Vista - Vista vs XP memory capacity

09-06-2008

I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests
running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a Vista
host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory capacity,
resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages as a
VPC host over XP?

Thanks!

09-06-2008

On 06/09/2008 in message
<A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx> tinfoil_CO wrote:

Quote:

>I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests
>running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a Vista
>host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory
>capacity,
>resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages as a
>VPC host over XP?
>
>Thanks!

Both XP Pro and Vista 32 have the (around) 3.5GB memory limit.
If you want a real heap of memory then XP Pro x64 or Vista 64 may be a
better bet, I can't remember the exact limits but it's lots!
I run XP x64 here with 8GB RAM. If you go that route makes sure you can
get 64 bit drivers, many are available but there are odd bits of hardware
that can catch you out.

--
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends

09-06-2008

"tinfoil_CO" <tinfoil_CO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx

Quote:

>I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests
> running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a
> Vista
> host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory
> capacity,
> resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages as
> a
> VPC host over XP?

Not really... In fact, Vista generally needs twice as much RAM as XP.

That said, if you were to install 64-bit Vista on the host, that would allow
it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS...

--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

09-06-2008

Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of a
32 vs 64-bit OS rather than a Vista vs X issue. Further, since XP has a
smaller footprint as a host, I'd have more available memory for VM with an XP
host. Does that sum it up?

Sounds like my best best would go with XP 64-bit if I want to jack up the RAM.

thx - tinfoil.
"Mark Rae [MVP]" wrote:

Quote:

> "tinfoil_CO" <tinfoil_CO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx
>

Quote:

> >I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests
> > running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a
> > Vista
> > host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory
> > capacity,
> > resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages as
> > a
> > VPC host over XP?

>
> Not really... In fact, Vista generally needs twice as much RAM as XP.
>
> That said, if you were to install 64-bit Vista on the host, that would allow
> it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS...
>
>
> --
> Mark Rae
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://www.markrae.net
>
>

09-06-2008

"tinfoil_CO" <tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E2D25794-A7B5-4D8E-A21E-94883C924AA1@xxxxxx

[top-posting corrected]

Quote:

>>> I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests
>>> running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a
>>> Vista host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger
>>> memory
>>> capacity, resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any
>>> advantages as a VPC host over XP?

>>
>> Not really... In fact, Vista generally needs twice as much RAM as XP.
>>
>> That said, if you were to install 64-bit Vista on the host, that would
>> allow
>> it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS...

>
> Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of
> a
> 32 vs 64-bit OS rather than a Vista vs X issue.

Inasmuch as 64-bit OS aren't bound by the 4GB RAM limit of 32-bit OS...

Quote:

> Further, since XP has a smaller footprint as a host, I'd have more
> available
> memory for VM with an XP host. Does that sum it up?

Yes.

--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

09-06-2008

It's both, really. A 32bit Windows OS won't use more then 3-3.5 GB of ram,
whether it's Win98, 2k, XP or vista. A 64 bit XP or Vista will.

Vista is a pig. XP is leaner. It's (more or less) that simple.

If you had time and have some techincal expertise, you could try a 64bit
distro of linux, if your VM server comes in 64 bit linux binaries. You might
find that to be even more efficient then XP64, and with linux, if you know
how, you can tweak the cpu scheduler and memory manager and block io
scheduler to optimize them for your particular needs and get even better
performance.

"tinfoil_CO" <tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E2D25794-A7B5-4D8E-A21E-94883C924AA1@xxxxxx

Quote:

> Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of
> a
> 32 vs 64-bit OS rather than a Vista vs X issue. Further, since XP has a
> smaller footprint as a host, I'd have more available memory for VM with an
> XP
> host. Does that sum it up?
>
> Sounds like my best best would go with XP 64-bit if I want to jack up the
> RAM.
>
> thx - tinfoil.
> "Mark Rae [MVP]" wrote:
>

Quote:

>> "tinfoil_CO" <tinfoil_CO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx
>>

Quote:

>> >I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests
>> > running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a
>> > Vista
>> > host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory
>> > capacity,
>> > resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages
>> > as
>> > a
>> > VPC host over XP?

>>
>> Not really... In fact, Vista generally needs twice as much RAM as XP.
>>
>> That said, if you were to install 64-bit Vista on the host, that would
>> allow
>> it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS...
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Rae
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://www.markrae.net
>>
>>

09-06-2008

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:23:01 -0700, tinfoil_CO
<tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote:

Quote:

>Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of a
>32 vs 64-bit OS rather than a Vista vs X issue. Further, since XP has a
>smaller footprint as a host, I'd have more available memory for VM with an XP
>host. Does that sum it up?
>
>Sounds like my best best would go with XP 64-bit if I want to jack up the RAM.
>
>thx - tinfoil.

Vista x64 is a better bet than XP x64. The support for Vista is
better. XP x64 was always the black sheep.

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.

09-06-2008

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 10:09:59 -0700, "Zootal" <msnews@xxxxxx>
wrote:

Quote:

>It's both, really. A 32bit Windows OS won't use more then 3-3.5 GB of ram,
>whether it's Win98, 2k, XP or vista. A 64 bit XP or Vista will.
>
>Vista is a pig. XP is leaner. It's (more or less) that simple.
>
>If you had time and have some techincal expertise, you could try a 64bit
>distro of linux, if your VM server comes in 64 bit linux binaries. You might
>find that to be even more efficient then XP64, and with linux, if you know
>how, you can tweak the cpu scheduler and memory manager and block io
>scheduler to optimize them for your particular needs and get even better
>performance.
>

How could running a Linux-64 host help the OP?
He wants to know which host operating system to base his deployment of
a number of virtual machines on. He is asking here which implies using
VPC2007, which only is available for Windows....

--

Bo Berglund (Sweden)

09-06-2008

> How could running a Linux-64 host help the OP?

Quote:

> He wants to know which host operating system to base his deployment of
> a number of virtual machines on. He is asking here which implies using
> VPC2007, which only is available for Windows....
>

1) He could try it under Wine on Linux. Might or might not work, and if so
may or may not be faster then under native Windows.

2) He could switch to a better and more efficient VM then VPC, one that does
have 64 bit binaries for Linux.

3) He could stick to Windows and maybe some day in the future remember this
weirdo that suggested 64 bit Linux and try it then.

4) The price of tea in China could go up.

09-09-2008

Shall I infer that the 64-bit version of VPC2007SP1 supports (any) 32-bit
OS(es)?

What are the requirements on the 64-bit host CPU?

(like: you cannot run a 64-bit VMware guest on a 32-bit host unless the CPU
supports some extensions...)

I bet it does, but better safe than sorry...

Jeff Gaines wrote:

Quote:

> On 06/09/2008 in message
> <A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx> tinfoil_CO wrote:
>

Quote:

>> I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM
>> guests running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a
>> sense that a Vista host would be more robust than an XP host in
>> terms of larger memory capacity,
>> resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any
>> advantages as a VPC host over XP?
>>
>> Thanks!

>
> Both XP Pro and Vista 32 have the (around) 3.5GB memory limit.
> If you want a real heap of memory then XP Pro x64 or Vista 64 may be a
> better bet, I can't remember the exact limits but it's lots!
> I run XP x64 here with 8GB RAM. If you go that route makes sure you
> can get 64 bit drivers, many are available but there are odd bits of
> hardware that can catch you out.

09-06-2008	#1 (permalink)
tinfoil_CO n/a posts	Vista vs XP memory capacity I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a Vista host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory capacity, resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages as a VPC host over XP? Thanks!
My System Specs

09-06-2008	#2 (permalink)
Jeff Gaines n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity On 06/09/2008 in message <A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx> tinfoil_CO wrote: Quote: >I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests >running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a Vista >host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory >capacity, >resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages as a >VPC host over XP? > >Thanks! Both XP Pro and Vista 32 have the (around) 3.5GB memory limit. If you want a real heap of memory then XP Pro x64 or Vista 64 may be a better bet, I can't remember the exact limits but it's lots! I run XP x64 here with 8GB RAM. If you go that route makes sure you can get 64 bit drivers, many are available but there are odd bits of hardware that can catch you out. -- Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends
My System Specs

09-06-2008	#3 (permalink)
Mark Rae [MVP] n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity "tinfoil_CO" <tinfoil_CO@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx Quote: >I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests > running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a > Vista > host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory > capacity, > resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages as > a > VPC host over XP? Not really... In fact, Vista generally needs twice as much RAM as XP. That said, if you were to install 64-bit Vista on the host, that would allow it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS... -- Mark Rae ASP.NET MVP http://www.markrae.net
My System Specs

09-06-2008	#4 (permalink)
tinfoil_CO n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of a 32 vs 64-bit OS rather than a Vista vs X issue. Further, since XP has a smaller footprint as a host, I'd have more available memory for VM with an XP host. Does that sum it up? Sounds like my best best would go with XP 64-bit if I want to jack up the RAM. thx - tinfoil. "Mark Rae [MVP]" wrote: Quote: > "tinfoil_CO" <tinfoil_CO@xxxxxx> wrote in message > news:A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx > Quote: > >I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests > > running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a > > Vista > > host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory > > capacity, > > resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages as > > a > > VPC host over XP? > > Not really... In fact, Vista generally needs twice as much RAM as XP. > > That said, if you were to install 64-bit Vista on the host, that would allow > it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS... > > > -- > Mark Rae > ASP.NET MVP > http://www.markrae.net > >
My System Specs

09-06-2008	#5 (permalink)
Mark Rae [MVP] n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity "tinfoil_CO" <tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:E2D25794-A7B5-4D8E-A21E-94883C924AA1@xxxxxx [top-posting corrected] Quote: Quote: Quote: >>> I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests >>> running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a >>> Vista host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger >>> memory >>> capacity, resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any >>> advantages as a VPC host over XP? >> >> Not really... In fact, Vista generally needs twice as much RAM as XP. >> >> That said, if you were to install 64-bit Vista on the host, that would >> allow >> it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS... > > Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of > a > 32 vs 64-bit OS rather than a Vista vs X issue. Inasmuch as 64-bit OS aren't bound by the 4GB RAM limit of 32-bit OS... Quote: > Further, since XP has a smaller footprint as a host, I'd have more > available > memory for VM with an XP host. Does that sum it up? Yes. -- Mark Rae ASP.NET MVP http://www.markrae.net
My System Specs

09-06-2008	#6 (permalink)
Zootal n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity It's both, really. A 32bit Windows OS won't use more then 3-3.5 GB of ram, whether it's Win98, 2k, XP or vista. A 64 bit XP or Vista will. Vista is a pig. XP is leaner. It's (more or less) that simple. If you had time and have some techincal expertise, you could try a 64bit distro of linux, if your VM server comes in 64 bit linux binaries. You might find that to be even more efficient then XP64, and with linux, if you know how, you can tweak the cpu scheduler and memory manager and block io scheduler to optimize them for your particular needs and get even better performance. "tinfoil_CO" <tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:E2D25794-A7B5-4D8E-A21E-94883C924AA1@xxxxxx Quote: > Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of > a > 32 vs 64-bit OS rather than a Vista vs X issue. Further, since XP has a > smaller footprint as a host, I'd have more available memory for VM with an > XP > host. Does that sum it up? > > Sounds like my best best would go with XP 64-bit if I want to jack up the > RAM. > > thx - tinfoil. > "Mark Rae [MVP]" wrote: > Quote: >> "tinfoil_CO" <tinfoil_CO@xxxxxx> wrote in message >> news:A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx >> Quote: >> >I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM guests >> > running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a sense that a >> > Vista >> > host would be more robust than an XP host in terms of larger memory >> > capacity, >> > resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any advantages >> > as >> > a >> > VPC host over XP? >> >> Not really... In fact, Vista generally needs twice as much RAM as XP. >> >> That said, if you were to install 64-bit Vista on the host, that would >> allow >> it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS... >> >> >> -- >> Mark Rae >> ASP.NET MVP >> http://www.markrae.net >> >>
My System Specs

09-06-2008	#7 (permalink)
Steve Jain n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:23:01 -0700, tinfoil_CO <tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote: Quote: >Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of a >32 vs 64-bit OS rather than a Vista vs X issue. Further, since XP has a >smaller footprint as a host, I'd have more available memory for VM with an XP >host. Does that sum it up? > >Sounds like my best best would go with XP 64-bit if I want to jack up the RAM. > >thx - tinfoil. Vista x64 is a better bet than XP x64. The support for Vista is better. XP x64 was always the black sheep. -- Cheers, Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP http://vpc.essjae.com/ I do not work for Microsoft.
My System Specs

09-06-2008	#8 (permalink)
Bo Berglund n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 10:09:59 -0700, "Zootal" <msnews@xxxxxx> wrote: Quote: >It's both, really. A 32bit Windows OS won't use more then 3-3.5 GB of ram, >whether it's Win98, 2k, XP or vista. A 64 bit XP or Vista will. > >Vista is a pig. XP is leaner. It's (more or less) that simple. > >If you had time and have some techincal expertise, you could try a 64bit >distro of linux, if your VM server comes in 64 bit linux binaries. You might >find that to be even more efficient then XP64, and with linux, if you know >how, you can tweak the cpu scheduler and memory manager and block io >scheduler to optimize them for your particular needs and get even better >performance. > How could running a Linux-64 host help the OP? He wants to know which host operating system to base his deployment of a number of virtual machines on. He is asking here which implies using VPC2007, which only is available for Windows.... -- Bo Berglund (Sweden)
My System Specs

09-06-2008	#9 (permalink)
Zootal n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity > How could running a Linux-64 host help the OP? Quote: > He wants to know which host operating system to base his deployment of > a number of virtual machines on. He is asking here which implies using > VPC2007, which only is available for Windows.... > 1) He could try it under Wine on Linux. Might or might not work, and if so may or may not be faster then under native Windows. 2) He could switch to a better and more efficient VM then VPC, one that does have 64 bit binaries for Linux. 3) He could stick to Windows and maybe some day in the future remember this weirdo that suggested 64 bit Linux and try it then. 4) The price of tea in China could go up.
My System Specs

09-09-2008	#10 (permalink)
Stephane Barizien n/a posts	Re: Vista vs XP memory capacity Shall I infer that the 64-bit version of VPC2007SP1 supports (any) 32-bit OS(es)? What are the requirements on the 64-bit host CPU? (like: you cannot run a 64-bit VMware guest on a 32-bit host unless the CPU supports some extensions...) I bet it does, but better safe than sorry... Jeff Gaines wrote: Quote: > On 06/09/2008 in message > <A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx> tinfoil_CO wrote: > Quote: >> I plan to set up a new development system designed to host 3 VM >> guests running XP Pro. This will be a new machine and I have a >> sense that a Vista host would be more robust than an XP host in >> terms of larger memory capacity, >> resource management, etc. Am I wrong? Does Vista have any >> advantages as a VPC host over XP? >> >> Thanks! > > Both XP Pro and Vista 32 have the (around) 3.5GB memory limit. > If you want a real heap of memory then XP Pro x64 or Vista 64 may be a > better bet, I can't remember the exact limits but it's lots! > I run XP x64 here with 8GB RAM. If you go that route makes sure you > can get 64 bit drivers, many are available but there are odd bits of > hardware that can catch you out.
My System Specs

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum
vista and harddrive capacity limits	General Discussion
getting Vista to recognize HD capacity	Vista installation & setup
Vista recognizing HD capacity	Vista hardware & devices
Vista ram capacity	Vista General
Diminished drive capacity after Vista	Vista General