Which OS (Win2000/XP) for Virtual PC?

As I want to run medical CD-ROM learning software which only runs on
Windows:
Which Virtual PC operating system would you recommend?
Windows 2000, XP home or rather professional?
Pricewise it does not seem to make much difference. Any ideas how to get
it cheaper? I'm a medical student in Switzerland, and want it in english
preferrably.
Other differences? (compatibility, registration, speed, upgradeability,
....)
I'll run it on a 1.5 GHz 17" Powerbook.

TIA

Marc

--
Marc Heusser
(remove the obvious: CHEERS and MERICAL...until end to reply via email)

Marc Heusser wrote:
> As I want to run medical CD-ROM learning software which only runs on
> Windows:
> Which Virtual PC operating system would you recommend?
> Windows 2000, XP home or rather professional?
> Pricewise it does not seem to make much difference. Any ideas how to get
> it cheaper? I'm a medical student in Switzerland, and want it in english
> preferrably.
> Other differences? (compatibility, registration, speed, upgradeability,
> ...)
> I'll run it on a 1.5 GHz 17" Powerbook.
>

There is a substantial price difference if you already have a legal copy
of Windows which isn't in use on another system.

Go to http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/swissdestore/ (German)
or http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/swissfrstore/ (French)

and type "Virtual PC" in the search box for prices.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:18:57 +0200, Marc Heusser wrote:

>As I want to run medical CD-ROM learning software which only runs on
>Windows:
>Which Virtual PC operating system would you recommend?
>Windows 2000, XP home or rather professional?
>Pricewise it does not seem to make much difference. Any ideas how to get
>it cheaper? I'm a medical student in Switzerland, and want it in english
>preferrably.
>Other differences? (compatibility, registration, speed, upgradeability,
>...)
>I'll run it on a 1.5 GHz 17" Powerbook.

Win2k will likely run better than XP; it will certainly have lower
memory requirements than XP. However, if you're just installing Windows
to run a single CD, I'd suggest Win98 - lower requirements overall than
NT, with lesser stability as the trade-off. OTOH, if you already have a
copy of one of the systems you mentioned, use that.

(I *highly* suggest not allowing Windows access to your network, BTW.)
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say.

I have Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 running in Virtual PC.

NT 4.0 is very fast.

- - -

Marc Heusser < alid>
wrote:

> As I want to run medical CD-ROM learning software which only runs on
> Windows:
> Which Virtual PC operating system would you recommend?
> Windows 2000, XP home or rather professional?
> Pricewise it does not seem to make much difference. Any ideas how to get
> it cheaper? I'm a medical student in Switzerland, and want it in english
> preferrably.
> Other differences? (compatibility, registration, speed, upgradeability,
> ...)
> I'll run it on a 1.5 GHz 17" Powerbook.
>
> TIA
>
> Marc

Marc Heusser wrote:

> Windows 2000, XP home or rather professional?
> Pricewise it does not seem to make much difference. Any ideas how to get
> it cheaper? I'm a medical student in Switzerland, and want it in english
> preferrably.

Academic prices are _much_ lower. Check HiEd/Journey Ed or the Apple
Education Store. VPC 6.1.1 is essentially given away with Office...
which is essentially given way to students/faculty (ho's that we be).

XP has a lot of overhead. Windows 2K is quite usable in VPC for the odd
Windblows program. Patch it to the current level, or leave it off the net.

cheers.

Marc Heusser < alid> wrote in message news:<marc.heusser->...
> As I want to run medical CD-ROM learning software which only runs on
> Windows:
> Which Virtual PC operating system would you recommend?
> Windows 2000, XP home or rather professional?
> Pricewise it does not seem to make much difference. Any ideas how to get
> it cheaper? I'm a medical student in Switzerland, and want it in english
> preferrably.
> Other differences? (compatibility, registration, speed, upgradeability,
> ...)
> I'll run it on a 1.5 GHz 17" Powerbook.
>
> TIA
>
> Marc

I believe that the general consensus of the VPC community is that the
Windows 2000 version is leaner, and thus faster, than either of the
two XP versions. XP is a resource hog even on real PC's; under
Virtual PC one cannot afford to have all excess baggage of XP using up
useful computing cycles. If you look up what the XP features over
Win2000 are, you find that it has a firewall (better to use hardware
for this), more multimedia support (which isn't going to work well in
an emulated environment), and a bunch more eye candy (which you're
going to have to turn off to make it run reasonably well in
emulation). Plus there are a bunch of little threads running in the
background, like the one that pops up helpfully to ask if you want to
rearrange/throw out the icons on your desktop. Who needs this?

I've yet to encounter a compatibility problem with Windows 2000 VPC.
The real issues are going to be the limitations of the emulated
hardware (which is to say that programs that require 3-D graphics
hardware are not going to be supported by the plain-jane emulated
video card). This limitation is in both Win2000 and XP versions of
VPC.

One interesting issue: VPC 7 is coming out relatively soon. I don't
believe anyone can say whether it might have preferential optimization
for XP. My own guess is that the changes will be in the emulation
engine, not so much in a special version of XP, so as to maximize
compatibility for a broad range of VPC products, but I could be wrong.

In the long, long term upgradeability could be an issue, as Microsoft
clearly tries to shepherd people into their latest offerings. But
witness that even Windows 98 still has some support, after eight years
since introduction. Windows 2000 will likely outlive your hardware.

Kurt L.

Auric__ wrote:
> However, if you're just installing Windows
> to run a single CD, I'd suggest Win98 - lower requirements overall than
> NT, with lesser stability as the trade-off. OTOH, if you already have a
> copy of one of the systems you mentioned, use that.
>

NO! Win98 was the worst PC experience in my life. Unstable. Wouldn't
shut down when asked. Refused to accept network changes (still insisted
on trying to dial out when it was upgraded to a LAN connection). Et
cetera, et cetera...

I threw the CD and registration key away so that nobody else had to
suffer it.

NT 4.0 was a breeze in comparison.

> (I *highly* suggest not allowing Windows access to your network, BTW.)

I cannot disagree there.

--
Paul Sture

OS X: "It's Unix, Jim, but not as we know it"