Sign in
 
HomeWindows 8Windows 7Windows VistaWindows XPMDOPWindows IntuneLibraryForums
Windows Client >
> 
> 
Windows XP Mode poor performance

Answered Windows XP Mode poor performance

  • Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:03 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    The Windows XP Mode is very slow on our test machine.  It is significantly slower than running the same application in a Virtual PC on VISTA.  The start-up time for an application is several minutes, far too slow to be useful.  While the tighter integration with Windows 7 is welcome, the slow performance is a significant problem.

    Our primary need for XP mode is to allow support for applications that need Visual Studio 6.0  While Visual Studio 6.0 is unsupported on VISTA, we have been able to successfully install and utilize it.  It does not work at all on Wondows 7.
     

All Replies

  • Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:41 PM
    Moderator
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Hi,

    Can you please share you machine configuration. Also are you seeing the delay only in the start up of the application installed in the VM OR even the application to be slow. Is it slow on response.?

    Thanks, Vrijesh Kothari **** This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. You assume all risk for your use.
     
  • Saturday, May 23, 2009 6:44 AM
     
     Proposed
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Completely agree. XP Mode on Windows 7 RC-1 is utterly useless. Dell Precision M6300 notebook, Intel T7500 processor with VT extensions (yes, enabled), 320GB 7,200rpm drive, 4GB of RAM and the lowest rated performance score in Windows 7 is 5.5, which is the 3D graphics... plenty of horsepower for adequate performance across the board and Win7 itself performs admirably.

    In XP Mode, however, Simply copying files, when the little animation has the paper flying across, it hitches four times as it goes across. That speaks to serious virtualization issues. Installing XP updates took over 90 minutes to complete with nothing else running under Win7. I haven't even installed a single application in either environment yet and it's unusable. I've given XP Mode 1GB of RAM and left all other defaults in place.

    VMWare wins... again. Only it will be Windows 7 in the virtual environment and XP as the host. I was hoping I could really do some solid testing and make some decisions on Win7 purchase/deployment before budget time later this year. Alas, it appears that Win7 will not make 2010 because XP Mode, which could have been the piece that allowed us to actually move on from XP as the primary OS, is not up to par. Given that Win7 is at RC stage and there won't be any additional public releases, most likely, I suspect that XP Mode pieces will be treated the same way. We can't budget for Microsoft's over-reaching promises and the gaps we're seeing in real use.

    The solution? Fix it quickly and get incremental releases out the door so we can test for real *before* Win7 releases. Vista isn't even allowed in the building so Win7 is the way out of XP, but we do need compatibility without more spend on the OS upgrade... much like a lot of others. Fiscal year starts Oct 1, budgets worked up August and September... do the math. So far, 7 = 0
    • Proposed As Answer by mfalk118 Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:35 AM
    •  
     
  • Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:55 PM
     
     Proposed
    Sign In to Vote
    1
    There is one thing right off the bat that I can think of that will significantly improve the boot up time for Virtual XP.  You can set up the VM to not automatically integrate and then when after the VM is up and running you can always enable integration.

    Another way is to increase the memory allotment.  With XPVM completely shutdown right-click on the VM in the Virtual Machines folder and increase the memory.  If you're using 32-bit Windows 7 as the host you could go safely up 2GB just as long as you have nothing else running on the host.  If you're using 64-bit Windows 7 as the host, naturally you will have TONS more available depending on how much memory you have installed on the system.

    There is still another thing, but I will save that for later.  I'm still researching the matter and I'm not totally sure if it will work.
    GA P35 DQ6 Mb, Intel Wolfdale 8600 3.33Ghz C2D CPU., 4x2Gb Mushkin DDR2 1066 PC2 8500 Ascents Memory Mods., PNY-nVidia GE Force 8800 GTS (640MB), 4-Western Digital Caviar SATA(2) HDD's (internal), 1 EIDE-USB External; Hauppauge PVR 1600 TV tuner, Dual Monitor: (1) Standard up top, (1) WideScreen below; Altec Lansign Speakers...
     
  • Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:10 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Yes XP mode for windows 7 is bad. Very bad.

    You can not use xp mode on windows 7 the same way as use windows XP professional, with games e.g crysis, fallout, duke nukem 3D. It it not supported.

    Dokumens at windows 7 is not the same as xp mode for windows 7.

    Only 256 mb of 8 GB memory is used? Why not use 20% off memory (RAM) in computer?

    The mini laptops with XP have more than 4X faster than windows 7 with xp mode, with games and softwares in use.

    Low screen resolution (16 bits)
    • Edited by LMH1 Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:18 PM
    •  
     
  • Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:19 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Well, even non-graphics applications can be painfully slow under VPC.  I have a Dymo label application that I can't run because there are no 64 bit drivers for my old CoStar printer.  I thought, "what a perfect place to use VPC".  The application installed and the drivers installed, that went pretty well.  When I start the application, it takes it 30-40 seconds to initialize.  During that time, there is no CPU usage, so I don't have any idea what it's doing.  Once it gets running, sluggish doesn't even begin to cover it, it's painful!  It does work, but it's like doing remote console over a dial-up connection! 

    Naturally, on XP here, it opens in a flash and runs as I would expect a small label application to run.

    I have given VPC 512mb of memory, which should be more than enough to open a small application.  Other operations seem to take a long time as well.  I don't know if this is just because this is running on Win7-64, or what.  Since all of this stuff runs in native mode over on the Win7-32 machine, I haven't tried it there.

    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:53 AM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    I have try to set memory size to 3 GB it look that it is a lot better than 256 MB of ram in xp mode.

    But i have 8 GB of ram in my computer, so it will help.

    But performance in games in XP mode is very bad, it is nearly to linux with wine HQ. To play news games. Or play with a bad intel graphic card.
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:21 AM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    The XP virtual machine defaults to just 256 MB of RAM; anyone who remebers the old days when XP was first released knows that while 256 MB of RAM may have been the "Minimum Suggested Configuration", it was hopeless in real life.  And now we can see that it is hopeless in virtual life as well.

    Kick the assigned memory up to at least 512 MB (preferably 1 GB) and see the difference.
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:26 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    I can't imagine giving Virtual-XT more than 512mb would materially affect the performance I'm getting in my example.  I have 6gig on that machine, so I cranked it up to a gig, no change in the behavior, which is what I expected.
    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:16 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0

    I would be curious to know if the app response is better/worse if instead of starting the application directly (which it sounds as though you are doing), you open a Virtual XP window and then run the app within that window.

    My testing with Virtual XP so far has been limited to the single app which I currently have need of, a 16-bit DEC terminal emulator.  I open an IPSEC VPN tunnel in Windows 7/64, open a Virtual XP window, and run the app within.  The emulator connects to the remote host by telneting over the VPN tunnel.  I find the response excellent; nearly the same as running in a native XP environment. 

    Windows 7/64 is running on a 2.6 GHz AMD Phenom II X2 (Quad Core) CPU with 8 GB of RAM.  The virtual machine has 512 MB of RAM assigned to it.

     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:30 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Actually, it appears just the opposite.  It seems to work better when I start it directly than when I open Virtual XP and run it in the VM.  I have to spend a bit more time with all of this to be sure of what is what. :-) 
    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:41 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Are you running a multi-core CPU?  I suppose it may make a difference...
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:48 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Are you running a multi-core CPU?  I suppose it may make a difference...

    I have a quad-core Q9550 with 6gig of memory and Windows 7 64-bit.
    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:52 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Are you running a multi-core CPU?  I suppose it may make a difference...

    I have a quad-core Q9550 with 6gig of memory and Windows 7 64-bit.
    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

    Odd.  Is the Dymo app downloadable for free?  If so, I would be happy to make some time to install and test (to the extent possible without having the actual printer).
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    They have a newer version on the site, but I have to use the one that still functions with my old Costar LabelWriter, so it may not be available.

    I'm probably going to keep the label writing function on the 32 bit machine to solve this issue until that printer kicks the bucket.  It's lasted for years, I keep looking at new ones, but since it's still working fine, I can't really justify spending the money. :-)
    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:08 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Oddly enough, I have a brand-new, still in the box, CoStar "LabelWriter - ASCII" sitting under my desk as I type this.  It's something we bought years (10? 12?) ago and then never used for the intended purpose.

    I can't bear the thought of throwing it out; considered taking it home, but there are no serial ports on my PC and I don't feel like buying one even though it wouldn't cost more than $20 or so.  I've got an older SIIG PCI card here which *might* work, but I have been unable to find out if drivers are available for Vista/64 let alone Windows 7/64.

    Which raises another question, by the way:  What interface does your CoStar printer use?  If it is a serial printer (or even parallel), perhaps that has something to do with poor performance in Virtual XP?  Maybe Virtual XP is not optimized for interfacing with these older ports??
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:20 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Mine indeed uses a serial port.  However, I have it running on an Intel NetPort Express Pro print server.  Since this is not an issue with Vista, XP-Pro, or even Windows 7 32 bit, I can't imagine why it would be an issue with Virtual XP.  Of course, given that I'm not awed by the performance of other applications in Virtual XP either, maybe that's all I can expect.

    Being on a server, I have the application installed on several machines so we can all share the printer.  That has worked flawelessly until the 64 bit version of Win7 came along.  I abandoned the 64 bit version of Vista for similar driver issue, I may yet go that route here.  I hate to do that, as I can then only use 4gigs of memory, and after the reserved areas are carved out for my MB, it's only a bit over 3gigs!
    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:01 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Mine works fast and stable.

    I didn't use the XP mode image provided by MSFT website. I created my own configuration with a little bit more RAM allocated (512M) and installed the XP with SP3 from my MSDN subscription disk. Took 100 seconds from completely off to showing up the desktop with integration features on.

    Hardware is ThinkPad T60, Intel Core 2 T7200 (2.0GHz), 4GB RAM, WD 7200 RPM HDD.
     
  • Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:34 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    I have an XP-Home VM that I created, but it has the same issues as the XP-Pro version supplied for Windows 7.  I also give them 512mb to run.
    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
     
  • Friday, May 29, 2009 4:57 AM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    XP mode sucks in windows 7.  I once used Virtual PC in windows vista for xp with no problem and good performance.  But XP mode in 7 can't do anything.  Has anyone tried playing a Youtube video?  It cannot be done except at 5fps and drop every frame in between.  And then I can't get my old .vhd hard drives to work in windows 7 XP mode.  I wish I could install Virtual machine 2004 again cause this is not good by any means.  

    System specs:
    Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 3.25GHz -- 7.3
    Memory (RAM) 6.00 GB ------------------------------------------- 7.3
    Graphics ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series --------------------------- 6.7
    Gaming graphics 3327 MB Total available graphics memory -- 6.7
    Primary hard disk 40GB Free (80GB Total) --------------------- 5.9
     
  • Friday, May 29, 2009 6:29 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Yeah the Virtual XP mode is not good at all. I configured my VM with a gig of RAM and it still runs slow. It takes on average 2-3 minutes to start the machine from power down, apps run pretty much fine, it is just the startup and shutdown that takes a good while. In comparison I can make a Hyper-V VM with 256mb of RAM and it runs fine. For something that is supposed to take advantage of Hardware assisted virtualization it does not do a good job. You would figure that requiring you to have VT and XD enabled it would help with performance.

    I hope that this poor performance is just because this is a beta (hopefully an early one), and the next RC or CTP will improve this.
     
  • Friday, May 29, 2009 7:00 PM
     
     Proposed
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    I hope that this poor performance is just because this is a beta (hopefully an early one), and the next RC or CTP will improve this.
    I'm assuming this is just an idle dream, this is supposed to be "close" to the release product, right?
    MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
    • Proposed As Answer by David Holland Wednesday, January 05, 2011 1:46 PM
    •  
     
  • Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:44 PM
    Moderator
     
     Answered
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Thanks All. We hear your feedback, and looking at the improvements.

    Nitin
     
  • Friday, August 14, 2009 6:42 AM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    There are two huge performance issues with mapped drive letters, either through the integration components or if there is high network volume to a share on the host machine.

    For the first case, if using a integration components / RDP hosted drive letter (\\tsclient\c for example,) all writes apparently occur instantly and are queued up indefinitely. I used the SQLIO tool to test this, and it reported thousands of IOs per second, but the IOs were not yet complete. This causes unforeseen issues in applications that do a lot of reading and writing, because they don't properly throttle themselves, and the queue length grows to whatever limit there is. I don't know what happens if you keep doing this, but I do know the application becomes unresponsive.

    For the second case, if using a mapped drive letter or network share on the host (\\host\c for example,) Process Monitor shows an ENORMOUS amount of activity occurring at a very very slow rate. It looks like literally thousands of small packets are sent and these registry keys are hit thousands of times.

    To view a folder with a few hundred files in it, I see this happen in Process Monitor:

    12:37:05.4939719 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 556
    12:37:05.4939817 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 28
    12:37:05.4939920 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 556
    12:37:05.4939965 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 28
    12:37:05.5945671 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 34
    12:37:05.5945769 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 34
    12:37:05.6948329 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 382
    12:37:05.6948413 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 79
    12:37:05.6948503 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 382
    12:37:05.6948539 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 79
    12:37:05.9953449 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 361
    12:37:05.9953546 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 20
    12:37:05.9953647 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 361
    12:37:05.9953689 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 20
    12:37:06.2357659 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 387
    12:37:06.2357760 AM vmsrvc.exe 2788 TCP Receive localhost:1179 -> localhost:3389 SUCCESS Length: 39
    12:37:06.2357869 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 387
    12:37:06.2357913 AM svchost.exe 748 TCP Send localhost:3389 -> localhost:1179 SUCCESS Length: 39
    12:37:06.2548102 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Linkage\Bind SUCCESS Type: REG_MULTI_SZ, Length: 132, Data: \Device\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}, \Device\NdisWanIp
    12:37:06.2548389 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Linkage\Bind SUCCESS Type: REG_MULTI_SZ, Length: 132, Data: \Device\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}, \Device\NdisWanIp
    12:37:06.2550429 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegOpenKey HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE} SUCCESS Desired Access: Read
    12:37:06.2550892 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}\EnableDHCP SUCCESS Type: REG_DWORD, Length: 4, Data: 0
    12:37:06.2551163 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}\DhcpServer SUCCESS Type: REG_SZ, Length: 32, Data: 255.255.255.255
    12:37:06.2551446 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}\DhcpServer SUCCESS Type: REG_SZ, Length: 32, Data: 255.255.255.255
    12:37:06.2551884 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegCloseKey HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE} SUCCESS
    12:37:06.2553004 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Linkage\Bind SUCCESS Type: REG_MULTI_SZ, Length: 132, Data: \Device\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}, \Device\NdisWanIp
    12:37:06.2553289 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Linkage\Bind SUCCESS Type: REG_MULTI_SZ, Length: 132, Data: \Device\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}, \Device\NdisWanIp
    12:37:06.2555075 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegOpenKey HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE} SUCCESS Desired Access: Read
    12:37:06.2555477 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}\EnableDHCP SUCCESS Type: REG_DWORD, Length: 4, Data: 0
    12:37:06.2555745 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}\DhcpServer SUCCESS Type: REG_SZ, Length: 32, Data: 255.255.255.255
    12:37:06.2556245 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegQueryValue HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE}\DhcpServer SUCCESS Type: REG_SZ, Length: 32, Data: 255.255.255.255
    12:37:06.2556672 AM Explorer.EXE 1092 RegCloseKey HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{92A98865-1764-488F-B22B-280EC7AE28DE} SUCCESS

    And it happens over and over and over and over again, thousands of times before the folder comes up.

    The result is literally MILLONS of packets being sent between the host and the client in order to do something as simple as navigate a few network folders. Let me repeat that, millions of packets and registry reads to merely navigate network shared folders.
     
  • Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:59 AM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    I would like to ask about video performance. Is it possable to improve my video performace through driver loading in V. XP i think it would help performance greatly

    Best regards
    grumpy old biker
     
  • Saturday, August 22, 2009 4:27 AM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    I have the RTM of Windows 7 Ultimate at my office and I was anxious to try out the Windows XP mode.   The installer was absolutely simply...and I thought...this is great and will be an awesome tool for people to use.

    Then I started up the VM.   I thought that something had actually crashed on my box as the dialog box came up, but nothing seemed to be happening.  It took about 60 seconds for Windows XP to appear on my desktop.   So, I just shut everything down, rebooted the computer and tried again.    And this time, it was 56 seconds from the time I started it until I had a desktop.

    So, I thought.....well maybe my other virtualization products are around the same time and I'm just imagining it's slow.   Therefore, I loaded VirtualBox 3.0.4 onto my machine and pulled out my slipstreamed Windows XP SP3 iso and installed a new VM.   Took about 10 minutes to complete the install.   Fired up the Virtual Box Windows XP SP3 vm and it was at the desktop in 25 seconds.   That was more like it.  And I like the fact that it shows the POST, shows the XP boot screens...really shows the end user that this is a full bore machine...just running in a window.   Unlike Windows XP mode....that just shows a status bar and then nothing for a bit before the desktop appears.

    Overall, I think for those not familiar with virtualization technology...this product and implementation is going to be pretty remarkable for those people.  However, for those of us with previous VM experience, the speed and performance makes the VM pretty much useless.    And to make matters worse, the purchase of Windows 7 Pro, Enterprise or Ultimate didn't exactly provide me with licensed copy of XP to use....it provided me with a very slow performing implementation that cannot easily be transferred into another vm suite with much better performance.   So, I'm a bit disappointed.  

    But please, keep working on this.  It's a very positive step and a good example of the wonders of Virtual Machines for those unfamiliar with the technology.


    Edit:  for those wondering about my machine specs
     Asus P5QL-Pro mobo with Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3.0Ghz, 4GB of RAM, 500GB WD Caviar Blue Drive.

     For my VM's, each was configured with 512MB of RAM.

     
  • Monday, August 31, 2009 9:01 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    Look people this is in RC mode and they are still working things out I am hoping they improve the videosettings otherwise I will have to do what pparks1 is doing.
     
  • Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:48 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    I have a Asus P5QL Pro and intel quad core Q9550 I having problems with windows 7  64-bit locking up, any fixes you guys might have
     
  • Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:30 PM
     
     
    Sign In to Vote
    0
    When running Virtual PC?
    Try updating your BIOS, network card drivers and video card drivers, in that order.