Adventures in development on a Virtual Machine chapter 10...
-
I setup a win 2k3 x64 host and using vmware workstation made two virtual machines: personal and development running windows xp pro. I was very happy with it though it was a bit slower in some areas and faster in others than native hardware. Another user here posted in my thread from last week about "is it time for virtual development" yesterday that he is using both Virtual Box and VMWare workstation because VMWare has some high end features he needs but Virtual Box is *much* faster for regular work. I was surprised because my experience was that VMWare was faster some time ago than VirtualBox when I had last tried it a few months ago but I though what the heck I'll give VirtualBox another try. I set up an identical pair of VirtualBox machines that are the same in every way as my VMWare machines and he was right, VirtualBox is very much faster than VMWare. Not only does windows boot and shut down faster (actually faster than I've ever seen windows boot and shut down) but hard drive access is much faster. I was sold on VirtualBox and decided to switch to it at that point. Then, I discovered that VirtualBox supports a virtual SATA drive as well as IDE, (VMWare only supports IDE). I enabled the SATA controller in VirtualBox but left it's drive as IDE, booted XP, downloaded and installed the Intel SATA drivers for the virtual controller supported, shut down XP and changed the drive to SATA drive 0 instead of IDE, rebooted and it's even faster. For anyone considering this I highly recommend you give VirtualBox a try. I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA. The only feature I've missed (I do winforms and asp.net development) is that VirtualBox doesn't have the nifty "Switch to next running virtual machine" button that VMWare does which is handy when popping back and forth between my personal and development station.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
I setup a win 2k3 x64 host and using vmware workstation made two virtual machines: personal and development running windows xp pro. I was very happy with it though it was a bit slower in some areas and faster in others than native hardware. Another user here posted in my thread from last week about "is it time for virtual development" yesterday that he is using both Virtual Box and VMWare workstation because VMWare has some high end features he needs but Virtual Box is *much* faster for regular work. I was surprised because my experience was that VMWare was faster some time ago than VirtualBox when I had last tried it a few months ago but I though what the heck I'll give VirtualBox another try. I set up an identical pair of VirtualBox machines that are the same in every way as my VMWare machines and he was right, VirtualBox is very much faster than VMWare. Not only does windows boot and shut down faster (actually faster than I've ever seen windows boot and shut down) but hard drive access is much faster. I was sold on VirtualBox and decided to switch to it at that point. Then, I discovered that VirtualBox supports a virtual SATA drive as well as IDE, (VMWare only supports IDE). I enabled the SATA controller in VirtualBox but left it's drive as IDE, booted XP, downloaded and installed the Intel SATA drivers for the virtual controller supported, shut down XP and changed the drive to SATA drive 0 instead of IDE, rebooted and it's even faster. For anyone considering this I highly recommend you give VirtualBox a try. I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA. The only feature I've missed (I do winforms and asp.net development) is that VirtualBox doesn't have the nifty "Switch to next running virtual machine" button that VMWare does which is handy when popping back and forth between my personal and development station.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
I agree, been using it for a while now. Small download, fast install, easy upgrade, no reboots. Fast, a bit slow when starting VirtualBox itself, but after that no issues. Graphics driver on par with other VM software. It's 'additions/addons' also installs/upgrades like a breeze. Only annoyance, is that I can get networking between the host and VM working.
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 1 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) -
I setup a win 2k3 x64 host and using vmware workstation made two virtual machines: personal and development running windows xp pro. I was very happy with it though it was a bit slower in some areas and faster in others than native hardware. Another user here posted in my thread from last week about "is it time for virtual development" yesterday that he is using both Virtual Box and VMWare workstation because VMWare has some high end features he needs but Virtual Box is *much* faster for regular work. I was surprised because my experience was that VMWare was faster some time ago than VirtualBox when I had last tried it a few months ago but I though what the heck I'll give VirtualBox another try. I set up an identical pair of VirtualBox machines that are the same in every way as my VMWare machines and he was right, VirtualBox is very much faster than VMWare. Not only does windows boot and shut down faster (actually faster than I've ever seen windows boot and shut down) but hard drive access is much faster. I was sold on VirtualBox and decided to switch to it at that point. Then, I discovered that VirtualBox supports a virtual SATA drive as well as IDE, (VMWare only supports IDE). I enabled the SATA controller in VirtualBox but left it's drive as IDE, booted XP, downloaded and installed the Intel SATA drivers for the virtual controller supported, shut down XP and changed the drive to SATA drive 0 instead of IDE, rebooted and it's even faster. For anyone considering this I highly recommend you give VirtualBox a try. I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA. The only feature I've missed (I do winforms and asp.net development) is that VirtualBox doesn't have the nifty "Switch to next running virtual machine" button that VMWare does which is handy when popping back and forth between my personal and development station.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
It's been some time since I played with Virtual Machines so I'm curious about display. Is it possible to set up virtual machine so that I would have two 17" monitors' worth of usable space, that is to have 2560x1024 resolution?
As many may recall I'm dead set against multiple monitors, I think it's a huge productivity drain and for 90% of working developers no more than a toy (and no I won't go into *that* argument again), but I do recall seeing *something* in passing about multiple monitors on VirtualBox, some kind of config guide or something.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
I setup a win 2k3 x64 host and using vmware workstation made two virtual machines: personal and development running windows xp pro. I was very happy with it though it was a bit slower in some areas and faster in others than native hardware. Another user here posted in my thread from last week about "is it time for virtual development" yesterday that he is using both Virtual Box and VMWare workstation because VMWare has some high end features he needs but Virtual Box is *much* faster for regular work. I was surprised because my experience was that VMWare was faster some time ago than VirtualBox when I had last tried it a few months ago but I though what the heck I'll give VirtualBox another try. I set up an identical pair of VirtualBox machines that are the same in every way as my VMWare machines and he was right, VirtualBox is very much faster than VMWare. Not only does windows boot and shut down faster (actually faster than I've ever seen windows boot and shut down) but hard drive access is much faster. I was sold on VirtualBox and decided to switch to it at that point. Then, I discovered that VirtualBox supports a virtual SATA drive as well as IDE, (VMWare only supports IDE). I enabled the SATA controller in VirtualBox but left it's drive as IDE, booted XP, downloaded and installed the Intel SATA drivers for the virtual controller supported, shut down XP and changed the drive to SATA drive 0 instead of IDE, rebooted and it's even faster. For anyone considering this I highly recommend you give VirtualBox a try. I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA. The only feature I've missed (I do winforms and asp.net development) is that VirtualBox doesn't have the nifty "Switch to next running virtual machine" button that VMWare does which is handy when popping back and forth between my personal and development station.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
VMWare Fusion supports SATA AFAIK. My virtual machine totally died on Monday morning, and that's when I found out that my backup system didn't work for VMs. So, I rebuilt it yesterday and have instituted a new backup system within the VMs. Apart from that, working in a VM is great. I have a copy of my vanilla XP and my vanilla XP dev environment, which is cool b/c the two source control providers I use, do not play well together, now I have two sets of windows, one for each.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
I setup a win 2k3 x64 host and using vmware workstation made two virtual machines: personal and development running windows xp pro. I was very happy with it though it was a bit slower in some areas and faster in others than native hardware. Another user here posted in my thread from last week about "is it time for virtual development" yesterday that he is using both Virtual Box and VMWare workstation because VMWare has some high end features he needs but Virtual Box is *much* faster for regular work. I was surprised because my experience was that VMWare was faster some time ago than VirtualBox when I had last tried it a few months ago but I though what the heck I'll give VirtualBox another try. I set up an identical pair of VirtualBox machines that are the same in every way as my VMWare machines and he was right, VirtualBox is very much faster than VMWare. Not only does windows boot and shut down faster (actually faster than I've ever seen windows boot and shut down) but hard drive access is much faster. I was sold on VirtualBox and decided to switch to it at that point. Then, I discovered that VirtualBox supports a virtual SATA drive as well as IDE, (VMWare only supports IDE). I enabled the SATA controller in VirtualBox but left it's drive as IDE, booted XP, downloaded and installed the Intel SATA drivers for the virtual controller supported, shut down XP and changed the drive to SATA drive 0 instead of IDE, rebooted and it's even faster. For anyone considering this I highly recommend you give VirtualBox a try. I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA. The only feature I've missed (I do winforms and asp.net development) is that VirtualBox doesn't have the nifty "Switch to next running virtual machine" button that VMWare does which is handy when popping back and forth between my personal and development station.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
John C wrote:
I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA.
If you open up your mind you will find that there are other Open Source products which are great ("FireFox".:) )
Proud to be a CPHog user
-
As many may recall I'm dead set against multiple monitors, I think it's a huge productivity drain and for 90% of working developers no more than a toy (and no I won't go into *that* argument again), but I do recall seeing *something* in passing about multiple monitors on VirtualBox, some kind of config guide or something.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
John C wrote:
As many may recall I'm dead set against multiple monitors, I think it's a huge productivity drain and for 90% of working developers no more than a toy (and no I won't go into *that* argument again)
Oh yes you will because I appreciate a decent thread-jacking. :) When I'm working on a WinForms app, it's pretty nifty to have a 2nd monitor on which to run the application being debugged, because a lot of times, I'm overriding the Paint method. Simply put, there is no replacement for a 2nd monitor in those instances.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John C wrote:
I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA.
If you open up your mind you will find that there are other Open Source products which are great ("FireFox".:) )
Proud to be a CPHog user
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
If you open up your mind you will find that there are other Open Source products which are great ("FireFox".Smile )
Rama, this is like the nerd version of peer pressure ... Come on John ... try Firefox ... all the cool kids are doing it ... no one has to know ... :rolleyes:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL -
John C wrote:
I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA.
If you open up your mind you will find that there are other Open Source products which are great ("FireFox".:) )
Proud to be a CPHog user
When it comes to work I get the best tool for the job regardless if it's free or costs money. FireFox though is not a "product" it's a cult. ;) Besides which Opera and now Chrome both kick it's butt in every way that matters to me. Chrome is my default browser now for everything. Firefox had it's day and squandered it and now it's on the down slide.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
John C wrote:
As many may recall I'm dead set against multiple monitors, I think it's a huge productivity drain and for 90% of working developers no more than a toy (and no I won't go into *that* argument again)
Oh yes you will because I appreciate a decent thread-jacking. :) When I'm working on a WinForms app, it's pretty nifty to have a 2nd monitor on which to run the application being debugged, because a lot of times, I'm overriding the Paint method. Simply put, there is no replacement for a 2nd monitor in those instances.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
When it comes to work I get the best tool for the job regardless if it's free or costs money. FireFox though is not a "product" it's a cult. ;) Besides which Opera and now Chrome both kick it's butt in every way that matters to me. Chrome is my default browser now for everything. Firefox had it's day and squandered it and now it's on the down slide.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Firebug is still the best way I've found to debug javascript.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
John C wrote:
As many may recall I'm dead set against multiple monitors, I think it's a huge productivity drain and for 90% of working developers no more than a toy (and no I won't go into *that* argument again)
Oh yes you will because I appreciate a decent thread-jacking. :) When I'm working on a WinForms app, it's pretty nifty to have a 2nd monitor on which to run the application being debugged, because a lot of times, I'm overriding the Paint method. Simply put, there is no replacement for a 2nd monitor in those instances.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Yes, that's an obvious example. However, even without that two monitors are a must. One monitor for the code, second one for output/debug variables when compiling/debugging or for properties/solution explorer when coding. Heck, I sometimes with I had 3 monitors with 3rd one dedicated for documentation/google/sql.
-
As many may recall I'm dead set against multiple monitors, I think it's a huge productivity drain and for 90% of working developers no more than a toy (and no I won't go into *that* argument again), but I do recall seeing *something* in passing about multiple monitors on VirtualBox, some kind of config guide or something.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Each to their own John but it works for me, especialy when I'm split between two tasks at once. BTW, got my Popcorn Hour a couple of weeks ago and after fitting a 1TB hard drive and couple of 25mm fans it's wayyyy :cool:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
-
Yes, that's an obvious example. However, even without that two monitors are a must. One monitor for the code, second one for output/debug variables when compiling/debugging or for properties/solution explorer when coding. Heck, I sometimes with I had 3 monitors with 3rd one dedicated for documentation/google/sql.
This is what I do. For a time I had 3 for that purpose but the new motherboard did not have 2 full length pcie slots so at the moment I am stuck with 2 x 19 inch crt monitors with the third just taking up space. I guess I could dig through my drawer of adapters to see if I can find a descent pci card...
John
-
Each to their own John but it works for me, especialy when I'm split between two tasks at once. BTW, got my Popcorn Hour a couple of weeks ago and after fitting a 1TB hard drive and couple of 25mm fans it's wayyyy :cool:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
I think you're one of those 10% people from what I recall. :)
Trollslayer wrote:
got my Popcorn Hour a couple of weeks ago
Cool. I'm still very happy with mine, we probably watch 80% of our TV on it and 20% off the satellite receiver these days.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
I agree, been using it for a while now. Small download, fast install, easy upgrade, no reboots. Fast, a bit slow when starting VirtualBox itself, but after that no issues. Graphics driver on par with other VM software. It's 'additions/addons' also installs/upgrades like a breeze. Only annoyance, is that I can get networking between the host and VM working.
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 1 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))By default the network configuration uses NAT. Just change to that to 'Host Interface' and create a new host interface. You then bridge that interface with whatever real network interface you want. Once running the VM will look like any other machine on the network -- DHCP, domains, etc. Also, installing the VBox Guest Additions allows the VM to share the Host file system without any other networking changes.
-
VMWare Fusion supports SATA AFAIK. My virtual machine totally died on Monday morning, and that's when I found out that my backup system didn't work for VMs. So, I rebuilt it yesterday and have instituted a new backup system within the VMs. Apart from that, working in a VM is great. I have a copy of my vanilla XP and my vanilla XP dev environment, which is cool b/c the two source control providers I use, do not play well together, now I have two sets of windows, one for each.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Just out of curiosity, which providers are those? Just in case I ever have to use both...:-D
:badger:
-
As many may recall I'm dead set against multiple monitors, I think it's a huge productivity drain and for 90% of working developers no more than a toy (and no I won't go into *that* argument again), but I do recall seeing *something* in passing about multiple monitors on VirtualBox, some kind of config guide or something.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
No no no. Having two monitors is such an advantage that IMO it's essential for development work. Debugging screen drawing code is a total PITA without them, and being able to step through code in one screen and see what it does in the other have saved me hours of hair-tearing while debugging.
-
When it comes to work I get the best tool for the job regardless if it's free or costs money. FireFox though is not a "product" it's a cult. ;) Besides which Opera and now Chrome both kick it's butt in every way that matters to me. Chrome is my default browser now for everything. Firefox had it's day and squandered it and now it's on the down slide.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Until Chrome supports gestures and minimise to tray it's a non-starter for me.
-
I setup a win 2k3 x64 host and using vmware workstation made two virtual machines: personal and development running windows xp pro. I was very happy with it though it was a bit slower in some areas and faster in others than native hardware. Another user here posted in my thread from last week about "is it time for virtual development" yesterday that he is using both Virtual Box and VMWare workstation because VMWare has some high end features he needs but Virtual Box is *much* faster for regular work. I was surprised because my experience was that VMWare was faster some time ago than VirtualBox when I had last tried it a few months ago but I though what the heck I'll give VirtualBox another try. I set up an identical pair of VirtualBox machines that are the same in every way as my VMWare machines and he was right, VirtualBox is very much faster than VMWare. Not only does windows boot and shut down faster (actually faster than I've ever seen windows boot and shut down) but hard drive access is much faster. I was sold on VirtualBox and decided to switch to it at that point. Then, I discovered that VirtualBox supports a virtual SATA drive as well as IDE, (VMWare only supports IDE). I enabled the SATA controller in VirtualBox but left it's drive as IDE, booted XP, downloaded and installed the Intel SATA drivers for the virtual controller supported, shut down XP and changed the drive to SATA drive 0 instead of IDE, rebooted and it's even faster. For anyone considering this I highly recommend you give VirtualBox a try. I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product, or why the VMWare doesn't support SATA. The only feature I've missed (I do winforms and asp.net development) is that VirtualBox doesn't have the nifty "Switch to next running virtual machine" button that VMWare does which is handy when popping back and forth between my personal and development station.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
John C wrote:
I'm a bit mystified why a product which we paid for (VMWare Workstation) is slower than an open source free product
I have to point out that the edition of VirtualBox with the virtual SATA controller isn't free, except for personal/evaluation use. Comparison of VirtualBox editions[^]
Regards Nelviticus