View Full Version : Windows vista or Windows XP Pro?
Hello ppl,
I just purchased a 24" iMac. Nice machine, this is the first time I have an iMac. Anyway, I would like to purchase a MS Windows, but don't know whether I should get XP pro or Vista home premium. I read couple of threads here, but didn't help. I know at the moment boot camp drivers does not support 64-bit Vista or XP. So I guess that's out. I read some reviews, some say vista is slow and others disagree. I am confused and I do not have money to buy couple of version of Windows. I need a long term solution (as I do not want to purchase another version of windows for at least another 3 years). So that I can use the same version for longer period of time without having to say to myself "damn I should've bought the other one". Also, Vista home premium cost (150 CHF) less than XP pro (192 CHF). So I am not sure which one to go with. Please let me know. Thanks
In that case, perhaps Vista Home Premium is your best bet. SP1 should hit within months from now, and that will resolve many of the existing issues, including several performance-related ones.
Would Apple release 64-bit drivers with Leopard? because I could just go ahead and get the 64-bit version of Vista for the same price. Don't know if it is a good idea or not.
We know nothing about Apple's plans on releasing 64-bit drivers for Vista.
Souflay123
2007-09-22, 14:41
Vista is a horrible OS, I had the option of vista or XP on my MBP, and i was kind told putting vista on you mac is kinda like just flat out taking a shit on your keyboard. Though I hate windows as a whole, at least with XP they kinda figured out the kinks. Go with XP man!
Vista is a horrible OS, I had the option of vista or XP on my MBP, and i was kind told putting vista on you mac is kinda like just flat out taking a shit on your keyboard.
So in other words, you're basing your opinion on zero personal experience?
I'd have to disagree with chucker, because a lot of Vista's performance issues cant be "fixed", per se. Vista has a lot of extra overhead that will prevent it from ever being as fast as XP on current hardware. As computers improve, the gap will eventually become nonexistent, but we aren't there yet.
That said, people will continue to use XP for the better part of a decade, despite what Microsoft wants you to think. Plenty of people are still on Windows 2000, for christ sakes. You really aren't missing anything with Vista.
That said, what do you plan to use Windows for? The only reason that I have Vista installed on the second partition of my (gaming) PC is for DirectX 10. While the 2600 Pro does in fact support DX10, it doesn't really have enough horsepower to make use of it.
I am not going to make a recommendation yet, because I think it's important to know what you are going to use it for first...
Also, if you go with XP, Pro isn't necessary. I use Home, works just fine.
I'd have to disagree with chucker, because a lot of Vista's performance issues cant be "fixed", per se. Vista has a lot of extra overhead that will prevent it from ever being as fast as XP on current hardware.
The same can be said of Mac OS X vs. Mac OS 9; yet I wouldn't have recommended using OS 9 even back in 2002. And unlike with OS X, Vista's window compositing can be turned off entirely if that's too much overhead. That said, I really don't see that as being the case on a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo.
That said, people will continue to use XP for the better part of a decade, despite what Microsoft wants you to think. Plenty of people are still on Windows 2000, for christ sakes. You really aren't missing anything with Vista.
That's an enterprise thing. Home users will be adopting it more quickly starting next year. Just like was the case with XP vs. 98. Enterprises are often even still on NT4.
The same can be said of Mac OS X vs. Mac OS 9; yet I wouldn't have recommended using OS 9 even back in 2002. And unlike with OS X, Vista's window compositing can be turned off entirely if that's too much overhead. That said, I really don't see that as being the case on a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo.
Yeah, but the difference is, OS X provided tangible improvements over OS 9, as early as 10.1. Vista does not. What about Vista can you really sell as being better than XP? Stability? Features? The only improvements are ones that Microsoft as artificially forced, such as DirectX 10.
That's an enterprise thing. Home users will be adopting it more quickly starting next year. Just like was the case with XP vs. 98. Enterprises are often even still on NT4.
My larger point is that support for XP wont be dropped any time soon. Microsoft didn't stop supporting 98/Me for 5 years after XP was released. If they follow the same pattern, then XP will be supported well into the next decade.
I want to be clear: I am not advocating XP over Vista for everyone, which is why I am curious to know what he wants to use it for.
Well mainly I will use it to Windows only programs that I require for work (at least for the time being) and for some gaming such as Neverwinter Nights 2 and Guild wars (Prophecies and Eye of the North). Those programs that I am using doesn't require major hardware configuration, just that they are available for windows as Mac OS change operating system frequently for them to release compatible version to work on intel processors.
Also another thing that I read was XP home edition does not support multicore processors (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx).
Souflay123
2007-09-22, 15:06
So in other words, you're basing your opinion on zero personal experience?
I have used vista before, not for long, but I have used it. What I saw was crap, and I just thought it was because i just was not used to windows in general. But then in talking to my tech friends who have vast experience, along with a few vista users, one who i assisted in uninstalling vista and putting XP on his laptop, That is where my poor opinion of vista come from. And now that i have to use windows for work, all of our rating and quoting system is run off it, we use on my work desktop Windows Server 2000 it is blows also, XP on my MBP is slightly better in the crap-shoot.
Yeah, but the difference is, OS X provided tangible improvements over OS 9, as early as 10.1. Vista does not. What about Vista can you really sell as being better than XP? Stability? Features? The only improvements are ones that Microsoft as artificially forced, such as DirectX 10.
See, my recommendation for Vista stems from the following: "I need a long term solution".
My larger point is that support for XP wont be dropped any time soon. Microsoft didn't stop supporting 98/Me for 5 years after XP was released. If they follow the same pattern, then XP will be supported well into the next decade.
Yes, but increasingly, applications will look and feel out of place, lack features, etc. Even back in 2003, that already started with 2000. Sure, it was supported, and software updates are still getting released even today, but random things here and there just wouldn't work properly any more, or would ahve to be reconfigured just because Microsoft can't be bothered.
Well mainly I will use it to Windows only programs that I require for work (at least for the time being) and for some gaming such as Neverwinter Nights 2 and Guild wars (Prophecies and Eye of the North). Those programs that I am using doesn't require major hardware configuration, just that they are available for windows as Mac OS change operating system frequently for them to release compatible version to work on intel processors.
That sounds like XP Home would be more than good enough. Heck, it will eventually be feasible to leave out Boot Camp altogether and do all of that virtualized.
Also another thing that I read was XP home edition does not support multicore processors (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx).
That page is misleading, as it comes from a time when dual-core processors weren't available in the mainstream. XP Home does support two cores within one CPU; it just doesn't support two separate CPUs.
thegeriatric
2007-09-22, 16:24
Having used XP for several years and Vista for 2-3 months before the official release, and now since, i would say go with Vista.
It's cheaper, you can turn off the aero interface, and customise settings to suit your individual preference.
There have already been 2 updates to improve reliability and performance.
And as chucker states service pack 1 is due sometime probably early 2008.
Personally i have had very few problems.
With 2Gb of RAM, it should be fine.
You want it to last for at least 3 years, by buying the latest OS you will be guaranteed support in excess of that.
I should point out i am using Vista on a PC not a Mac if that helps. Current Mac is G4 processor soon to be upgraded to intel.
The Mind
2007-09-22, 17:16
It may be worth ringing Microsoft. A few years ago i needed to buy some extra licences for work and we eventually got an answer back from microsoft that if we bought xp pro licence then we could run 2000 pro until we wanted to update the computers to xp. If that is still the case then you could buy a vista licence and install xp from a friends disk and licence key without breaking the licence agreement. This wont work with OEM licence as they are designated as non transferable but with a normal licence you should be ok as long as they havn't changed the rules.
That way you can run xp until bootcamp supports vista.
Can you install it on two computers like you can with Office 2007? If so, what happens when you uninstall from one, is that one subtracted from the two installs you are allowed? Also, how do you choose between 64 and 32 bit if you are running it on a MacBook (non-64 bit) and a Mac Pro (64 bit)?
64bit Vista is not supported by bootcamp... IIRC.
Can you install it on two computers like you can with Office 2007? If so, what happens when you uninstall from one, is that one subtracted from the two installs you are allowed? Also, how do you choose between 64 and 32 bit if you are running it on a MacBook (non-64 bit) and a Mac Pro (64 bit)?
No. You're allowed one install at any given time. But you can call Microsoft and get a fresh code easily. Tell them you have a new computer or a new motherboard. The customer service reps don't really care. They hand out new codes like candy.
Which MacBook? The Core 2 Duos are 64-bit. Core Duos are 32. How much RAM in the Mac Pro? The only real benefit to 64-bit Windows is the ability to go above 3 GB RAM.
Oh yeah, and what PB PM said.
64bit Vista is not supported by bootcamp... IIRC.
Which is to say: it'll install and run, but Apple doesn't supply any drivers, and some of their tools such as Startup Disk probably won't work either. So you're on your own, and the experience just won't be the same.
So I want to install vista home premium and see how well it works. I already know how XP works with bootcamp, but I need to try it and see on my own. But the question is, if I can get vista home premium original disk from one of my friends who has not installed it yet and install it on my comp for that 30 day trial period. If I don't like it I would uninstall it but would the other guy can install and activate it without a problem or would he have to call microsoft?
beardedmacuser
2007-09-23, 07:32
I run XP Pro on my Windows box at home, but that's only because work can give me a copy for free. But if I had to buy a copy with my own money I'd go for Vista Home Premium (OEM of course).
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.