virtualization which one to choose?
bsilver at chrononomicon.com
Fri Nov 9 13:13:47 UTC 2007
Frederik De Richter wrote:
> Tx for all the comments. I tried VirtualBox out of Synaptic Gutsy 1.5
> OSE. Works like a charm. Easy to install. Had some problems with getting
> XP Pro to be installed, but I guess this is normal ;). Anyway I will now
> test the virtual desktop to find out what works and what not.
> I certainly will get another VM to testride Gentoo etc.
> Next step I will also give VMware a go.
> Just a dumb question : why use dualboot if you can run VM's ?
VM technology isn't perfect.
The performance is going to be only a certain percent of your computer's
ability, because there's overhead in virtualizing the hardware, so the
VM is slower.
The VM will slow down your host operating system as well.
Often certain things do not function perfectly...I mean, your video,
sound, etc. are software, not hardware, and lying to the guest operating
system. If you want to play a video game, you will most likely have
Network slowdown, if the VM is networked. You have one physical card
dealing with traffic, directly or indirectly, with two interfaces.
Training. Ever try explaining to the average user that Windows is in
this square while (usually) Windows is in the bigger square they see? Fun.
Some utilities will not like running if they're low-level in access.
See the part above regarding the hardware is actually software.
The main reason would be performance. For most people's needs (I CAN'T
LIVE WITHOUT POWERPOINT!! NOOOOOOOOOO) a virtual machine should be more
than enough, and for backing it up as a state machine I love VMs.
Nothing is simpler if the hardware dies; you get to another system,
install the virtualizing software, copy your multi-gig virtual drive
over and fire it up again.
More information about the ubuntu-users