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
"tinfoil_CO" <tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> Thanks. I take it from your response (& Jeff's) that the issue is more of
> 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
> host. Does that sum it up?
> Sounds like my best best would go with XP 64-bit if I want to jack up the
> thx - tinfoil.
> "Mark Rae [MVP]" wrote:
>> "tinfoil_CO" <tinfoil_CO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >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
>> it to use more than the theoretical 4GB RAM available to 32-bit OS...
>> Mark Rae
>> ASP.NET MVP