of my tasks are handled faster in Windows than they are in Leopard.

Anyway, all that is simply to say that Vista on your Mac should perform quite well. At least as well as Leopard.

As for whether to choose XP or Vista, I would go Vista. Why? Well, Vista has more active support. There is a difference between "Supported" and under active development and current support. They have not Abandoned XP and in that sense it is "Supported". They will continue to release essential updates and patches as necessary. But, they are not actively improving it and actively supporting it.

Look at it this way. Apple has moved on from Tiger. Panther is practically forgotten. And, Jaguar barely a memory. Apple is only actively supporting Leopard. But, they are still "Supporting" Panther and Jaguar in the same sense that Microsoft is "Supporting" XP. Every once in a while, a little security update appears in the software update for my Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger systems. So, they are not supported like Leopard is, but they are not completely abandoned when it comes to necessary security patches.

Likewise, Microsoft's focus is on Vista. Active support, development, and improvements are there for Vista. XP is supported more on an as needed and if we have to kind of basis.

Vista also has more recent security and protection mechanisms. And, will provide you with better built-in security than XP.

That doesn't mean your system will be hacked if you run XP. But, I have more confidence in Vista than XP when it comes to walking away from my computer with it connected to the Internet (of course I have a firewall on the network as well to provide greater security to everything on my network).

Also, there are many new devices coming out that will only work in Vista. We got a new (second) monitor a few months ago for my wife, and surprise it's drivers are only available for Vista. We did eventually get it working in an unsupported method by XP on her system, but it wasn't very straight forward. And, it was actually a bit of a pain getting it to work. We had to really tinker with it. XP just didn't want to see it's native resolution, so things looked pretty ugly until we got it working right (though without it's monitor driver).

You'll also find that programs will support Vista longer than XP. Though not many programs will be abandoning XP right away. But, when the day comes that XP is no longer on the supported versions list, you'll likely still find Vista there.

I also find XP's interface to be kind of "blah" compared to Vista. Of course, I also find OS X's interface to be kind of "blah" to XP's. I like a little color. I like a little creativity. And, I like a little bit of eye candy.

OS X lacks the level of (built-in and supported) UI customizing that I would like. XP offers a number of options there, and Vista's options can make it downright nice looking.

Yes, I still prefer OS X for the basic underpinnings and the way things work. But, if looked at objectively, I would have little to complain about with Vista.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.