Maybe I shouldn't try Linux

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by James D Andrews, Oct 21, 2011.

  1. James D Andrews, Oct 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. James D Andrews

    Paul Guest

    James D Andrews wrote:
    > Hmmm. Maybe I shouldn't try Linux...
    >
    > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/diy-it/wh...and-im-moving-back-to-windows/245?tag=nl.e539


    That guy is wrong.

    Who knew ?

    Of course you can try Linux, and if you load VirtualBox and install it
    in there, it can run in parallel with your Windows system. You can
    dabble in the VirtualBox and if you get tired of it, shut it down.
    You can use your Windows browser, to do searches on Linux fixes,
    then reach over to the VirtualBox session, and implement them.

    I use VirtualPC 2007 (it performs the same function as VirtualBox),
    and it's much rougher around the edges, and tend to break Linux
    installs (XWindows tends not to work, out of the box). But that's
    all part of the challenge for me. That's because the emulation
    support in VPC2007 was strategically designed to only support
    Windows guest OSes well, while other guest OSes can "suck it".

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul snuck on to your hard drive to scribble:
    > James D Andrews wrote:
    >> Hmmm. Maybe I shouldn't try Linux...
    >>
    >> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/diy-it/wh...and-im-moving-back-to-windows/245?tag=nl.e539

    >
    > That guy is wrong.
    >
    > Who knew ?
    >
    > Of course you can try Linux, and if you load VirtualBox and install it
    > in there, it can run in parallel with your Windows system. You can
    > dabble in the VirtualBox and if you get tired of it, shut it down.
    > You can use your Windows browser, to do searches on Linux fixes,
    > then reach over to the VirtualBox session, and implement them.
    >
    > I use VirtualPC 2007 (it performs the same function as VirtualBox),
    > and it's much rougher around the edges, and tend to break Linux
    > installs (XWindows tends not to work, out of the box). But that's
    > all part of the challenge for me. That's because the emulation
    > support in VPC2007 was strategically designed to only support
    > Windows guest OSes well, while other guest OSes can "suck it".
    >
    > Paul


    I kind of figured the guy might be blowing smoke about stuff. ZDNet
    has some great stuff, but sometimes I think they carry stuff that's
    there just to get a reaction. I know of at least once instance(and I
    bet there's more) where they had to do a follow-up article to correct
    inaccurate reports.

    Since my backup/test comp died and I won't have the money to fix it
    until after the end of the year, I guess I'll be waiting to fiddle away
    on Linux for a few months. I've got the latest Ubuntu releases and
    access to most other releases once I'm back in the water. Gives me
    time I hope I'll be able to learn a few things by then, too.

    I'll take a look at VirtualBox.

    As always, thanks for the input Paul.

    --
    -There are some who call me...
    Jim


    "Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's
    troublesome."
    - Isaac Asimov
     
    James D Andrews, Oct 22, 2011
    #3
  4. James D Andrews

    Paul Guest

    James D Andrews wrote:
    > Paul snuck on to your hard drive to scribble:
    >> James D Andrews wrote:
    >>> Hmmm. Maybe I shouldn't try Linux...
    >>>
    >>> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/diy-it/wh...and-im-moving-back-to-windows/245?tag=nl.e539
    >>>

    >>
    >> That guy is wrong.
    >>
    >> Who knew ?
    >>
    >> Of course you can try Linux, and if you load VirtualBox and install it
    >> in there, it can run in parallel with your Windows system. You can
    >> dabble in the VirtualBox and if you get tired of it, shut it down.
    >> You can use your Windows browser, to do searches on Linux fixes,
    >> then reach over to the VirtualBox session, and implement them.
    >>
    >> I use VirtualPC 2007 (it performs the same function as VirtualBox),
    >> and it's much rougher around the edges, and tend to break Linux
    >> installs (XWindows tends not to work, out of the box). But that's
    >> all part of the challenge for me. That's because the emulation
    >> support in VPC2007 was strategically designed to only support
    >> Windows guest OSes well, while other guest OSes can "suck it".
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    > I kind of figured the guy might be blowing smoke about stuff. ZDNet has
    > some great stuff, but sometimes I think they carry stuff that's there
    > just to get a reaction. I know of at least once instance(and I bet
    > there's more) where they had to do a follow-up article to correct
    > inaccurate reports.
    >
    > Since my backup/test comp died and I won't have the money to fix it
    > until after the end of the year, I guess I'll be waiting to fiddle away
    > on Linux for a few months. I've got the latest Ubuntu releases and
    > access to most other releases once I'm back in the water. Gives me time
    > I hope I'll be able to learn a few things by then, too.
    >
    > I'll take a look at VirtualBox.
    >
    > As always, thanks for the input Paul.
    >


    If your computer is low on memory, or has a weak processor, then playing
    with Virtual Machines might not be as much fun. If you have 2GB of memory,
    that should be enough to try some stuff (give 1GB to VM, 1GB to Windows).
    If you were trying to win a bar bet, you could probably experiment with
    as little as 1GB total system memory, but then it's going to be like
    "wearing a tight pair of shoes".

    As far as the performance goes, the VMs now are pretty good, only wasting
    about 10% CPU for themselves, leaving 90% for the application. If I run
    the SuperPI benchmark inside a virtual machine, it runs at about 90% of
    the performance level that I'd get within Windows itself.

    If you want to play 3D games within a virtual machine, that doesn't work well.
    But many other activities work well.

    Years ago, with instruction emulation, the best you could hope for was
    about 1/10th processor speed. Now, it's very close to the same speed
    and is quite efficient. In the instruction emulation days, that was
    dealing with running PC instructions on a Macintosh processor, or
    PC instructions on a Sun Sparc processor, and that was quite a bit
    slower. With the VMs now, you're generally running PC instructions
    on a PC architecture, so there's no translation to do. Just ring0/ring3
    protection to maintain.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(computer_security)

    VirtualBox has an option, to control how many cores get used
    for the guest OS. The one I use, VPC2007 from Microsoft, supports
    only one core, so even when the guest is running flat out, my dual
    core system remains responsive. With VirtualBox, you can let the
    guest use just about all the resources if needed.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 22, 2011
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Old Gringo

    Of Intrest ? Maybe Yes, Maybe No

    Old Gringo, Oct 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    595
    Old Gringo
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. Try, Try, Try, again...

    , Jan 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    748
  3. Derek Janssen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    467
    Derek Janssen
    Apr 16, 2007
  4. chrisv
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    586
    chrisv
    Sep 18, 2009
  5. iL_weReo

    Maybe it will; maybe it won't

    iL_weReo, Oct 11, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    543
    Desk Rabbit
    Oct 13, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page