Downgrading: Windows Vista (ME II) to Windows XP

[The Source]

Downgrading: Windows Vista (ME II) to Windows XP

Over the last six months, I have used my Windows Vista machine only a handful of times. Since there are many issues with its functionality, I have been wavering on downgrading to Windows XP. I have noticed an interesting issue with Vista, which is normal for its functionality. I did some great research, for I thought I had a serious problem. What I found out is that Windows Vista uses up all of my memory. Even though I have nothing running in the foreground, Vista fills the RAM with background programs. Thus, my busy light stays flickering all the time. After researching the problem to legnth, I found that Windows Vista was designed to fill all your RAM. Instead of using only what is needed, Vista fills your RAM in anticipation of your next steps. After shutting down all the background programs that I do not need, Vista still manages to fill the RAM with the ones running. Normally, Windows XP will just keep things quiet until I summon a program. However, Windows Vista believes it is doing me a favor. I'm getting anoyed about this issue, so I began to come up with a better solution. Downgrade. As a graphic designer, I use highend programs to do work. If Windows Vista is not going to play nice, I cannot take the risk in wasting time and money.

 

I thought I would just throw this out to everyone. If you think you are having this problem, you are not alone in your frustrations.

 

As of a few weeks ago, Microsoft descided to allow computer manufacturers to sell computers with Windows XP. After doing some more legnthly research, the last time Microsoft made the move to allow downgrades was with Windows ME. Yes. Sales for Windows Vista are still growning, but there are more customer complaints than ever. If you remember the release of Windows ME, you will understand the direction Vista is about to go. Microsoft is running on high red at the moment, and they insist that Windows Vista is not a ME. The only problem with their assessment is that Windows ME's fate was determined by the customers. regardless about how Microsoft feels about Windows Vista, there is a 'great' chance that it will be called "Windows Vista (ME II)".

 

Just a few thoughts and insight about what is going on about Windows Vista. You may want to wait until the next Windows Operating System is released.

 

EDIT::

I also found that computer sales have fallen since the Windows Vista upgrade, and computer manufacturers are fighting Microsoft for a return to Windows XP. My guess is that "Windows Vista" will be a short lived operating system, which will be replaced with "Windows XP2".

[Negative Sun]

I'm looking forward to SP3 more than upgrading to Vista, especially in the near future (the next 1-2 years)

 

We're gonna build a nice little machine for ourselves and make XP fly on it...

[MdKnightR]

As a graphic designer, I use highend programs to do work.

 

You know what is really bad about this scenario? That Apple seemingly abandoned the crowd that put Mac on the map. It was a sad day when they started putting Intel processors in their machines, but the process began long before that. The Internet crowd was its downfall, and now Macs are not much more than really expensive PCs. Now graphic designers are using PCs to do things that older Macs were better equipped for.

 

As for Vista......I don't plan to upgrade whatsoever.

[The Source]

You know what is really bad about this scenario? That Apple seemingly abandoned the crowd that put Mac on the map. It was a sad day when they started putting Intel processors in their machines, but the process began long before that. The Internet crowd was its downfall, and now Macs are not much more than really expensive PCs. Now graphic designers are using PCs to do things that older Macs were better equipped for.

 

As for Vista......I don't plan to upgrade whatsoever.

Even though I am taught to use Machintosh computers at school, I have been using PCs for graphic design for almost thirteen years. You can use Quark, Photoshop, InDesign, and several other graphic design programs on PCs, and you will have the same or better performance than Macs.

[John Galt]

Actually I switched off of XP a coupla weeks ago, now I'm running a partitioned Ubuntu Linux/Vista, and it does most everything I need it to. I'd use vista only if it weren't so RAM intensive.

[MdKnightR]

Even though I am taught to use Machintosh computers at school, I have been using PCs for graphic design for almost thirteen years. You can use Quark, Photoshop, InDesign, and several other graphic design programs on PCs, and you will have the same or better performance than Macs.

 

Nowadays, yes, that is true. That is what is so sad about it. Mac should be light years ahead of PCs like the used to be. I, too, am a trained graphic artist. You could say it was my "unofficial minor" in college when I was majoring in Art Education. I work for a printing company now and we still use Macs, but they certainly aren't what they used to be.

[Jae Onasi]

I picked up a little RAM utility over at download.com (free and $ utilities). I have 2 Gb of RAM, and while Vista uses a _lot_ of ram (something like 700-800, though I did have some other background things running), it doesn't use it all. YMMV.

[Sabretooth]

Meh, Vista. I spent a good 3 years before buying XP and I don't think the time will be shortened for Vista. XP is a nice, stable OS and I really don't have much to complain. I run an Ubuntu dual-boot, and Ubuntu is a brilliant OS as well. So I'm pretty much happy with my config.

[Prime]

An interesting and similar take on the situation...

 

[Astrotoy7]

*puts on devil's advocate gown*

 

Dont get me wrongo, I'm far from an MS fanboy, but I hate discussions that are purely gossip and speculation ridden, and dont provide any actual details that can help people make an *informed* decision. If you aren't making an informed decision, then you are essentially taking a guess. You note only waste people's time, but quite possibly their hard earned $$ if they are using your (mis)information to make purchasing decisions...

 

lolz... I remember these type of posts when XP came out. OMGz..XP is G4Y....IM B4CK t0 WIN2000!

 

Ive never had an easier time using Vista for connectivity especially. All my devices work great...My portable media center and WMobilePDA work superbly with it especially. None of the instability and glitches that frequently occured in XP.

 

Any of you that are system builders... you'll know that to get an 'up to date' xp build running involves a HUGE amount of post install updates. With Vista, this is minimal..

 

When Im building a home theater pc....theres about 20 post install steps to get it off the ground...the whole thing takes about 6 hours!! In Vista build, all you do in install one codec pack and a tuner driver if need be...thats it !!

 

Anyone that writes proggies...will know how great visual studio and .NET 3.x layer are, compared to 2.0.... I know you can apply .NET .3.x in XP, but such programming can truly be optimised for a Vista based environment

 

The proggies coders are churning out are just superb. You just dont get to see them much if you're not involved in certain aspects of PC use(eg. HD video recording editing, post processing).. they are just beautiful!

 

For media center(home theater pc functionality) its simply superior to XP MCEdition.

 

There are some noncompat games that may be important to some, eg.KOTORs, Tiger Woods 07(last I checked), but thats about all Ive had trouble with - everyting else works great...Jade Empire, NWN2, Titan Quest, Guild Wars...

 

On the Lan scene here, the initial reluctance to adopt vista has turned into a increasing acceptance, with most avid Lan gamers dual booting, or triple booting is they are linux nerds fans.

 

What is funny:

 

People who dont REALLY research Vista and their hardware well enough and then get upset when their kit has trouble running Vista. Just like your computer from 3 years ago may not run a high end modern game well, what makes Vista so different ??

 

Ive seen so many angry sods try put Vista on the pc their dad bought them back when they still had a mullet, and then start fuming and ranting when it doesnt work Why did they bother ?

 

*Please research your components* If you have older hardware, especially ones that do NOT have vista drivers...then you could be in for a world of hurt

 

I do think MS 'minimum requirements' for vista are misleading....To have a decent time, as a minimum, you need:

 

*CPU > 2.0GHZ (dual core if you want to do things quicker)

*2GB RAM minimum. Vista hogs up to 1GB on its own. This really shouldnt be a big deal....a 1 GB stick DDR2800 RAM is DIRT CHEAP nowdays ($30-40USD)

*256MB GRAPHICS with 128bit..... I recommend the DX10 ready 8500 as a nice budget card. For those into video...it has inbuilt h.264 decoding which is awesome. These cards are all bluray ready too(HDCP compliant) The ATI equivalents, such as the 2900XT will do just as well(though some reports say the initial wave of cards released guzzle a bit more power than their nvidia counterparts...worth researching if you plan an ATI based vista build)

 

Of course, its just a matter of time before x64 is the weapon of choice in gaming... The x86 3GB restriction is lifted and you can start to get some really heavy duty numbers crunched for your meaty apps and games... All we need are devs to start optimising their games for this... in 2 years alot of gamers will be running with >4GB minimum.. (discounting us freaks who already have that now) !! Not that you'll need it, but Vista Ultimate 64 can *theoretically* use a massive amount of RAM... up to 128GB(and over in specially built machines...eg.corporate servers...supercomps)

 

All I can say to people are - if you are happy with XP, stick with it. Unless you *really* know what you are doing and know you need Vista for a *very specific* purpose, youre just better off getting Vista on your next PC when your current one starts to struggle..

 

But remember, when <insert DX10 star wars pc game> is eventually released, you'll be jumping on it like monkeys on banana flavoured ice cream...

 

If anyone woudl like any assistance or upgrade advice, feel free to come to the tech forum(click my sig pic). We'll help you figure out your components and let you know if there are any red flags based on your hardware, and most commonly used software.

 

There are a few Linux experts on hand too, if you are Li-Curious

 

mtfbwya

[Prime]

*puts on devil's advocate gown*

I will play the...uh...devil's devil's advocate.

 

lolz... I remember these type of posts when XP came out. OMGz..XP is G4Y....IM B4CK t0 WIN2000!

IIRC that was essentially for the same reasons. There where issues with the old devices and drivers for them and lots of incompatibility problems. Just because those issues were eventually addressed doesn't mean they weren't valid complaints at the time. Same now. Vista may eventually solve all these problems, but for the time being people do have legitimate issues with it. Enough so that they want to go back. I agree that they should have done more research up front, but the bottom line is that Vista is not addressing their situation and requirements.

 

Ive never had an easier time using Vista for connectivity especially. All my devices work great...My portable media center and WMobilePDA work superbly with it especially. None of the instability and glitches that frequently occured in XP.

But from what I understand, you tend to have the latest and greatest, do you not?

 

Any of you that are system builders... you'll know that to get an 'up to date' xp build running involves a HUGE amount of post install updates. With Vista, this is minimal..

But to 99% of the computer using population, this isn't a consideration. For the most part people buy ready made systems. Vista may be great for the suppliers, but the end users tend not a give a damn about that.

 

There are some noncompat games that may be important to some, eg.KOTORs, Tiger Woods 07(last I checked), but thats about all Ive had trouble with - everyting else works great...Jade Empire, NWN2, Titan Quest, Guild Wars...

And it isn't just games, lots of older software and hardware that people use on a regular basis isn't compatible. What are their options here? Go back to XP, buy all new stuff. Most people are choosing the former.

 

On the Lan scene here, the initial reluctance to adopt vista has turned into a increasing acceptance, with most avid Lan gamers dual booting, or triple booting is they are linux nerds fans.

But is that really a great solution? To me it says none of the OSs are fulfilling all their needs. Having to reboot for different apps is hardly a desirable thing.

 

What is funny:

 

People who dont REALLY research Vista and their hardware well enough and then get upset when their kit has trouble running Vista. Just like your computer from 3 years ago may not run a high end modern game well, what makes Vista so different ??

For starters, the difference is that if you know your current machine specs you can, to a large degree, immediately tell if a new game or app will run on it by looking a the back of the box. You can't look at Vista in the store and tell that your printer and several apps aren't going to work. That takes more research, which I agree is important. But on the other hand I find it harder to chastise Grandma for not inquiring on hardware forums to find out if she is going to be able to print pictures of her granddaughter. Especially when buying Vista is the only option with new machines.

 

I'm always much more critical of people who buy games or something and didn't read the ****ing box.

 

*Please research your components* If you have older hardware, especially ones that do NOT have vista drivers...then you could be in for a world of hurt

Exactly. But it is not always easy for the average consumer to find that out. Plus there are lots of cases where they buy a computer with Vista pre-installed only to find out that it doesn't run many of the things they want it to. Now that Vista is standard at most stores, it takes above average knowledge to know to avoid it, if it is even possible at the time of purchase. Plus, which of the many versions to do you get?

 

Of course, its just a matter of time before x64 is the weapon of choice in gaming... The x86 3GB restriction is lifted and you can start to get some really heavy duty numbers crunched for your meaty apps and games... All we need are devs to start optimising their games for this... in 2 years alot of gamers will be running with >4GB minimum..

Yes, but that is still two years away. Many people want to run things now. I think ultimately that is where we are at. Vista seems that it will be great in time, but many people are finding that it isn't as usable right now.

 

All I can say to people are - if you are happy with XP, stick with it. Unless you *really* know what you are doing and know you need Vista for a *very specific* purpose, youre just better off getting Vista on your next PC when your current one starts to struggle..

Which isn't always easy, depending on what route you go. For example, many major chains like Dell won't even let you get XP on a new machine apart from a select few small models. So what are laypeople to do what want to play the latest games or use newer stuff along with the old? In many ways Vista is being "forced" on the consumers. They are forced to give some things up.

 

But remember, when <insert DX10 star wars pc game> is eventually released, you'll be jumping on it like monkeys on banana flavoured ice cream...

Or, if it is too much of a pain, they will follow the current trend and move to consoles.

[Astrotoy7]

ah Primeski, I miss your dissect and respond Force Long Posts

 

something only the old timers do nowdays

 

Though I have to admit...some of your Vista statements are so broad, they are almost heresay. Did you hear them by the water cooler ??

 

99% of the computer using population buy preconfigs and dont care about updates ? source for this lexicon of data ??

 

The fact that gamers have to dual boot.. Is it really MS fault ?? An OS that is to take advantage of new hardware potential shouldnt be limited to, or written to continue to optimise older protocols. It's like saying "modern roads shouldnt be built of concrete/asphalt ! Its bad for horses hooves!"

 

The BioWare peeps wrote KOTOR, wrote it to work well on XP. Simple as that.

 

In fact, factoring in the numerous compatibility layers that would be required to make ''all the old stuff work'' would make an OS more top heavy.. it isnt really ideal. This is why PC virtualisation is so popular these days - run your older OS without the need of dual booting within something like VMWare of MS VirtualPC.

 

Still, I doubt there'll be many hardcore XP users left within 3 years.... it'll be Vista/Mac/Linux, with the odd sod using XP - just like you have the odd sod using 2000/98 these days('cozit rawks!).

 

One of the key reasons to consider is that XP will no longer be supported by MS after this date. When "Average Joe User" has no one to call for help... utilisation of a certain product drops fast.

 

it is the way of the world Prime, goose-step along ! I didnt invent it, so dont blame me!

 

mtfbwya

[Sabretooth]

99% of the computer using population buy preconfigs and dont care about updates ? source for this lexicon of data ??

 

I'm starting to think you have a serious grudge against made-up percentages, Astro.

 

The fact that gamers have to dual boot.. Is it really MS fault ?? An OS that is to take advantage of new hardware potential shouldnt be limited to, or written to continue to optimise older protocols. It's like saying "modern roads shouldnt be built of concrete/asphalt ! Its bad for horses hooves!"

 

The BioWare peeps wrote KOTOR, wrote it to work well on XP. Simple as that.

 

Finally, a point made by Astroski that I do support.

 

Microsoft does not and it should not care about old games or even applications not working on a new OS. It is the game/app developers' responsibility to create a new version of the game.

 

If Microsoft sat out ironing the problems of the thousands (if not millions) of games for earlier Windows, Vista's development cycle would have increased by atleast say, 50-100 years.

 

Still, I doubt there'll be many hardcore XP users left within 3 years.... it'll be Vista/Mac/Linux, with the odd sod using XP - just like you have the odd sod using 2000/98 these days('cozit rawks!).

 

One of the key reasons to consider is that XP will no longer be supported by MS after this date. When "Average Joe User" has no one to call for help... utilisation of a certain product drops fast.

 

While you're right about the "cutting support" part, what is important to see is that the XP-to-Vista shift is not as major as the 2000-to-XP or ME-to-XP or the 98-to-XP shifts. Vista isn't really something that is essential for everyone.

 

XP was a real upgrade, giving lots of important things and improving stability considerable. While 98 is still my most loved OS, XP is the greatest Windows upgrade since 95. To quote a BBC software reviewer "Vista is something that you might want. But it is definitely not something that might need."

 

Simply put, Vista is not the holy grail and there isn't much of a point in 'upgrading' to it.

[Prime]

ah Primeski, I miss your dissect and respond Force Long Posts

Have to keep you on your toes.

 

something only the old timers do nowdays

I know. Most a pity.

 

Though I have to admit...some of your Vista statements are so broad, they are almost heresay. Did you hear them by the water cooler ??

Some internet heresay, some personal experience, some firsthand comments.

 

99% of the computer using population buy preconfigs and dont care about updates ? source for this lexicon of data ??

The 99% is of course out of my ass, but would you not agree that the majority of people who own computers did not put them together themselves?

 

The fact that gamers have to dual boot.. Is it really MS fault ?? An OS that is to take advantage of new hardware potential shouldnt be limited to, or written to continue to optimise older protocols. It's like saying "modern roads shouldnt be built of concrete/asphalt ! Its bad for horses hooves!"

My point isn't that MS should make everything backwards compatible. My point is that for many people they have found, either the easy way or the hard way, that upgrading now is not a good idea.

 

The BioWare peeps wrote KOTOR, wrote it to work well on XP. Simple as that.

Sure, and it does. So if it doesn't on Vista, for someone who wants to play it it isn't in their best interest to upgrade to Vista. And that is a legitimate reason, IMO.

 

In fact, factoring in the numerous compatibility layers that would be required to make ''all the old stuff work'' would make an OS more top heavy.. it isnt really ideal. This is why PC virtualisation is so popular these days - run your older OS without the need of dual booting within something like VMWare of MS VirtualPC.

Sure, there are ways around it. It is just a pet peeve of mine I suppose.

 

Still, I doubt there'll be many hardcore XP users left within 3 years.... it'll be Vista/Mac/Linux,

Most likely. As you say, time marches on, and rightly so. My point is that for many people now might not be a good time to upgrade.

 

with the odd sod using XP - just like you have the odd sod using 2000/98 these days('cozit rawks!).

Not "cozit rawks", but because it works with everything I want it to work with. And when I look at Vista right now, it doesn't work with everything I want it to work with. Someday it might, or I might not care, but right now it doesn't.

 

One of the key reasons to consider is that XP will no longer be supported by MS after this date. When "Average Joe User" has no one to call for help... utilisation of a certain product drops fast.

I never use MS support, so I don't care. Actually, I'd some to see statistics on how many people actually call MS for support.

 

it is the way of the world Prime, goose-step along ! I didnt invent it, so dont blame me!

I agree, and like I said it should.

 

Microsoft does not and it should not care about old games or even applications not working on a new OS. It is the game/app developers' responsibility to create a new version of the game.

Which takes time, if they do it at all. So if they don't, what are the options? Stay with XP, move to Vista and do without (right now). My only point is that staying with XP currently is a reasonable option.

 

Simply put, Vista is not the holy grail and there isn't much of a point in 'upgrading' to it.

For right now at least, that is exactly my point.

[Sabretooth]

Most likely. As you say, time marches on, and rightly so. My point is that for many people now might not be a good time to upgrade.

I'd actually go so far as to say that there may never be a complete XP-to-Vista shift after all. Even if everything gets ironed out, XP is a decent OS to last several more years. The change is somewhat similar to 98-to-ME (ignoring the stability issues, please). Vista isn't completely transforming Windows like XP did, which is why there could still be XP purists some 4-5 years in the future.

I agree, and like I said it should.

 

Which takes time, if they do it at all. So if they don't, what are the options? Stay with XP, move to Vista and do without (right now). My only point is that staying with XP currently is a reasonable option.

That makes for an awkward break in the conversation.

 

For right now at least, that is exactly my point.

Ah, but my point stands from here to eternity. When Microsoft first showed off their Longhorn, it was awesome. It was eventually dumbed down into a shinier XP called Vista. I would have upgraded to Longhorn had it ever come out, but not Vista.

[stingerhs]

well, having used Vista Ultimate 64-bit for over several weeks, i can honestly say that i'm impressed with Microsoft. Vista is quite an improvement over XP in terms of functionality, and its especially improved with the GUI and security system. for one thing, networking and security with Vista is much better than XP from what i've seen thus far. my only complaint is that they moved most of the options around, but that's a rather minor annoyance at best.

 

as for issues with Vista, i've had none thus far except for the sound card, but that has everything to do with Creative Labs providing a basic driver set for Vista instead of the full driver set they have available for XP. otherwise, i've had no problems getting anything to run on Vista. every game that i've tested runs just fine, and every program that i've tested also runs just fine.

 

with that said, i can honestly say that i am no longer a Vista detractor when it comes to high end systems. if your getting a powerhouse computer system, Vista is definitely the way to go. if you just want some cheap system with just 512MB of RAM, then yes, you are going to have problems since that would be akin to getting 256MB of RAM on XP. i think that too many people are emphasizing that Vista doesn't run well on budget systems while they are also forgetting that XP did not run well on budget systems back when it first came out. that's what happens when software takes a step forward.

 

anyways, that's my two pennies on the matter.

[Negative Sun]

well, having used Vista Ultimate 64-bit for over several weeks

I'm jealous...and that's probably a sad thing but I don't care...

 

All those Vista bashers are just whiny ****s that wish they could afford a decent system to run it on.

 

Still, I doubt there'll be many hardcore XP users left within 3 years.... it'll be Vista/Mac/Linux, with the odd sod using XP - just like you have the odd sod using 2000/98 these days('cozit rawks!).

Blue screen of death pwnz j00!!!

[Prime]

All those Vista bashers are just whiny ****s that wish they could afford a decent system to run it on.

I don't think you have actually read some of the issues...

[Negative Sun]

I have actually Mr Smarty Pants

 

I just didn't feel like repeating everything Astro has already said

But I think it's true, mid-range PC's nowadays are mid/high end for XP, but low end for Vista, same as it was when XP was just released...It's not MS's fault that hardware/software manufacturers aren't quick enough to release drivers for Vista...

 

And there I have just repeated someone lol

[Astrotoy7]

There's no need to repeat what I said...'tis been stated flawlessly already

 

Not "cozit rawks", but because it works with everything I want it to work with. And when I look at Vista right now, it doesn't work with everything I want it to work with. Someday it might, or I might not care, but right now it doesn't.

 

wha....you still use 2000!?? Isnt there a hippie commune where you all hang out, mostly naked I heard

 

with that said, i can honestly say that i am no longer a Vista detractor when it comes to high end systems. if your getting a powerhouse computer system, Vista is definitely the way to go.

 

*rubs eyes*

 

*rubs eyes again*

 

wow, what a conversion! This is good lesson to the knockers above....

 

"dont knock it til you try it"

 

stinger is pc tech by trade, so he's not just making up stuff (*points at Prime and Sabre with their magical "do not actually exist, like a unicorn" percentages*)

 

I was wondering where that windows vista incapable avvie went stinger

 

welcome to the club....this is where the babes are at .......... [/NOT!]

 

mtfbwya

[The Source]

When it comes to how I bought Vista, I ended up getting the operating system by purchasing a computer. I thought it would be wise to just buy a system with the OS allreay on it.

 

I have to wonder about this: During the past few months, Microsoft's XBox 360 was reported to be experiencing hardware burnouts. If Windows Vista uses all the RAM and CPU constantly, couldn't you end up burning out the RAM, CPU, and harddrive?

 

I think Microsofts' "Resistance is Futile" attitude towards customers is going to be their own undoing.

[Negative Sun]

If you drive your car 24/7, will it not burn out much sooner than some old man who takes it out on Sundays only?

 

The companies who have been releasing Vista preloaded onto PCs have mostly done so on systems that barely meet the minimum specs for a smooth operation of Vista Premium (mainly compromising either on RAM or a GPU or both)

No wonder it's gonna be sluggish and hog all your RAM that way (duh!)

 

Microsoft did not adopt that attitude as far as I'm aware, Vista comes in so many versions it's suitable for everyone and anyone...The ones that haven't been up to par are the hardware companies who haven't been releasing drivers or updates quickly enough...Hardly MS' fault is it?

 

Just out of curiosity, what are the specs of the PC you were running Vista on? And which version of Vista is it? (Premium, Ultimate, etc... and 32 or 64 bit?)

[The Source]

4600+ AMD Athlon 64 x2

2.4 ghtz (Dual Processors)

3/4 gig of RAM

320 HDD

 

Windows Vista: Premium (32-Bit Installation)

[Negative Sun]

What do you mean by 3/4 Gig of RAM? Is that three to four Gig or three quarter Gig?

 

And what GPU does it have?

[Sabretooth]

*rubs eyes*

 

*rubs eyes again*

 

wow, what a conversion! This is good lesson to the knockers above....

 

"dont knock it til you try it"

 

stinger is pc tech by trade, so he's not just making up stuff (*points at Prime and Sabre with their magical "do not actually exist, like a unicorn" percentages*)

 

I was wondering where that windows vista incapable avvie went stinger

 

welcome to the club....this is where the babes are at .......... [/NOT!]

 

mtfbwya

 

Right. That's all nice and good, Astroski. But tell me this - Supposing I have an ultra-powerful system, tell me why Vista is better for me than my current, beautiful XP/Ubuntu(/Xubuntu) Dual-Boot. Question's open to you too, stingerman.