This browser is no longer supported.
Upgrade to Microsoft Edge to take advantage of the latest features, security updates, and technical support.
![](data:image/svg+xml, %3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' height='64' class='font-weight-bold' style='font: 600 30.11764705882353px "SegoeUI", Arial' width='64'%3E%3Ccircle fill='hsl(128, 8%, 22%)' cx='32' cy='32' r='32' /%3E%3Ctext x='50%25' y='55%25' dominant-baseline='middle' text-anchor='middle' fill='%23FFF' %3EA%3C/text%3E%3C/svg%3E)
My 2005 Dell desktop running XP is having issues, and I'm thinking about a newer PC but want to run XP. I dont have the install discs (it's stored on the PC), so I would have to get those - XP PRO seems to be required if you want to run Windows Virtual PC on Win7/8... unless other brands of Virtual programs will run earlier XP versions?
So I'm wondering what's the best way to run XP on newer PCs that typically have Win7 or 8 pre-installed. I'd prefer not wipe out the original OS, even though they take up space. I would imagine it would work best on a separate partition...? I dont want to get into a 2nd HDD.
I've read that there wont be XP drivers for newer PCs, so compatibility sounds like an issue.
Here's my questions and exploration of the options. Brief answers (yes, no, wrong, etc) would be helpful since I won't understand too detailed explanations.
Does XP work better in 1) XP Mode, 2) as a Virtual PC, or 3) on separate partition?
The advantage of the first is you dont need XP install discs, and it seems to be easily accessible. Disadvantage is you dont get the XP appearance, and it's only available on Win7 Pro and up.
The advantage of Windows Virtual PC is you can load XP (Pro only) on Win7 Home and up (unlike XP Mode that requires Win7 Pro), BUT you need the XP Pro install discs.
Can you use another brand Virtual PC on Win7 or 8 and use any XP version instead of XP Pro?
Advantage of separate partitions is you are actually running XP and getting XP window, rather than Virtual version. Can you load ANY XP version? Is this faster than using XP in Virtual PC?
Disadvantage is you have to install programs twice if you want both OS to use it.
Major disadvantage is it seems XP cannot be installed on pre-loaded Win7 or Win8.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/install-more-than-one-operating-system-multiboot
I noticed that Win7, and programs in general, work really fast on my 2011 PC (6 RAM, Intel i5). Is that because of the hardware or OS, or both? Would XP work almost as fast?
Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.
I'm just wrestling with the virtual machine (Virtualbox). I was going to allocate 1 gb Ram, but I wasnt sure how big the dynamic harddrive should be. The VBox default is 10 gb, and I couldnt find any info confirming/denying if that's big enough to run XP + installed programs. The only thing I found was a youtube video where they chose 40 gb instead, but didnt mention why.
I'll be using programs on both W7 and XP.
There's no definite answer on how much space to allocate. I'd add up the space requirements for the programs you're running on each OS and then try to balance the space based on that.
Of course, you can install programs on the data drive, but there will be a portion of the files that go to the system folder of the relevant OS. But that would only be a small portion of the program overall, so if you start running low on space on the system drive or the virtual hard drive you could save space that way. If you do install programs on the data drive, I'd have separate folders - one for XP programs and one for Win 7. That way you won't run the risk of installs from one OS messing up the other's.
I know it's hard to advise since you dont know what I'll be doing, and I dont have a grasp on what is required to run an OS in virtual.
I was just re-reading your earlier post - "I'd probably go for 200 - 250 GB for the system partition, and something like half to two-thirds of the space left after installing Win7 for the Windows XP virtual machine." As the OS volume is about 170 gb, do you think 80 GB is about right?
I've done some more googling, and while most discussions still indicate a low space allocation, I found another tutorial coincidentally specifying 80 gb. So maybe bigger is better? It's not like it will actually use that much space.
http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-1853121/setting-virtual-windows-machine-virtualbox.html
80 is probably a good figure to start with. Virtualbox is supposed to be able to increase the VM size if needed, but I've never had it happen yet. But I imagine you'd be better off you allocate the space you think you'll need for the start. And if you'll be running Win 7 programs, then you need space on the host drive as well. 80 is probably a good balance.
vbox is frustrating. Couldnt connect to the internet effectively because my XP disc was only SP1. I eventually downloaded SP3 on the the regular OS ("host"?) and got it into vbox-xp thru a USB drive.
XP is slow and stalls. And while I could hear XP beeping while it installed, I dont get audio now. I also cant share thru the "share folders" option (I did install the Guest Additions thing).
