question about running xp within vista

U

umcpgrad

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
2,800
I have a question

I am trying to run xp within vista, and I know vmware is the best software for this. However when I get on their site, there are like 10 different ones. Which one am I suppose to download so I can run xp within vista??
 
If you don't need 4 unnecessary services running constantly even when VMWare isn't running; if you don't need the bloat of VMWare overall (huge download, even more space consumed after the installation); if you don't need any possible 3D support for any reason in the virtual machine you're planning to run; if you want something fast, lean, and totally useful...

Then VMWare isn't the choice. VirtualBox is.

If you only intend to do the most basic stuff most people do with XP (no gaming, no hardcore stuff, but you want to run XP for some compatibility issues or whatever), then VirtualPC 2007 would actually be my recommendation. Just for running XP for the basics, it really does a great job.

But personally, I'm a huge fan of VirtualBox these days. It's very lean, it's very fast, and takes up very little space by itself. If you have a processor with VT-x support then VirtualBox can be configured to use that and the benefit will be a virtual machine that operates at near-native installation speeds - VirtualPC 2007 doesn't have that support. VMWare does, however, but again, you end up with a lot of code bloat and the 4 services running constantly.

VirtualBox leaves no trace of itself when it's not in operation: when it's closed, it's closed. Period.

So VirtualBox gets my recommendation for just running XP inside Vista.
 
Joe Average said:
If you don't need 4 unnecessary services running constantly even when VMWare isn't running; if you don't need the bloat of VMWare overall (huge download, even more space consumed after the installation); if you don't need any possible 3D support for any reason in the virtual machine you're planning to run; if you want something fast, lean, and totally useful...

Then VMWare isn't the choice. VirtualBox is.

If you only intend to do the most basic stuff most people do with XP (no gaming, no hardcore stuff, but you want to run XP for some compatibility issues or whatever), then VirtualPC 2007 would actually be my recommendation. Just for running XP for the basics, it really does a great job.

But personally, I'm a huge fan of VirtualBox these days. It's very lean, it's very fast, and takes up very little space by itself. If you have a processor with VT-x support then VirtualBox can be configured to use that and the benefit will be a virtual machine that operates at near-native installation speeds - VirtualPC 2007 doesn't have that support. VMWare does, however, but again, you end up with a lot of code bloat and the 4 services running constantly.

VirtualBox leaves no trace of itself when it's not in operation: when it's closed, it's closed. Period.

So VirtualBox gets my recommendation for just running XP inside Vista.
Click to expand...


thanks!
:)
 
leSLIe said:
sounds good, can that Virtual Box run linux too?
Click to expand...

Damned straight it can, and many other OSes. If someone only wants to run a version of Windows inside Windows, then I typically will say grab VirtualPC 2007 and be done with it. But since VirtualPC 2007 doesn't support VT-x, I tend to shy away from it these days. VirtualBox is kicking ass and taking names, and with the VT-x support, it's truly a fantastic way to use virtual machines - from a wide variety of OSes (VirtualPC 2007 can run Linux distros, but it takes effort to make it happen - no surprise there, right?) - and because it's so lean and fast both as a download and as a working product, it's my first recommendation.

If you absolutely must have the 800 lb toolbox of virtual machine software, that's VMWare. If you can work with a "monkey wrench" instead of the whole toolbox, the monkey wrench will be VirtualBox. It gets the job done...
 
I 'm new to the forums but I have been reading them for ever.

Thanks for the info on the VirtualBox Joe, I might have to try it out.
I am planning on running either Server 2003 or 2008 and then run VirtualBox to run xp and then linux varients (for testing purposes and school).
I don't game or anything, but would the XP in VirtualBox be able to use photoshop or something similar? Also would I be able to edit my tv shows I cap with something like VideoRedo?
The reason I'm asking is I would like to 'kill to birds with one stone' so to speak, and avoid having two machines.
TIA for your answers.
 
You can do nearly everything inside the VM as when it's in operation it is an entirely separate "PC" more or less, just virtualized. The primary things that VMs absolutely suck at nowadays are 3D support (Direct3D, OpenGL, doesn't matter - it's lacking but it is improving in VMWare and VirtualBox will probably provide some kind of 3D support in the future also), and possibly some hardcore audio production work.

Aside from that, all the programs that most people use (aside from entertainment meaning 3D gaming) should work just fine. I know Photoshop works fine but you might consider assigning 1.5 to 2GB of physical RAM to that VM if your intention is to run that app inside the VM - that'll give more RAM inside the VM to Photoshop, obviously, which is a notorious RAM hog all by itself.

You'll be fine, just go slow and remember: if you screw something up (unlikely but possible), you can just start over again and create a new VM - the old one is typically just one file (the virtual hard drive, one single self-contained file) so when you delete it that's that, it's basically like formatting a real drive in the sense that it's just gone quick.

One tip:

If you have the space, when you get the bare OS installed and updated and set up just the way you want, with the applications installed as well, make a copy of that virtual hard drive (the single file) and store it in a separate folder or location. That way if something does go wrong, you can literally just replace the current messed up VM with that file and wham, it's like you're starting over again in seconds, not minutes or hours as it was when you first set the VM up to begin with.

Good luck...
 
wow that was a quick reply, thanks!

Thanks for that tip about creating an image of the virtual hard drive.

Ok i have another question. Would I be crazy to put a bunch of ram on the server mobo and then create a ram drive as a scratch disk for photoshop etc. Or would I be better off getting an i-Ram drive.

thanks
 
No no no, I didn't say make an image of the virtual hard drive (like using True Image or Ghost), I said just make a backup of it. The virtual hard disk file is just that: one single file that's as large as the virtual hard drive size you chose. So if you're giving the VM an 8GB drive, it'll be a single file 8GB in size, etc. There's no need to "image" that "drive" since it's just one big huge file - all that's necessary is making a copy of it in another folder; you can even nest it inside a folder where the VMs are kept.

One other tip:

If you have more than one physical drive in your machine, create the virtual hard drive on that second drive or some other one; that leaves the primary hard drive activity dealing with the host OS (your main OS) and then the secondary drive can operate independently without issues (simultaneous operation). I have a 250GB primary host OS drive and a 160GB secondary that I put all my VMs on, and I also use it for uncompressing large archives as well. Uncompressing multipart RAR files from one physical drive to another is nearly twice as fast as trying to uncompress such archives/files to the same drive since one drive can't read and write at the same time.

Bleh.

If you got an iRAM drive, that would be useful as a scratch disk for Photoshop sure, but personally I'd say get as much actual RAM as that mobo can support, max that fucker out, seriously, and then get some RAMdisk software from SuperSpeed.com (RAMDisk Plus) and use that to create a 2GB RAMdisk for the scratch file. Man, you have no idea just how fast Photoshop can actually be when you have enough actual system RAM for the software and slap the scratch disk on a RAMdisk. Instead of wasting $200+ for an iRAM and then the actual RAM for it, just get as much RAM as that mobo can support and go from there. Performance will be vastly superior to anything you could manage with the iRAM no matter how much RAM it has on it.

Having a shitload of RAM in a system does not implicitly make Photoshop work better, or anywhere near as fast as it actually can be. The only way to truly max out Photoshop's performance is a true RAMdisk for the scratch disk. Not even the iRAM - which is limited to ATA/SATA speeds, a max of 300 megabytes per second - can touch the power of an actual RAMdisk which is capable of 3 to 6 gigabytes per second. Multihundred megabyte image files literally pop onscreen unlike with even the fastest physical drive based hardware.

It's something to see, really...
 
bigdogchris said:
I just don't see how running Vista + VNWare + XP > Vista
Click to expand...
I'll give you an example. I run Vista Business as my primary OS, but I run XP Pro SP3 in a VM, for troubleshooting any issues my users might have. This way, I can quickly boot into the same environment as them, without having to reboot my main system. I also keep a clean Vista VM to try out some new freeware, before installing it on my main system, such as when I tried several free burning apps, to see what I liked.
 
If your proc. does NOT have VT support, (I.E. my E2180) which would be faster/better then, when used in Vista? Virtualbox, VMWare, VirtualPC2007?
I have use VMWare and VPC2k7 before on an AMD. I just assumed VT technology was meant to be slow so...
 
I haven't used VMWare in a few years, but I can't really tell any difference in VirtualBox or VirtualPC 2007 in terms of speed of the guest OS. If anything, the VirtualBox program is a little lighter, but both work very well.
 
Without VT-x support, I'd still give the performance nod to VirtualBox on the same machine (as compared against VMWare, any edition, even Player which is supposed to be very light on resources but it's not). VirtualBox has such a small footprint, doesn't leave crap running when it's closed (meaning the entire application is closed, not just the console window - no VMs in operation), and overall has a far snappier feel to it.

Mind you that opinion/suggestion comes from running VirtualBox on everything from a P3 450 all the way up to a Q6600 with 8GB of RAM and most everything in between over the past 6 months or so. But don't take my word for it: try both, and I'm confident to say you'll probably find VirtualBox fits your needs (as covered above with what it can do and what it can't like 3D support) better than any version of VMWare on the same hardware.
 
Joe Average said:
If you don't need 4 unnecessary services running constantly even when VMWare isn't running; if you don't need the bloat of VMWare overall (huge download, even more space consumed after the installation); if you don't need any possible 3D support for any reason in the virtual machine you're planning to run; if you want something fast, lean, and totally useful...

Then VMWare isn't the choice. VirtualBox is.

If you only intend to do the most basic stuff most people do with XP (no gaming, no hardcore stuff, but you want to run XP for some compatibility issues or whatever), then VirtualPC 2007 would actually be my recommendation. Just for running XP for the basics, it really does a great job.

But personally, I'm a huge fan of VirtualBox these days. It's very lean, it's very fast, and takes up very little space by itself. If you have a processor with VT-x support then VirtualBox can be configured to use that and the benefit will be a virtual machine that operates at near-native installation speeds - VirtualPC 2007 doesn't have that support. VMWare does, however, but again, you end up with a lot of code bloat and the 4 services running constantly.

VirtualBox leaves no trace of itself when it's not in operation: when it's closed, it's closed. Period.

So VirtualBox gets my recommendation for just running XP inside Vista.
Click to expand...

I agree I was just testing some operating systems and after installing it, it would keep three or four processes running and sucked down huge amounts of HD space. My notebook was crying near the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top