![]() These percentages jibe with the Virtual PC benchmarks I found. The emulated video hardware is also substantially slower than a native device, but is typically less of a bottleneck in real world usage (well, until Longhorn, but let's not go there right now). Oddly, video performance is not mentioned there. ![]() If these guys start paging to disk, you'll be in a world of hurt. This also means you never, ever want to starve your VMs for memory. I use dynamically expanding disk images for flexibility, but it might be worth experimenting with fixed-size disk images, dedicating a seperate drive to VPC, or even the oddball physical drive mapping mode (see the VirtualPC FAQ) to get around that bottleneck. Some interesting comments on performance targets:Įvidently, emulated disk performance is terrible. Scott Hanselman has some great Virtual PC performance tips direct from Microsoft. ![]() Plan for at least two hours for any OS install, and possibly many more.Įven if you have fire-breathing PC hardware- and any self-respecting developer should, because time is money, and PCs are cheap these days- you'll be disappointed with Virtual PC performance. Although performance is decent once you get the OS up and running, the OS installs themselves can be downright brutal. This is the price we pay for the flexibility of virtualized hardware. The biggest bugaboo is, of course, performance. If you start delving into VPC, I highly recommend reading through the excellent Virtual PC FAQ. ![]() Since the last time I discussed VPC, Microsoft released the essential Virtual PC 2004 Service Pack 1, which addresses a lot of outstanding issues, particularly compatibility with SP2 and newer AMD/Intel processors. I'm working with Microsoft's Virtual PC 2004 again. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |