Boot Camp- XP or Vista?

[Matthias]

Now that I got a new external drive for christmas, I'll be moving about 50GB of music onto that and making space on my MacBook Pro. I think I want to turn some of that space and make a windows partition for gaming. I'm interested in trying Vista now that SP1 is out and developers have had a chance to get used to it. Does this sound like a good move, or should I stick with XP?

Also, how large should I make the partition? I was thinking of just using 20GB, maybe 30. I'm interesting in storing a good few modernish games at a time on here, and I know the 10GB partition I had before my old hard drive crashed was not enough.

Furthermore, I'm looking for game recommendations. So far I have my eye on:
Sins
Fallout 3
Dawn of War
AoE3
The Orange Box (I've never even played HL1, much less 2 or anything else)

Any other ideas? Assume I haven't played any PC games in a good few years, because I haven't. Bonus points for games that are discounted by now, or available cheaper on steam.

[jeffbax]

XP no contest. XP takes up like 1.5 GB installed, Vista takes up 10+ or so. You likely won't be using it for anything but games, so I don't see the point using Vista. No games really use anything particular to Vista yet anyway.

Depends on your HDD size. But for me, My XP Partition is only like 20GB/160GB leaving the bulk of my storage for the main OS where I am 99% of the time.

[Grifter]

I personally prefer Vista but I have a pretty fast machine with 4GB of RAM. I am also not as familiar with Mac software as I am with PC so when it comes bootcamp XP still may be the better choice. If requirements are pretty much the same between the two systems, you have decently fast CPU (preferably dual or quad cores) and 4+GB of RAM I would go with Vista.

I also wouldn't install it on anything less than 60GB if you are also going to be using that same partition for your game installs.

[Matthias]

well I would also considering installing office 07 (mainly to play with I suppose) and a few other windows-only applications. I guess the GUI is beckoning to me, although in practice I suppose it's not much different than XP. Does Vista really take 10GB to install? And I thought XP was at least 4 GB.

And to answer spec questions, I have 2GB of RAm (with an upgrade to 4GB coming soon), and am running a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo. I don't think I'd have a problem running Vista with those stats, but I suppose the overhead might be more than I need.

[Grifter]

well I would also considering installing office 07 (mainly to play with I suppose) and a few other windows-only applications. I guess the GUI is beckoning to me, although in practice I suppose it's not much different than XP. Does Vista really take 10GB to install? And I thought XP was at least 4 GB.

And to answer spec questions, I have 2GB of RAm (with an upgrade to 4GB coming soon), and am running a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo. I don't think I'd have a problem running Vista with those stats, but I suppose the overhead might be more than I need.

That's about perfect. I know there are a lot of horror stories about Vista but I have to think most (not all) of those are blown way out of proportion or user error. I have been running Vista for almost 2 years now and for what I do (Gaming, media and graphic design) I find it to be much better than XP and I have yet to have any issues that have been more than a brief inconvenience and those were all in the first 6 months. The funny thing is that XP actually runs much slower on my PC than Vista does.

I am running Vista 64.

Not that it matters all that much (unless you are going to play Farcry 2) but do you have a DX10 capable video card? (Do DX10 video cards even exist for Macs?)

[Matthias]

To be honest, I'm not sure if my card in particular is DX10 capable. I got the laptop 2 summers ago which i think was before vista came out, so it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't. As far as macs in general go, we often times get basically the same video cards other laptop manufacturers use. I'll look up my card sometime soon.

[fitbabits]

XP, no contest. Space and compatibility are the two main reasons why.

[boratika]

Do you perhaps already have a copy of XP, but would have to buy Vista? If that were the case I'd say go with XP. If not, I don't really have any advise...

[Matthias]

My dad is part of the MSDN, so it doesn't make a difference.

Just out of curiosity, what would some perks of Vista be in general, even though it's apparently not better for gaming?

[boratika]

Well then I'd say, go with XP if you just plan on using it for games. It will be leaner and do what you want. Since presumably you are happy with OSX if you own a mac.

[Chris_D]

I'm pretty sure the macbook pro video cards don't do DirectX 10 so without that, I can't think of a good reason to install Vista over XP.

[jeffbax]

I'm guessing by age your MBP is an 8600 GT (same as mine) which is not DX10. The new MBP's with the 9600 is DX10 capable. Again though, Vista will just be a waste of HDD space in comparison to XP for what you're doing. Additionally, Office 2008 is already on Mac, so I'm not sure why you'd bother with 2007.

[Tron]

Vista...the XP diehards are running out of excuses at this point.

[Tron]

No games really use anything particular to Vista yet anyway.

Other than DX10? :p

[Primus]

Vista. Just put 4GB RAM in it for cheap, and you'll be fine.

The problems are blown way out of proportion if you ask me and become less relevant as time goes on.

Personally, the only issue I have had has been NVIDIA's shitty support for my videocard, which has nothing to do with MS and it's OS. It has been very stable for me.

[Chris_D]

Vista. Just put 4GB RAM in it for cheap, and you'll be fine.


He is on a Macbook Pro you know. Probably with no DX10 support.

I would say the point is that if it's just being used to play a game or two that can't run on OSX and maybe run a few extras in the background then the missing bells and whistles on XP are hardly going to be noticed.

[VerseD]

I'm still using Windows XP and have encountered no reason to switch to Vista, other than slight graphics improvement with DX10.

[RandoM51]

Vista...the XP diehards are running out of excuses at this point.

Uh, for somebody installing Bootcamp on a space-limited machine solely to play games are they really excuses?

Seems like valid reasoning to me to go the XP route.

Speaking of "excuses", I've yet to see a valid reason presented for somebody in this situation to pick Vista other than a desire to check out Vista. Most of the people enthused by the new features in Vista are people who actually use those features in their day to day work, whereas somebody who just games derives little to no value from those new features.

Long story short, the "XP diehards" don't need any excuses when the Vista "ooooh precioussss" people can't come up with any compelling reasons to switch in the first place. :)

Other than DX10? :p

Fortunately for the gamers of the world DX10 has yet to significantly improve any game experience. I wouldn't hold my breath, either, lol. ;)

[Grifter]

Vista 64 runs better with 4GB of RAM than XP does with 3. If he has access to both there is no reason to use XP and unless he's using some old and obscure software he will not have to worry about compatibility issues. The only programs that I have run into that have not worked with Vista 64 have been an earlier version of Driver Cleaner (I now use Driver Sweeper) and some small, free, video conversion program of which I cannot even remember the name.

I use both operating systems on a daily basis and once you get used to a few of the minor changes, which really shouldn't take more than a week or two at most, Vista 64 is the superior OS.

[Disgustipated]

I'm guessing by age your MBP is an 8600 GT (same as mine) which is not DX10. The new MBP's with the 9600 is DX10 capable. Again though, Vista will just be a waste of HDD space in comparison to XP for what you're doing. Additionally, Office 2008 is already on Mac, so I'm not sure why you'd bother with 2007.

Wrong. 8600 GT has DX10 support.

[GigaFuzz]

Wrong. 8600 GT has DX10 support.

It is however largely pointless as it won't be good enough to run any games in DX10 mode anyway. :p

[Grifter]

It is however largely pointless as it won't be good enough to run any games in DX10 mode anyway. :p

Unless the laptop has a 19" screen or larger I'm sure the 8600 could handle most games with a mix of medium and high settings, DX10 or otherwise.

[Tron]

Uh, for somebody installing Bootcamp on a space-limited machine solely to play games are they really excuses?

Seems like valid reasoning to me to go the XP route.

Speaking of "excuses", I've yet to see a valid reason presented for somebody in this situation to pick Vista other than a desire to check out Vista. Most of the people enthused by the new features in Vista are people who actually use those features in their day to day work, whereas somebody who just games derives little to no value from those new features.

Long story short, the "XP diehards" don't need any excuses when the Vista "ooooh precioussss" people can't come up with any compelling reasons to switch in the first place. :)



Fortunately for the gamers of the world DX10 has yet to significantly improve any game experience. I wouldn't hold my breath, either, lol. ;)

Keep convincing yourself. :p

[Tron]

Unless the laptop has a 19" screen or larger I'm sure the 8600 could handle most games with a mix of medium and high settings, DX10 or otherwise.

Nope....my 8600 couldn't run STALKER or Crysis worth a damn at even the lower settings.

[RandoM51]

Keep convincing yourself. :p

Wow, that is a compelling argument. I don't have to keep convincing myself, I read the original post and considered the facts. The OP is better off with XP in this case.

[fitbabits]

Keep convincing yourself. :p
The only person needing convinced is the OP. When taking all the parameters into account, XP is the better option in this case. Perhaps not in general, but we're dealing with specifics here - predefined specifics, I may add.

[Banacek]

XP no contest. XP takes up like 1.5 GB installed, Vista takes up 10+ or so. You likely won't be using it for anything but games, so I don't see the point using Vista. No games really use anything particular to Vista yet anyway.

Depends on your HDD size. But for me, My XP Partition is only like 20GB/160GB leaving the bulk of my storage for the main OS where I am 99% of the time.

Well, the only thing I can add is that XP is only going to see 3GB of ram compared to Vista (with the right version) seeing all four. That being said, I've run both in Boot Camp and never really noticed much of a difference. Both ran extremely well. I say that if you can get one for free go with that option :)

[Matthias]

Right, I AM working with only 2GB of RAM right now, and an upgrade wouldn't come until February. It seems like there aren't compelling reasons for me to take up extra resources with Vista just yet, since I don't think the games I'm looking at playing will be at the Crysis graphics level. DX10 may be a nice perk soon, but I'm actually looking at getting a new MBP and giving this one to my sister in August, so maybe by then there will be enough games utilizing DX10 to make Vista more worth it (plus I'll be running an i7 with dual nVidia cards). Thanks guys!

So what PC games in the last few years would you say are worth picking up? I'm interested in anything from a few years back through today. I put a few of the games I already know I want to try in the OP. Any suggestions going from that list?

[Tron]

Wow, that is a compelling argument.

My thoughts exactly after I read your original post. :p


Why should I bother when you clearly didn't?

[total]

I say that if you can get one for free go with that option :)

That about sums up my thoughts on it. If you are only playing games go with XP if you have a copy lying around. If you have a copy of Vista lying around than use that. If you have neither then get the cheapest one you can (I'm guessing XP) and just wait for Windows 7. I got to play around with the beta on my buddies netbook and it ran fantastically. It actually ran better than both XP and Ubuntu on the netbook (Acer Aspire One).

[Banacek]

Dear Lord, get Orange Box, now. Best gaming experience out there, no doubt.

[Matthias]

That about sums up my thoughts on it. If you are only playing games go with XP if you have a copy lying around. If you have a copy of Vista lying around than use that. If you have neither then get the cheapest one you can (I'm guessing XP) and just wait for Windows 7. I got to play around with the beta on my buddies netbook and it ran fantastically. It actually ran better than both XP and Ubuntu on the netbook (Acer Aspire One).

I actually have both available to me free (and maybe even the W7 beta) because I have access to MSDN. I also have access all the way back to 3.1, but I don't think Apple supports that...

[Matthias]

And Jeffbax: did you use nLite to get your XP install down to 1.5 GB? Any tips on major areas of bloat that I might not think about at first? Obviously stuff like WMP will be gone. Also, anything I need to be sure NOT to remove to keep games/xFire compatibility? I haven't looked at the list of what nLite typically trims yet

[total]

I actually have both available to me free (and maybe even the W7 beta) because I have access to MSDN. I also have access all the way back to 3.1, but I don't think Apple supports that...

Throw Vista on there and see if you like it. Can't hurt to give it a shot. Your specs look up to snuff for Vista. With your specs I'm guessing you are going to get about the same performance out of either OS (maybe a slight edge with XP until you get your full 4GB). I actually don't think they released Windows 7 to MSDN subs yet so I doubt you can get that legally. Not positive on that though. I wouldn't run that right now anyway as there are still some bugs.

If you don't like Vista wipe it and put XP on there. If you have access to both just give both a try and see which you prefer.

Then get rid of OSX and put Ubuntu on that MBP and it will be just like a real computer. I kid...I kid...

[total]

And Jeffbax: did you use nLite to get your XP install down to 1.5 GB? Any tips on major areas of bloat that I might not think about at first? Obviously stuff like WMP will be gone. Also, anything I need to be sure NOT to remove to keep games/xFire compatibility? I haven't looked at the list of what nLite typically trims yet

nLite will let you remove all sorts of stuff. You can safely remove Messenger, Outlook Express, the Games and the likes. nLite will tell you if you are breaking anything in doing so. My XP copy if heavily modded (removed all the junk I don't use, added newer drivers for SATA and what not, slipped SP3, etc etc) and I never have a problem with games running or anything like that.

[KingGorilla]

For most of those titles I suggest trying Wine (http://wiki.winehq.org/MacOSX) out before you think about dropping a hundred or more dollars on an OS you will use for just one occasional thing.

[Deadend]

I like Vista 64 on my PC.. that being said, I hate Vista on my laptop as without a beefy machine.. Vista is worse. Since your laptop is not a beefy machine, go with XP.

[RandoM51]

My thoughts exactly after I read your original post. :p


Why should I bother when you clearly didn't?

I guess you missed the low space requirements, small ram footprint, gaming, etc. If you don't even catch those from the original poster I'm not sure why me pointing them out again would change your mind.

Quite clearly we're dumb and you're a genius and Vista is hands down the best solution for every task on every platform at every point in time.

Seriously, try reading the original post again---feel free to ask for help if there are parts of it beyond your comprehension---and tell the guy that Vista is the best choice with a straight face. :confused:

[Tron]

I guess you missed the low space requirements, small ram footprint, gaming, etc. If you don't even catch those from the original poster I'm not sure why me pointing them out again would change your mind.

Quite clearly we're dumb and you're a genius and Vista is hands down the best solution for every task on every platform at every point in time.

Seriously, try reading the original post again---feel free to ask for help if there are parts of it beyond your comprehension---and tell the guy that Vista is the best choice with a straight face. :confused:

I don't waste my time with people who resort to juvenile insults. Believe me when I say it doesn't make you look any smarter or any more of an internet bad ass.

Let me know when you've either calmed down or grown up and we'll discuss this like adults.

[Disgustipated]

It is however largely pointless as it won't be good enough to run any games in DX10 mode anyway. :p

Agreed, 8600 series is shit. You need at least an 8800 Mobile or better to have settings at "sexy" levels.

[Tron]

Agreed, 8600 series is shit. You need at least an 8800 Mobile or better to have settings at "sexy" levels.

That's been my experience as well.

8600 was useless for any of the newer games from the last few years.

[fitbabits]

I don't waste my time with people who resort to juvenile insults. Believe me when I say it doesn't make you look any smarter or any more of an internet bad ass.

Let me know when you've either calmed down or grown up and we'll discuss this like adults.
The only insult RandoM threw your way was to call you a genius. I can see how that would upset you.

[Tron]

The only insult RandoM threw your way was to call you a genius. I can see how that would upset you.

There's a difference between an implicit insult and an explicit one. Try reading his post again and this time don't look for cuss words. :confused:

His post was condescending unless you think the two times he brought up my intellect was even relevant to the discussion at hand.

[boratika]

Well, the only thing I can add is that XP is only going to see 3GB of ram compared to Vista (with the right version) seeing all four. That being said, I've run both in Boot Camp and never really noticed much of a difference. Both ran extremely well. I say that if you can get one for free go with that option :)

It'd be more than 3GB. His graphics card only has 256MB of RAM so XP and Vista 32bit would see 3.75GB.

[Banacek]

It'd be more than 3GB. His graphics card only has 256MB of RAM so XP and Vista 32bit would see 3.75GB.

Are you sure it's 3.75GB? I thought that a 32-bit OS memory limit was less than that.

[Tron]

It'd be more than 3GB. His graphics card only has 256MB of RAM so XP and Vista 32bit would see 3.75GB.

This makes zero sense. This is not how it works. Not even close.

[jeffbax]

This makes zero sense. This is not how it works. Not even close.

Actually, I'm pretty sure thats how memory management in XP works. It can see a total of 4GB - including video memory. Not sure about Vista.

[boratika]

Are you sure it's 3.75GB? I thought that a 32-bit OS memory limit was less than that.

I think the best way for me to answer that is by referring to posts by people who clearly understand this better than me and have explained it much better than I could. From this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=3061) thread:
Its simple math in a sense, 32 bit addressing is about to address 2^32 ( 2 to the power of 32 ) unique addresses, or 4, 294, 967, 296 bytes. Also known as 4 gigs.

Thing is, with win32, they virtualized memory addressing and limit each process to at most 2 gigs of memory. Another major gotcha is video memory. See, even if you have 4 gigs of RAM on your 32 bit OS, say you have another 512MB of video ram... how is that memory going to be accessed if all 4 294 967 296 different addresses are already taken? Answer is, they cant and ironically enough, tons of video ram can actually kill your performance on a 32bit OS.

This is correct and I will only expand in explaining the 'why' portion.

All memory on expansion cards is mapped to the end of addressable memory. So, for example, you have yourself a 256MB video card and a 128MB raid card, that 384MB's of memory will be mapped to the end of the addressable memory space.

In a 32-bit environment, the max amount of addressable memory is 4096MB. So, in essence, if you have 4096MB (4GB) of main memory and a 8800GT with 512MB then you will only be able to use 3,584MB (~3.5GB) of your main memory because any memory mapped to expansion cards are reserved.

Also, the performance difference that you'll have on a system with 4096MB vs 3584MB of main memory is extremely slight. This is especially so on a 32-bit OS because (as previously said) processes are limited to use of 2048MB of RAM. If the loss of 512MB of main memory bothers you a lot, just switch to a 64bit OS. The memory on those expansion cards will once again be mapped to the end of addressable memory and it is highly doubtful that you'd ever reach their space in the near future.

[Banacek]

I think the best way for me to answer that is by referring to posts by people who clearly understand this better than me and have explained it much better than I could. From this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=3061) thread:

Ahhh, makes sense. No wonder I was seeing 3.5 GB in XP. Thanks!

[Tron]

I think the best way for me to answer that is by referring to posts by people who clearly understand this better than me and have explained it much better than I could. From this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=3061) thread:

This is what I was hinting at. Windows reserves 2gigs for the kernel so at most any app can only use the total memory - 2 gigs.

[total]

I like Vista 64 on my PC.. that being said, I hate Vista on my laptop as without a beefy machine.. Vista is worse. Since your laptop is not a beefy machine, go with XP.

What about his machine is not beefy enough for Vista?

[Grifter]

Once he adds that extra 2GB it will be perfect for Vista.

I also want to add that based on quite a few other threads on this topic over on EvAv I know that a few of the people in this thread that are so anti Vista have not used it since it was first available for beta, the first few weeks of release or just messing around with it on some one elses system so I think that's important to keep in mind while reading some of these opinions.

It is true that Vista will take up more HDD space and that with 2GB of RAM XP runs a bit smoother than Vista if you are running all the little extra apps and features in Vista but again based on day to day experience Vista overall is a better experience and once you get that extra 2GB there will be no comparison. If you're not going to get that RAM for a few months then it doesn't really matter go with whatever but if you plan on installing that RAM sooner do yourself a favor and use Vista or the Windows 7 beta.

[ShivaX]

Other than DX10? :p

And all your RAM?

Edit: I should read all the a thread, but I'm lazy.

[Tron]

And all your RAM?

Edit: I should read all the a thread, but I'm lazy.

You should because then you'd know he's adding memory. ;)

[Bingley Joe]

That's been my experience as well.

8600 was useless for any of the newer games from the last few years.

So this would mean that he shouldn't even bother considering DX10 (which he's already confirmed as being not a consideration regardless of the card), yes?

Given the card will be useless for DX10 gaming, and considering all the other requirements listed, XP is by far the more sensible option in this case. It just is; Vista is great, but not as great in this case.

One other thing: an XP Bootcamp install will also run much much better as a virtual machine under VMWare or Parallels than Vista will, which is well worth keeping in mind.

While not something the OP has expressed an interest in, having your Bootcamp install available at any time can be extremely handy, even if only for doing the odd bit of file-copying/maintenance between the two operating systems. Plenty of older games will run just fine off the VM too (especially with the 4GB of RAM, which the VM will see and use even if the OS it's running doesn't).

[Banacek]

One other thing: an XP Bootcamp install will also run much much better as a virtual machine under VMWare or Parallels than Vista will, which is well worth keeping in mind.

While not something the OP has expressed an interest in, having your Bootcamp install available at any time can be extremely handy, even if only for doing the odd bit of file-copying/maintenance between the two operating systems. Plenty of older games will run just fine off the VM too (especially with the 4GB of RAM, which the VM will see and use even if the OS it's running doesn't).

A word of warning: I've tried running Steam under a VM, just for educational purposes. It won't work. But, if you are playing older games, such as Planescape or Fallout 1/2, it plays those perfectly.

[Bingley Joe]

A word of warning: I've tried running Steam under a VM, just for educational purposes. It won't work. But, if you are playing older games, such as Planescape or Fallout 1/2, it plays those perfectly.

That's odd.. Steam runs just fine for me under VMWare.

Now the games I have installed to Steam are a somewhat different story, depending on the particular requirements of the title.. HL, for example runs just fine, but HL2 isn't exactly what I'd consider playable (although it does technically run).

Less demanding stuff like Audiosurf runs perfectly for me under Steam though, and like you say -- plenty of older titles will run via their native installs without any trouble at all. Personally, I far prefer not having to reboot whenever I can..

[Tron]

So this would mean that he shouldn't even bother considering DX10 (which he's already confirmed as being not a consideration regardless of the card), yes?.

I based my post off of two games. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky.

Not sure if that means they all play that way.

[Banacek]

That's odd.. Steam runs just fine for me under VMWare.

Now the games I have installed to Steam are a somewhat different story, depending on the particular requirements of the title.. HL, for example runs just fine, but HL2 isn't exactly what I'd consider playable (although it does technically run).

Less demanding stuff like Audiosurf runs perfectly for me under Steam though, and like you say -- plenty of older titles will run via their native installs without any trouble at all. Personally, I far prefer not having to reboot whenever I can..

I seem to have a lot of network issues, to the point that I can only run it in Offline mode. I never thought to try HL1, I bet that does play. Forget about Left for Dead though :)

[Bingley Joe]

I seem to have a lot of network issues, to the point that I can only run it in Offline mode. I never thought to try HL1, I bet that does play. Forget about Left for Dead though :)

LOL.. yeah, I'll bet L4D would be a bit of a stretch.

I once got beyond the main menu and to the loading screen of Crysis! For 'educational purposes', as you say. :p I was pretty surprised it got that far... even the menu was running at something like 2fps

[Grifter]

I based my post off of two games. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky.

Not sure if that means they all play that way.

To be fair those are two of the worst running games to come out in the last year no matter what kind of rig you have. I am actually curious to see if Far Cry 2 is playable under DX10 on that card considering that not only does it look a bit better while in DX10 mode but runs better as well.