Virtual PC, Why is it so slow?

[Winchester]

I have Virtual PC 2004.

Why does it take so dang long to install an OS. Like 5-6+ hours to install Windows SBS 2003. I am thinking of loading Suse 9.1 Pro and Suse Server to test them out. I just dont understand why when it is using half of my resources that is acts like a pentium I. It is an awesome program conception but if it takes this long it is not worth it. I have allocated anywhere from 512mb to 768mb ram for VPC to use. I guess in my way of thinking it should act at least like a 900mhz with 512mb ram computer when installing stuff.

Athlon XP 1800
1GB PC2700 Ram
120GB RAID 8mb Cache 7200RPM.
3rd 120gb drive dedicated to VPC 2004
40x CDROM/CDRW
Windows XP Pro

 

[eigen]

I dont know it seems like emulating the hardware for an entire OS might be resource demanding.But what do I know.

 

[Nothinman]

I dont know it seems like emulating the hardware for an entire OS might be resource demanding.But what do I know.

VMWare is nowhere near that slow, just off the top of my head I would say it's probably 75-80% of the total speed of the host OS. The main problem is disk access, it's slower because it has to go through so many extra layers.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I dont know it seems like emulating the hardware for an entire OS might be resource demanding.But what do I know.

VMWare is nowhere near that slow, just off the top of my head I would say it's probably 75-80% of the total speed of the host OS. The main problem is disk access, it's slower because it has to go through so many extra layers.

While its true VMware runs faster then Virtual PC 2004, 5-6 hours is a little much.

I could install an OS in less time then that on my PII 400 with 256ram, with XP as the host OS.

 

[oog]

i found the speed of virtual pc 2004 to be okay. yeah, the hard drive access is slow, but i still did a gentoo installation on it.

 

[Nothinman]

While its true VMware runs faster then Virtual PC 2004, 5-6 hours is a little much.

I assumed as much, but I've never used VPC since I run VMWare on Linux and VPC has no Linux version that I'm aware of.

 

[Winchester]

You can load any OS on VPC except Apple's OS. Any OS that uses the x86 cpu.

 

[Nothinman]

You can load any OS on VPC except Apple's OS. Any OS that uses the x86 cpu.

I mean as the host, I'm running Windows in VMWare on Linux.

 

[mikecel79]

Set VPC to run at maximum speed. BY default it's set to give the host PC priority. Go into VPC File>Options>Performance.

Once that it set it should take 45 minutes to an hour to install a copy of Win2k. This is on a 2.8Ghz P4 with 1GB.

 

[gaidin123]

I've found that VMware is noticeably faster when your disk images are not on the same physical drive as the host OS.

Gaidin

 

[Smilin]

First, you have too much memory allocated to your virtual machine.

For workstations give em about 128mb.
For servers give them about 256.

This is for a couple reasons: First you don't want to bog down your main OS at the expense of virtual machines or they will run slow as well. Second, because of the way virtual hard drives work the performance delta between virtual "physical memory" and virtual "page file" isn't as bad as it is for real "physical memory" and real "pagefile".

Also, virtual PC will run using spare cpu cycles by default. Use mikecel79s instructions above to change this. I would imagine this is the root cause of your problem.

You should also set your antivirus not to scan virtual hard drive (vhd) files. Instead, scan these from within the virtual OS.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: gaidin123
I've found that VMware is noticeably faster when your disk images are not on the same physical drive as the host OS.

Gaidin

Well to be more specific, they key is where the swap file is located since Virtual PC likes to use the swap file as the guest OS's memory space.

As for other comments, you can give a VM a higher priority and that may help speed things up, but it will slow down other stuff in your host OS.

I've found that VMware is just more effective overall. It uses less system resources, and emulates hardware more efficiently. I am a big fan of MS, and I really like Virtual PC, but in this case, VMware wins out.

 

[Smilin]

Memory allocated to the Virtual PC application is not handled differently than any other app. It isn't pushed to the swap file any more or less.

 

[dclive]

Install the VPC additions. MUCH nicer. A bit faster too.

 

[Winchester]

I have already installed the VPC additions. I will try lowering my allocated ram and check on Mike's suggestion. Though I think I might have already done it. I have never tried VMware.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Winchester
I have already installed the VPC additions. I will try lowering my allocated ram and check on Mike's suggestion. Though I think I might have already done it. I have never tried VMware.

Is the VPC2003 program window 'active' and frontmost when installing? A previous poster mentioned the setting required to correct the behavior/preference of background windows getting less CPU time.

 

[Winchester]

dclive: It is sometimes. However, I have left the computer while watching a movie and it still took forever to install. I will look at my windows settings though to see how the memory settings are set regarding background programs.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Winchester
dclive: It is sometimes. However, I have left the computer while watching a movie and it still took forever to install. I will look at my windows settings though to see how the memory settings are set regarding background programs.

Bear in mind my comment had to do with VPC settings and preferences. Windows settings shouldn't really change too much WRT VPC. Just give VPC minimal RAM (400M or so should be enough to kick off SBS2003; it's a RAM hog because it runs so many different services, so if you plan to run it all the time, you should buy more RAM.)

 

[Winchester]

Whoops, I have VPC 2004, I forgot I installed the latest one.

 

[tart666]

apparently VPC2004 gets slower with SP2 installed (from MS list of programs broken by SP2). Suse 9.1 only took 3 hrs to install on SP1 on p4-2.6 for me, so... are you running VPC on XP SP2?

 

[Winchester]

I have not tried it since I loaded SP2. But I am wanting to load SuSe 9.1 Professional then SuSe Server just to test them out.

 

[UCJefe]

Yes VPC, is slower with SP2 installed. The problem is that the optimizations in the VPC additions are not compatible with SP2 so everything slows down. The fix is to install the virtual PC additions from Microsoft Virtual Server 2005. You can download the trial version of Virtual Server and when you install it, the iso for the addons will be in one of the folders. Just fire that iso up in VPC and you'll see some pretty good improvements. Also, the next service pack for VPC should have the fixes necessary for SP2.

 

[Smilin]

Ladies and Gentlemen I officially declare shenanigans.

Could someone provide me a MS link indicating there is a problem with VPC 2004 (or it's additions) with Windows XP service pack 2? Also (although it's not officially released yet) SP1 for VPC2004 was finished about a month ago and I don't recall any XPSP2 fixes in it.

I'm 100% certain that Winchester's performance problems are either related to how he has his virtual machine CPU configured (background vs full speed) or the memory constrains he has placed on his host OS by allocating too much to the guest. Virtual PC additions cannot even be installed until the guest OS setup is complete so I don't really buy any of this. So...

Shenanigans.

 

[mikecel79]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Ladies and Gentlemen I officially declare shenanigans.

Could someone provide me a MS link indicating there is a problem with VPC 2004 (or it's additions) with Windows XP service pack 2? Also (although it's not officially released yet) SP1 for VPC2004 was finished about a month ago and I don't recall any XPSP2 fixes in it.

I'm 100% certain that Winchester's performance problems are either related to how he has his virtual machine CPU configured (background vs full speed) or the memory constrains he has placed on his host OS by allocating too much to the guest. Virtual PC additions cannot even be installed until the guest OS setup is complete so I don't really buy any of this. So...

Shenanigans.

Smilin I agree with you. And I am anxiously awaiting SP1 of VPC2k4 because it includes an addition to the DOS Virtual additions that will allow Ghost 8 to work with a VM. Hopefully it will be released soon.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Ladies and Gentlemen I officially declare shenanigans.

Could someone provide me a MS link indicating there is a problem with VPC 2004 (or it's additions) with Windows XP service pack 2? Also (although it's not officially released yet) SP1 for VPC2004 was finished about a month ago and I don't recall any XPSP2 fixes in it.

I'm 100% certain that Winchester's performance problems are either related to how he has his virtual machine CPU configured (background vs full speed) or the memory constrains he has placed on his host OS by allocating too much to the guest. Virtual PC additions cannot even be installed until the guest OS setup is complete so I don't really buy any of this. So...

Shenanigans.

use microsoft.com, it's your friend

edit: google search with three words returned the desired KB page as the first hit.

I quote:

Virtual PC 2004, Microsoft, 32-bit, http://www.microsoft.com,
When you run a Windows XP SP2-based virtual machine, it will perform slowly compared to a Windows XP SP1-based virtual machine.