Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 8 lags in VirtualBox... any solution?

Last response: in Windows 8
Share
October 7, 2011 10:25:05 PM

Hi

I installed the DP on a virtual machine (Oracle VirtualBox), but it's quite laggy.

I've given it 1GB RAM and 128MB video memory.

Anyone in my position?
a b * Windows 8
October 7, 2011 10:25:55 PM

I've given it 1GB RAM and 128MB video memory.

not enough ^
a b * Windows 8
October 7, 2011 10:30:14 PM

The Windows 8 Developer Preview works great on the same hardware that powers Windows Vista and Windows 7: Minimum requirements:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver
Taking advantage of touch input requires a screen that supports multi-touch
To run Metro style Apps, you need a screen resolution of 1024 X 768 or greater
Related resources
October 7, 2011 10:30:59 PM

The Windows 8 task manager says it's only using about 400MB of RAM so I thought 1GB would be more than enough. I've tried giving it 1.5GB as well but there was no improvement (or at least no noticeable improvement) so i set it back to 1GB.

I've given it 2 CPU cores as well so it can use all my CPU power.
October 7, 2011 10:33:15 PM

SR-71 Blackbird said:
The Windows 8 Developer Preview works great on the same hardware that powers Windows Vista and Windows 7: Minimum requirements:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver
Taking advantage of touch input requires a screen that supports multi-touch
To run Metro style Apps, you need a screen resolution of 1024 X 768 or greater



I meet all those requirements (except the touch screen) but it still lags. I'm quite sure it's something to do with the virtual machine.
a b * Windows 8
October 7, 2011 10:34:42 PM

It's only a dev release so it probably needs some tweaking
a b * Windows 8
October 9, 2011 6:33:17 PM

The VM is a VM........ it's specs and architecture are nowhere near the actual thing. Especially since the machines are very old and outdated. New OS's have a real tough time understanding that they have been put onto a 386 to run.
Since the VM is basically just an environment and W8 is a OS in the making, a lot still has to be done to make it VM friendly.
Running a new OS in an Old software environment itself handicaps the new OS the after effects are in front of you.
a b * Windows 8
October 9, 2011 7:58:44 PM

alyoshka said:
The VM is a VM........ it's specs and architecture are nowhere near the actual thing. Especially since the machines are very old and outdated. New OS's have a real tough time understanding that they have been put onto a 386 to run.
Since the VM is basically just an environment and W8 is a OS in the making, a lot still has to be done to make it VM friendly.
Running a new OS in an Old software environment itself handicaps the new OS the after effects are in front of you.


If you have the virtualization instruction set active (or present) in your CPU, it actually is close to what you actually tell it to run with. With only1GB of ram, I'm not surprised that it's laggy. Vista, 7, and 8 should all be run with a minimum of 2GB of ram allocated to the VM.

Having the OP's system specs would also be handy.

Edit: Have you also tried installing any management tools for Virtual Box (not sure if it has any, but I'm referring to the equivalent of VMware's "VMware Tools")? Failing that, have you tried running the virtual system in VMware Player instead? I have a Windows 8 DP virtual system set up in VMware Player with 2 cpu cores, 2GB of ram, and VMware Tools installed. I have absolutely no lagging issues.
October 9, 2011 8:26:28 PM

Mine works fine in VirtualBox.

I gave mine 4 GB of RAM, 128 MB video memory, enable 3d acceleration, and virtualization enabled on the CPU in the BIOS (that, of course, is mandatory for emulating a 64-bit guest in VirtualBox).
October 9, 2011 9:53:13 PM

I tried giving it 2GB RAM and there was no difference. I really don't think it needs more than 1GB.

I did notice that the Windows 8 task manager was showing the CPU usage reaching 100% sometimes. I think the CPU has got to do with the lag but I've got a 2.4GHz dual core so I don't see how it can't be enough.
a b * Windows 8
October 10, 2011 7:18:02 AM

Have you dedicated 2 Processors to it too?
If so, don't, dedicate only a single processor since 1 will be needed to take the load of the base OS. Since you have just 2 Cores dedicating both of them to both the parent OS and the VM OS is going to create too much load for the Processor to handle smoothly.
October 10, 2011 7:42:40 AM

alyoshka said:
Have you dedicated 2 Processors to it too?
If so, don't dedicate only a single processor since 1 will be needed to take the load of the base OS. Since you have just 2 Cores dedicating both of them to both the parent OS and the VM OS is going to create too much load for the Processor to handle smoothly.


Yes, I've dedicated both processors to the VM. I'll see how it goes with 1 core dedicated.
October 10, 2011 7:54:31 AM

Dedicating only 1 core didn't help. The VM still reaches 100% CPU and lags.

In the processor tab of the settings in VirtualBox, there's a check-box saying "Enable PAE/NX". Should I tick it?

I've also set my CPU execution cap to 100%. Should I move it lower?
a b * Windows 8
October 10, 2011 9:42:22 AM

PAE won't help, as it allows server operating systems to use 36 bit addressing for the system ram (this one is moot as the Windows 8 Dev Preview is not a server OS), and NX won't help either, as that is the Execute Disable function for stopping applications from running code in memory locations flagged as non-executable.

Lowering the CPU execution cap might help, but listing your system specs would help even more.
October 10, 2011 9:18:36 PM

The_Prophecy said:
PAE won't help, as it allows server operating systems to use 36 bit addressing for the system ram (this one is moot as the Windows 8 Dev Preview is not a server OS), and NX won't help either, as that is the Execute Disable function for stopping applications from running code in memory locations flagged as non-executable.

Lowering the CPU execution cap might help, but listing your system specs would help even more.


My system specs:

Intel DP965LT

Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4GHz

3GB DDR2

GeForce 7950GT (512MB, DirectX 9.0c)

300GB Seagate Barracuda

Windows XP HP 32-bit

a b * Windows 8
October 10, 2011 11:38:06 PM

Hmm... that should be ok given how much of the hardware you're allocating to the VM, but I'm still curious as to how it would perform in VMware Player. Could you try setting up there and see how it works after VMware Tools is installed? Give it the same hardware as you had in VirtualBox.
October 11, 2011 7:27:37 AM

The_Prophecy said:
Hmm... that should be ok given how much of the hardware you're allocating to the VM, but I'm still curious as to how it would perform in VMware Player. Could you try setting up there and see how it works after VMware Tools is installed? Give it the same hardware as you had in VirtualBox.


OK, I'll give it a shot.
October 12, 2011 12:06:12 AM

OK I installed it on VMware player and gave it the same hardware as I did in VirtualBox. It still lags just like it did before. :( 
October 22, 2011 4:02:39 AM

Something occurred to me. My host OS is XP whereas most of you guys will be using 7. D'you think that maybe because I'm using XP rather than 7 the VM is lagging?
October 23, 2011 10:30:17 AM

I tried it on 7 with VirtualBox. It was so slow that it was unusable, however much memory or cores I gave it. I gave up and did a native install instead; that works just fine. It doesn't need a huge amount of disk space, so that's the route I would recommend.
a b * Windows 8
October 23, 2011 10:16:15 PM

Unless you're a developer, or you have a spare computer you want to put it on to play around, doing a native install is a really bad idea.
October 25, 2011 11:05:25 AM

Why would a native install, on a separate partition, be a bad idea? Of course it is wise to hide all other partitions from the Windows 8 install, but I trust Microsoft enough that even their alpha software is not going to screw my hard disk. In any case, I have up-to-date backups of everything. Doesn't everyone? It's more likely that my hard disk will die tomorrow than that Windows 8 is going to trash it.

Given the choice between an unusable VM install and an interesting, and usable, native install that gives me a chance to play with the new development options I'm happy to take the chance. I've installed hundreds of different versions of various OSs and never regretted it yet.
October 30, 2011 12:00:03 AM

Bump.

So, to sum up;

Windows DP is lagging on VirtualBox with 1GB RAM, 129MB video RAM and 2 cores of CPU with 80% execution cap. Host is XP 32. CPU usage on DP reaches 100% frequently.

Best solution

a b * Windows 8
October 30, 2011 5:27:06 AM
Share

OK, I wouldn't say that was the universal conclusion.
Win7 on a IBM ThinkPad R51 with 512MB of Ram works perfectly fine.
Win8 DP on the Same Machine works extremely well.
I see no problem in it working fine on a VM of higher specs than this machine, but, yet as in your case we have seen this happen.
The-Prophecy says "If you have the virtualization instruction set active (or present) in your CPU, it actually is close to what you actually tell it to run with", I still have to disapprove, running an OS on a machine is always different from running it on a simulated machine environment.
Win8 DP seems to know this in your case has it's AI working well :) .
The way a VM will work on XP is certainly very different from the way a VM will work on a Vista/Win7 64Bit . Thus, this could be a Machine-OS-VM-OS glitch, if you understand that.

In your case the Host OS itself is taking up 80 to a 100% of the CPU resources, leaving the Guest OS to utilize only 20 to 0% of the Cores that you dedicated to it.
Very little to work on, on a PC. But as we see, it works extremely well, on a rig with lesser "real" hardware.... leaves me further inclined to the result that , Maybe, XP on a Dual Core isn't the best VM environment.
October 30, 2011 5:34:12 AM

alyoshka said:
OK, I wouldn't say that was the universal conclusion.
Win7 on a IBM ThinkPad R51 with 512MB of Ram works perfectly fine.
Win8 DP on the Same Machine works extremely well.
I see no problem in it working fine on a VM of higher specs than this machine, but, yet as in your case we have seen this happen.
The-Prophecy says "If you have the virtualization instruction set active (or present) in your CPU, it actually is close to what you actually tell it to run with", I still have to disapprove, running an OS on a machine is always different from running it on a simulated machine environment.
Win8 DP seems to know this in your case has it's AI working well :) .
The way a VM will work on XP is certainly very different from the way a VM will work on a Vista/Win7 64Bit . Thus, this could be a Machine-OS-VM-OS glitch, if you understand that.

In your case the Host OS itself is taking up 80 to a 100% of the CPU resources, leaving the Guest OS to utilize only 20 to 0% of the Cores that you dedicated to it.
Very little to work on, on a PC. But as we see, it works extremely well, on a rig with lesser "real" hardware.... leaves me further inclined to the result that , Maybe, XP on a Dual Core isn't the best VM environment.


Thanks. That was something that I had in mind. I guess I'll just have to cope with the lag until I upgrade to 7. :) 
October 30, 2011 5:34:36 AM

Best answer selected by pckitty4427.
October 30, 2011 10:17:58 AM

This topic has been closed by Nikorr.
!