![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I've made a decision about Vista...
- Thread starter Lyquist
- Start date
Personally I'd suggest you not do that - because it's going to taint Vista in the process. The performance in a VM, even a Core 2 Duo E6700 maxed out and possibly overclocked and having 4GB of RAM to burn is going to seriously and dramatically hurt the performance in the long run.
Get Acronis True Image, back your system up, install Vista natively as it's supposed to be used, and have fun with it for a day or so. If and when you make your decision, etc, restore the original system image with True Image and keep right on going without breaking a sweat.
Virtual Machines have their purpose, and VMWare and VirtualPC do come in handy for the most part, so this just might be a solution for you. But if your intention is to use a VM for running Vista to see if you're going to like using it, then the drastically reduced performance could be quite a negative towards you using Vista all by itself in the future.
I'm just offering an opinion, mind you, so don't take it as anything but.
Hope this helps...
ps
Looking back on your post, the line that jumps out at me is:
which is absolutely the wrong attitude anyway. It's the other way around, but this is a common mistake that many people new to Vista make: Vista isn't supposed to work with your hardware; your hardware is supposed to work with Vista. If that's not the case, it's not the OSes fault.
Get Acronis True Image, back your system up, install Vista natively as it's supposed to be used, and have fun with it for a day or so. If and when you make your decision, etc, restore the original system image with True Image and keep right on going without breaking a sweat.
Virtual Machines have their purpose, and VMWare and VirtualPC do come in handy for the most part, so this just might be a solution for you. But if your intention is to use a VM for running Vista to see if you're going to like using it, then the drastically reduced performance could be quite a negative towards you using Vista all by itself in the future.
I'm just offering an opinion, mind you, so don't take it as anything but.
Hope this helps...
ps
Looking back on your post, the line that jumps out at me is:
Lyquist said:
which is absolutely the wrong attitude anyway. It's the other way around, but this is a common mistake that many people new to Vista make: Vista isn't supposed to work with your hardware; your hardware is supposed to work with Vista. If that's not the case, it's not the OSes fault.
which is absolutely the wrong attitude anyway. It's the other way around, but this is a common mistake that many people new to Vista make: Vista isn't supposed to work with your hardware; your hardware is supposed to work with Vista. If that's not the case, it's not the OSes fault.
As long as you say that about linux then yer
which is absolutely the wrong attitude anyway. It's the other way around, but this is a common mistake that many people new to Vista make: Vista isn't supposed to work with your hardware; your hardware is supposed to work with Vista. If that's not the case, it's not the OSes fault.
Then why is it called an Operating Sytem? I think your stretching your bias a bit too far...
Dapperdan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2002
- Messages
- 6,306
Thank you for starting this thread, I can finally get some sleep tonight knowing how you feel about running vista.
This like an ongoing mini-series....except nothing has changed from the last several threads. The same advice we gave you then, applies now. If you truly want to learn Vista, either run it on a spare computer, or dual boot it with your current computer. I understand your audio compatibilities, and bbz_Ghost is correct as to where blame should be pointed. However, you can still maintain your XP install for such issues, while giving Vista a full legitmate install as well. You aren't going to like the way it runs in a VM.
griffinhart
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,294
Honestly, I don't think running Vista as a VM will really be a fair representation of the OS. A dual boot system before commiting fully to Vista is a more accurate way to assess any problems with compatibility you may have. Perhaps having XP as a VM under Vista for the apps you may have problems with.
"Virtual Machines have their purpose, and VMWare and VirtualPC do come in handy for the most part, so this just might be a solution for you. But if your intention is to use a VM for running Vista to see if you're going to like using it, then the drastically reduced performance could be quite a negative towards you using Vista all by itself in the future."
In other words, MS has made Vista so inherently bogged down and slow that you need every CPU cycle to make it seem worth the money you just paid. Buy extremely fast hardware and a boatload of ram and you'll be amazed at how fast it runs. Wait, doesn't that mean it is just fast because you're using premium hardware??
Run it in VM. You're only using it to get used to how it works. The speed of it really doesn't matter. You can just accept that each MS release will become more bogged down and slower and they just rely on the faster hardware that will be coming out to make up for their design.
In other words, MS has made Vista so inherently bogged down and slow that you need every CPU cycle to make it seem worth the money you just paid. Buy extremely fast hardware and a boatload of ram and you'll be amazed at how fast it runs. Wait, doesn't that mean it is just fast because you're using premium hardware??
Run it in VM. You're only using it to get used to how it works. The speed of it really doesn't matter. You can just accept that each MS release will become more bogged down and slower and they just rely on the faster hardware that will be coming out to make up for their design.
The problem with running it in a VM (I found) is that the whole interface in Vista has been revamped, which uses a fair amount of resources. It's not that Vista itself is so inherently bogged down - it's that in an XP environment it is more resource intensive to emulate a Vista environment, which isn't a huge surprise. It should be difficult to run a new OS within a 6 year old OS. I tried this route when deciding whether or not to play with Vista more permanently. After a short while, I felt it was not a fair evaluation of the OS - you lose out on a lot of the "look and feel" and I spent more time cursing it or letting it work while I did something else than trying to familiarize myself with it. Dual booting was a much fairer evaluation/learning tool.