Virtualbox faster??? Im not sure why.

[jrharvey]

I know this is a random post but I have a dual boot with Ubuntu and vista. I also use virtual box to run windows xp from inside Ubuntu. Anyways I noticed that when i start Adobe illustrator and photoshop at the same time in vista it takes a while to load everything (about 35 seconds). Sometimes ill go to the bathroom or get something to drink. Now the crazy part is I tested the time in virtualbox and it only takes 10 seconds to completely load both programs. This is mind boggling!!! How can a virtual machine run faster than natively. It also takes about 1/4 of the time to boot up windows from virtualbox.

[.nedberg]

How can a virtual machine run faster than natively.

Vista == bloat!

[jrharvey]

So basically you are saying that its the fact that i am running vista natively and not that it is virtualbox. That makes sense i guess. Well that sucks.

[fjgaude]

XP is faster than Vista, yes. <smile>

[kanem]

I run Mathematica in XP in Virtualbox and on a native partition with XP on it. Mathematica has a set of benchmarking tests for your computer. The one on Virtualbox XP actually performs better than the one on the native XP.

I see this with two computers; my laptop and my work desktop.

I chalk it up to extra bloatware that came with the computers that I didn't manage to get rid of, or maybe even some malware. Someone else used my work computer for a year before I got it. For the Virtualbox installations I used a bare XP installation cd and I rarely connect to the net with it.

[z4w3p]

i've try install vista on Virtual Box, the booting up process is ok, faster and run smoothly. But i've a problem on how to setting up a bridge connection for the network on this virtualbox. anyone can help?

oo ya, i think virtualbox is different from other virtualization. its provide seamless desktop mode..cool man~
take a look here:

[uberdonkey5]

Wow thats fantastic! Thats convinced me to get rid of my dual boot with vista and go to ubuntu with virtual box and xp (for video editing software).

Basically my plan is:
1. get a custom live ubuntu cd made (with my preferences and internet setup)... so I can always access internet and my computer if I mess something up.
2. install ubuntu (obviously)
3. Install virtual box with XP and office and pinnacle (and strip everything else out)

(also install my extra 2GB RAM)

[binbash]

xp is faster than vista.(way faster)

[veloce]

I run Mathematica in XP in Virtualbox and on a native partition with XP on it. Mathematica has a set of benchmarking tests for your computer. The one on Virtualbox XP actually performs better than the one on the native XP.

I see this with two computers; my laptop and my work desktop.

I chalk it up to extra bloatware that came with the computers that I didn't manage to get rid of, or maybe even some malware. Someone else used my work computer for a year before I got it. For the Virtualbox installations I used a bare XP installation cd and I rarely connect to the net with it.

I've noticed the same with vmware. In addition to having less "junk" in the vm, I think that linux does smp much better than windows. Hence I get better performance from my vm with one virtual processor running virtually under Ubuntu running an smp kernel. I don't have any nice benchmarking tests though so it has all been subjective.

[amauk]

Stock XP boots faster under VM on Linux than it does booting natively on same hardware
this has been benchmarked quite a few times by different people

(not seen any similar tests done for vista)