Optimizing XP speed?

Discussion in 'Parallels Desktop for Mac' started by iocomposer, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. iocomposer

    iocomposer Member

    Messages:
    24
    Hi.
    I'm running XP on a coreduo minimac. Everything is running extremely well and it seems to be running at full speed but my mouse is really sluggish. Is there a way to optimize this?
    TIA
     
  2. Andrew @ Parallels

    Andrew @ Parallels Parallels Team

    Messages:
    1,507
    1. You can install Parallels Tools (click menu VM->Install Parallels Tools when guest XP is booted). It include mouse synchronization tool which get you smooth mouse and focus autocapturing.

    2. Wait for Beta5. Slaggish mouse issue is already fixed and will be included there.
     
  3. iocomposer

    iocomposer Member

    Messages:
    24
    wow...that was fast. Works great! Looking forward to Beta5!!!
    Cheers!
    -J
     
  4. johnnykrisma

    johnnykrisma Junior Member

    Messages:
    13
    Here's the best way I've found to speed up XP. Use Windows 2000!

    Seriously, am I missing something or is there really nothing that XP has (especially in an environment such as this) that Windows 2000 can't do and faster? Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

    John
     
  5. keirnna

    keirnna Member

    Messages:
    27
    2000 doesn't have zerconf, aka the POS Microsoft Wi-Fi configuration tool. 2000 also has no msconfig.exe, but you can add it from an XP install. There are a few things, but for the most part I do agree with you, W2k is pretty zippy.
     
  6. wesley

    wesley Pro

    Messages:
    396
    We don't need zeroconf inside VM, since it's only gonna see the virtual ethernet adapter, I think. :) I'd happily use WinXP as a standalone OS, but yeah, Win2k is more than enough for an OS inside VM.
     
  7. keirnna

    keirnna Member

    Messages:
    27
    While that is true we don't need zeroconf, it is still a feature of XP.
     
  8. wesley

    wesley Pro

    Messages:
    396
    And a feature that's unused yet present merely takes up space and in some cases, slow down performance. I'm not denying that WinXP is more feature-rich than Win2k, of course, and I do need those features on a real, native install, hence my preference of WinXP over Win2k there. But one of the major points of optimization is to jettison anything that you don't need... so not having them in the first place would be an advantage. :)
     

Share This Page