• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Which is Faster. Vista or XP running in vmware on linux

N

Net

Golden Member
Which do you think is faster:

Vista or XP Pro running in vmware on linux

This is a good poll since XP requires 1/4 of what vista does

1: XP in vmware
2: Vista


If you've tried it let us know how both are.
 
Depends on your setup.

If you're talking about the SAME PC either running LINUX Host & VMWARE XP guest versus Vista Host, naturally you'd be limited in
the performance / speed / capability of things like 3D GPU hardware accelerated graphics, video games, HDTV / HD-video playback, et. al.
when using the VM since the VM doesn't support DirectX well and doesn't support your GPU fully. You'r probably also have DRM related
problems for certain media functions in the VM.

Similarly applications that are multi-threaded and CPU bound would run less well in a VM than native if the native application had
support for using 4 or more CPU cores and things like SSE2, SSE3, et. al. since the VM generally doesn't offer 4-way (or maybe even 2-way
depending on the VM) SMP support for the guest, and it may not offer good SSE support either.

Similarly if the application uses lots of physical memory, as in more than 2-6 GB it might run less well in the VM due to the reduced available
memory available after sharing the system RAM with the host OS and hypervisor.

If you look at raw file I/O peformance, and general purpose compute capability, though, running XP in a VM is often faster than running
it on native hardware. It certainly installs, reboots, boots a lot faster in a VM than native, probably faster than a native Vista in many
hardware configurations.

If your needs can be met by XP under VirtualBox with a LINUX host, given the I/O device virtualization limits, CPU SMP virtualization limits,
GPU limits, et. al. then I'd say that's probably going to be faster and more convenient than just running VISTA native assuming you have
some benefits besides just cost of running LINUX in the picture.

If you're encoding video, doing media center stuff, playing HD-DVDs or HD-Video, playing video games, doing CAD or graphic arts at high
resolution, et. al. just run a native version of Vista 64 or whatever.

 
Oh maybe you meant "Which is faster, a guest running Vista or a guest running XP when hosted by LINUX VMWARE?"

Eh I'd say they're comparable with Vista being faster for certain things especially if they take advantage of 64 bit Vista and the guest has 4GB or more of RAM available to it.

I think you can tune Vista to perform as well or better than XP -- turn off AERO, turn off multimedia based bandwidth throttling of the LAN, tune down the ACPI stuff, et. al. A naive installation of XP would probably outperform a naive installation of Vista, though, before optimization.

 
Originally posted by: net
Which do you think is faster:

Vista or XP Pro running in vmware on linux

This is a good poll since XP requires 1/4 of what vista does

1: XP in vmware
2: Vista


If you've tried it let us know how both are.
Click to expand...

Whats the point of a poll in a thread like this?

Besides, XP requiring 1/4th of Vista is a vast oversimplification and far from accurate by about any point of view.

Is there a practical reason why you ask? Whether or not its faster is going to depend almost entirely on what youre trying to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top