Windows XP or Vista for Mac?

Hello.
I'm planning on install Parallels. I'm confused as whether to use XP or Vista. Would it be easier to install XP onto Mac? Vista looks different, and I don't mind using something different. If Vista will cause problems, I would rather use XP.
Also, is Parallels a popular choice? How is Bootcamp? VM Ware?

Thank you.

 

Parallels is virtualization software. It runs the OS in a sandbox, presenting it with a generic "virtual" set of hardware devices, and with this considerable limits. VMWare is also virtualization software and is suject to the same limitations.

Boot Camp is simply a partitioning tool and a driver pack. "Running on Boot Camp" means simply running Windows straight on the system, just like one would with any PC.

 

Did somebody say that Parallels or VMWare is 64bit compatible , but only one, which is it or am i wrong.

 

I prefer bootcamp because it help me to utilize all the resource for one OS.

 

I read in the past Parallels was not 64bit. We'll need confirmation on that though.

 

I actually like the idea of Parallels. What are some of its limitations?

Also, which is a better option: XP or Vista?

Does it just depend on what I prefer?

 

vmware definitely supports 64 bit windows.

also, given the option of vmware or parallels, i would definitely recommend vmware. both softwares work to achieve the same thing.

vista won't be causing any problems, except there is still random compatibility issues with 64 bit windows (from time to time) but it depends on what kind of software you use.

 

Parallels and VMWare now support both 32 and 64bit versions of Windows. Boot Camp only supports 64bit of Vista on later models.

 

I prefer Vista in general but for VT I would go with XP as it needs less RAM.

 

This guy on ebay has Xp home and Professional for £25.99 each , he says they come with new licenses but not an original Xp cd , is it worth the risk, and would Xp professional be better than Home.

http://shop.ebay.co.uk/merchant/muj33b

 

no it isn't worth the risk, because it is fishy.

that's the metric. fishy = not worth risk.

 

I already have a copy of Parallels, so I'm going to have to go with that.

I have 4GB of RAM on my Macbook right now. So, hopefully, there won't be any problems if I were to use Vista...??

 

parallels shouldn't be an issue, i just tend to recommend vmware based on my experience with it. both strive to do the same thing and ultimately achieve it.

vista should be fine.

also, you can use bootcamp to install windows, then launch your bootcamped vista from parallels within OS X to use it whenever you don't feel like rebooting.

that way you can get the convenience of the virtual machine and the benefits of native performance when you need it.

 

You can do the same with VMWARE, so just compare prices and features of both of them. (by same i mean run Windows in BootCamp or load it as a virtual machine).

As for XP or Vista, i prefer Vista all the way. If you have at least 2gb of ram you will be fine and, contrary to what most people thinks, Vista is far better OS than XP. More stable, more performance and longer duration battery

 

I was actually planning on using Vista. I'm only using XP because I have the CD and product key for it. I would have to buy the Vista software.

For those who are using Parallels: How do you allocate the number of RAM, etc? I have a total of 4GB on my Macbook. I want to give 1GB for XP. How would I do this?

Thank you.

 

if you already have a copy of xp w/ product key, don't bother buying vista, just use xp.

 

I used to use Parallels, up through version 4... then tried the free trial of VMware, and... well I dumped Parallels and went with VMware, I just like it a lot better. Also testing newer (unreleased) versions of VMware which are MUCH better than current Parallels version, in features as well as performance.... but I'm not allowed to give details, yet.. as far as I know.

 

I think I'm going to try out Parallels for now becuase that's the only thing I have right now. This will be the first time using Windows on a Mac, so I don't really know what to expect regarding speed, performance, etc.

I hope nothing wrong happens...

 

^^^
If your only running it under VM then there probably isn't any real need for the extra networking of the Pro version. So home will probably do.

@ OP I would also say XP rather than vista... esp if using under VM. Although I recently upgraded to win7 RC1 for my VMware and its running just as well as XP did, so that might be another (free for awhile) option
a

 

If you run Windows in Parallels, you're not running "Windows on a Mac", you're running Windows in a VM. A VM's performance is not indicative to the performance of the real hardware. VMs have additional overhead and resource restrictions (ie. you can't give it all your system's RAM or hard disk, or video card, or ports, or peripherals) so don't take the VM experience as anything like you'd get running Windows via Boot Camp.

 

SubZero is correct, you will be running Windows on the Mac, but you won't be getting the best possible performance vs. if you run it natively via Boot Camp instead! Because Mac OS X is still running when you run Windows virtually, you can't get all the speed and performance.

 

Can't say much more than what's already been said, I would just say that XP uses less resources, but to be honest if you're getting a Macbook nowadays even at stock they should all be fine at utilising the resources? Definitely best in bootcamp anyway.

 

how much ram should you leave for OSX if you're running Windows (7) in Parallels?

 

The max ram you can have is 4 gigs right?

 

From the Late 2008 Macbook/Macbook Pro models you can have up to 8GB of ram. Might be more when SL comes out.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you sure about this? Do you have a link? Last I knew the early 2009 Macbook Pro base 15" in my possession can do 4 GB officially and 6 GB unoffical.

Edit: Yeah if you follow this link it says the 8 GB isn't supported in the 2.4 15" model I have: http://guides.macrumors.com/Understanding_Intel_Mac_RAM

 

All the current MBP's can be ordered from the Apple Store with 8GB RAM. All the DDR3 MBP's have always have 8GB RAM as an option.

 

just get windows 7, the rc is free and it's actually a semi-modern OS

 

The current MBP's can handle 8GB of ram. The older ones (from 2007!) can handle 6 GB. Snow Leopard won't be changing these chipset limitations. It is possible that in the future we might discover that the actual limit of the current chipset is larger than 8GB, but I don't think anyone makes a laptop memory chip larger than 4GB, and you only have two slots, so we will have to wait on that one.

Also, you don't need more than 4GB of ram. In fact, you don't even need 4GB of ram. Paying government issued people money for more than 4GB ram is not worth it.

 

Does leopard support 4 gb? i mean vista 32 bit doesnt.. i wanna know if im actually fully utilizing my 4 gigs..

 

OS X has been 64bit since Tiger(?). So Leopard will be able to utilise all the RAM you can fit into your Macbook.

 

Wait so there is no 32 bit leopard? how do i check what version im runnin?

 

You sure about that?

I thought it just had 64bit elements, like utilization of memory etc. but the actual operating system was still 32bit.

 

If you have a 64 bit processor and OS X Leopard, you are a running a 64 bit operating system.

Tiger and Leopard each transitioned a chunk of OS X to 64 bits. Tiger was already 64 bit. It has a 32 bit kernel, with 32 bit drivers. The rationale for this was that they could have better hardware compatibility keeping 32 bit drivers, and that 64 bit drivers aren't important anyway. So they made a 32 bit kernel that run 64 bit applications, and use as much ram as you want.

Leopard transitioned some of the API's for developers to 64 bits, to make it easier to create these 64 bit applications.

Snow Leopard finally shoves the kernel to 64 bits and finishes the transition.