dual-boot or virtual PC?

Hello,

I have vista Ultimate installed, I was wondering, is it better to have dual-boot OS (vista and XP) installed? or is it better to have XP installed as a virtual PC under vista? Which method is more efficient and faster?

Thank you

 

That is the exact question I am contemplating right now. I hope someone gives a good answer.

 

I'll give you a few pros and cons for Virtual PC (or virtualization in general) over dual-boot:
Pros:
Easier installation.
Can be deleted easier
Virtualization softwares can include snapshots, which is the best backup feature for them.
Can be started at any time.
Good for testing new software.

Cons:
Performance is lower than dual-boot.
As far as I know there is no direct access to the GPU cores yet, so no gaming.

 

I use Virtual PCs to do work on then when I need to test on different OS or run multiple systems on one server.

If your purpose is just to play with Vista or use it to keep up on new Microsoft Technology then Virtual is great for you. For example I run linux in one so that I can use that, runs great in a virtual machine.

I hate dual booting. I have tons of programs running and the last thing I want to do is have to close them all done, boot up, bring em all up.

If you want to game in multiple OS then dual boot. If I were you, install your favorite OS, and Virtualize the others. Like the previous poster said, its so easy to back them up and stick on an external hard drive.

Also, you can dual boot...say you have XP / VIsta, when in XP you can tell Vmware to use the Vista partition as a virtual machine. So if you want you can go into Vista with VMWare, or dual boot into it, that's what I am doing once I get my new laptop.

 

Another note...make one OS your main one. Maintain it, customize it, install all your stuff on it. Use the others just to play around, test, run software that only runs on it. Otherwise you will spend all your time updating and installing stuff on all your virtual machines.

If you chose VMware you can use their free converter that takes any PC and turns it into a Virtual Machine you can then run as virtual.

Off the top of my head something you could do... Say you hate running windows but need it for..printer sharing. Then use Linux as your main, and startup a virtual machine running windows whenever you boot up your pc. It can run in the background taking up lil memory and will serve up your printer and windows needs.

You can also use a program called FireDaemon to have your virtual machines start with you on boot. So that if your PC reboots or whatever, all your virtuals come up also. I believe Microsoft Virtual PC is free although not so great, and there is also http://www.virtualbox.org/ a free virtual tool with lots of promise but last time I used it I couldn't get it to work with Vista.

On Mac OSX I am thinking parallels is the best. I will use that one if the 3d hardware support can atleast run wow or something I am set. If not I will have to dual boot into Windows XP if I want to play a game..otherwise I will just hang around in OSX and use that same Windows Partition and run it virtual. We shall see...

Enjoy.

 

It does depend on what you want to use XP for, though. If performance is critical, dual-booting makes sense. And with a bootloader (I'm pretty sure Vista comes with one), it's not hard to use dual-boots. You just wait for the bootloader to appear, which'll take seconds, and then press a number button to start the OS you want.

But polarlinks does point out a problem with having to close all programs. I'm considering getting XP to dual-boot with Vista, but won't have enough Office licenses for XP. And since I won't want to have to reboot just to type something/use Excel/etc., I'll probably download Open Office for XP.

In summary, if you need XP performance, dual-boot, if not, might as well virtualize.

 

thanks all for your help,
oh no games! How about CAD work, can I run programs like autocad, 3DMAX, and any other software that requires graphics under a virtual machine?

Thank you

 

Running XP under VMWare is almost Flawless in my experience. I would suggest you try that first, and if you don't like it then Dual Boot. I would allocate anywhere from 256-512MB, would work just fine.

 

Just a note, Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 doesn't support USB

 

thanks for the note, it VERY important for me to have USB support. Does VMWare support USB? What is the best virtualPC out there?

 

Yes VMWare does offer USB support. VMWare is the best IMO.

 

Yes, I am starting to lean toward virtual now. If people are generally recommending 2G for Vista does that mean you actually want even more RAM to be able to run Vista and a virtual XP smoothly?

 

Yes I would also recommend 2GB, being that 256-512MB is adequate memory to be allocated to XP Virtual Machine. If you only have 1GB, then your pushing your lucky. Running Vista on 1GB alone is already borderline IMO.

1.5GB might do the trick. That would be replace a 512MB stick with 1GB, if your notebook has two 512MB sticks.

 

256-512 MB is adequate for XP??? I must disagree there; though I have run XP on 512 MB I found newer programs and multitasking 1 GB helped considerably. I wouldn't try 256 MB at all unless that's all that you can afford to allocate it.

The question is will you be using both OSes actively at the same time? If the answer is "Yes", I'd recommend 768 MB for XP, 1280 MB for Vista (taking into account Vista's higher requirements), thus allowing both a decent amount to run on. If you don't plan to use both at once, or will only have Internet browsing/word/music player running on one, you might as well allocate a full gigabyte to XP so it can run more quickly. Even 1.25 GB if you really don't plan to use Vista at the same time. I gave my Windows 98 VM 1 GB of RAM just because I usually have that much to spare with 2 GB of RAM total.

Of course 3 GB of RAM would allow 1.5 GB each, an even better, but more expensive, situation.

You can change the allocated memory to the VM anytime it's not running, though (at least with Virtual PC), so if you find out you've allocated too much/not enough you can modify it. Or change it depending on what you plan to run.

 

Does XP require activation under Virtual PC? I've been wondering. Don't want the hassle of deleting my dual boot config just to have to activate yet again.

 

Just don't virtualize anything where performance is an issue. Don't virtualize xp under Vista if you want to do any kind of gaming under XP. Personally, i'd do a dual boot. Stuff a minimal XP installation on a 10gb partition and stick Vista on the other. Your XP installation can be barebones: Minimal services, minimal overhead and drivers. All the rest of your stuff, including the games you install can be on your Vista partition.

Probably the biggest advantage of virtualization is remote management. I have a naked server that I remote connect into from my laptop and I run Vista off an XP host. That way I don't have to buy a KVM. Heck, I don't even have to be anywhere near it. I can reboot the VM and be able to check the POST messages without having to physically be connected to the machine.

 

i have read on the microsoft website that virtualized systems do not use dual core ... meaning they only use 1 core even if u have more than that!

which really sucks for me as i need to use XP 32bit for my audio pro tools needs and have vista 64......

i guess im just gonna dual-boot but i wonder if that can be done on a Raid 0 setup?