Speeding up XBMC with better Windows OS?

[MrTourettes]

I thoguth I would share my experience with you and hopefully this post might help people searching for a good install for xbmc.

Until last night I had my xbmc running on a dedicated media box with Windows Vista Untimate 64bit. The rig has a core 2 running at 3ghz and 4gb memory hence the reason I was using Vista 64bit.

Everything was runing smoothly ( some of you might have seen the vid I made of it runnign Aeon Auriga ). My main problem was hard drive space. At the moment I have put 2 16gb SSD's raid 0 in the rig and this gives me about 29gb total space. As most of you will know Vista hogs most of that. So I was looking for a better solution.

Basically last night I installed TinyXP rev 09. WOW my god what a difference. not only does it only use 400mb of disk space for the windows dir but it also uses hardly any memory. I could not believe the differnce in speed of xbmc running either.

OK I do not promote piracy in anyway and this is an illegal copy of xp but due to the fact I have 3 fully licenced versions of windows ( 1 which was used on the media box ) I believe in not using my media box version of windows in a way gives me a right to use the TinyXP version ( some might dissagree though coughM$cough ).

Hope this helps anyone looking for a solution to an OS descision.


Basically anyone wishing to know the "Best Windows OS for xbmc" then you cant go far wrong with TinXP.

[natethomas]

While I don't doubt TinyXP has a small footprint (I mean, isn't that the point?), I am not convinced that it is dramatically faster at running XBMC than Vista. Particularly with 4gigs of memory and a core 2 running at 3ghz.

At those specs, xbmc should essentially run at the same speed on nearly all computers. The Vista install, if I remember correctly should take up about 10 to 14gigs of harddrive space, plus figure a 4gig swap file, and you've still got 14 gigs free. This means the harddrive should not be the limiter either, until you've got a lot of other programs and items installed.

At this point, drivers between the two systems should be relatively equal.

And that pretty much covers it. I simply do not see where you could create a speed up for XBMC specifically on your rig by downgrading to TinyXP. There is no one item on your rig that should be throttling speed on Vista that should not also be throttling speed on XP.

[xexe]

What you are seeing is the difference between Vista and XP and not some TinyXP magic.

I do not recommend these custom XP OS's as after extensive testing whilst you can definitely get it to work YMMV and sooner or later some HTPC type application you want to install wont work cause of some hidden XP gubbins they have removed. aka some day you may need a whole OS reinstall just to make something new work.

Normal XP install and standby/resume a better general solution, far more robust and scalable and just as quick to turn on.

[MrTourettes]

Well I would like to point out that the tests I have done are educated tests. I have been building pc's for many many years and I have been writting video games for a living for over 20 years so my understanding of hardware and software are probably a bit above normal :)

Basically my point is that I have the experience and knowledge to actually test these things properly and this was not just some random judgement.

[xexe]

Yup you make a fine point.

Equally however I done the same tests over several weeks trying many things and concluded that TinyXP et al whilst have a lower on disk footprint, and a lower boot time have the downside that they remove elements that some user may need at a later date (and will not be able to add back in without a OS reinstall). On top of this the boot time of TinyXP et al is still much slower than resume from suspend.

So if you want to resume from off then speed is important consider TinyXP et al for faster boot at the risk of later being limited in some unpredictable way. If you are resuming from suspend then install XP proper.

Edit: Re-read what I posted and realized i have forgotten to mention the risk of installing an bootleg copy of XP (note this is not the same as unlicensed i choose my words carefully)

[pecinko]

Basically my point is that I have the experience and knowledge to actually test these things properly and this was not just some random judgement.

I considered upgrading ;) from Vista to XP also. My problem is how to make remote working. XP (non MCE) doesn't have drivers, and my remote (MS remote clone) came without them. Any idea?

[MrTourettes]

Yup you make a fine point.

Equally however I done the same tests over several weeks trying many things and concluded that TinyXP et al whilst have a lower on disk footprint, and a lower boot time have the downside that they remove elements that some user may need at a later date (and will not be able to add back in without a OS reinstall). On top of this the boot time of TinyXP et al is still much slower than resume from suspend.

So if you want to resume from off then speed is important consider TinyXP et al for faster boot at the risk of later being limited in some unpredictable way. If you are resuming from suspend then install XP proper.

Edit: Re-read what I posted and realized i have forgotten to mention the risk of installing an bootleg copy of XP (note this is not the same as unlicensed i choose my words carefully)

Well I must say that I have everything installed on the box and its working. For me its purely a media rig and there will never be anything else I need on it.

As for boot time I will make a video of it booting. All I can say is you know when the windows screen comes up and the progress bar goes accross it does not even get 1/4 away accross before its in windows :) Yes it actually boots windows in about 1 1/2 seconds.

This is probably due to my SSD's in raid 0 and the lower content of the TinyXp.

BUT.. You have a very valid point that for others it might not be the right OS.. Basically in my situation where I only use teh box for xbmc and nothing else and I have the hardware which suits it perfectly I have not found anything else to match it and I have tried Xp, vista 32, vista 64 and even windows 7 :)

[MrTourettes]

I considered upgrading ;) from Vista to XP also. My problem is how to make remote working. XP (non MCE) doesn't have drivers, and my remote (MS remote clone) came without them. Any idea?

I have the mce IR reciever and use it with my harmony 550. There are replacement drivers which work a treat with xp. What actual remote IR do you have? Maybe someone can find you somethign to work with xp

[logictester]

I considered upgrading ;) from Vista to XP also. My problem is how to make remote working. XP (non MCE) doesn't have drivers, and my remote (MS remote clone) came without them. Any idea?

the mce reciever driver are avilible for xp just search ms for a kb on that, and i'm pretty sure xp sp3 includes those by default - mine worked without tweaking. (same on win7)

[idioteque]

I run XBMC on a tiny XP version:

Windows dir :510 MB
RAM usage 120 MB

Boot up is very quick, 20 seconds to XBMC screen.

Shutdown is also quick 5 sec

Standby is 2 seconds to enter, 2 seconds to come out of

If you have any questions feel free to ask

running eventghost MCE replacement Harmony One

[mcborzu]

I just bought a new PC, a dedicated PC just for XBMC, I decided to go with Windows 7...I knew about TinyXP but I wanted to try something new as never having networked 2 PC's running W7 before, wanted to see how it works.

Didn't bother with any registry hacks or anything, just put XBMC(Fullscreen) and Xbox360EventClient.exe(for wireless 360 controller) in the startup folder. Everything went really smooth, networking wise and XBMC wise. Starts up in about 15-20sec and shutdown in 3-5sec.

[SlaveUnit]

15-20 secs seems pretty darn quick. From bios to XBMC I cant get under 33 secs :) And yes I sit there with a stopwatch.

[mcborzu]

Yea that was a little quick, I don't have a stopwatch or watch for that matter...Using the old One, one thousand; two, one thousand, in my head I got---29 and 33 from power to XBMC.

[Silverxxx]

win 7 does start in (exactly) 15 seconds, and explorer in 20. the Mississippi system never fails. XP in comparison starts in 33 on the same computer and the xbmc one. The resume from sleep is also faster in win 7 , usually up before the monitor powers up.

[natethomas]

Well I would like to point out that the tests I have done are educated tests. I have been building pc's for many many years and I have been writting video games for a living for over 20 years so my understanding of hardware and software are probably a bit above normal :)

Basically my point is that I have the experience and knowledge to actually test these things properly and this was not just some random judgement.

I'm sticking with my earlier statement. I make no claims on boot-up speeds or initial loading screens. What I don't understand is how XBMC itself can be running faster. I mean, what, specifically, is there TO run faster? Are menus navigating more quickly or something? I just don't get it.

[MrTourettes]

You can increase the speed it boots by just getting solid state drives and put them in raid 0 :)

Fastet I have ever had windows boot is about 1 1/2 seconds and that was on I-Ram's set as raid 0 and a clean xp install.

@natethomas

Ermmm... You might be missing a simple fact. Less process running in TinyXp means less things to do. Less things to do means more processor time for xbmc.

If you mean how can you see it running smoother well for example....I am using Aeon Auirga and with full fanart and dvd covers etc it can tend to be a bit chuncky..... I can now notice a smoother transition while scrolling through movies etc..... The whole response time is instant whereas before ( even though it was fast ) you could tell it was running on a shit OS..

I will try get a video done over the weekend with how its running now and you can compare that with a previous video I did.

[AzzX]

I use XP performance edition - Highly recommended XP SP3 slipstream. You can add your XP key with a simple tool.

On my hardware it beats Ubuntu and Vista in terms of performance.

[puddney]

For me Windows 7 has been the best so far for me. I am running XBMC on a laptop and woah what a difference it makes. Sure it takes longer to startup and shutdown than XP (although its still quicker than Vista).

Also i run all of my media wirelessly through a Belkin Network USB Hub, Windows 7 loads my hard drives (7 in total) quicker than any other OS, and maintains a solid wireless connection throughout unlike XP and Vista which the connection would eventually stop once the RAM usage was at max.

I would say to anyone who hasnt tried the win7 beta to try it and see what performance boosts you get. it has alot of new drivers built in which are solid (only had to install my GFX drivers cos XBMC doesnt like MS OpenGL).

Just my 2 cents!!


Puddney

[SlaveUnit]

Funny that Silverxxx says Win7 is quicker than XP but puddney says XP is quicker. One of you is GUILTY :)

[puddney]

XP on my Lappy takes 12-15 secs to start and 20 secs to shutdown, Win7 takes 30 secs to start and 30 secs to shutdown, but speed of applications?

Win 7 owns XP for game and app speed!!

Photoshop CS4 takes 1min on XP - Win7 15sec
Word 2010 XP 30sec - Win7 2.5sec
3ds Max Rendering is faster in win7 than XP (on one rendering it shaved 4mins off)

not to mention
XBMC XP 10sec and menu stutters @ 720p - Win7 2.5sec smooth as silk @ 720p

and im running all this on a shit lappy (Dual Core Celeron 1.6ghz, 2GB Ram, Intel Video (shared 512mb))

At the end of the day whatever works for you is best!!

Puddney