[XxtraLarGe]

I plan to do the whole bootcamp thing on my new iMac, but I was wondering if I should do Vista or XP? Are there any games that Vista plays that XP won't? The only one I'm aware of is Halo 2. I know Vista is the way to go for the future, but as a poor, game starved mac owner, I know XP is the way to go for compatibility. Such a dilemma, what to do?

[Janichsan]

XP – at least for the time being.

There aren't many Vista exclusive games (apart from Halo 2 that you already mentioned, I can only think of Shadowrun) and those that are, aren't worth it. Direct X 10 is of course nice and spectacular, but most games optimised for it so far don't look that much worse on XP.

And Vista just still has many issues and worse performance, that XP is – at least in my opinion – still the better choice.

[the Battle Cat]

I plan on getting XP on the cheap when I get an Intel Mac, and then get dragged kicking and screaming into Vista when I have no choice. I'm sure others will point out how foolish this is but I reserve the right to be a complete idiot. That's how dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

[jgwdoc]

I got the OEM edition of Vista Home premium 64 for about $90, and have had no problems running older games (Half Life 2, Deus Ex 2, Max Payne 2). Plus, I get to run newer games like Crysis under Direct X 10, for all the visual goodies. Honestly, the suckiness of Vista hardly matters if all you do is game in it, and the gaming market will go in that direction, so why buy 2 OSes from M$?

[teflon]

To be honest, XP support is going to last for a rather long time in gaming, so I wouldnt worry too much about which one you buy cos Windows 7 will be out fairly soon, and hopefully thatll fix vista as much as possible.

[Dark_Archon]

Windows 7 won't be out for a LONG TIME. It doesn't matter what Microsoft says. Just go with Vista. It isn't much slower than XP anymore, and future support of software is guaranteed. Besides, XP really isn't any cheaper.

Janichsan, on June 5th 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

And Vista just still has many issues and worse performance, that XP is – at least in my opinion – still the better choice.

Care to be specific? The big issues I was experiencing that weren't performance related disappeared.

I actually installed Windows "Workstation" 2008 because I was wiping my Vista Partition anyways because I got a new hard drive and was moving it over and I get a free license through MSDNAA, and I heard that for some unexplainable reason, it performs better than Vista SP1 even with identical settings(including all the new GUI stuff) and (supposedly) the same kernel. The "Server Manager" layout almost makes sense when it comes to preference panes. It gives you easy access to accounts, networking, the Windows firewall and Windows Updates.

[The Liberator]

I have been wondering how bad Vista is in relation to XP. Some of my friends have Xp, one has Vista, and the I.T. guy at school replaced Vista with Tiger on his laptop, so yeah, I want to know how they fare, out of curiosity really.

By the way, tBC I will fix up your post:

the Battle Cat, on June 5th 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

That's how dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far. To Vista!!!

Liberator.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

The Liberator, on June 7th 2008, 05:43 AM, said:

I have been wondering how bad Vista is in relation to XP. Some of my friends have Xp, one has Vista, and the I.T. guy at school replaced Vista with Tiger on his laptop, so yeah, I want to know how they fare, out of curiosity really.

By the way, tBC I will fix up your post:

Liberator.

Eh. I'm fine with it. Most of the performance gap has been closed with the updates since release and drivers being improved. Mostly the only issues I run in to are with software that hasn't been updated for x64, not the OS itself. It's somewhat cleaner than XP in use I find. It's supposedly packed full of DRM, which I disagree with, but I haven't actually run in to that yet.

My beefs, as mentioned many times before are that I can't get it to print over my network (though I haven't tried in a long time - updates may have improved this), and the fact that it occasionally chokes hard when trying to copy files to external devices.

[XxtraLarGe]

Well, my first Boot Camp experience turned into my first Time Machine experience. Talk about a bummer. I received a copy of Win XP Pro from a friend, and it didn't include SP2. So after I ran Boot Camp & partitioned my hard drive the way I wanted (499 Mac, 199 Windows), I restarted the computer with the disc inserted. It started up without too much hassle, and went about doing it's thing, except I got an error about "XMX" or something like that. It also couldn't install on the hard drive without reformatting the partition to NTFS. So I did that too, and continued on with the installation. The computer booted back up, and went back into the same routine as it did the first time.

I did this once more, then decided "O.K., I'll just boot back up into OS X." NO DICE

The computer didn't recognize the OS X partition , so I had to boot it up using the install DVD. I went in to restore from Time Machine. So far, so good, EXCEPT it would only recognize the Windows partition as a valid target for the restore. I figured I'd just run Boot Camp again after I got everything in place and wipe out the second partition. Time Machine did it's magic, and restored my files.

End of story? Not by a long shot. After about an hour, the computer was ready to restart. The computer boots up and goes into kernel panic. So I have to launch the iMac from the DVD again, now I'm running Disk Utilities to repair the disk & permissions. The disk was fine, but the permissions were all screwed up, so I figured that would do it. Another reboot, another kernel panic. Another restart with the DVD.

Back into Disk Utilities, where I try to just reformat the drive. That's done, so I do Time Machine again. Another hour goes by, the computer restarts, KERNEL PANIC! Reboot the computer again, I figure, "O.K., let's see if this sucker even boots with the OS." I go to install, and when I look for the disk, it says it isn't installable Back into disk utilities, time to zero out the disk and try again. Finally, I can install on the disk again after a reboot. Now that I can get the computer to start up on OS X, should I be so bold as to try and restore from Time Machine? I think I shall.

After the last install from Time Machine, I am now able to get back into my computer just the way it was, but it was quite the ordeal.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

They're pretty specific about it needing to be a disc with SP2 or later, not sure if you were aware of that.

Glad Time Machine came to your rescue though.

[XxtraLarGe]

nobody, on June 8th 2008, 12:02 AM, said:

They're pretty specific about it needing to be a disc with SP2 or later, not sure if you were aware of that.

Glad Time Machine came to your rescue though.

Yeah, I didn't see that until I had already started the process yet though

[Janichsan]

Dark_Archon, on June 6th 2008, 04:09 AM, said:

Care to be specific? The big issues I was experiencing that weren't performance related disappeared.

It's mainly a lot of incompatible drivers and software. Vista itself has more or less the biggest flaws fixed - apart from those that are inherent in its design...

[The Liberator]

Oh, well okay. Thanks for the reply Nobody. Just one question, why did you decide to buy Vista? Also, for everyone else, which OS would you buy XP or Vista?

Thanks, Liberator.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

The Liberator, on June 10th 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

Oh, well okay. Thanks for the reply Nobody. Just one question, why did you decide to buy Vista? Also, for everyone else, which OS would you buy XP or Vista?

Thanks, Liberator.

Got a deal when I picked up my quad-core CPU. Figured I would upgrade sooner or later anyway.

[XxtraLarGe]

I think I'm resigned to installing Vista now, since the only legit copy of XP wasn't the SP2 version. I can get a copy of Vista from my work place (we have a site license for employee's personal computers) and be up and running. I plan to give up on playing older games and just start looking forward. On OS X I guess I'll have to be satisfied with limiting my gaming to Civ IV Warlords & WoW.

[bobbob]

XxtraLarGe, on June 11th 2008, 07:06 AM, said:

the only legit copy of XP wasn't the SP2 version

Use nlite to slipstream SP2. Takes ten minutes, including burning it.

[Silver Samurai]

XP or Vista is like asking if you want syphilis or gonorrhea. lol

Ok seriously, I"d go w/ XP. It's not as broken, but I do admit Vista is shinnier looking and snazzier.

[The Liberator]

Oh, okay. Thanks for that. Damn it, I wish my iMac would die, instead of just the optical drive. GRRR!!!

Liberator.

P.S. Then I could receive a new one with good old Apple Care.

[MightySlugMan]

The gap between Vista and XP is closing with each new update for Vista. The performance penalty in newer games really isn't all that noticeable (unless you're an fps freak). The only real issue is compatibility with older titles, especially the Battlefield games. EA seems to hate updating anything, especially to future proof a game. Battlefield games are still playable under Vista, but they seem to like to hog gobs of RAM after a short while (for me anyways,and i have 2 gigs. i should get another stick or two..). If you don't intend to spend you're time playing older titles and you're more of a casual gamer anyways, I'd say go with Vista.
Then again, I've built my own PC and maybe XP is a better choice for the bootcamp crowd.


side note for Crisis players under XP - you can get the same/similar look from the DX10 mode if you google around for some specific config tweaks. i also recommend switching to DX9 mode for Vista users.