Is there a 'preferred' version of Windows to use with Parallels?

S

Steven Ray

Junior Member
I've purchased Parallels and am about to buy a version of Windows to run on a MacBook.

Is there a particular version of Windows that has been found to work best on a Mac (MacBook)?

Also, is there a reason to get XP Pro rather than XP Home?

Thanks. Replies appreciated.
 
Steven Ray said:
I've purchased Parallels and am about to buy a version of Windows to run on a MacBook.

Is there a particular version of Windows that has been found to work best on a Mac (MacBook)?

Also, is there a reason to get XP Pro rather than XP Home?

Thanks. Replies appreciated.
Click to expand...

I only speak from my personal experience.

I have a Core 2 Duo Macbook. I am using the release build 1970 of Parallels. Both Windows 2000 and Windows XP (Professional Corporate, NO activation) run well under Parallels. I have attempted to install Windows 98 Second Edition but the installation program bombs when it reaches the point of trying to copy files. I have never used Vista nor do I intend to do so.

I suggest you get Windows XP if you want to run Windows under Parallels. For most purposes Windows XP Home is the same as Windows XP Professional.

Pierce_Brosnan.jpg
 
I have used both and it depends what you want to get out of it.

XP Home for internet, emails, office and gaming etc

XP Pro for development or if you require the built in webserver (IIS)

Im currently running Vista Ultimate within parallels and everything is running fast and smooth just without the 3D graphics. Not sure how this would handle on a MacBook

My System is a MacBook Pro 2.33 Core 2 Duo, 2gb RAM
 
I have an iMac 1.83 with one gig RAM and have found that build 1970 loves 98SE. It runs fast and has not locked up with the current distro. Things become unusable when I use XP sp2 or Vista: the system takes forever to load and click response is glacier slow.

My I.T. officer believes Win 2000 pro (sp4) should also be a good solution; however, I do not have a copy to test.

Warning: the Betas do not work with my 98 machine. They freeze during shutdown.

Also, XP Home will not support the dual core found in most modern Macs. To use both cores you need XP Pro or Parallels has to do some magic.
 
Last edited:
sandifop said:
I

Also, XP Home will not support the dual core found in most modern Macs. To use both cores you need XP Pro or Parallels has to do some magic.
Click to expand...


That doesn't matter since Parallels only allocates 1 core to the VM.
 
sandifop said:
I have an iMac 1.83 with one gig RAM and have found that build 1970 loves 98SE. It runs fast and has not locked up with the current distro. Things become unusable when I use XP sp2 or Vista: the system takes forever to load and click response is glacier slow.

My I.T. officer believes Win 2000 pro (sp4) should also be a good solution; however, I do not have a copy to test.

Warning: the Betas do not work with my 98 machine. They freeze during shutdown.

Also, XP Home will not support the dual core found in most modern Macs. To use both cores you need XP Pro or Parallels has to do some magic.
Click to expand...

Windows XP Home does support Dual Core CPUs, just not multiple processors (like in the Mac Pro). But since Parallels at present does not support more than 1 core in a VM, it does not matter whether you are using Home or Professional in this case.

VMware Workstation on a PC does support Dual Core CPUs, and you can run Windows XP Home in a VM in Dual Core mode. The future version of VMware on Mac probably will also support Dual Core CPUs in VM.

Pierce_Brosnan.jpg
 
Ok

I have updated my 2-bit processor; Home does support multi cores (it seems).

To the original poster; I feel the rest of my opinion still stands, 1 gb RAM is not enough RAM with XP or above with Parallels. If you have 2 gig you are OK with the newer MS OS offerings. 1 gb (like me) need to stay away from the hungrier OS.
 
abanks said:
I have used both and it depends what you want to get out of it.

XP Home for internet, emails, office and gaming etc
XP Pro for development or if you require the built in webserver (IIS)
Click to expand...

I'm not involved with develoment or webservers, but I'd heard there are security-related issues with XP HOME that XP PRO doesn't have (?)

Assuming XP HOME will be adequate for my purposes, I am seeing OEM versions of WIN XP HOME for under $100. Do OEM versions of WINDOWS have any significant limitations?

I know they don't come with a manual or support from Microsoft, but my understanding is that the software itself is identical to the standard full retail versions.

Should I be okay with an OEM version of XP HOME on a MacBook Core Duo 1.83 MHz (which I'll also be upgrading to 2GB of RAM)?

Thanks again.
 
Well, it depends on what you want to do in Windows.

I've got a MPR with 1G RAM.
I've set Parallels to 384MB and allocated 256MB to Win XP SP2.
Windows runs fine with this, is fast, and runs the full Office 2003 suite with no problems.
I've done tests and allocating MORE memory to Windows does not help with performance (at least with the programs that I use).

Yeah, more RAM is always better, but I question the need to allocate any more than that for use with Windows. YMMV. ;)
 
PubGuy said:
Yeah, more RAM is always better
Click to expand...

Thanks, though actually my question wasn't about RAM requirements for running WINDOWS, but about buying an OEM version of WIN XP to run on a MAC -- as well as whether the HOME (rather than the PRO) version of WIN would be adequate.

I also was specifically hoping for feedback about apparent security loopholes in the HOME edition that might favor buying the PRO edition, or whether they are not really an issue.
 
Since they may enable more of the features for dual core in the future, I would recommened XP Pro SP2. I use that on my iMac and have ran Photoshop on XP and Mac at the same time due to the way images formatted for PC are different than those for Mac and this way I don't have any conversion issues if I get a PSD for PC copy from someone. No issues and I go days without rebooting either system. Also while running Linux or even 4 OS's at the same time for days.
 
Steven Ray said:
I've purchased Parallels and am about to buy a version of Windows to run on a MacBook.

Is there a particular version of Windows that has been found to work best on a Mac (MacBook)?

Also, is there a reason to get XP Pro rather than XP Home?.
Click to expand...

check the licence rules if you wnat to make multiple installations or not

I got the cheapest OEM WinXP cd at a"build your own computer" shop on the street

It happens to be in danish :-)

when I deleted a broken installation
- I messed up not Parallels

I had to reactivate by telephoning MS and getting a new code


always back up your data off any WinXP machine

good housekeeping - firewalls / ante virus / constant security updates is the same for all MS OS machines


only you know what you usually do on your winxp system
if you are an MS newbie
what is your killer app which makes Parallels a must have?

if a hobby get the cheapest OEM dvd

Hugh W
 
Rachel Faith said:
Since they may enable more of the features for dual core in the future, I would recommened XP Pro SP2.
Click to expand...
Isn't it unlikely that Microsoft will further develop XP PRO (or XP HOME) given that it's now brought VISTA out?
 
no chance

they will support it with security fixes for a while
may be 3 years more for a guess

see
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

"Under the Support Lifecycle policy Windows desktop licenses are available for four years after general availability in all standard product distribution channels (e.g. direct OEM, System Builders, retail, and Volume Licensing programs via licenses or via downgrade rights). Licenses will continue to be available through downgrade rights available in Volume Licensing programs after end of general availability."


Hugh W
 
Thanks, Microsoft's life-cycle information does seem to include some assurances of upward compatibility but does that really imply that it will continue development of XP to use the dual core, as some have suggested here?

Or would that have to be the case for XP users to have 'life cycle' compatibility?
 
Last edited:
I decided to go with Win2000 Pro SP4 so I could avoid all of the product activation headaches that go along with WinXP and Vista. I've not run into any app that I would ever need to use so far that won't work with it. Plus the Parallels Tools fully support Win2000 as well, so that would be my recommendation if you can still find it out there. I had purchased a retail copy of it many years ago and I'm glad I held on to it because it's working perfectly with Parallels for me.
 
Steven Ray said:
I've purchased Parallels and am about to buy a version of Windows to run on a MacBook.

Is there a particular version of Windows that has been found to work best on a Mac (MacBook)?

Also, is there a reason to get XP Pro rather than XP Home?

Thanks. Replies appreciated.
Click to expand...
My recommendation is if you are going with XP DO NOT use the home edition. Before I bought this program all my research best supported XP with SP2. Anything else I considered a crap shoot.
This only addresses XP, none of the other environments was researched by me since i was not interested in them.

By the way: MacBook Pro full.
 
lancetx said:
I decided to go with Win2000 Pro SP4 so I could avoid all of the product activation headaches that go along with WinXP and Vista. I've not run into any app that I would ever need to use so far that won't work with it. Plus the Parallels Tools fully support Win2000 as well, so that would be my recommendation if you can still find it out there. I had purchased a retail copy of it many years ago and I'm glad I held on to it because it's working perfectly with Parallels for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks but weren't pre-XP versions of WINDOWS -- WIN2000 included -- much more vulnerable to security problems?

Also, are you doing any Internet browsing while using WIN2000? Aside from the specific security issues there, does WIN2000 support the most recent versions of Internet Explorer, or are you browsing under an old version of IE? If the latter, doesn't that limit your ability to use the latest features of the various services provided by Google, Yahoo!, etc.?

I'd be interested to know what security (anti-virus, spam protection, and firewall) software you're using with WIN2000.
 
catwink20 said:
My recommendation is if you are going with XP DO NOT use the home edition. Before I bought this program all my research best supported XP with SP2.
Click to expand...
Isn't there an SP2 release of XP HOME as well as XP PRO? What specifically don't you like about XP HOME?
 
sandifop said:
I have an iMac 1.83 with one gig RAM and have found that build 1970 loves 98SE. It runs fast and has not locked up with the current distro. Things become unusable when I use XP sp2 or Vista: the system takes forever to load and click response is glacier slow.

My I.T. officer believes Win 2000 pro (sp4) should also be a good solution; however, I do not have a copy to test.

Warning: the Betas do not work with my 98 machine. They freeze during shutdown.

Also, XP Home will not support the dual core found in most modern Macs. To use both cores you need XP Pro or Parallels has to do some magic.
Click to expand...

Interesting. On my Macbook with 1970, the setup of Windows 98SE always bombs when it reached the point of starting to copy files. I have tried several times and each time it bombs there. I have not bothered to try again. May be after I installed 3186 I will try again.

Pierce_Brosnan.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top