• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Vista vs XP memory capacity

T

tinfoil_CO

#1
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 Computer

J

Jeff Gaines

#2
On 06/09/2008 in message
<A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx> tinfoil_CO wrote:

>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 Computer

M

Mark Rae [MVP]

#3
"tinfoil_CO" <tinfoil_CO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A2EB42C1-B40B-4148-98F7-368AE5DB1526@xxxxxx

>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 Computer

T

tinfoil_CO

#4
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:

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

> >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 Computer

M

Mark Rae [MVP]

#5
"tinfoil_CO" <tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E2D25794-A7B5-4D8E-A21E-94883C924AA1@xxxxxx

[top-posting corrected]

>>> 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...

> 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 Computer

Z

Zootal

#6
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

> 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:
>

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

>> >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 Computer

S

Steve Jain

#7
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:23:01 -0700, tinfoil_CO
<tinfoilCO@xxxxxx> wrote:

>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 Computer

B

Bo Berglund

#8
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 10:09:59 -0700, "Zootal" <msnews@xxxxxx>
wrote:

>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 Computer

Z

Zootal

#9
> 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....
>
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 Computer

S

Stephane Barizien

#10
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:

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

>> 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 Computer

S

Steve Jain

#11
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:47:35 +0200, "Stephane Barizien"
<sba@xxxxxx> wrote:

>Shall I infer that the 64-bit version of VPC2007SP1 supports (any) 32-bit
>OS(es)?
Yes, and only 32bit OSes. You cannot use a 64bit OS in a VM with VPC.

>
>What are the requirements on the 64-bit host CPU?
None really, as long as the CPU is 64bit, VPC will run on it.

>
>(like: you cannot run a 64-bit VMware guest on a 32-bit host unless the CPU
>supports some extensions...)
Yes, unlike VMWare, VPC only supports 32bit VMs.

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

My Computer

S

Stephane Barizien

#12
Steve Jain wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:47:35 +0200, "Stephane Barizien"
> <sba@xxxxxx> wrote:
>

>> Shall I infer that the 64-bit version of VPC2007SP1 supports (any)
>> 32-bit OS(es)?
>
> Yes, and only 32bit OSes. You cannot use a 64bit OS in a VM with VPC.
>

>>
>> What are the requirements on the 64-bit host CPU?
>
> None really, as long as the CPU is 64bit, VPC will run on it.
OK; what about the performance? Assuming the host is x64, is the perf of
32-bit guest-on-top-of-64-bit-host on par with the perf of 32-bit
guest-on-top-of-32-bit-host on the very same hardware?

>

>>
>> (like: you cannot run a 64-bit VMware guest on a 32-bit host unless
>> the CPU supports some extensions...)
>
> Yes, unlike VMWare, VPC only supports 32bit VMs.
Too bad... That'll be a VPC-killer for many of our teams...
 

My Computer

Z

Zootal

#13
> OK; what about the performance? Assuming the host is x64, is the perf of

> 32-bit guest-on-top-of-64-bit-host on par with the perf of 32-bit
> guest-on-top-of-32-bit-host on the very same hardware?
How slow it is depends on the 32 bit OS and what you do with it. Win98 is
dog slow, Win2000 is much better. I didn't want to sacrifice one of my XP
keys to test XP in VPC, so I can't comment on how XP would perform. I've
switched to Sun's VirtualBox for Win2000, and found it to be much faster. I
could not get Win98 to install in VB, so I use VPC for that. This is one of
those try-it-and-see sort of things, as performance is quite dependant on
what you use it for.
 

My Computer

S

Steve Jain

#14
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:04:58 +0200, "Stephane Barizien"
<sba@xxxxxx> wrote:

>Steve Jain wrote:

>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:47:35 +0200, "Stephane Barizien"
>> <sba@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>

>>> Shall I infer that the 64-bit version of VPC2007SP1 supports (any)
>>> 32-bit OS(es)?
>>
>> Yes, and only 32bit OSes. You cannot use a 64bit OS in a VM with VPC.
>>

>>>
>>> What are the requirements on the 64-bit host CPU?
>>
>> None really, as long as the CPU is 64bit, VPC will run on it.
>
>OK; what about the performance? Assuming the host is x64, is the perf of
>32-bit guest-on-top-of-64-bit-host on par with the perf of 32-bit
>guest-on-top-of-32-bit-host on the very same hardware?
>
Yep, performance is fine on x64 hosts. I don't think there's any
difference really.
The single biggest faster in VM performance (or lack) is disk I/O.
Running a VM on the same HD as the host OS will give you the biggest
hit.

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

My Computer

A

Anonymous Remailer

#15
In article <mjvfc4l6lblpl3k5vi08p2t9ujq1pma8mo@xxxxxx>
Steve Jain <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:04:58 +0200, "Stephane Barizien"
> <sba@xxxxxx> wrote:
>

> >Steve Jain wrote:

> >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:47:35 +0200, "Stephane Barizien"
> >> <sba@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Shall I infer that the 64-bit version of VPC2007SP1 supports (any)
> >>> 32-bit OS(es)?
> >>
> >> Yes, and only 32bit OSes. You cannot use a 64bit OS in a VM with VPC.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> What are the requirements on the 64-bit host CPU?
> >>
> >> None really, as long as the CPU is 64bit, VPC will run on it.
> >
> >OK; what about the performance? Assuming the host is x64, is the perf of
> >32-bit guest-on-top-of-64-bit-host on par with the perf of 32-bit
> >guest-on-top-of-32-bit-host on the very same hardware?
> >
> Yep, performance is fine on x64 hosts. I don't think there's any
> difference really.
> The single biggest faster in VM performance (or lack) is disk I/O.
> Running a VM on the same HD as the host OS will give you the biggest
> hit.
>
Not if you're running CPU intensive apps.
 

My Computer

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)