XP or Vista? Parallels or Fusion? I really can't decide...

I'm running a 2Ghz Core Duo Macbook with the maxium 2GB of RAM and a 160GB HDD.

What do you think? I'm leaning towards XP, but only because I hate it ever so slightly less than Vista, which is a daft reason. And the Parallels/Fusion thing is just to confusing. Even the Mac store said there wasn't really any difference.

Opinions? Ideas? Shall I just flip a couple of coins?


And sorry, I'm sure this has been asked a million times, I've read tons of posts, reviews, etc, just can't make up my mind.

the biggest reason I went with fusion is that I can use virtual machines cross platform on any current VMWare instance.

Other than that, yea.. it's a toss-up. Personally as a virtual machine I'd go with XP, simply because it'll be much zippier than vista will IMO.

XP Or Vista: I'd personally suggest running which ever best meets your needs. I chose Vista simply because it is the newest operating system, and eventually everyone will migrate towards it. So I wanted to get a head start and start learning it for when I have to help folks with there Vista problems.

Parallels/Fusion: I did not Google to check and see if Parallels offers a free trial of its product. But I do know for a fact that VMWare allows you to download Fusion for Mac for a 30 day trial. I personally have never tried Parallels--simply because Fusion allowed a free trial, I downloaded it, and it did what I needed it to do. So check out Fusion, download the trial, and see if it meets your needs.

I don't think there is really a horrible choice as far as your options are concerned. Just pick what best suits your needs. Everyone has opinions and styles--but just find what meets your needs. Best of luck <><

Another option for running Windows is VirtualBox. Free.
Download the binary, non-Open Source Edition and you get USB support among other things not included in the OSE.
If you need Windows and 3D accelleration for gaming and such, get Parallels.
I have XP mainly because it's what my family has (me being the Tech Support Bob for the family and friends) and Vista sucks *** (even MS knows this, with Windows 7 coming out next year)

skaheadpunk said:

II'm leaning towards XP, but only because I hate it ever so slightly less than Vista, which is a daft reason. And the Parallels/Fusion thing is just to confusing.

Click to expand...

XP or Vista? My choice is XP. I don't like Vista for some reasons. Firstly, it still has some issues that need to be improved.. Secondly, it is more resource intensive then XP. Yes, Vista is more stylish and beautiful but I choose reliability instead of this..
Parallels or Fusion? Why don't you just try them both and then choose downloading trials?
Me personally run Parallels Desktop. I like it.

I use XP because i already have a licence for it and i dont have money to waste on vista. I never tried Fusion but i did try parallels desktop for mac 3.8 5584 build(latest build) and its great. I havent still used it extensively but had no problems so far. Parallels was even nice to comply to my request in issuing an extended trial period licence.

I've got to agree with Dysfunction: If you use VMWare's Fusion, you can run your XP or Vista image on almost any VMWare system available that has sufficient free resources.

Parallels just doesn't have the market share yet to be able to say that.

Good luck!
P

What do you plan to do with it?

...doesn't matter either way I'd say XP.

Well, I have Parallels because at the time I bought my Intel Macbook, they were the only company that had a VM system that was not in beta, unlike VMware. I have plenty of experience with VMware on Linux dating back to when they initially offered it for $99. Used it successfully on my personal Linux box, then later on servers for the company I worked for at the time.

Parallels offered a program where I could upgrade to their 3.0 version for free, and I applied for it. They did me right so I am now running Parallels at the current version even though I originally purchased their 2.X offering. I'm firmly in the Parallels camp as far as my (albeit limited) Windows needs.

Is it just me or does Vista remind you of ME? When I say ME I mean millennium edition. It seems like they rushed it out to compete with tiger and cut stuff out so they could save it for Windows 7. It just seems like a prettier version of xp with a few new apps added into it. What do you guys think?

hondagus87 said:

Is it just me or does Vista remind you of ME? When I say ME I mean millennium edition. It seems like they rushed it out to compete with tiger and cut stuff out so they could save it for Windows 7. It just seems like a prettier version of xp with a few new apps added into it. What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

It's not just you, I've been referring to it as the new ME since it's public release.

I am so glad someone else feels the same way. I mean it took them what 5 years to make this and I don't see any improvements. Yes it has media center in all versions but that was already available. I just don't see the point in upgrading.

I have the same machine and use XP under Parallels. Works great, is fast, coherence mode is funky and it's reliable.

I'm using VMware Fusion and XP.

VMware Fusion because I'm a long time VMware user professionally so it felt more "home" than Parallels, and XP because I just need to run IE and a couple of other apps from time to time, so I wanted the lightest Windows possible while using the Unify function in VMware (where it hides the Windows desktop).

At the moment, I am running XP and Vista - plus Parallels and Fusion.

IMHO, there is not too much to choose between Parallels and Fusion. Download the trial versions and see which you prefer.

I am still getting used to Vista, so too early to say which I prefer. I thought Readyboost might tip it in favour of Vista, but eBoostr is available for XP which I am trialing now, so I need to see how it goes.

Given limited RAM, I would go with XP. Uses less resources and leaves more for OSX. I tried both Parallels and Fusion, and went with Fusion - but both are essentially equivalent at this point in terms of functionality, for most users. I preferred Fusion but would have been happy with Parallels if that was all that was available. Even my wife uses Fusion no problem - and she is not a computer person at all. Either one is very easy to use.

Good luck