PDA

View Full Version : Is XP slow?




mulze22
Mar 17, 2006, 12:23 PM
If you run an emulation of XP on a mac it is incerdibly slow but I was wondering how is the speed of XP on an intel machine. Now that this has happened I am thinking about getting a mac mini.



Steve1496
Mar 17, 2006, 12:28 PM
XP will run the same speed it would on a similarly speced PC, if you use dual boot.

Kingsly
Mar 17, 2006, 12:55 PM
And if virtualization is used (i.e VPC, Q) it will run slightly below full speed, because the comp is still doing the OSX thing.

plinden
Mar 17, 2006, 01:07 PM
And if virtualization is used (i.e VPC, Q) it will run slightly below full speed, because the comp is still doing the OSX thing.
We have no idea how it will run in VPC since it's not available for Intel Macs yet, and with Q it's considerably slower, but they are making great progress. We'll just have to wait and see what their final release shows.

mulze22
Mar 17, 2006, 05:57 PM
Cool. Thanks for the info guys.

Kingsly
Mar 17, 2006, 07:08 PM
Wel... right now Q doesn't work for me at all... time will tell.

liketom
Mar 18, 2006, 05:01 AM
XP Pro is working fast on my Mac Mini Solo then my Sony Vaio laptop celeron 1.5

but you all know that anyway :D

vtmaestro
Mar 19, 2006, 09:35 PM
I did the install on my new mac mini that has only 512 Megs of ram. The install of both operating systems were both pretty long due to the limited amount of memory. Xp is running lighting fast!!!! now that everything is installed. I hate to say it but, XP is running faster than OSX. I'm going to put more memory in this weekend, should help out OSX. I still can't believe that dual boot is finally a reality! I purchased my system on March 18 and found out about dual boot later that night. The next day I do the installs and it is like I have TWO new computers!!!!!


vtmaestro

Timepass
Mar 19, 2006, 10:17 PM
I did the install on my new mac mini that has only 512 Megs of ram. The install of both operating systems were both pretty long due to the limited amount of memory. Xp is running lighting fast!!!! now that everything is installed. I hate to say it but, XP is running faster than OSX. I'm going to put more memory in this weekend, should help out OSX. I still can't believe that dual boot is finally a reality! I purchased my system on March 18 and found out about dual boot later that night. The next day I do the installs and it is like I have TWO new computers!!!!!


vtmaestro


sounds bad but the truth is OSX is a ram hog compared to XP. A general rule that can be used is an XP computer will run just as well as an OSX computer with 2 times the amount of ram.
For example 256 on XP is about 512 in OSX. 512 on XP is about a gig on OSX. It a general rule but you get the idea.

asencif
Mar 19, 2006, 10:24 PM
sounds bad but the truth is OSX is a ram hog compared to XP. A general rule that can be used is an XP computer will run just as well as an OSX computer with 2 times the amount of ram.
For example 256 on XP is about 512 in OSX. 512 on XP is about a gig on OSX. It a general rule but you get the idea.

Yeah and some are saying Vista will be a RAM hog too; more than Mac OS X even. So the rule for that might be 512MB in Mac OS X is 1GB in Vista...:D

Timepass
Mar 19, 2006, 10:45 PM
Yeah and some are saying Vista will be a RAM hog too; more than Mac OS X even. So the rule for that might be 512MB in Mac OS X is 1GB in Vista...:D

true the other case and point is xp is 5 years old. 10.4 is currently less than a year old. But OSX even when it came out was made for newer systems than XP and XP I believe could turn down it eye candy and other little things to be able to handle it on older systems.

The eye candy is a huge part of the killer for ram. But then again I think the standard base line for ram now should be a gig. min being 512.

Man I rememeber when 128 was high to have.

ReanimationLP
Mar 19, 2006, 10:48 PM
XP is fast, EXCEPT for video. o.o

Vista is a ********** huge *** RAM hog. Trust me. :mad:

Plus the UI is slower than hell.

kiwi-in-uk
Mar 19, 2006, 11:43 PM
Man I rememeber when 128 was high to have.
Man I rememeber (sic) when 128k was high to have

MacsRgr8
Mar 20, 2006, 03:16 AM
Man I rememeber (sic) when 128k was high to have

You're showing your age... :D

kalisphoenix
Mar 20, 2006, 11:42 AM
Man I rememeber (sic) when 128k was high to have

I remember when no one had 1 bit.

ChrisBrightwell
Mar 20, 2006, 11:44 AM
If you run an emulation of XP on a mac it is incerdibly slow [...].That's due in full to the Intel emulation. Running it natively on an Intel chip will be much faster.

ChrisA
Mar 20, 2006, 12:03 PM
If you run an emulation of XP on a mac it is incerdibly slow but I was wondering how is the speed of XP on an intel machine. Now that this has happened I am thinking about getting a mac mini.

It depends on the hardware.

My wife as a Sony 2.1 Ghz notebook PC and I'd say it was slower then my 1.2Ghz Mac Mni for just simple things like web surfing and iTunes. This is a somewhat fair comparison because both computers use slower notebook type diskss but also unfair because the Sony has only 512MB RAM installed while the Mini has 1GB. The mini was quite slow before the RAM upgrade. I suspect the Sony would run better with more RAM.

ethen
Mar 20, 2006, 12:06 PM
obviously emulation will never be the same speed as navite host os, but for light work it would do just fine, i really wonder when vpc will be available for mactel, anyone knows estimated date on vpc intel mac?

imacintel
Mar 23, 2006, 06:52 PM
Wel... right now Q doesn't work for me at all... time will tell.



If you are clicking the start button and the PC Doesn't start I am also having that prob!:mad: :(

Kingsly
Mar 23, 2006, 08:09 PM
If you are clicking the start button and the PC Doesn't start I am also having that prob!:mad: :(
Fixed it. I had to d/l the latest unstable build. Its a UB so it works.
Actually, Its quite fast considering its emulation.
Vista is a ********** huge *** RAM hog. Trust me. :mad:

Plus the UI is slower than hell.
Why am I not surprised? :)

FF_productions
Mar 23, 2006, 08:16 PM
The question that comes that boggles the mind is how people spend all this money for a mac just to run xp on it...:mad:

mike2q
Mar 23, 2006, 10:47 PM
The reason you are reading about people spending all that money on a Mac to install windows is because everyone who has been looking at Macs but couldn’t justify it because they need PC software can now enjoy both. From this point out the Mac is no longer for just Mac fanatics, it can be enjoyed by everyone. I suspect that was the plan all along by Mr. Jobs. I can promise there will be more and more people who have never owned a Mac before stoked that they can run all there old pc games and other software they've been collecting over the years on their new machines. I know I'm excited. The thing I don't quite get is why all the Mac enthusiasts are upset about their computer of choice becoming more popular.

war
Mar 24, 2006, 11:29 AM
I am no fan of windows XP but I have some really old games that I just love such as SimCity 2000 and SimTower that I can't run on the mac side of things. However, I can run them on the XP side of it. I don't care about it being windows so much as being able to run some software that I don't have a mac version to use. It's not about having windows. It is about being able to run next to all software available (especially once we get the windows video driver figured out).

macfan881
Mar 25, 2006, 08:24 PM
how is running games on them mainly mmos im thinkin bout getin a mac mini and im curently playing matrix online im just wondering if its the same speed too