Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Looking for some advise on whether I should expect better or worse performance out of VMWare Fusion when hosting Windows XP vs Windows 7. Does 32bit vs 64bit make a huge difference? I'm a developer and I plan on using the Windows install to run heavy tools like Visual Studio 2010 and large .NET apps.

share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

As with any Virtual Machine, this would depend on the specification of the host machine and how much resources you are willing to give to the Guest Operating System.

The Visual Studio website asks for 1GB or 2GB of RAM for x86 and x64 Architecture respectively, plus an additional 512MB of RAM if running in a Virtual Machine.

Win7 x64 needs 2GB minimum to run smoothly as it is, so you'd need a minimum of 4.5GB RAM on your machine just to run VS 2010 with Win7 x64. So realistically, to develop large .NET applications, I'd add another 2GB of RAM to be safe and so I wouldn't run an x64 Guest OS unless I had a minimum of 6GB or RAM, preferably 8GB for the Virtual Machine. Add more for your host OS to run satisfactorily.

If I was using an x86 Guest OS, you'd need 1.5GB minimum, plus the 1GB VS 2010 asks for, so 2.5GB minimum. As above, I'd add another 2GB to allow for large .NET application development and therefore would be satisfied with [as @Sid mentions in the comments] the maximum allowance for 32-bit Windows: 4GB. I would allow a minimum of 2GB more on the host to allow it to run the host OS satisfactorily, for a total of ≥6GB.

On top of that, you need to be able to dedicate a minimum of 1.6Ghz processor to VS2010, so realistically, we're talking a minimum of Dual-core, preferably Quad-core processor here to run this sufficiently.

I'd probably suggest using both x86 and x64 anyway, for end-user testing, so 8GB and Quad-core would be the minimum I'd suggest you need to have to accomplish this.


share|improve this answer
Since my original post, I've upgraded to Sandybridge MBP 17" with 8gb of ram and the 2.3ghz i7 cpu and SSD. This machine runs VMWare + Win7 VERY well. I've allocated 4 cores (out of 8 virtual) cores and 4gb of ram to the VM, and it performs very very well. I started out using a dedicated hard drive partition, but now use a VMWare virtual partition. I feel like the whole machine performs better with the virtual partition. – Armen May 27 '11 at 1:36
Good stuff! Thank you for letting others know what you're running and how that is working out for you. – Paul May 28 '11 at 14:57
One more bit of information -- I am using the Apple 500gb SSD. This is a FAST laptop; so perhaps i am configured suboptimally, but i can't really feel it given the horse power here. – Armen Jun 6 '11 at 0:13
@Paul: "a minimum of 4GB, preferably 6GB for the Virtual Machine" isn't accurate for 32bit Windows 7/XP - they can't see anything over 3.5GB – DeepSpace101 Aug 9 '12 at 22:46
@Sid - agreed, good catch. My mistake was to add "for the Virtual Machine," whereas it should say "for the host computer." I would add 6GB to the host, so it could allocate 4GB to the VM while keeping 2GB for itself. I'll edit to ensure that reflects correctly. – Paul Aug 10 '12 at 14:34

I’ve been running them both for testing purposes without issue. But i’m on a quad core Mac Pro with 12GB of RAM. YMMV if you’re on an iMac or Macbook Pro. I will say to keep your VMs on a separate hard drive, preferably Firewire to avoid the CPU overhead of USB, or a second internal if you’re using a Mac Pro. It makes things run much faster in my experience.

If you’re running Aero in Win7 and you can’t afford to give it a lot of RAM, you may notice on occasion, but most of it gets accelerated by the GPU now, so it could be fine. XP obviously isn’t going to have a lot of the crap that Win7 included, so it will undoubtedly benchmark faster, but from a usage standpoint, if you’re doing development in VS2010, you should probably be in Win7.

In a VM, 32 vs 64 hasn’t made a difference for me thus far, I actually have to keep both around for testing, but I haven’t noticed a performance bump from x64. Unless you’re going to push enough RAM into it where you’d need x64 to take advantage of it, x32 should work fine and you likely wouldn’t notice the difference between the two. Once again, YMMV.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .