VPC and WINDOWS install

matsumatsu
Posted:
in Genius Bar edited January 2014
Yes I'm polluting my mac, sorry but I need to do this. I have copies of either WinXP pro (institutional, no key, hehe) or 2000 pro. I want to keep it minimal, my schools and work have moved to XP on most machines so I might as well install that, unless there's better more useable performance to be had from installing 2000.



Anyway, I plan to install the latest version of Access and that's it, bastards use Access for a work database, can't get around it, I figure VPC6 performance should be fine for that purpose.



Now, I got my bare version of VPC6, finally, and I went to install Windows XP pro when a bunch of scary options and one thing I couldn't change confronted me.



1, Scary options: Which file system should the XP partition be installed on for best results?



2, Scary Issue: PARTITION SIZE, windows, or something sees 15GB, I only have 40GB on this machine, and don't want 40% of it used up with windows. At most I need 5-6GB for my purposes and don't want to see a large portion of the drive reformatted. Any way to set this in VPC so that windows only gets a very limited slice of system resources?



Thanks in advance, I know there are a few Mac/VPC-win geniuses out there who can help.



PS: Now if only MacBU would make Access fo OSX.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Or mebbe not, am I surrounded by retreads?



    More questions then, is it wise to partition the drive first (using disk utility) and then instal VPC to one of the partitions?



    Which raises another question.



    I'm thinking it would be wise to have a few serious partitions as I start to get into using this book more seriously over the summer.



    1 Scratch Disk (a couple of gigs for PS)



    1 CD duplicating partition (I figure 750MB's should be good to hold most any disk image)



    and of course:



    1 partition for VPC and WIN



    Just to protect the contents of the drive,



    Or am I being paranoid, and OSX is better at keeping things straight than I give credit?



    Still would like an answer to dealing with this from within VPC though
  • Reply 2 of 17
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    i heard win 2000 is much more stable than xp - and is good enough for access.



    doesn't vpc 6 offer dynamic HD-images which are only getting bigger when windows needs more space? why not trying this?
  • Reply 3 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Hey lookie, a reply, after 31 views, YAY!



    Thanks, ya I noticd this as I nosed around the help topics. My problem, is, I think, with the XP part of the install. In the setup screen I get lotsa options for different file system choices, and I also get it telling me that it's going to take 15GB (or 15,xxx,xxx whatever KB) no thanks, that seems like a huge amont of space, certainly windows doesn't need that much room??? This is with the dynamic HD images turned on.



    I'll play with it later. Is 2000 faster and more stable? I'll install that instead.



    Anyone have any more answers?



    Should I partition my drive?
  • Reply 4 of 17
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    Hey lookie, a reply, after 31 views, YAY!



    Thanks, ya I noticd this as I nosed around the help topics. My problem, is, I think, with the XP part of the install. In the setup screen I get lotsa options for different file system choices, and I also get it telling me that it's going to take 15GB (or 15,xxx,xxx whatever KB) no thanks, that seems like a huge amont of space, certainly windows doesn't need that much room??? This is with the dynamic HD images turned on.



    I'll play with it later. Is 2000 faster and more stable? I'll install that instead.



    Anyone have any more answers?



    Should I partition my drive?



    i just have my experiences from running windows 98 and NT 4 - and what i can say is that NT 4 is much much faster on VPC when comparing to 98... the common file system is FAT 32
  • Reply 5 of 17
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    No use in VPC, but NTFS should be a more stable/better file system than FAT32 (NTFS is the newer file system), and from what I've read of others, Win 2000 should be a little faster than XP.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MCQ

    No use in VPC, but NTFS should be a more stable/better file system than FAT32 (NTFS is the newer file system), and from what I've read of others, Win 2000 should be a little faster than XP.



    ahhh NTFS - this is the NT file system, right? yep - this will do better for NT-based systems... (as XP is too) ... my fault - i came from win98 so...



    question: are there problems when connecting NTFS and FAT32-systems in a network?
  • Reply 7 of 17
    gardnerjgardnerj Posts: 167member
    Is vpc actually stealing 15gb from your disk. when i installed w2k it created the same 15g partition but the amount of free space visible in finder only dropped by the install size (1gb ish). It looks like its a virtual partiton doing some natty sharing of resources. If not i'm going to have to reinstall mine as well.



    off to check.....



    w2k or xp tough one. for compatability you might be better off with xp if thats what your tring to link to. also office xp is probably signifcantly different to o2k. hey what do i know i went os x instead of xp.
  • Reply 8 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    lemme know what you find.



    PS, so what's the file system to go with? FAT32, NTFS, yadda yadda... ???
  • Reply 9 of 17
    gardnerjgardnerj Posts: 167member
    ok had a look sorry for the delay. i have a single logical drive of 15g as you described formated fat32. i think i chose that over ntfs for historical reasons... i used to dual boot linux and nt/w2k and ntfs used to give problems with the boot loader.



    i certainly didn't have to partition my disk before installing, as thought i might have to and it doesn't seem to have said os x cant have the space as well. I guess once you start storing stuff under vpc it marks it as unavailable but until then either os can use it.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    i dont know too much about vpc, as i havent used it in years, but winxp will do what you like. then again, 2k will do what you like too. i use 2k (at work), and we seem to be a mixed bag of 2k and xp. they are pushing to have everyone over to xp, but i dont think its necessary. xp has more of a candy like gui, and because of that it takes more resources than 2000. i havent seen any speed tests, so i'm not really sure which one is faster. but if you are only using it for one application, 2000 has everything you need. also, they are both pretty stable.



    also, ntfs is definitely a better file system. now, again i haven't worked with vpc so i dont know any issues it may bring to the table, but fat32 is fat and old, and ntfs is better.



    now about your partitioning idea: i dont think its a very good idea to cut up your hard drive. i partitioned my drive a while back, and now that i'm 90% full, it bothers me that i have done it, because its really hard to put it back together. i dont think ps needs a dedicated partition, i always use my larger partition. that burning partition is a nice idea, but its not really necessary. you can make disc images, with disk copy, and then use only as much space as the disc requires. also, some discs can go up to around 800MB, so if you do go with a burning partition, i think it should be a little over 800. the only part of the partitioning idea i think is fair is a separate windows partition. i dont know how vpc handles the fs, but windows' file systems really mucks around with a hard drive, and its best to leave it on its own.
  • Reply 11 of 17
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    eh i got bored so i figure i'll tell ya what i know without reading some of the threads above



    XP is more stable then 2000, although some people who have had bad times with XP will tell u different...in the majority they are wrong



    VPC does have dynamically resizing drives so you dont need 15gb...it shoudl create a disc size for u and automatically increase it as you need more



    i could be wrong but you i dont think u can create a dynamically resizing drive with NTFS, but u can with Fat32



    and last but NOT least...RTFM!
  • Reply 12 of 17
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x



    XP is more stable then 2000, although some people who have had bad times with XP will tell u different...in the majority they are wrong



    XP is not more stable than 2000 ... i'm sorry but that's wrong ;-)
  • Reply 13 of 17
    nanonano Posts: 179member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Krassy

    XP is not more stable than 2000 ... i'm sorry but that's wrong ;-)



    for real what kind of company would make a product less stable
  • Reply 14 of 17
    escherescher Posts: 1,811member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nano

    for real what kind of company would make a product less stable



    Microsoft? \



    Seriously, the reason to go with W2K is that it uses less resources than XP. Since resources are limited in an emulation environment like VPC, W2K will be more useable.



    Personally, I'm planning to buy a cheap XP Pro box and log into it remotely with Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection. Of course, RDC won't do me any good on the road. But it will be faster than VPC as long I stay within range of my AirPort network.



    Escher
  • Reply 15 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yeah, except, I'll be away from my PC, and I have all the "free" Windows anyone could want. Bare VPC is cheaper than even a budget PC.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    escherescher Posts: 1,811member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    Yeah, except, I'll be away from my PC, and I have all the "free" Windows anyone could want. Bare VPC is cheaper than even a budget PC.



    Matsu: Note that I qualified my statements above. If you wanna hit the road, which is the whole point with a 12-inch PowerBook, VPC is the answer. And if you're going to run VPC, run it with W2K, because it will be faster than with XP (at least theoretically).



    I didn't realize there was a "bare" version of VPC. I should look into that. Not having an XP Pro box under my desk would stil save space. How much is it? Is there a lower student price?



    Since you have access to the entire panoply of MS OSs, why don't you try both 2K and XP and report back to us? Even with OS X's improved Windows integration, many of us still have to run Windows apps. The bare-bones XP Pro with RDC is but one solution. I'd love to hear to what conclusions you come after testing with VPC.



    Escher
  • Reply 17 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Two things holding me back. I need to get more RAM, still using the standard 256. Which is fine for cruising the web and Office, but emulation will need a bit more to be tolerable. Waiting for the 1GB so-dimms to put some downward pressure on 512MB modules. 640 will be enough for my purposes.



    Two, partitioning th edrive scares me, I don't want XP playing funny funny on my machine and sucking up resources.



    Bare VPC is 99, PM me, I'll give you some details.
Sign In or Register to comment.