Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow...

[pkazmercyk]

I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
than this.

I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

[Bill Leeper]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
than this.
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

A couple of suggestions that might help. First I would drop back to
256MB for your VM unless you are trying to run a lot of things at once
and second, you might try shutting down any applications running in OS X
that you really don't need while running VPC.

Don't know if it will make much difference, but it can't hurt. My
experience with VPC has for the most part been positive. While a bit
slower than I would like it runs what I need at an acceptable speed. I
have a dual 2GH G5 system with 3GB of RAM and actually run both
processors at near 100% all the time in OS X and do not shut anything
down when I run VPC. Under the circumstances I am satisfied with the
performance.

Bill

[Scottie]

VPC has always been sluggish at best in my experience, but I found with some
effort versions 6 and 7 running Windoze can be tuned/hacked/slimmed down to
give workable performance if you dont have high expectations.

I wonder whats going on in your case... perhaps you skipped some of the
tuning
tips posted around?
My PB 867MHz 12" performance seems signifcantly better than your findings.
I have 1.128GB, and 512MB for VPC... you have reduced VRAM to 4MB?
I am using XP pro as bundled.

I can run qicktime movies, this barely passes but is possible even if not
something
I'd recommend using VPC for when OS X can handle it so well.
My browser experience I have to say is superb - its just as fast as it is in
OS X.
(Actually IE in XP in VPC runs much better than IE in OS X - well we know
that
is sluggish in OS X.)
My browser experience on a really old Linux distro running under VMWare on
the PC
is pretty horrible, but then some browsers are slow - try a different one,
e.g. FireFox.

Have you tried to minimize the number of unnecessary services - you can
disable them,
but be careful before you do to understand what youre effectively giving up.

Just the other night I had reason to copy about 3GB of data from an external
firewire
drive: once to the PB running XP Pro in VPC; and once to my PC notebook (P4
1.5GHz)
running XP Home. The VPC XP outperformed the real PC XP by 500%.

[I have upgraded my PB to a 7200RPM HD and this PC uses a 4200RPM HD because
it runs way too hot already to do the upgrade.]

I dont use virtual memory because that can slow you down and I keep under
512MB.
But others suggest lowering your RAM in VPC to 256MB which might make it
more
likely you'll need to use virtual memory.


Just a few suggestions...
Have you been able to determine whether your performance drag is pure CPU
utlization or HD access.
Do you see any paging activity either in VPC or OS X?
Have you turned off the screensaver?
Have you turned off "Allow Indexing Service to index this disk for fast file
searching"?

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
than this.
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

[Unseelie]

With only a gig of ram, you should not be assigning 512mb to a VM.

First off, if you have anything else running in that configuration,
you're pretty much guaranteed to be paging to disk regularly. That's a
massive performance hit.
Second, while counter-intuitive, assigning more ram to a VM will not
make it faster, but in fact, will slow it down. The easiest explanation
for this is that it increases the overhead that needs to be emulated.
I'm still trying to find the text of the technical answer I received
from one of the VPC devs. In short, the sweet spot for XP is between
224mb and 256mb of ram.

Other tips... do not max your VRAM. Lower it from 16mb to 8mb, or even
4mb if you don't need to run full screen in millions of colors. More
VRAM means less code cache for the application. That is a direct
performance hit.

If you're running with a third party firewall (ie. not Apple's) on your
Mac, either disable it, or switch to Virtual Switch networking (from
Shared).

Don't assign a device to a COM port via the serial PC settings unless
you need to. In fact, turn off things you don't need. Don't use USB
devices in VPC? Turn off USB, etc.

[jac]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
than this.
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

Hey, I'm having a very similar experience. I just bought a 1.8Ghz G5
tower, 1.5G RAM, and use VPC7 to test web pages in IE/Windows XP Pro.
It's so incredibly slow as to be, as you say, almost unusable. After a
few hours of switching back and forth between MacOS and VPC to view web
pages, I find that I have to pull down the PC menu and choose Reset.
When the thing finally reboots, it's faster-not fast, just faster
than it was-for a while, until the inevitable slowdown becomes
intolerable again.

I'm only running IE on Windows XP, so it's not as though it's
overloaded with software. In MacOS, I usually have 8 or 9 applications
open while i'm running VPC, but I'm not sure it makes much difference
when I don't.

My Activity Monitor (in OS X) shows a spike in CPU usage when I change
pages in Win/IE: loading a new page often uses 70-90% of my CPU,
according to the Monitor. Somehow I figured that the new G5, even with
only the one processor, should be able to handle this, and that VPC
would be reasonably fast. If you are able to figure out how to solve
your problem, please post or share the solution with me!
My best to you,
james.

[Michael Koenig]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.

Well, as others suggested, only use 256MB for the virtual PC, because
everything beyond is just going to slow it down.

Also, if you don't have a need for the Windows XP features and should
have the older operating systems available, use Windows 98 (preferrably
the Second Edition) instead.
And if you have an older version of Windows 95 as well, give 98 a speed
kick, by using the free preview of 98lite to make IE optional and
replace the slow Windows 98 Explorer with the much faster 95 version:
<http://www.litepc.com/preview.html>

When I did some research in VPC before buying it, most people said that
Win98 would be rather slow, but on my 2GHz G5 it's much faster than the
Windows 2000 Professional that came with my copy of VPC7, especially
when I use 98lite to remove most of the clutter.

[pkazmercyk]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.

Follow-up:
So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on my
first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly 3
minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
Reporting" window.

[Robin Walker [MVP]]

Post by pkazmercyk

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.

So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on
my first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly
3 minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
Reporting" window.

Seriously, there is something else wrong with your setup. VPC is not that
slow in a normal system.

Earlier posters have pointed out that VPC gives poor performance on a Mac if
the Mac has utilities installed (e.g. ones with floating windows) that
prevent VPC being the front-most window. Might this be the case with your
Mac? Can you try Quitting absolutely every Mac application and utility
except VPC?

Another thing for you to check, if your Windows system is misbehaving, is
whether it is infected with any Windows Spyware or virus.

Also, check that you have version 7.01 of the VM Additions installed in
Windows.

[Steve Jain]

Post by pkazmercyk

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.

So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on my
first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly 3
minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
Reporting" window.

Are you running on battery or plugged in ? Previous Powerbooks had
power management schemes that would slow the CPU down to conserve
battery, causing VPC to run poorly. If you can, try changing the
power save mode to disabled or set for maximum performance.

[Bill Crocker]

Post by pkazmercyk

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.

So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on my
first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly 3
minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
Reporting" window.

Hum...lets see, you're running Microsoft Explorer, and it
crashed. Duh!

Bill Crocker

[Rob Teichman]

I think you have other problems. I run VPC 6 on a 1.5GHz PowerBook with 768
RAM. My VPC is Windows 2000 which has 192MB allocated (same as my previous
PC laptop had). I run MS Access, IIS (connecting to an Oracle database on
another machine), and IE 5.5 all day long without any problems. I do this
because a large portion of my job requires playing around with data in
Access, and developing ASP pages (using HomeSite). While its slower than my
old 800MHz PIII laptop, the difference is not so bad as to render it
unusable.

When I just do web browsing in IE to an external server, as long as there is
no client side stuff (like java applets, or flash) it runs as fast as if it
was on my old laptop.

Rob



On 1/21/05 2:51 PM, in article

Post by pkazmercyk

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.

So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on my
first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly 3
minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
Reporting" window.

[b***@hotmail.com]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. ..................
........................
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

=====================================================

Hello: Some time ago on the Connectix forum, performance data were
posted.
It may be time for someone to post new data with G5/VPC 7...

pkazmercyk: Perhaps the following will help you narrow down the
slowwness:

Do what Kurt did... i.e., run ONLY VPC and XP (he used VPC 6 & W2K),
then run the comparison
tests using the "Performance Tester" program found at:

http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm

With a 30 day free trial you can install and compare PT on your XP
version against a sampling of benchmarks.

Then, PLEASE post them here for others to share.

Cheers, Jim b
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt L reported the following over a year ago:
...........
Subject: Performance, for the curious
From: e1-qcpq-kt69-***@emailias.com (Kurt L)
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc
Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 10:33 PM
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

Here is the result of some testing using the Performance Test
application. The first number is from a real Pentium II-400 MHz
system, running Windows 2000. The second number is Virtual PC,
running on a 1 GHz G4, 1 MB of L3 cache, 133 MHz system bus, 768 MB
sys ram (192 MB given to Windows 2000).

Test PII-400 VPC 6.1/Win2k
----------------------- ------- ------------
Math - Addition 78.29 94.84
Math - Subtraction 77.04 95.83
Math - Multiplication 81.11 94.63
Math - Division 10.49 19.29
Math - Floating point addition 70.55 69.29
Math - Floating point subtraction 70.54 69.21
Math - Floating point multiplication 71.96 69.35
Math - Floating point division 11.92 20.69
Math - Maximum megaflops 96.98 102.07
Graphics 2D - Lines 14.70 2.81
Graphics - Rectangles 86.78 25.55
Graphics - Shapes 4.89 1.41
Memory - Allocate small block 200.71 379.57
Memory - Read cached 181.84 200.27
Memory - Read uncached 107.05 147.31
Memory - Write 133.16 157.31
Disk - Sequential read 24.38 19.92
Disk - Sequential write 17.42 3.28
Disk - Random seek + RW 6.73 1.36
MMX - Addition 122.57 139.11
MMX - Subtraction 122.36 143.36
MMX - Multiplication 119.02 93.69

Summary statistics
Math Mark 58.77 65.62
2D Graphics Mark 141.81 39.68
Memory Mark 60.72 86.23
Disk Mark 128.13 64.83
MMX Mark 61.75 63.82

Passmark rating 72.39 51.69

My interpretation: VPC holds its own in most places, except that it is
dog-slow on graphics and disk write. Think of it as a PII-400 with a
lousy graphics card and a slow disk. One has to be cautious about
generalizing from these numbers as well; likely the test code fits
entirely within cache on the G4, and thus tends to look better than
real-world. But for those looking to at least see whether Virtual PC
will accomplish what they have in mind, at least this is a stake in
the ground.

Kurt

(sorry about the columns, its more effort than I've got in me to make
them line up pretty tonight)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b***@hotmail.com]

UPDATE: I found that V5 of Performance Test (PT) does not work in my
Ver 6.1.1/Windows2000 system. Contacting Passmark led me to an older
ver 3.5.
Tried that version and it installed/ran OK..

Don't know why V5 failed. Passmark does not test VPC. I urged them to
do so for the growing numbers of VPC 7 out there.

One of you VPC 7.0.1/G5 users might try PT V3.5 and report.
It is at: http://www.passmark.com/ftp/petst_old35.exe

[Kenneth Gorelick]

Thanks for the pointer. I ran the PT 3.5 on my iMac G5 1.8 GHz 2 GB RAM
running VPC 7.01 under OS X 10.3.7. With no other software running I got a
PassMark Rating of 38.7 with 22.7 MegaFLOPS.
Running a bunch of other programs including iTunes, Word,
Entourage...PassMark rating was 38.5 and MegaFLOPS was 18.6
Running it in the background: Passmark 35.5, 15.4 MegaFlops.

Now, can anyone tell me what it means!!!!
Ken



On 1/24/05 6:26 PM, in article

Post by b***@hotmail.com
UPDATE: I found that V5 of Performance Test (PT) does not work in my
Ver 6.1.1/Windows2000 system. Contacting Passmark led me to an older
ver 3.5.
Tried that version and it installed/ran OK..
Don't know why V5 failed. Passmark does not test VPC. I urged them to
do so for the growing numbers of VPC 7 out there.
One of you VPC 7.0.1/G5 users might try PT V3.5 and report.
It is at: http://www.passmark.com/ftp/petst_old35.exe

Ken Gorelick

[Kenneth Gorelick]

I was intrigued by this post so I downloaded a copy of the Performance
Tester. It installed fine, but would not run. I installed it several times,
and downloaded a different copy. Still would not run. I guess it is not
compatible with VPC 7!


On 1/22/05 4:29 PM, in article

Post by pkazmercyk

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize

its

Post by pkazmercyk
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. ..................
........................
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a

search

Post by pkazmercyk
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

=====================================================
Hello: Some time ago on the Connectix forum, performance data were
posted.
It may be time for someone to post new data with G5/VPC 7...
pkazmercyk: Perhaps the following will help you narrow down the
Do what Kurt did... i.e., run ONLY VPC and XP (he used VPC 6 & W2K),
then run the comparison
http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm
With a 30 day free trial you can install and compare PT on your XP
version against a sampling of benchmarks.
Then, PLEASE post them here for others to share.
Cheers, Jim b
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...........
Subject: Performance, for the curious
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc
Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 10:33 PM
Here is the result of some testing using the Performance Test
application. The first number is from a real Pentium II-400 MHz
system, running Windows 2000. The second number is Virtual PC,
running on a 1 GHz G4, 1 MB of L3 cache, 133 MHz system bus, 768 MB
sys ram (192 MB given to Windows 2000).
Test PII-400 VPC 6.1/Win2k
----------------------- ------- ------------
Math - Addition 78.29 94.84
Math - Subtraction 77.04 95.83
Math - Multiplication 81.11 94.63
Math - Division 10.49 19.29
Math - Floating point addition 70.55 69.29
Math - Floating point subtraction 70.54 69.21
Math - Floating point multiplication 71.96 69.35
Math - Floating point division 11.92 20.69
Math - Maximum megaflops 96.98 102.07
Graphics 2D - Lines 14.70 2.81
Graphics - Rectangles 86.78 25.55
Graphics - Shapes 4.89 1.41
Memory - Allocate small block 200.71 379.57
Memory - Read cached 181.84 200.27
Memory - Read uncached 107.05 147.31
Memory - Write 133.16 157.31
Disk - Sequential read 24.38 19.92
Disk - Sequential write 17.42 3.28
Disk - Random seek + RW 6.73 1.36
MMX - Addition 122.57 139.11
MMX - Subtraction 122.36 143.36
MMX - Multiplication 119.02 93.69
Summary statistics
Math Mark 58.77 65.62
2D Graphics Mark 141.81 39.68
Memory Mark 60.72 86.23
Disk Mark 128.13 64.83
MMX Mark 61.75 63.82
Passmark rating 72.39 51.69
My interpretation: VPC holds its own in most places, except that it is
dog-slow on graphics and disk write. Think of it as a PII-400 with a
lousy graphics card and a slow disk. One has to be cautious about
generalizing from these numbers as well; likely the test code fits
entirely within cache on the G4, and thus tends to look better than
real-world. But for those looking to at least see whether Virtual PC
will accomplish what they have in mind, at least this is a stake in
the ground.
Kurt
(sorry about the columns, its more effort than I've got in me to make
them line up pretty tonight)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Ken Gorelick

[Jim Knotts]

Please realize that even though the software is made by Microsoft, it's
running on a processor that is absolutely NOT designed for Windows. What
VPC is designed to do is translate the thousands of transactions that a Mac
processor does per clock cycle into the hundred or so a PC does. No matter
what you do, VPC isn't going to run like a physical XP machine. Look at it
this way: VMWare, which is designed to run any x86 based OS on the market
on an x86 based server, works wonderfully. How many emulators that work and
work just like a real Mac, are on the market for x86 machines...??

Sorry if this dashes your dreams. I am a Microsoft Windows-based network
architect. Trust me, I would love to see this more than anyone ;)

Jim Knotts

Post by Kenneth Gorelick
I was intrigued by this post so I downloaded a copy of the Performance
Tester. It installed fine, but would not run. I installed it several times,
and downloaded a different copy. Still would not run. I guess it is not
compatible with VPC 7!
On 1/22/05 4:29 PM, in article

Post by pkazmercyk

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize

its

Post by pkazmercyk
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. ..................
........................
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a

search

Post by pkazmercyk
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

=====================================================
Hello: Some time ago on the Connectix forum, performance data were
posted.
It may be time for someone to post new data with G5/VPC 7...
pkazmercyk: Perhaps the following will help you narrow down the
Do what Kurt did... i.e., run ONLY VPC and XP (he used VPC 6 & W2K),
then run the comparison
http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm
With a 30 day free trial you can install and compare PT on your XP
version against a sampling of benchmarks.
Then, PLEASE post them here for others to share.
Cheers, Jim b

----------------------------------------------------------------------------->>
-

Post by Kenneth Gorelick

Post by pkazmercyk
...........
Subject: Performance, for the curious
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc
Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 10:33 PM
Here is the result of some testing using the Performance Test
application. The first number is from a real Pentium II-400 MHz
system, running Windows 2000. The second number is Virtual PC,
running on a 1 GHz G4, 1 MB of L3 cache, 133 MHz system bus, 768 MB
sys ram (192 MB given to Windows 2000).
Test PII-400 VPC 6.1/Win2k
----------------------- ------- ------------
Math - Addition 78.29 94.84
Math - Subtraction 77.04 95.83
Math - Multiplication 81.11 94.63
Math - Division 10.49 19.29
Math - Floating point addition 70.55 69.29
Math - Floating point subtraction 70.54 69.21
Math - Floating point multiplication 71.96 69.35
Math - Floating point division 11.92 20.69
Math - Maximum megaflops 96.98 102.07
Graphics 2D - Lines 14.70 2.81
Graphics - Rectangles 86.78 25.55
Graphics - Shapes 4.89 1.41
Memory - Allocate small block 200.71 379.57
Memory - Read cached 181.84 200.27
Memory - Read uncached 107.05 147.31
Memory - Write 133.16 157.31
Disk - Sequential read 24.38 19.92
Disk - Sequential write 17.42 3.28
Disk - Random seek + RW 6.73 1.36
MMX - Addition 122.57 139.11
MMX - Subtraction 122.36 143.36
MMX - Multiplication 119.02 93.69
Summary statistics
Math Mark 58.77 65.62
2D Graphics Mark 141.81 39.68
Memory Mark 60.72 86.23
Disk Mark 128.13 64.83
MMX Mark 61.75 63.82
Passmark rating 72.39 51.69
My interpretation: VPC holds its own in most places, except that it is
dog-slow on graphics and disk write. Think of it as a PII-400 with a
lousy graphics card and a slow disk. One has to be cautious about
generalizing from these numbers as well; likely the test code fits
entirely within cache on the G4, and thus tends to look better than
real-world. But for those looking to at least see whether Virtual PC
will accomplish what they have in mind, at least this is a stake in
the ground.
Kurt
(sorry about the columns, its more effort than I've got in me to make
them line up pretty tonight)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------->>
-

Post by Kenneth Gorelick

Post by pkazmercyk
------

Ken Gorelick

[jac]

I downloaded PassMark 3.5 and tested my machine--a 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5
(single processor). The results are below. My machine, running VPC7.0,
is so agonizingly slow that it's difficult to get anything done
sometimes. The only thing I have running on the virtual machine is
Internet Explorer, and that's to test web pages.

I've got Windows set to optimize speed: control panel>system>advanced
(tab)>performance, (all of them), paging file size = 384 MB, expandable
to 768 MB, and so on. It may take a good minute to load a page that's
on my own MacOS drive using IE. Networking is set to Virtual Switch.
The allocation it gives itself in my memory continues to grow: it
started at about 290 MB and now it's up around 370 MB. What's with
that? If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know!

I ran the test twice, and listed the results using PassMark's archived
benchmark data.

System infomation - This Computer (from PassMark)
CPU Manufacturer: Virtual CPU
Number of CPU: 1
CPU Type: 686 Gen
CPU Speed: 532.7 MHz
Cache size: Unknown
O/S: Windows XP Professional
Total RAM: 267964416 Bytes
Available RAM: 159121408 Bytes
Video settings: 1152x864x32
Video driver:
DESCRIPTION:
VM Additions S3 Trio32/64
MANUFACTURER:
S3 Compatible
BIOS:

DATE:

Drive Letter: C
Total Disk Space: 16.1 GBytes
Cluster Size: 8 KBytes
File system: FAT32

Results Produced by PassMark PerformanceTest (http://www.passmark.com)
Version: V3.5

System Information (Apple)
Machine Model: Power Mac G5
CPU Type: PowerPC G5 (3.0)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 1.8 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 1.5 GB
Bus Speed: 600 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 5.2.2f1


Test Name Proteus Gateway
VPC7 on G5 VPC7 on G5
Pentium 4
Pentium II Trial 2 Trial 1
1700
400
Maths - Addition 371.16 74.59
109.17 48.21
Maths - Subtraction 371.53 74.63
108.23 48.11
Maths - Multiplication 291.79 71.42
95.11 40.24
Maths - Division 29.39
10.23 26.05 12.22
Maths - Floating Point Addition 327.16 79.10
14.61 6.84
Maths - Floating Point Subtraction 314.43 79.28
15.84 6.84
Maths - Floating Point Multiply 320.40 75.36
15.54 6.84
Maths - Floating Point Division 42.88 11.69
14.77 7.04
Maths - Maximum MegaFLOPS 434.98 120.39
24.73 10.79
Graphics 2D - Lines 76.09
8.63 3.71 1.38
Graphics 2D - Bitmaps 75.42 45.84
18.30 8.44
Graphics 2D - Shapes 16.55 3.44
1.67 0.70
Graphics 3D - Many Worlds 346.50 226.36
2.40 1.77
Memory - Allocate small block 156.69 70.75
93.73 43.30
Memory - Read cached 246.73 53.12
66.98 27.39
Memory - Read uncached 241.78 42.04
42.38 18.95
Memory - Write 179.52 32.00
38.82 16.88
Disk - Sequential Read 13.79 8.48
10.91 9.89
Disk - Sequential Write 69.88 12.51
18.56 11.42
Disk - Random Seek + RW 5.41 5.44
2.20 2.53
MMX - Addition 357.44 137.31
154.59 72.08
MMX - Subtraction 356.20 136.95
160.48 68.85
MMX - Multiply 347.72 135.87
115.76 54.35
MMX - SSE/3DNow! 749.49 0.00
- -
Maths mark 248.42 59.20
42.07 18.57
2D Graphics mark 224.09 77.22
31.58 14.02
Memory Mark 198.55 47.64
58.24 25.65
Disk mark 235.18 69.78
83.59 62.93
3D Graphics mark 235.62 153.93
1.64 1.20
MMX Mark 230.43 69.59
73.10 33.13
PassMark Rating 229.32 51.96
49.98 28.15

[Scottie]

Post by jac
I've got Windows set to optimize speed: control panel>system>advanced
(tab)>performance, (all of them), paging file size = 384 MB, expandable
to 768 MB, and so on. It may take a good minute to load a page that's
on my own MacOS drive using IE. Networking is set to Virtual Switch.
The allocation it gives itself in my memory continues to grow: it
started at about 290 MB and now it's up around 370 MB. What's with
that? If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know!

Problem #1: youre using Virtual Memory (Swap File) when perhaps you dont
have to.
Virtual Memory means your system is writing to and
reading from disk
data that should be in memory - thus you will S L O W
down a lot.
(I know most people will advise you to set RAM to 256MB
and use
virtual memory... if that works great, but it wont
always do so, especially
if you need more than 256MB of memory with your current
load.)

Suggestion for #1: Increase the memory you allocate to VPC. How much do you
need?
if 370MB is as high as it gets, then you may not need to
max it out to 512MB
but I recommend you give at least 384MB with the load
your reporting,
but make sure you dont see hard paging activity becoming a
regular event.

If you can turn off Virtual Memory ...
Disclaimer: be careful when doing this.. if your load
ever needs more than the
amount of physical RAM you've allocated your in trouble.
Thats why I do give 512MB contrary to other advice. It
depends, ymmv.
I have > 1GB of physical RAM so I can do that if you have
less than this
then you have to be concerned with how much memory youre
leaving OS X.
No point in trying to avoid swapping in VPC if OS X swaps
like crazy.
So if you only have 512MB total memory in OS X e.g. , I
suggest you
get more memory.

Problem #2: Youre virtual memory settings are adjustable (384MB-768MB).
This is a big mistake.

Suggestion for #2:
If youre going to use Virtual Memory then set the min
and max value to the
same value.
This will avoid Windows constantly resizing the swap
file up and down based
on its judgement of memory usage.
Virtual Memory is a big overhead in itself even with a
fixed swap file size,
allowing it to adjust adds even more overhead.
Remember, in VPC the route to better performance is to
reduce or eliminate
overhead processing thats not necessary.

Suggestion for #1 &/or #2:
If you are swapping (even if you arent) then consider
getting a faster hard drive.
A 4200rpm drive in a pb or ibook is going to be pretty
bad.

[Scottie]

Just noticed jac -- you only have 256MB of memory according to your test

Post by jac
Total RAM: 267964416 Bytes

So, you have little choice but to buy more memory.
You must be swapping extremely excessively if your Virtual Memory has grown
to 370MB.
How much memory have you given to VPC out of that 256MB?
I'm guessing Windows in VPC is swapping and likely OS X is also swapping.
Double whammy - I dont know how you could get decent performance,
even a pc with only 128MB trying to runXP isnt great.

With this little memory on your system, scratch any notion
of not using Virtual memory (the caution I noted applies in this case).
You have little choice -- upgrade your system.

Post by jac

Post by jac
I've got Windows set to optimize speed: control panel>system>advanced
(tab)>performance, (all of them), paging file size = 384 MB, expandable
to 768 MB, and so on. It may take a good minute to load a page that's
on my own MacOS drive using IE. Networking is set to Virtual Switch.
The allocation it gives itself in my memory continues to grow: it
started at about 290 MB and now it's up around 370 MB. What's with
that? If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know!

Problem #1: youre using Virtual Memory (Swap File) when perhaps you dont
have to.
Virtual Memory means your system is writing to and
reading from disk
data that should be in memory - thus you will S L O W
down a lot.
(I know most people will advise you to set RAM to 256MB
and use
virtual memory... if that works great, but it wont
always do so, especially
if you need more than 256MB of memory with your current
load.)
Suggestion for #1: Increase the memory you allocate to VPC. How much do you
need?
if 370MB is as high as it gets, then you may not need to
max it out to 512MB
but I recommend you give at least 384MB with the load
your reporting,
but make sure you dont see hard paging activity becoming a
regular event.
If you can turn off Virtual Memory ...
Disclaimer: be careful when doing this.. if your load
ever needs more than the
amount of physical RAM you've allocated your in trouble.
Thats why I do give 512MB contrary to other advice. It
depends, ymmv.
I have > 1GB of physical RAM so I can do that if you have
less than this
then you have to be concerned with how much memory youre
leaving OS X.
No point in trying to avoid swapping in VPC if OS X swaps
like crazy.
So if you only have 512MB total memory in OS X e.g. , I
suggest you
get more memory.
Problem #2: Youre virtual memory settings are adjustable (384MB-768MB).
This is a big mistake.
If youre going to use Virtual Memory then set the min
and max value to the
same value.
This will avoid Windows constantly resizing the swap
file up and down based
on its judgement of memory usage.
Virtual Memory is a big overhead in itself even with a
fixed swap file size,
allowing it to adjust adds even more overhead.
Remember, in VPC the route to better performance is to
reduce or eliminate
overhead processing thats not necessary.
If you are swapping (even if you arent) then consider
getting a faster hard drive.
A 4200rpm drive in a pb or ibook is going to be pretty
bad.

[jac]

Scottie, I appreciate your responding. Thank you--and sorry about that
table: I spent two hours trying to get it in there formatted neatly,
and finally gave up.

Anyway, this memory thing is confusing, and here's why:

First, my G5 has 1.5 GB of real memory. With other applications open
simultaneously, my Activity Monitor shows 155 MB free, with VirtualMem
size = 6.29 GB. Looks a little cramped.

In VPC,
(menu bar): PC > PC Settings... > (dialog box) : PC Memory = 256 MB.

In MacOS X, the Activity Monitor shows (for the process Virtual PC):
Real Memory = 343 MB, .
Virtual Memory = 511 MB

In Windows XP Pro,
Control Panel > System > Advanced (tab) > Performance Settings (button)

Advanced (tab) > Virtual Memory/Change (button) >

Initial size= 384 MB,
Max size=768 MB

VPC (ctrl-alt-delete) > Windows Task Manager > Performance (tab):
Physical Memory = 261.7 MB,
Available = 84.9 MB,
System Cache = 78.4 MB.

So, how do I tell how much VPC and Windows are actually using of RAM
and disk paging file, and how do I control each?

Also, do you know how these numbers relate to each other? The PC
setting doesn't seem to limit the amount of memory that Windows is
using. I need a manual.

How do i make VPC and Windows run in RAM (i.e., can I turn off virtual
memory in Windows only?) I tried to make the paging file in Windows =
0, but the thing all but locked up on me.

I'm going to expand the Windows allocation as you suggested 384/384
first, and see what happens.

thanks again,
james.

[Scottie]

JAC you have many points in this message so please excuse me
for giving responses embedded in your message below...

Post by jac
Scottie, I appreciate your responding. Thank you--and sorry about that
table: I spent two hours trying to get it in there formatted neatly,
and finally gave up.
First, my G5 has 1.5 GB of real memory. With other applications open
simultaneously, my Activity Monitor shows 155 MB free, with VirtualMem
size = 6.29 GB. Looks a little cramped.

To get best performance out of VPC you want to avoid using other
applications.
Applications that dont put a huge impact on CPU, memory or disk might not be
so bad.
With 1.5GB of real memory you have plenty to set VPC memory allocation to
any value up to the 512MB max that it supports. So, 256MB, 384MB or 512MB
should be doable.
But if your other OS X apps are leaving you with 155MB free then this is
cramped
and you have to choose which apps/VPC you need to use.

Post by jac
In VPC,
(menu bar): PC > PC Settings... > (dialog box) : PC Memory = 256 MB.
Real Memory = 343 MB, .
Virtual Memory = 511 MB

VPC will need memory for its own operations in addition to what you
give to Windows. If you use top you'll see this getting broken down.

Post by jac
In Windows XP Pro,
Control Panel > System > Advanced (tab) > Performance Settings (button)

Advanced (tab) > Virtual Memory/Change (button) >

Initial size= 384 MB,
Max size=768 MB

If the max size is set to 768MB because you think you'll need that much then
I'd just set the minimum to that too. If this is more than you'll ever need,
and only you can tell, then you can consider reducing that, but to do so
with caution.

Post by jac
Physical Memory = 261.7 MB,
Available = 84.9 MB,
System Cache = 78.4 MB.

The available amount will vary according to what load you are putting
on Windows. Some apps could easily consume that 85MB and in this
config require you to use Windows virtual memory.

Post by jac
So, how do I tell how much VPC and Windows are actually using of RAM
and disk paging file, and how do I control each?

Start->settings->control panel->system->Advanced->Performance
settings->Advanced->virtual memory Change->No paging file->Set

Post by jac
Also, do you know how these numbers relate to each other? The PC
setting doesn't seem to limit the amount of memory that Windows is
using. I need a manual.
How do i make VPC and Windows run in RAM (i.e., can I turn off virtual
memory in Windows only?) I tried to make the paging file in Windows =
0, but the thing all but locked up on me.

Dont change any virtual memory settings in OS X - unless you no better.
You can turn it off in Windows (see above), but only do this if the amount
of physical memory given to Windows inVPC is enough for your load.
You will have problems if you dont give it enough.
I give it 512MB. You ought to be able to do this if you arent running other
apps in OS X and you have 1.5GB.

Post by jac
I'm going to expand the Windows allocation as you suggested 384/384
first, and see what happens.

If your load needs more then 768/768 would be possible too.

Post by jac
thanks again,
james.

[b***@hotmail.com]

Scotti: I tried your suggestion #2 below... I set the initial swap page
size to the recommended size, then made the MAX size the same...

I had trouble with the ONLY app I *need* to use in VPC; IE 6.0 SP1. Why
this IE? Well the Web app I hook up to requires MSFT's VM machine and
JAVA system to run. Safari (Panther) won't do it. Safari still does NOT
support 'Live Connect' well enuff for the Web app I need to work
correctly.
The app *says* it supports Sun's JAVA 1.3.1 in W2K, but I can't get
that to run with the app at all.

IE had trouble infrequently; incomplete rendering of page data ..
After I reverted BACK to initial swap, then 2X that for max, things
really took off and I had no problems in rendering the displays. Also I
run NO other MAC OS X apps except Virex 7.2 and BrickHouse firewall.

I run VPC 6.1.1/Windows2000. Mac is G4 Graphite with 704MB, a fast
(7200rpm) 80 GB dis,k and I give about HALF the real memory to VPC/W2K.

Turning off Firewall with the first config (equal initial & Max) still
showed errors in rendering. (Haven't tried disabling Virex.. should
that help?) On W2K I run McAfee's anti-virus V 8.0 and no W2K firewall
software.

So, in reference to Suggestion #2 below, what is the correct algorithm
for setting the initial swap size and the Max swap size. Use the
recommendaed size for initial and Max? (unfortunately, That is what got
me into trouble).

Your suggestion(s) made sense, but not for me.. Thanks anyhow for your
efforts.

Cheers, Jim B
PS I had NO problems in page loading speed as jac did
PPS Earlier in a Connectix forum, advice was to give about 1/3 of your
real memory to VPC.
With Panther, newer G models, lots more memory, I am not sure
that still holds, do you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
I've got Windows set to optimize speed: control

panel>system>advanced

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
(tab)>performance, (all of them), paging file size = 384 MB,

expandable

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
to 768 MB, and so on. It may take a good minute to load a page that's
on my own MacOS drive using IE. Networking is set to Virtual

Switch.

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
The allocation it gives itself in my memory continues to grow: it
started at about 290 MB and now it's up around 370 MB. What's with
that? If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know!

Problem #1: youre using Virtual Memory (Swap File) when perhaps you dont
have to.
Virtual Memory means your system is writing to and
reading from disk
data that should be in memory - thus you will S L O W
down a lot.
(I know most people will advise you to set RAM to 256MB
and use
virtual memory... if that works great, but it wont
always do so, especially
if you need more than 256MB of memory with your current
load.)
Suggestion for #1: Increase the memory you allocate to VPC. How much do you
need?
if 370MB is as high as it gets, then you may not need to
max it out to 512MB
but I recommend you give at least 384MB with the load
your reporting,
but make sure you dont see hard paging activity becoming a
regular event.
If you can turn off Virtual Memory ...
Disclaimer: be careful when doing this.. if your load
ever needs more than the
amount of physical RAM you've allocated your in trouble.
Thats why I do give 512MB contrary to other advice. It
depends, ymmv.
I have > 1GB of physical RAM so I can do that if you have
less than this
then you have to be concerned with how much memory youre
leaving OS X.
No point in trying to avoid swapping in VPC if OS X swaps
like crazy.
So if you only have 512MB total memory in OS X e.g. , I
suggest you
get more memory.
Problem #2: Youre virtual memory settings are adjustable

(384MB-768MB).

Post by Scottie
This is a big mistake.
If youre going to use Virtual Memory then set the min
and max value to the
same value.
This will avoid Windows constantly resizing the swap
file up and down based
on its judgement of memory usage.
Virtual Memory is a big overhead in itself even with a
fixed swap file size,
allowing it to adjust adds even more overhead.
Remember, in VPC the route to better performance is to
reduce or eliminate
overhead processing thats not necessary.
If you are swapping (even if you arent) then

consider

Post by Scottie
getting a faster hard drive.
A 4200rpm drive in a pb or ibook is going to be pretty
bad.

[Scottie]

Jim,

I dont know what the various sizes quoted, but whatever settings you
have where it works with different min & max I'd set them both to the
max value rather than the "recommended", to avoid the issue you
experienced.


<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

Post by b***@hotmail.com
So, in reference to Suggestion #2 below, what is the correct algorithm
for setting the initial swap size and the Max swap size. Use the
recommendaed size for initial and Max? (unfortunately, That is what got
me into trouble).
Your suggestion(s) made sense, but not for me.. Thanks anyhow for your
efforts.
Cheers, Jim B
PS I had NO problems in page loading speed as jac did
PPS Earlier in a Connectix forum, advice was to give about 1/3 of your
real memory to VPC.
With Panther, newer G models, lots more memory, I am not sure
that still holds, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

Post by b***@hotmail.com

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
I've got Windows set to optimize speed: control

panel>system>advanced

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
(tab)>performance, (all of them), paging file size = 384 MB,

expandable

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
to 768 MB, and so on. It may take a good minute to load a page

that's

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
on my own MacOS drive using IE. Networking is set to Virtual

Switch.

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
The allocation it gives itself in my memory continues to grow: it
started at about 290 MB and now it's up around 370 MB. What's with
that? If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know!

Problem #1: youre using Virtual Memory (Swap File) when perhaps you

dont

Post by Scottie
have to.
Virtual Memory means your system is writing to and
reading from disk
data that should be in memory - thus you will S L

O W

Post by Scottie
down a lot.
(I know most people will advise you to set RAM to

256MB

Post by Scottie
and use
virtual memory... if that works great, but it

wont

Post by Scottie
always do so, especially
if you need more than 256MB of memory with your

current

Post by Scottie
load.)
Suggestion for #1: Increase the memory you allocate to VPC. How much

do you

Post by Scottie
need?
if 370MB is as high as it gets, then you may not

need to

Post by Scottie
max it out to 512MB
but I recommend you give at least 384MB with the

load

Post by Scottie
your reporting,
but make sure you dont see hard paging activity

becoming a

Post by Scottie
regular event.
If you can turn off Virtual Memory ...
Disclaimer: be careful when doing this.. if your

load

Post by Scottie
ever needs more than the
amount of physical RAM you've allocated your in

trouble.

Post by Scottie
Thats why I do give 512MB contrary to other advice.

It

Post by Scottie
depends, ymmv.
I have > 1GB of physical RAM so I can do that if

you have

Post by Scottie
less than this
then you have to be concerned with how much memory

youre

Post by Scottie
leaving OS X.
No point in trying to avoid swapping in VPC if OS X

swaps

Post by Scottie
like crazy.
So if you only have 512MB total memory in OS X e.g.

, I

Post by Scottie
suggest you
get more memory.
Problem #2: Youre virtual memory settings are adjustable

(384MB-768MB).

Post by Scottie
This is a big mistake.
If youre going to use Virtual Memory then set the

min

Post by Scottie
and max value to the
same value.
This will avoid Windows constantly resizing the

swap

Post by Scottie
file up and down based
on its judgement of memory usage.
Virtual Memory is a big overhead in itself even

with a

Post by Scottie
fixed swap file size,
allowing it to adjust adds even more overhead.
Remember, in VPC the route to better performance

is to

Post by Scottie
reduce or eliminate
overhead processing thats not necessary.
If you are swapping (even if you arent) then

consider

Post by Scottie
getting a faster hard drive.
A 4200rpm drive in a pb or ibook is going to be

pretty

Post by Scottie
bad.

[John McGhie]

Hi Jim:

I am not sure that I understood Scottie's post. He seems to be advocating
turning Virtual Memory off in OS X. I was not aware that you could do that:
I certainly do not know how. My information is that the Mach kernel
requires VM, and will not start or run if it's not there :-)

I also believe that some versions of OS X.3 seem to be having problems with
their virtual memory management. They seem to create multiple temporary
paging files, then "forget" to release them. It seems to be a good idea to
reboot OS X every week or so to force it to let these paging files go and
clean up its temporary storage. I would recommend that you try a cold start
of OS X. It can result in quite a speed improvement, and if it does, the
speed improvement in Windows will be a lot larger. Remember that before
Windows can do "anything", it must wait for OS X to finish paging.

In Windows, there were two tricks you could play with virtual memory to
speed it up: neither is available in Virtual PC. The first was to put the
paging file on a different physical volume from either the OS or the
applications. The second was to allocate the paging file to a partition of
its own, so it could never become fragmented.

Since the entire virtual PC is a single file on the Mac, you cannot send the
page file to a different device: I don't know whether Windows will allow you
to set the page file to the Mac drive, but I am pretty sure it won't because
the Mac drive is treated as a Network drive, and Windows requires the page
file to be on a local disk.

You could set the VM minimum and maximum sizes to the same value. You could
also set both to 0 (which disables virtual memory in Windows).

Setting the page file minimum and maximum sizes to the same value might be
worth trying. It will cause Windows to start slower than normal, because it
has to allocate the entire page file at startup. But it would then remove
the small overhead Windows requires to manage the page file size.

The rule of thumb for Windows is "set the total paging space to 2.5 times
the physical memory." There is a further consideration in Windows: there
must be at least 64 MB of virtual memory available to enable a memory dump
for debugging, and that allocation must be on the same volume as the
operating system kernel. If you have full memory dump available, the
allocation must be at least a megabyte larger than the physical RAM.

Setting the page file to 0 is an extremely risky move. If you do not have
enough physical memory, and no swap file, Windows won't boot. Because it
won't boot, you can't fix it. Your virtual PC, all of its data, and all of
its applications would now be trash: nothing to do but delete the thing and
start again. I have booted Windows XP without a swap file in 256 MB of
physical RAM on a physical PC. I would never try it with less.

Hope this helps

On 29/1/05 10:19 AM, in article

Post by b***@hotmail.com
Scotti: I tried your suggestion #2 below... I set the initial swap page
size to the recommended size, then made the MAX size the same...
I had trouble with the ONLY app I *need* to use in VPC; IE 6.0 SP1. Why
this IE? Well the Web app I hook up to requires MSFT's VM machine and
JAVA system to run. Safari (Panther) won't do it. Safari still does NOT
support 'Live Connect' well enuff for the Web app I need to work
correctly.
The app *says* it supports Sun's JAVA 1.3.1 in W2K, but I can't get
that to run with the app at all.
IE had trouble infrequently; incomplete rendering of page data ..
After I reverted BACK to initial swap, then 2X that for max, things
really took off and I had no problems in rendering the displays. Also I
run NO other MAC OS X apps except Virex 7.2 and BrickHouse firewall.
I run VPC 6.1.1/Windows2000. Mac is G4 Graphite with 704MB, a fast
(7200rpm) 80 GB dis,k and I give about HALF the real memory to VPC/W2K.
Turning off Firewall with the first config (equal initial & Max) still
showed errors in rendering. (Haven't tried disabling Virex.. should
that help?) On W2K I run McAfee's anti-virus V 8.0 and no W2K firewall
software.
So, in reference to Suggestion #2 below, what is the correct algorithm
for setting the initial swap size and the Max swap size. Use the
recommendaed size for initial and Max? (unfortunately, That is what got
me into trouble).
Your suggestion(s) made sense, but not for me.. Thanks anyhow for your
efforts.
Cheers, Jim B
PS I had NO problems in page loading speed as jac did
PPS Earlier in a Connectix forum, advice was to give about 1/3 of your
real memory to VPC.
With Panther, newer G models, lots more memory, I am not sure
that still holds, do you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
I've got Windows set to optimize speed: control

panel>system>advanced

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
(tab)>performance, (all of them), paging file size = 384 MB,

expandable

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
to 768 MB, and so on. It may take a good minute to load a page

that's

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
on my own MacOS drive using IE. Networking is set to Virtual

Switch.

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
The allocation it gives itself in my memory continues to grow: it
started at about 290 MB and now it's up around 370 MB. What's with
that? If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know!

Problem #1: youre using Virtual Memory (Swap File) when perhaps you

dont

Post by Scottie
have to.
Virtual Memory means your system is writing to and
reading from disk
data that should be in memory - thus you will S L

O W

Post by Scottie
down a lot.
(I know most people will advise you to set RAM to

256MB

Post by Scottie
and use
virtual memory... if that works great, but it

wont

Post by Scottie
always do so, especially
if you need more than 256MB of memory with your

current

Post by Scottie
load.)
Suggestion for #1: Increase the memory you allocate to VPC. How much

do you

Post by Scottie
need?
if 370MB is as high as it gets, then you may not

need to

Post by Scottie
max it out to 512MB
but I recommend you give at least 384MB with the

load

Post by Scottie
your reporting,
but make sure you dont see hard paging activity

becoming a

Post by Scottie
regular event.
If you can turn off Virtual Memory ...
Disclaimer: be careful when doing this.. if your

load

Post by Scottie
ever needs more than the
amount of physical RAM you've allocated your in

trouble.

Post by Scottie
Thats why I do give 512MB contrary to other advice.

It

Post by Scottie
depends, ymmv.
I have > 1GB of physical RAM so I can do that if

you have

Post by Scottie
less than this
then you have to be concerned with how much memory

youre

Post by Scottie
leaving OS X.
No point in trying to avoid swapping in VPC if OS X

swaps

Post by Scottie
like crazy.
So if you only have 512MB total memory in OS X e.g.

, I

Post by Scottie
suggest you
get more memory.
Problem #2: Youre virtual memory settings are adjustable

(384MB-768MB).

Post by Scottie
This is a big mistake.
If youre going to use Virtual Memory then set the

min

Post by Scottie
and max value to the
same value.
This will avoid Windows constantly resizing the

swap

Post by Scottie
file up and down based
on its judgement of memory usage.
Virtual Memory is a big overhead in itself even

with a

Post by Scottie
fixed swap file size,
allowing it to adjust adds even more overhead.
Remember, in VPC the route to better performance

is to

Post by Scottie
reduce or eliminate
overhead processing thats not necessary.
If you are swapping (even if you arent) then

consider

Post by Scottie
getting a faster hard drive.
A 4200rpm drive in a pb or ibook is going to be

pretty

Post by Scottie
bad.

[Scottie]

John -- none of my recommendations would make any changes to Virtual Memory
in OS X. Changes to virtual memory that I've recommended has been
specific to the Windows virtual machine in VPC.

When I say to turn of the Windows Virtual Memory I mean to select
the option to turn it off rather than setting min and max to 0.

Rules of thumb are there either to be followed or to be broken for special
circumstances. VPC provides us special circumstances so if following the
rule of thumb doesnt work then, I do advocate breaking that rule.
(This can hardly be a "rule" as it is often a controversial setting in real
systems.)

You dont need the 64MB for debugging/dumps if you change the
settings to take no action rather than dumping.

Turning of virtual memory can be risky, havent hid that fact.
The consequences can be dire if you do so and you dont have enough memory.
Until I experience otherwise for myself my top recommendation for
memory allocated to Windows & Virtual Memory in Windows runs
contrary to more common recommendation of 256MB of memory.
My contention is, in my experience with Windows in VPC, is that
allocating 512MB of memory and turning of virtual memory completely
is more efficient for my workloads than the common recommendation.
It is a no-brainer to me that 512MB of real memory with 0 virtual memory
background overhead performs better than 256MB of real memory with
another 256MB of virtual memory(i.e. swap file).

I wouldnt recommend turning Windows virtual memory off in VPC with less
than 256MB of real memory either. My experience shows I get better
performance with 512MB than 256MB. My load requires more than 256MB
and so I'd rather give it the memory than depend on the swap file.

I avoid using Windows in VPC with anything that would need more than
512MB, but if I did need more then I would have to enable virtual memory
and I would set both the min and the max to the same value.




"John McGhie" <***@mcghie.name> wrote in message news:BE216BB7.10632%***@m
cghie.name...

Post by John McGhie
I am not sure that I understood Scottie's post. He seems to be advocating
I certainly do not know how. My information is that the Mach kernel
requires VM, and will not start or run if it's not there :-)
I also believe that some versions of OS X.3 seem to be having problems with
their virtual memory management. They seem to create multiple temporary
paging files, then "forget" to release them. It seems to be a good idea to
reboot OS X every week or so to force it to let these paging files go and
clean up its temporary storage. I would recommend that you try a cold start
of OS X. It can result in quite a speed improvement, and if it does, the
speed improvement in Windows will be a lot larger. Remember that before
Windows can do "anything", it must wait for OS X to finish paging.
In Windows, there were two tricks you could play with virtual memory to
speed it up: neither is available in Virtual PC. The first was to put the
paging file on a different physical volume from either the OS or the
applications. The second was to allocate the paging file to a partition of
its own, so it could never become fragmented.
Since the entire virtual PC is a single file on the Mac, you cannot send the
page file to a different device: I don't know whether Windows will allow you
to set the page file to the Mac drive, but I am pretty sure it won't because
the Mac drive is treated as a Network drive, and Windows requires the page
file to be on a local disk.
You could set the VM minimum and maximum sizes to the same value. You could
also set both to 0 (which disables virtual memory in Windows).
Setting the page file minimum and maximum sizes to the same value might be
worth trying. It will cause Windows to start slower than normal, because it
has to allocate the entire page file at startup. But it would then remove
the small overhead Windows requires to manage the page file size.
The rule of thumb for Windows is "set the total paging space to 2.5 times
the physical memory." There is a further consideration in Windows: there
must be at least 64 MB of virtual memory available to enable a memory dump
for debugging, and that allocation must be on the same volume as the
operating system kernel. If you have full memory dump available, the
allocation must be at least a megabyte larger than the physical RAM.
Setting the page file to 0 is an extremely risky move. If you do not have
enough physical memory, and no swap file, Windows won't boot. Because it
won't boot, you can't fix it. Your virtual PC, all of its data, and all of
its applications would now be trash: nothing to do but delete the thing and
start again. I have booted Windows XP without a swap file in 256 MB of
physical RAM on a physical PC. I would never try it with less.
Hope this helps
On 29/1/05 10:19 AM, in article

Post by b***@hotmail.com
Scotti: I tried your suggestion #2 below... I set the initial swap page
size to the recommended size, then made the MAX size the same...
I had trouble with the ONLY app I *need* to use in VPC; IE 6.0 SP1. Why
this IE? Well the Web app I hook up to requires MSFT's VM machine and
JAVA system to run. Safari (Panther) won't do it. Safari still does NOT
support 'Live Connect' well enuff for the Web app I need to work
correctly.
The app *says* it supports Sun's JAVA 1.3.1 in W2K, but I can't get
that to run with the app at all.
IE had trouble infrequently; incomplete rendering of page data ..
After I reverted BACK to initial swap, then 2X that for max, things
really took off and I had no problems in rendering the displays. Also I
run NO other MAC OS X apps except Virex 7.2 and BrickHouse firewall.
I run VPC 6.1.1/Windows2000. Mac is G4 Graphite with 704MB, a fast
(7200rpm) 80 GB dis,k and I give about HALF the real memory to VPC/W2K.
Turning off Firewall with the first config (equal initial & Max) still
showed errors in rendering. (Haven't tried disabling Virex.. should
that help?) On W2K I run McAfee's anti-virus V 8.0 and no W2K firewall
software.
So, in reference to Suggestion #2 below, what is the correct algorithm
for setting the initial swap size and the Max swap size. Use the
recommendaed size for initial and Max? (unfortunately, That is what got
me into trouble).
Your suggestion(s) made sense, but not for me.. Thanks anyhow for your
efforts.
Cheers, Jim B
PS I had NO problems in page loading speed as jac did
PPS Earlier in a Connectix forum, advice was to give about 1/3 of your
real memory to VPC.
With Panther, newer G models, lots more memory, I am not sure
that still holds, do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Post by John McGhie

Post by b***@hotmail.com
-------

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
I've got Windows set to optimize speed: control

panel>system>advanced

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
(tab)>performance, (all of them), paging file size = 384 MB,

expandable

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
to 768 MB, and so on. It may take a good minute to load a page

that's

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
on my own MacOS drive using IE. Networking is set to Virtual

Switch.

Post by Scottie

Post by jac
The allocation it gives itself in my memory continues to grow: it
started at about 290 MB and now it's up around 370 MB. What's with
that? If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know!

Problem #1: youre using Virtual Memory (Swap File) when perhaps you

dont

Post by Scottie
have to.
Virtual Memory means your system is writing to and
reading from disk
data that should be in memory - thus you will S L

O W

Post by Scottie
down a lot.
(I know most people will advise you to set RAM to

256MB

Post by Scottie
and use
virtual memory... if that works great, but it

wont

Post by Scottie
always do so, especially
if you need more than 256MB of memory with your

current

Post by Scottie
load.)
Suggestion for #1: Increase the memory you allocate to VPC. How much

do you

Post by Scottie
need?
if 370MB is as high as it gets, then you may not

need to

Post by Scottie
max it out to 512MB
but I recommend you give at least 384MB with the

load

Post by Scottie
your reporting,
but make sure you dont see hard paging activity

becoming a

Post by Scottie
regular event.
If you can turn off Virtual Memory ...
Disclaimer: be careful when doing this.. if your

load

Post by Scottie
ever needs more than the
amount of physical RAM you've allocated your in

trouble.

Post by Scottie
Thats why I do give 512MB contrary to other advice.

It

Post by Scottie
depends, ymmv.
I have > 1GB of physical RAM so I can do that if

you have

Post by Scottie
less than this
then you have to be concerned with how much memory

youre

Post by Scottie
leaving OS X.
No point in trying to avoid swapping in VPC if OS X

swaps

Post by Scottie
like crazy.
So if you only have 512MB total memory in OS X e.g.

, I

Post by Scottie
suggest you
get more memory.
Problem #2: Youre virtual memory settings are adjustable

(384MB-768MB).

Post by Scottie
This is a big mistake.
If youre going to use Virtual Memory then set the

min

Post by Scottie
and max value to the
same value.
This will avoid Windows constantly resizing the

swap

Post by Scottie
file up and down based
on its judgement of memory usage.
Virtual Memory is a big overhead in itself even

with a

Post by Scottie
fixed swap file size,
allowing it to adjust adds even more overhead.
Remember, in VPC the route to better performance

is to

Post by Scottie
reduce or eliminate
overhead processing thats not necessary.
If you are swapping (even if you arent) then

consider

Post by Scottie
getting a faster hard drive.
A 4200rpm drive in a pb or ibook is going to be

pretty

Post by Scottie
bad.

--
Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.
Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia [phone]

[jac]

Well, here's some more data. Without changing the VPC allocation, which
remains at 256 MB, I tried varying the paging file size in Windows:

1. Set Windows paging file:
Paging File size:
Initial = 450 MB
Maximum = 450 MB

Then, watched the diagnostic on OS X:
OS X: Virtual PC:
Real Memory = 297 MB,
Virtual Memory = 481 MB

Windows task mgr: (right after working)
Physical memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 57 MB,
System cache = 70 MB

Windows task mgr: (after 30 mins rest)
Physical memory= 271.7 MB
Available = 160.2 MB
System Cache = 85.7 MB

Actual speed while working:
definitely slower than before I changed the settings. -1/27/05

2. Set Windows paging file:
Paging file size:
Initial = 600 MB
Maximum size = 600 MB

OS X: Virtual PC:
Real Memory = 301 MB
Virtual Memory = 485 MB

Windows Task Manager: (after 30 mins rest)
Physical Memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 106.1 MB
System Cache = 83.1 MB

Actual speed while working:
Still pretty slow, if not slower than it was before.

After working for two hours, very, very slow:
OS X: Virtual PC:
Real Memory = 313 MB
Virtual Memory = 497 MB

Windows Task Manager (after 2 hours of heavy work):
(and IExplorer is taking 126 MB of mem)
Physical Memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 40.7 MB
System Cache = 46.6 MB

3. Increased Windows paging file allocation:
Paging file size:
Initial = 768 MB
Maximum size = 768 MB

OS X: Virtual PC:
Real Memory = 302 MB
Virtual Memory = 487 MB

Performance: after working for two hours, speed very slow, but still
tolerable.
The speed does not seem to have improved with the increased paging
file.

So, I think I was getting better performance with setting the inital
size = 384 and Max size = 768 and then rebooting every few hours. Also,
I'd turned off the firewall in Windows and I really think that it was
faster with it on. I guess I'll try messing with the VPC allocation.
Whatever I was doing within Windows seems to have had little, if any,
effect on the size of the physical and virtual memory being allocated
to VPC in OS X, or on the speed of the app.

jac.

[John McGhie]

Hi Jac:

A quick and dirty method of finding out what you need would be to set your
VPC Memory allocation to 256 MB, set your Windows paging file to "Allow
Windows to manage..." then run for a day. Hit it hard, and then go look to
see what it is actually using. The Paging File settings will be greyed out,
but it will show you what it currently has them set to.

Allowing Windows to automatically manage its paging file is a swings and
roundabouts affair. It causes Windows to do more disk I/O when reallocating
the paging file, but it doesn't do that very often. As Scottie points out,
the size of the paging file is not the biggest concern: the issue is whether
it exists or not. Both "memory" and "paging file" ultimately end up in the
same place: segments of the VPC Virtual PC disk image.

Of course, Scottie is braver than I, running without a paging file. But
then, I run PhotoPaint in VPC: PhotoPaint likes a gig or so of memory, so
I'm stuck with a paging file whatever happens :-) And yes, it's bloody
slow!

You will sometimes see a dialog box saying something like "Windows is
suffering from low memory. Windows is reallocating the paging file. During
this time, some memory requests may be denied."

If you see that, stop work and let Windows sort itself out. Then reboot it
so it cleans things up. Otherwise one or more of your open applications may
crash or hang shortly afterwards.

Cheers


On 29/1/05 6:51 PM, in article

Post by jac
Well, here's some more data. Without changing the VPC allocation, which
Initial = 450 MB
Maximum = 450 MB
Real Memory = 297 MB,
Virtual Memory = 481 MB
Windows task mgr: (right after working)
Physical memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 57 MB,
System cache = 70 MB
Windows task mgr: (after 30 mins rest)
Physical memory= 271.7 MB
Available = 160.2 MB
System Cache = 85.7 MB
definitely slower than before I changed the settings. -1/27/05
Initial = 600 MB
Maximum size = 600 MB
Real Memory = 301 MB
Virtual Memory = 485 MB
Windows Task Manager: (after 30 mins rest)
Physical Memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 106.1 MB
System Cache = 83.1 MB
Still pretty slow, if not slower than it was before.
Real Memory = 313 MB
Virtual Memory = 497 MB
(and IExplorer is taking 126 MB of mem)
Physical Memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 40.7 MB
System Cache = 46.6 MB
Initial = 768 MB
Maximum size = 768 MB
Real Memory = 302 MB
Virtual Memory = 487 MB
Performance: after working for two hours, speed very slow, but still
tolerable.
The speed does not seem to have improved with the increased paging
file.
So, I think I was getting better performance with setting the inital
size = 384 and Max size = 768 and then rebooting every few hours. Also,
I'd turned off the firewall in Windows and I really think that it was
faster with it on. I guess I'll try messing with the VPC allocation.
Whatever I was doing within Windows seems to have had little, if any,
effect on the size of the physical and virtual memory being allocated
to VPC in OS X, or on the speed of the app.
jac.

[Scottie]

John, a 7200rpm drive will speed up all that disk access.
If you'd rather not void your warranty by replacing the built-in drive you
can always use a firewire connection and get the fastest drive you can get.
PhotoPaint will still be slow in VPC but if you are disk-bound you might get
close to twice the current speed for some tasks.

Post by John McGhie
A quick and dirty method of finding out what you need would be to set your
VPC Memory allocation to 256 MB, set your Windows paging file to "Allow
Windows to manage..." then run for a day. Hit it hard, and then go look to
see what it is actually using. The Paging File settings will be greyed out,
but it will show you what it currently has them set to.
Allowing Windows to automatically manage its paging file is a swings and
roundabouts affair. It causes Windows to do more disk I/O when reallocating
the paging file, but it doesn't do that very often. As Scottie points out,
the size of the paging file is not the biggest concern: the issue is whether
it exists or not. Both "memory" and "paging file" ultimately end up in the
same place: segments of the VPC Virtual PC disk image.
Of course, Scottie is braver than I, running without a paging file. But
then, I run PhotoPaint in VPC: PhotoPaint likes a gig or so of memory, so
I'm stuck with a paging file whatever happens :-) And yes, it's bloody
slow!
You will sometimes see a dialog box saying something like "Windows is
suffering from low memory. Windows is reallocating the paging file. During
this time, some memory requests may be denied."
If you see that, stop work and let Windows sort itself out. Then reboot it
so it cleans things up. Otherwise one or more of your open applications may
crash or hang shortly afterwards.
Cheers
On 29/1/05 6:51 PM, in article

Post by jac
Well, here's some more data. Without changing the VPC allocation, which
Initial = 450 MB
Maximum = 450 MB
Real Memory = 297 MB,
Virtual Memory = 481 MB
Windows task mgr: (right after working)
Physical memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 57 MB,
System cache = 70 MB
Windows task mgr: (after 30 mins rest)
Physical memory= 271.7 MB
Available = 160.2 MB
System Cache = 85.7 MB
definitely slower than before I changed the settings. -1/27/05
Initial = 600 MB
Maximum size = 600 MB
Real Memory = 301 MB
Virtual Memory = 485 MB
Windows Task Manager: (after 30 mins rest)
Physical Memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 106.1 MB
System Cache = 83.1 MB
Still pretty slow, if not slower than it was before.
Real Memory = 313 MB
Virtual Memory = 497 MB
(and IExplorer is taking 126 MB of mem)
Physical Memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 40.7 MB
System Cache = 46.6 MB
Initial = 768 MB
Maximum size = 768 MB
Real Memory = 302 MB
Virtual Memory = 487 MB
Performance: after working for two hours, speed very slow, but still
tolerable.
The speed does not seem to have improved with the increased paging
file.
So, I think I was getting better performance with setting the inital
size = 384 and Max size = 768 and then rebooting every few hours. Also,
I'd turned off the firewall in Windows and I really think that it was
faster with it on. I guess I'll try messing with the VPC allocation.
Whatever I was doing within Windows seems to have had little, if any,
effect on the size of the physical and virtual memory being allocated
to VPC in OS X, or on the speed of the app.
jac.

--
Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.
Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia [phone]

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Scottie:

Yes, I agree that that would be a good solution.

However, I suspect that I am motherboard-bound more than disk bound on this
box. Difficult to tell, of course.

In the meantime, I have resorted to running PhotoPaint on the PC using
Remote Desktop Connection. I discover that RDC is very fast and very stable
in OS X and indistinguishable from a real PC when running across a 54g
Airport network :-) Even PhotoPaint behaves quite well in dual Zeons with 4
GB of RAM :-)

Cheers

Post by Scottie
John, a 7200rpm drive will speed up all that disk access.
If you'd rather not void your warranty by replacing the built-in drive you
can always use a firewire connection and get the fastest drive you can get.
PhotoPaint will still be slow in VPC but if you are disk-bound you might get
close to twice the current speed for some tasks.

Post by John McGhie
A quick and dirty method of finding out what you need would be to set your
VPC Memory allocation to 256 MB, set your Windows paging file to "Allow
Windows to manage..." then run for a day. Hit it hard, and then go look

to

Post by John McGhie
see what it is actually using. The Paging File settings will be greyed

out,

Post by John McGhie
but it will show you what it currently has them set to.
Allowing Windows to automatically manage its paging file is a swings and
roundabouts affair. It causes Windows to do more disk I/O when

reallocating

Post by John McGhie
the paging file, but it doesn't do that very often. As Scottie points

out,

Post by John McGhie
the size of the paging file is not the biggest concern: the issue is

whether

Post by John McGhie
it exists or not. Both "memory" and "paging file" ultimately end up in

the

Post by John McGhie
same place: segments of the VPC Virtual PC disk image.
Of course, Scottie is braver than I, running without a paging file. But
then, I run PhotoPaint in VPC: PhotoPaint likes a gig or so of memory, so
I'm stuck with a paging file whatever happens :-) And yes, it's bloody
slow!
You will sometimes see a dialog box saying something like "Windows is
suffering from low memory. Windows is reallocating the paging file.

During

Post by John McGhie
this time, some memory requests may be denied."
If you see that, stop work and let Windows sort itself out. Then reboot

it

Post by John McGhie
so it cleans things up. Otherwise one or more of your open applications

may

Post by John McGhie
crash or hang shortly afterwards.
Cheers
On 29/1/05 6:51 PM, in article

Post by jac
Well, here's some more data. Without changing the VPC allocation, which
Initial = 450 MB
Maximum = 450 MB
Real Memory = 297 MB,
Virtual Memory = 481 MB
Windows task mgr: (right after working)
Physical memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 57 MB,
System cache = 70 MB
Windows task mgr: (after 30 mins rest)
Physical memory= 271.7 MB
Available = 160.2 MB
System Cache = 85.7 MB
definitely slower than before I changed the settings. -1/27/05
Initial = 600 MB
Maximum size = 600 MB
Real Memory = 301 MB
Virtual Memory = 485 MB
Windows Task Manager: (after 30 mins rest)
Physical Memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 106.1 MB
System Cache = 83.1 MB
Still pretty slow, if not slower than it was before.
Real Memory = 313 MB
Virtual Memory = 497 MB
(and IExplorer is taking 126 MB of mem)
Physical Memory= 261.7 MB
Available = 40.7 MB
System Cache = 46.6 MB
Initial = 768 MB
Maximum size = 768 MB
Real Memory = 302 MB
Virtual Memory = 487 MB
Performance: after working for two hours, speed very slow, but still
tolerable.
The speed does not seem to have improved with the increased paging
file.
So, I think I was getting better performance with setting the inital
size = 384 and Max size = 768 and then rebooting every few hours. Also,
I'd turned off the firewall in Windows and I really think that it was
faster with it on. I guess I'll try messing with the VPC allocation.
Whatever I was doing within Windows seems to have had little, if any,
effect on the size of the physical and virtual memory being allocated
to VPC in OS X, or on the speed of the app.
jac.

--
Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.
Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia [phone]

[Scottie]

I downloaded and tested this software on my PB 867.

If I'm reading your chart right then, yes, your performance
based on these numbers is less than I'd expect.
I dont have a G5 though so I dont know if the impact of
some conversions necessary for the G5 are this significant.

However, if you are running other OS X apps at the same time
then your results are going to vary wildly.

Even on my quiet PB, two sets of runs would very a bit.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Windows and Windows services.
But you might find signifcant improvements to be found if you selectively
disabled unneeded services.
Do so with caution of course or you could lose functionality or destabilize
your system.

I tested in configurations comparing 256MB with virtual memory of 512MB,
512MB with no virtual memory, and again after uninstalling VMWare
and taking out its services.

Top performer did not surprise me was 512MB with no Windows virtual
memory. 256MB with virtual memory was up to 20% lower.
After losing the VMWare services performance went up about 10%.
Nothing special about VMWare here, its just an example of what impact
a background service can have - even when it wasnt meant to be doing
anything.

In VPC I aggressively cut back the services I have started unless I
explicitly
need them.

To spare your G5 embarassment here, I wont say how many factors greater
the little 867MHz PB reports in MFLOPs.
I've got to hope your system is capable of significantly better performance
here.

Post by jac
I downloaded PassMark 3.5 and tested my machine--a 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5
(single processor). The results are below. My machine, running VPC7.0,
is so agonizingly slow that it's difficult to get anything done
sometimes. The only thing I have running on the virtual machine is
Internet Explorer, and that's to test web pages.
I've got Windows set to optimize speed: control panel>system>advanced
(tab)>performance, (all of them), paging file size = 384 MB, expandable
to 768 MB, and so on. It may take a good minute to load a page that's
on my own MacOS drive using IE. Networking is set to Virtual Switch.
The allocation it gives itself in my memory continues to grow: it
started at about 290 MB and now it's up around 370 MB. What's with
that? If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know!
I ran the test twice, and listed the results using PassMark's archived
benchmark data.
System infomation - This Computer (from PassMark)
CPU Manufacturer: Virtual CPU
Number of CPU: 1
CPU Type: 686 Gen
CPU Speed: 532.7 MHz
Cache size: Unknown
O/S: Windows XP Professional
Total RAM: 267964416 Bytes
Available RAM: 159121408 Bytes
Video settings: 1152x864x32
VM Additions S3 Trio32/64
S3 Compatible
Drive Letter: C
Total Disk Space: 16.1 GBytes
Cluster Size: 8 KBytes
File system: FAT32
Results Produced by PassMark PerformanceTest (http://www.passmark.com)
Version: V3.5
System Information (Apple)
Machine Model: Power Mac G5
CPU Type: PowerPC G5 (3.0)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 1.8 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 1.5 GB
Bus Speed: 600 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 5.2.2f1
Test Name Proteus Gateway
VPC7 on G5 VPC7 on G5
Pentium 4
Pentium II Trial 2 Trial 1
1700
400
Maths - Addition 371.16 74.59
109.17 48.21
Maths - Subtraction 371.53 74.63
108.23 48.11
Maths - Multiplication 291.79 71.42
95.11 40.24
Maths - Division 29.39
10.23 26.05 12.22
Maths - Floating Point Addition 327.16 79.10
14.61 6.84
Maths - Floating Point Subtraction 314.43 79.28
15.84 6.84
Maths - Floating Point Multiply 320.40 75.36
15.54 6.84
Maths - Floating Point Division 42.88 11.69
14.77 7.04
Maths - Maximum MegaFLOPS 434.98 120.39
24.73 10.79
Graphics 2D - Lines 76.09
8.63 3.71 1.38
Graphics 2D - Bitmaps 75.42 45.84
18.30 8.44
Graphics 2D - Shapes 16.55 3.44
1.67 0.70
Graphics 3D - Many Worlds 346.50 226.36
2.40 1.77
Memory - Allocate small block 156.69 70.75
93.73 43.30
Memory - Read cached 246.73 53.12
66.98 27.39
Memory - Read uncached 241.78 42.04
42.38 18.95
Memory - Write 179.52 32.00
38.82 16.88
Disk - Sequential Read 13.79 8.48
10.91 9.89
Disk - Sequential Write 69.88 12.51
18.56 11.42
Disk - Random Seek + RW 5.41 5.44
2.20 2.53
MMX - Addition 357.44 137.31
154.59 72.08
MMX - Subtraction 356.20 136.95
160.48 68.85
MMX - Multiply 347.72 135.87
115.76 54.35
MMX - SSE/3DNow! 749.49 0.00
- -
Maths mark 248.42 59.20
42.07 18.57
2D Graphics mark 224.09 77.22
31.58 14.02
Memory Mark 198.55 47.64
58.24 25.65
Disk mark 235.18 69.78
83.59 62.93
3D Graphics mark 235.62 153.93
1.64 1.20
MMX Mark 230.43 69.59
73.10 33.13
PassMark Rating 229.32 51.96
49.98 28.15

[Charley Haney]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
than this.
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

hi
c5c2nx3e5mlphcmg
good luck

Posted via http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com - Brought to you by Business Information Technology Shop - http://www.bitshop.com

[Charley Haney]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
than this.
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

hi
c5c2nx3e5mlphcmg
good luck

Posted via http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com - Brought to you by Business Information Technology Shop - http://www.bitshop.com

[Carmela Rivers]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
than this.
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

hi
c5c2nx3e5mlphcmg
good luck

Posted via http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com - Brought to you by Business Information Technology Shop - http://www.bitshop.com

[Carmela Rivers]

Post by pkazmercyk
I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
than this.
I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

hi
c5c2nx3e5mlphcmg
good luck

Posted via http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com - Brought to you by Business Information Technology Shop - http://www.bitshop.com