 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Virtual PC / April 2004WinME or WinXP -- VPC 6.1
I have Virtual PC 6.1 and am trying to decide between installing Windows ME or Windows XP. My system is a 700 MHz G3, with 384 MB RAM and 120 GB hard drive (on my FireWire drive). I'm assuming I should be fine with ME, but like XP a little better (for a Microsoft OS anyway... but my main emulated OS in VPC is RedHat 9). Do I have enough resources to run XP Home in VPC 6 or should I stick with ME? I probably won't be using Windows in VPC a whole lot, since all the essentials are already in "Panther" and most things not available there I can run in VPC with RedHat. > I have Virtual PC 6.1 and am trying to decide between installing > Windows ME or Windows XP I would not use Me, period, emulated or not. On 4/24/04 2:44 PM, in article 0001HW.BCB03BF300107C6BF04075B0@msnews.microsoft.com, "Tim Murray" <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote: >> I have Virtual PC 6.1 and am trying to decide between installing >> Windows ME or Windows XP > > I would not use Me, period, emulated or not. Would XP Home perform better in Virtual PC? I thought XP would take more resources and run slower. Joel Nelson wrote : >>> I have Virtual PC 6.1 and am trying to decide between installing >>> Windows ME or Windows XP [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Would XP Home perform better in Virtual PC? I thought XP would take > more resources and run slower. True. But Win ME is usually considered as not very stable a version. --------------------------------------------------------- Please reply to the newsgroup, and within the same thread. Merci de répondre au groupe, et dans l'enfilade.  SignatureBernard Rey - Toulouse / France MVP - office:macintosh On 4/24/04 5:40 PM, in article BCB0B97F.17D2A%b.rey@DontSpamMe.mvps.org, > Joel Nelson wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Please reply to the newsgroup, and within the same thread. > Merci de répondre au groupe, et dans l'enfilade. ME and XP are actually my only options. I'd like to use XP but am concerned it would be too slow. ME seems to work (it's installed now). My system is a 700 MHz iBook (G3) with 384 MB RAM. > I have Virtual PC 6.1 and am trying to decide between installing Windows ME > or Windows XP. Frankly I would never use Me, even on an Intel box! >> I have Virtual PC 6.1 and am trying to decide between installing Windows ME >> or Windows XP. > > Frankly I would never use Me, even on an Intel box! Whoops, didn't mean to post twice. On 4/25/04 12:06 AM, in article 0001HW.BCB0BFAC001A7047F02845B0@msnews.microsoft.com, "Tim Murray" <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote: >>> I have Virtual PC 6.1 and am trying to decide between installing Windows ME >>> or Windows XP. >> >> Frankly I would never use Me, even on an Intel box! > > Whoops, didn't mean to post twice. What about Windows 98? How does that compare to ME? I guess my main question is what performance would be with XP Home in VPC 6.1.1 on a 700 MHz iBook with 384 MB RAM. > On 4/25/04 12:06 AM, in article > 0001HW.BCB0BFAC001A7047F02845B0@msnews.microsoft.com, "Tim Murray" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > question is what performance would be with XP Home in VPC 6.1.1 on a 700 MHz > iBook with 384 MB RAM. My Windows is W 98 SE with G3 300 mhz with OS 9.2.2 My daughter gets Me on a real PC and has no problem at all with this Windows. It's lighter than W 98 SE and I believe you have made a good choice. XP is heavier than the others Windows. But it's exist a document which optimize it for VPC 6.1: For optimizing XP, this is the link (message 16 in thread): http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=9904f5f72bbaf73e and also a little software (shareware) for optimizing OS X the same way you optimize XP. > On 4/25/04 12:06 AM, in article > 0001HW.BCB0BFAC001A7047F02845B0@msnews.microsoft.com, "Tim Murray" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > question is what performance would be with XP Home in VPC 6.1.1 on a 700 MHz > iBook with 384 MB RAM. Personally, I would choose neither of them. Windows ME was the worst mistake Microsoft ever made and Virtual PC emulates too slow of a computer for XP to run well. Windows 98 would be my choice. Also, don't bother with XP Home even on a PC. If you think about using XP, go for XP Pro, it's much more stable than the Home version. Good luck! -John > On 25/04/04 20:12, in article > Personally, I would choose neither of them. Windows ME was the worst [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -John For optimizing XP, this is the link (message 16 in thread): http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=9904f5f72bbaf73e Apply this and you will see the difference. For optimizing OS X: http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/shadowkiller/ With those 2 optimisers, XP works pretty well. On 4/27/04 2:22 PM, in article 785efe42.0404271122.5cafc1df@posting.google.com, "Jean-Miche" <jean-michel.albert@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> On 25/04/04 20:12, in article >> Personally, I would choose neither of them. Windows ME was the worst [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > With those 2 optimisers, XP works pretty well. Would XP still run well (as fast as ME) on a 700 MHz iBook (384 MB RAM)? > Would XP still run well (as fast as ME) on a 700 MHz iBook (384 MB RAM)? "Run well" is relative. Me will probably be a tad bit faster than XP, but only if you don't count the hassles of Me in general. > What about Windows 98? How does that compare to ME? I'd take needles in my eyes over Me. If you go with 98, use 98SE ... it really is better than 98, and I've encountered software that requires at least SE. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.