Is XP slow?

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by mulze22, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Location:
    Up Nort
    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Steve1496

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #2
    XP will run the same speed it would on a similarly speced PC, if you use dual boot.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    Kingsly

    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #4
    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.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Location:
    Up Nort
  6. macrumors 68040

    Kingsly

    #6
    Wel... right now Q doesn't work for me at all... time will tell.
     
  7. macrumors 601

    liketom

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    Location:
    Lincoln,UK
    #7
    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
     
  8. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    #8
    XP super quick!!!

    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
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #9

    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.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    #10
    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
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #12
    XP is fast, EXCEPT for video. o.o

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

    Plus the UI is slower than hell.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Location:
    AU
    #13
    Man I rememeber (sic) when 128k was high to have
     
  14. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #14
    You're showing your age... :D
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #15
    I remember when no one had 1 bit.
     
  16. macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #16
    That's due in full to the Intel emulation. Running it natively on an Intel chip will be much faster.
     
  17. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    #18
    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?
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    #19


    If you are clicking the start button and the PC Doesn't start I am also having that prob!:mad: :(
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    Kingsly

    #20
    Fixed it. I had to d/l the latest unstable build. Its a UB so it works.
    Actually, Its quite fast considering its emulation.
    Why am I not surprised? :)
     
  21. macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #21
    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:
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    #22
    I can answer that......

    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.
     
  23. war
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    #23
    many reasons to put XP on there

    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).
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    #24
    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
     

Share This Page