Re: Re: OT: 5 new PC's required

["Pete Shew" <ukha_d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've usde VMware on both Linux and W2K - mostly on a laptop to allow
running both Windows and Linux development environments concurrently. I
found the Linux host slightly more responsive, but either were OK and very
stable. I also use it to bring up "virgin" Windows systems for
testing installs.

My memories of looking at Virtual PC (MS version) were that it didn't
really like Linux, but I' m probably mistaken. But VMware (and probably
Virtual PC) are more than PC emulators - to get the performance it has
drivers (which are guest OS dependant) to handle the virtual screen, etc.,
and the performance of the guest depends on the availablility and
effectiveness of these.

Pete

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 22/05/2004 at 09:57 David Buckley wrote:

>--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Pete Shew" <ukha_d@s...> wrote:
>>  .. or VMWare (on top of Linux), with more choice or guest OS
>
>Prior to purchasing Virtual PC from Connectix (well before the
>Redmond mob waded in with $$$ and bought the company) I tried VMWare
>(on windows, not Linux) and didnt get on with it at all.  I cant
>remember why, it was ages ago, but for me it just didnt do the
>business.
>
>Virtual PC was a revalation, it just did it all straight out of the
>box, and cost less money.
>
>Only thing wrong is that you have to re-install it every time you
>change network drivers, which if you sometimes use wireless and
>sometimes wired, is a bit of an annoyance, but a bit of practice
>(and keeping the installation files on the hardisk) gets reinstall
>down to a couple of minutes.
>
>I have the Microsoft Virtual PC 2004 free upgrade CD sitting here, I
>hope it fixes that problem, but I'm just plain scared to install
>it.  What a wimp :-)
>
>In what way do you get more guest options with VMWare?  So far, VPC
>has done everything I've tried with it, including some very odd non-
>OS based stuff.  It is, after all, "just" a PC emulator...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>