Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
instant linux on winxp
Paul Keith:
Well it depends on what only virtual machine way means. After all, he did go for an .exe over say an unburned Live CD iso first. (Not dumb but not something a beginner is recommended to do nor will a beginner accidentally be introduced to it first time they try Linux)
I don't know about VMWare but Virtualbox and Qemu from a person like me is vastly different despite being categorically considered the same.
Even now I still have problems optimizing Virtualbox and when I open it, my browser on my main OS slows down (highly invasive). Qemu is just click and run especially on Puppy.
Plus Virtualbox has streamlined mode which is also a different experience than a windowed OS.
There's also just finding Windows alternative for Linux specific apps which is much more likelier to happen.
Also there's Online Emulators like this for the technically minded: http://bellard.org/jslinux/
There could just easily be a fully functioning graphical online OS that no one has heard about.
40hz:
Well it depends on what only virtual machine way means.
-Paul Keith (September 07, 2012, 05:54 PM)
--- End quote ---
If I understand correctly, what he wants is a machine setup that can toggle between fully local and active instances of both Windows and Linux in realtime - as in: without rebooting.
Since you can only currently have one OS active at a time per machine (real or virtual), the only way to have two OS instances simultaneously active is to somehow provision for two machines - and do some techno-magic to handle the details of switching between.
There may come a time when you could routinely have each core in a multi-core CPU running its own OS instance. But even then you'd still need a hypervisor to move back and forth between the instances. So some flavor of virtualization would still be required to pull that trick off. Can't see any way of getting around it.
Since VMs work very well - and also provide a huge amount of 'bang for the buck' - I can't see any practical alternative to using a VM approach. Especially for what kalos is trying to accomplish.
If there's another "mo better" way to do it with currently available technology, it'll be news to me. ;D
Paul Keith:
Yes but since both Qemu and VBox don't need rebooting and are virtual machines, that's not the issue here.
The issue is on the topic title: "instant".
In my experiences with Qemu, especially with a lightweight newbie friendly distro like Puppy, it is as instant as it is like opening a web browser where as Virtualbox, esp. unoptimized/wrongly sliced together settings, is more like running a Java app.
Both are at heart going to give you operating systems without rebooting but one requires not only loading for waiting times, additional confusing settings, questions of whether to install guest additions or merge two desktop OS's aesthetic together and the other is simply...a click. I.E.: instant linux.
The differences are so distinct that yes, depending on the needs, Qemu can seem like a better way than Virtualbox provided you know the limitations of Qemu and QemuPuppy but only towards a less experienced person because most average Linux users are at an elite power user that things like how many RAM to allocate and how to backup and export virtual HDs would be 2nd hand to them.
Also I'd be careful with using the words fully. To my knowledge, I could never figure out how to set up the fully functioning drivers that allows Virtualbox to support better gaming. I read somewhere that guest additions have to be installed in safe mode but I could never figure out what it really means where as something like QemuPuppy, the option doesn't even pop out when I last tried it. It's literally like a portable app to it's most basic sense. The only confusion is how to put it to a certain boot device but anyone can click on it and open QemuPuppy. Even users who are totally ignorant of anything virtual machine related.
40hz:
@PK - A couple of minor points... :)
Yes but since both Qemu and VBox don't need rebooting and are virtual machines, that's not the issue here.
-Paul Keith (September 07, 2012, 08:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
I was adding my +1 to skwire's comment about virtual being the "least invasive way" to go and reinforcing that virtual was actually the only way to do that. When you commented "Well it depends on what only virtual machine way means." I thought there was still some question as to whether there was another way to attain the goal stated in the OP. To which I gave a very blunt answer. If I misunderstood your comment, please excuse me.
Also I'd be careful with using the words fully.
-Paul Keith (September 07, 2012, 08:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm using the word "fully" because I have no other way of expressing what I thought was meant by phrase "100% functional" in the original post. I don't need to be careful with it. It wasn't my request. Just my summary of one of the goals made by the requester.
And... I think I'd best leave this discussion for others since I'm beginning to suspect I no longer "get" what's being discussed at this point. ;)
------------
@kalos - Luck! :Thmbsup:
Paul Keith:
Oh there's no misunderstanding. It is I believe more of a question of experience. In fact I haven't fully experienced the experience myself.
Comprehension really all depends on whether one has experienced a Qemu of a lightweight distro versus an advanced/textbook VM such as Virtualbox. It is really as clear as realizing a portable app responds much faster and is "installed" much faster and conveniently than say an equivalent alternative software that is memory hogging.
The same can be said for fully. If one has experienced say trying to play a modern videogame on a guest Windows OS and have that game not play, the idea of a full virtual OS would be far different than merely the concept of a functioning OS.
It would be the same as if trying to tell a Windows user that Linux is a 100% functioning OS only to reveal to them that X windows software is not available on Linux. Most likely the distinction of functionality wouldn't be lost on them on the technical side but on the practical side, you wouldn't convince them that it is a fully functioning OS because they would not have the skills to build or access a particular feature which they have taken for granted in a fully functioning OS.
With things like a guest copy, it is especially of great importance to separate such distinction. At least, I think so. It is after all at the heart of what one expects from a copy. No one should be expected to be tricked into believing a ripped copy is a full copy and no one should be expected to believe that a 50% VM of an OS is in actuality a full 100% functioning VM. Even for Live CD copies this can be dangerous. There are Live CDs where because you can't test install the additional drivers without installing the actual OS on a HD would lead to screen flickering and it would be easy to mistake it as the full OS only on a CD and give up on it all together.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version