windows 7 vm running very slowly

[Matt26]

i'm running a windows 7 ultimate virtualbox vm under ubuntu 12.04 32bit. both windows 7 vm and ubuntu host have all of the latest updates applied.

i've noticed that the vm runs really slow- for example, it takes an usually long time for the "Starting Windows" splash screen to load before the log in screen appears, and there are very noticeable delays when opening pretty much anything from the desktop- for example, Control panel or Internet Explorer.

i haven't encountered any errors in windows so far, is just seems to be a performance issue.

i've run the same version of windows 7 (same install disc) on the same computer in the past (not as a vm) and it ran smoothly, so i'm not sure what to check.

does anyone know what might be causing this?

thanks!

[SeijiSensei]

How much memory is allocated to the VM? Anything less than a gigabyte is likely to require the Windows OS to do a lot of swapping to the disk. You'll need to assign even more memory to the VM if you want to have a lot of Windows applications open simultaneously. I generally start with 1.5 GB if I can afford it.

Also what kind of processor does this machine have? Remember that the CPU will be running all of Linux and all of Windows.

In general, though, I'd start with the memory allocation.

[CharlesA]

+1 to memory.

[Dlambert]

If you have a multi-core cpu you can allocate 2 or more cores to the vm.

[teward]

i'm running a windows 7 ultimate virtualbox vm under ubuntu 12.04 32bit. both windows 7 vm and ubuntu host have all of the latest updates applied.

i've noticed that the vm runs really slow- for example, it takes an usually long time for the "Starting Windows" splash screen to load before the log in screen appears, and there are very noticeable delays when opening pretty much anything from the desktop- for example, Control panel or Internet Explorer.

i haven't encountered any errors in windows so far, is just seems to be a performance issue.

i've run the same version of windows 7 (same install disc) on the same computer in the past (not as a vm) and it ran smoothly, so i'm not sure what to check.

does anyone know what might be causing this?

thanks!

Put more memory allocation to the VM (at least 512MB if you can, 1GB recommended). Also if you have a multi-core processor, give the VM more cores o work with.

[Matt26]

i'm using older hardware (intel pentium 4 3ghz) with 2GB ddr ram (maximum supported).

i have 890mb of ram allocated to the vm at the moment- i had 1gb allocated with the same performance issues, and i was seeing a warning in virtualbox about allocating more than half of the host's memory to the vm, so i dropped it down to 890mb.

i'm not running any applications in ubuntu either, other than firefox with one tab open. i also don't have any applications open in windows while the vm is running.

is this hardware setup too old to be running the vm without these delays/performance issues?

thanks!

[drmrgd]

i'm using older hardware (intel pentium 4 3ghz) with 2GB ddr ram (maximum supported).

i have 890mb of ram allocated to the vm at the moment- i had 1gb allocated with the same performance issues, and i was seeing a warning in virtualbox about allocating more than half of the host's memory to the vm, so i dropped it down to 890mb.

i'm not running any applications in ubuntu either, other than firefox with one tab open. i also don't have any applications open in windows while the vm is running.

is this hardware setup too old to be running the vm without these delays/performance issues?

thanks!

This actually may be your problem right here. I've found that on my old P4 chipset, VT-x is not supported (i.e. I can't enable it in BIOS). Running an VM using any software (Virtual Box or VMware Player), I found that no matter how much RAM I allocated, it ran really sluggishly for me too. You may not be able to get very good performance out of your CPU for virtualization (although I'm no expert on the matter!).

[QIII]

VT-x being absent might keep it from running altogether, so that may or may not be it.

The later Pentiums had dual threading, and that may be just enough to assign a "core" to the VM. But it would certainly cause a lot of head-bumping inside the CPU. The low memory is probably on the lower limits of viability for Win 7, too.

If that is on a Socket 775 motherboard and the specs on your motherboard allow it, you might be able to find a low-wattage used Core 2 Duo or Pentium D at a second-hand computer parts reseller for US$25 or US$35. That would be a pretty cheap upgrade that might not break the bank.

[drmrgd]

VT-x being absent would probably keep it from running altogether, so that may or may not be it.

The later Pentiums had dual threading, and that may be just enough to assign a "core" to the VM. But it would certainly cause a lot of head-bumping inside the CPU. The low memory is probably on the lower limits of viability for Win 7, too.

If that is on a Socket 775 motherboard and the specs on your motherboard allow it, you might be able to find a low-wattage used Core 2 Duo or Pentium D at a second-hand computer parts reseller for US$25 or US$35. That would be a pretty cheap upgrade that might not break the bank.

Hmmm...that's a really interesting thing to look into. I believe my CPU was just before multicores really started taking off and was one of the first HT processors. That probably answers your question of virtualization sine I know for sure I don't have VT-x support. The OP might have the same CPU as I do since I think mine is clocked at 3.2 GHz too (not at home at the moment and can't check). But, anyway, yeah....if I could pick up something like that for <$50, that might be pretty sweet!

[QIII]

Go with the Core 2 Duo if you can find one. The Pentium D architecture made them run really hot (something on the order of 130 watts!), so a good cooler would probably be a good idea. That would add to the cost of the upgrade.

Anyway, back to the OP's question -- that would be my suggestion if you can swing it. But don't do it unless your motherboard supports VT-x or you will have wasted your money.