DescentBB

More and more of my friends are now running Vista on their computers.

Since I don't have it on any of my machines I would like to be able to run it on my XP machine so I could help my friends running Vista.

Now I spend more time on their machines trying to find things than I do actually fixing things.

I see that MS has \"Virtual PC 2007\" but don't know if that would work or be the best for my needs.

What free \"virtual\" program would you suggest.

Bad idea, you should dual boot Vista and XP instead.

Vista already has problems using up resources even when it isn't running on a virtual machine. And you would have to buy a license anyway, might as well use a second partition or drive and install it.

When dual booting, just keep one thing in mind: Vista uses a lot of HDD space, the 18 GB minimum requirement is really a minimum. Keep at least 100 GB handy for the whole OS and programs and most users should be fine for quite a while. If you don't have the HDD space, 250-500 GB drives are just about rock bottom these days, order one and use it (you would need it anyway even if you were going to use virtualization).

I'll repeat the main point though: Do not use virtualization unless you actually enjoy running two OSes both poorly and PAINFULLY SLOW.

I use Virtual PC alot, it gets the job done, and you can toss Vista on a 512 MB VM and use that to help em, it will run slow of course, but its do able.

I use Virtual PC 2007 as well at work. It's very sweet. I have an XP VM running inside Vista. Doesn't slow down the host at all. The VM runs fairly well too.

Running on a Lenovo R61, 2GB RAM, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 160GB Sata HDD.

I'd say it depends on how much RAM and cpu power you have, and whether performance is a big issue for you. You're certainly not going to get ideal performance from a virtual installation, but it's apparently workable.

That said, I'd go with Krom's suggestion of a dual-boot. The Vista install system makes this easy (even sets up the partitions for you), and should run a bit faster than a virtual install. I did this myself for a while.

I have 2GB of RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo, 266 GHz.

If I have to install Vista 1st then that wouldn't be an option.

Not at all. I had an XP install, and just ran the Vista installer, which set up the dual-boot and partitioned the hard drive for me. It didn't touch my XP install at all, easy peazy.

Trying to install VirtualPC. By default it goes to Disk 0. In the console under Settings it gives me the option to choose other \"Disks\".

If I only have one hd which is Disk 0 is that where it should be installed.

That's sounds weird as in where else could you install it, but the \"virtual\" word makes me ask.

Got it.

I also created a Vista VM on my above listed machine. Let's just say paint dries faster than launching apps.

Foil wrote:Not at all. I had an XP install, and just ran the Vista installer, which set up the dual-boot and partitioned the hard drive for me. It didn't touch my XP install at all, easy peazy.

Er. Hahah. It's about time they threw something like that into the installer... I assume this includes re-partitioning since you'd have been unlikely to have left that much unpartitioned space on the drive?

Yes.