vista or xp as guest?

sparkus · Post by **sparkus** » 11. Nov 2007, 03:29

just wondering if anyone has both a vista and xp vm, and has any thoughts on which seems to run smoother given the same mem.

in particular i was wondering if vbox + vista somehow made better use of dual cores.

thanks.

--mk

Technologov · Post by **Technologov** » 11. Nov 2007, 07:40

Vista is very heavyweight Windows, makeing it a hard target to virtualize. Besides it requires 3D graphics to look good.

rogerdugans · Post by **rogerdugans** » 11. Nov 2007, 15:51

Vista is basically garbage, in my opinion, and I would neither run it in a VM or on a computer.

XP is somewhat better, although still not a very good operating system.

If support had not been dropped, and a few fairly minor changes made wrecking compatibility, I would be using Windows 2000 Pro in the one VM I have for MS-compatible needs.

Post by **stefan.becker** » 11. Nov 2007, 16:15

XP is the best Choice at the Moment because of the Mass of Software.

Vista is the same, if there is a new Windows Version.

That was so with ervery version, is so and wil ever be so.

Post by **Ingo** » 15. Nov 2007, 20:56

stefan.becker wrote:That was so with ervery version, is so and wil ever be so.

No.
I remember days in the past there was a hype on the first day of the release from a new version (Win95, Win98), queues of customers in front of markets; like Harry Potter.

yk · Post by yk » 16. Nov 2007, 08:57

Although MS Win XP is a very poor OS and general environment, MS Win Vista is even worse. Unfortunately,
there are certain applications that are only available under
the monopoly, and certain web sites that only work properly
with MS Inet Exploder. Even the EU cannot
break the monopoly into the independent vendors it should be
(an OS company, an applications company, an ISP,
a search engine company, and a content provider).

tlu · Post by **tlu** » 25. Nov 2007, 14:36

rogerdugans wrote: If support had not been dropped, and a few fairly minor changes made wrecking compatibility, I would be using Windows 2000 Pro in the one VM I have for MS-compatible needs.

Security patches for W2K will be available until 2010, so support hasn't been dropped completely.

McStarfighter · Post by **McStarfighter** » 29. Nov 2007, 00:53

I've taken the Windows FLP (an very good slimmed XP Pro by MS for older PCs, specially for the developing countries). It only needs 50% of the resources XP Pro has "hijacked" but no disadvantages. And because I only use it in seamless mode for using programs that aren't available for
Debian and not running via WINE it is the perfect Windows for me.
Oh: It isn't possible to buy Windows FLP in the "OECD states" as a private person and I only can have it because I'm working for an public service who ordered them for themself. But it is possible to "clone" it with nLite. I've tested it and it works. So it is possible to save resources ...

glibdud · Post by **glibdud** » 29. Nov 2007, 21:32

Write-in vote: Win2k Pro

h4Ck3R · Post by **h4Ck3R** » 4. Dec 2007, 03:57

wow. yall saying all this bad stuff about windows to make yourself sound smart actually is making yall look stupid. Windows is the number 1 operating system out so far. Windows is HIGHLY compatable with about everything you throw at it. The file structure and the way is runs programs is top notch. Windows Vista is a great operating system. The only thing wrong with it is that it requires a lot better pc parts that any other operating system. Have any of you dissin windows ever been on linux? linux is a piece of shit compared to windows. I have not come across ANY problems with windows vista. I had more problems with xp, although i still like xp. I'm on Windows Vista right now. If i had to pick though, i would pick xp to run in vb unless u have an opteron processor and like 8gb of ram or something. i would test it out and see what kind of specs you would need to run windows vista in vb but when i try to install it says it cant find a registry file and when i try to install xp it says can't copy icwon.chm or something like that and won't copy anything else after that. i got windows 2000 running fine but the graphics are horrible. i have a amd dual core 6000+ 3.0ghz 2gb ram computer with a nvidia geforce8500gt. can anyone help me figure out why i cant install thse?

Post by **constant** » 4. Dec 2007, 06:00

.
Why is Linux so bad?
.

h4Ck3R · Post by **h4Ck3R** » 4. Dec 2007, 06:43

well for me the compatability with hardware sucks real bad, i cant even boot up the ubuntu installer (on my actualy computer, not vb). fedora doesnt see my wireless card, and i dont really like all the others. i way you intsall programs with a line of code is confusing as hell, and the driver management is pathetic. windows has a more sophisticated driver management. i like linux but windows has got it beat real bad

Post by **Ingo** » 4. Dec 2007, 13:16

h4Ck3R wrote:Windows is HIGHLY compatable with about everything you throw at it.

Hi h4Ck3R,
I think your point of view is wrong.
About everything is HIGHLY compatible with Windows.
You may say it doesn't matter but for me it is an important difference.

Windows Vista is a great operating system. The only thing wrong with it is that it requires a lot better pc parts that any other operating system.

Do you ever ask why?
.

McStarfighter · Post by **McStarfighter** » 5. Dec 2007, 03:41

Oh, i hate this kind of stupid guys. Have you studied Linux more then a hour? It doesn't seem so.
In the last years Linux becomes better and better and better. The guys from the Linux Foundation are working hard for making the kernel better. And all the thousands of working hours in the other projects (KDE, GNOME, Fluxbox, and so on) they've spended to give Joe Everyone the option to use Linux without deep knowledge of command line writing.
You say, Linux has so much problems with hardware. But the reason is that some producers of hardware doesn't give the information to make drivers. And they doesn't programming them by themselves. And so some guys are making reverse enginering and other difficult things to make a better hardware support. And the make it better and better and better. Before 2 years the most people says that Linux will never have a full support for NTFS. And today? Full read and write support and not experimental anymore.
So before you say such stupid things read and test more from Linux. And THEN you can PERHAPS say things like you said before...

Post by **Ingo** » 5. Dec 2007, 10:03

Hey McStarfighter,
Don't get aggravated.
Let h4Ck3R pay for his Operating System, let him call to Microsoft every time he wants to install his proprietary, let him give up his privacy, let Microsoft think he is a potential cheater.

virtualbox.org

vista or xp as guest?

which version of windows are you running?

vista or xp as guest?