7 Replies Latest reply: Apr 4, 2012 9:44 AM by JoeyR
grnfrog55 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

Just wondering if it would be a lighter load on the machine if I load windows xp versus windows 7. I mainly use outlook and various admin tools so needing Windows 7 isn't that necessary.  Any thoughts?

 

Thanks

  • 1. Re: Windows XP better than Win 7 using Parallels?
    leroydouglas Level 6 Level 6 (13,850 points)

    It is dependent on what else you have running at the same time.

     

    How much RAM you have etc.  It is hard to answer.

     

    I run both XP and Windows7,  sometimes at the same time.  I don't see a difference for what is worth.

  • 2. Re: Windows XP better than Win 7 using Parallels?
    grnfrog55 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Just running outook and some admin adds. I just figured because windows xp uses much less ram and resources. It can run better on less.     

  • 3. Re: Windows XP better than Win 7 using Parallels?
    ds store Level 7 Level 7 (30,305 points)

    Yes XP is lighter than Win 7, but XP is at it's end of 10 year life stage and won't be supported.

     

    Plus it's so dam fugly.

     

    Win 7 would make a Mac user a bit more happier.

  • 4. Re: Windows XP better than Win 7 using Parallels?
    grnfrog55 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I don't care what it looks like I won't see it. I run it in coherence mode so all I see are the apps.

  • 5. Re: Windows XP better than Win 7 using Parallels?
    JoeyR Level 6 Level 6 (8,275 points)

    We sometimes forget what XP was running on when it first came out.  These were the requirements:

     

    • Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
    • At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
    • At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
    • CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
    • Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
    • Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
    • Sound card
    • Speakers or headphones

     

    So the requirements for running XP are easily handled by a virtual machine with very modest resources assigned to it.  Provided you're not using any applications that are much newer (and would possible need higher specs), XP will run much better with fewer resources.  You can certainly get 7 to run well also, but you'll need to allocate more of your OS X resources to the virtual machine in order to do so.  If you plan on having it running all the time, XP with minimum resources allocated will have the least impact on your OS X performance.

  • 6. Re: Windows XP better than Win 7 using Parallels?
    grnfrog55 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    great thanks.. reason why I am asking is I have an air, and it seems like anytime you give it something to run that is moderate task it heats up so lately more often than not that has been parallels. anytime all four cores (i have an i5) get to 50% the temp spikes to over 77c.      

  • 7. Re: Windows XP better than Win 7 using Parallels?
    JoeyR Level 6 Level 6 (8,275 points)

    In particular... with an Air, you would want to go with XP (of course knowing it's a dated OS... but if it meets your needs, then that's fine).  As the most RAM you can get with an Air is 4GB, you want to allocate as little as possible to your virtual machine to keep OS X running well.  XP will run fine with just 1GB assigned to it for the uses you've described.

     

    An XP installation is much smaller than Windows 7 as well, so you save some of that precious SSD space (assuming you have a later model Air with an SSD).