Adventures in development on a Virtual Machine chapter 10...
-
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
-
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
You could also buy a cheapish 1x card. I'm not sure what OS you're using, but vista won't run areo if all the GPUs can't use the same driver. For nVidia that's the last 3 card generations. Not sure about ATI. http://www.nextag.com/pcie-1x-graphic-card/search-html[^]
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Just out of curiosity, which providers are those? Just in case I ever have to use both...:-D
:badger:
In visual studio, any two providers that integrate into VS itself will suck because VS only stores one's config data in the registry. :doh:
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
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
Nelviticus wrote:
have to point out that the edition of VirtualBox with the virtual SATA controller isn't free, except for personal/evaluation use.
Actually, according to item 6 on the VirtualBox licensing FAQ[^], an individual can use the non-OSE version. To save a click, here's what it says: Personal use is when you install the product on one or more PCs yourself and you make use of it (or even your friend, sister and grandmother). It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use. Well, you could ask each of your 500 employees to install VirtualBox but don't you think we deserve some money in this case? We'd even assist you with any issue you might have.
-
Nelviticus wrote:
have to point out that the edition of VirtualBox with the virtual SATA controller isn't free, except for personal/evaluation use.
Actually, according to item 6 on the VirtualBox licensing FAQ[^], an individual can use the non-OSE version. To save a click, here's what it says: Personal use is when you install the product on one or more PCs yourself and you make use of it (or even your friend, sister and grandmother). It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use. Well, you could ask each of your 500 employees to install VirtualBox but don't you think we deserve some money in this case? We'd even assist you with any issue you might have.
Ooh, thanks. I was going to download it to use here at work when I read the personal/evaluation thing, which I assumed ruled it out. Now I can un-assume!
Regards Nelviticus
-
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'll have to check out VirtualBox. Does it support DirectX in the virtual machines? Virtual PC doesn't. Lack of DirectX support heavily undermined my campaign to convince co-workers of the virtues of virtual machines.
------------------ MCAD.net, MSc (CS)
-
You could also buy a cheapish 1x card. I'm not sure what OS you're using, but vista won't run areo if all the GPUs can't use the same driver. For nVidia that's the last 3 card generations. Not sure about ATI. http://www.nextag.com/pcie-1x-graphic-card/search-html[^]
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
I am using XP SP3. So the graphics cards can be different. Thanks for the info. I will check into it.
John
-
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
-
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 is more advanced than VirtualBox, from the networking and integration capabilities down to guest support. For instance, you can run almost any kind of guest on a given host, even 64-bit linux on 32-bit windows. Even with VirtualBox out, VMWare Server/Workstation/Player are still the preferred choice for most developers and security researchers, in particular. While VirtualBox can do a lot of this, and do it fast, VMWare Workstation & Server seem to handle virtually anything I throw at them (even some 3D stuff). I could use virtualbox for some stuff, but VMware is a high quality product and they are aiming for a lot more than speed.
-
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
Last time I checked, VirtualBox's snapshot management system sucked. What keeps me on VMWare is the ability to make snapshot trees, and the ability to make a linked clone. I can't really waste 10 minutes copying a 5GB image every time I need to create a new machine for something.
-
Last time I checked, VirtualBox's snapshot management system sucked. What keeps me on VMWare is the ability to make snapshot trees, and the ability to make a linked clone. I can't really waste 10 minutes copying a 5GB image every time I need to create a new machine for something.
:omg: Snapshots are the purest form of evil in any of them. I avoid them like the plague. It's so much easier to make a quick copy of a vm and you don't get all that hassle of having the deal with the snapshots when making backups etc. You do need a fast hard drive though. If you use snapshots instead you still pay the penalty but at the time of backup.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
:omg: Snapshots are the purest form of evil in any of them. I avoid them like the plague. It's so much easier to make a quick copy of a vm and you don't get all that hassle of having the deal with the snapshots when making backups etc. You do need a fast hard drive though. If you use snapshots instead you still pay the penalty but at the time of backup.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Yeah, but depending on how you're using it, they're a lifesaver. I end up having to test things that will probably break my machine quite frequently. Either that I am always asked, "Hey, test this on a clean machine." (e.g. one that has never had the software installed on it before.) The only sane way I know to do to that is to grab a snapshot, install the software, then toss the state. Or substitute snapshot with a linked clone. I haven't had any problems with snapshots in VMWare (yet.) But I have heard horror stories about them in VirtualBox. What really confuses me about VBox's snapshot manager is that it appears to be a tree, like VMWare, but it's actually just a linear nest.
-
Yeah, but depending on how you're using it, they're a lifesaver. I end up having to test things that will probably break my machine quite frequently. Either that I am always asked, "Hey, test this on a clean machine." (e.g. one that has never had the software installed on it before.) The only sane way I know to do to that is to grab a snapshot, install the software, then toss the state. Or substitute snapshot with a linked clone. I haven't had any problems with snapshots in VMWare (yet.) But I have heard horror stories about them in VirtualBox. What really confuses me about VBox's snapshot manager is that it appears to be a tree, like VMWare, but it's actually just a linear nest.
Ahh! I see, yeah that makes perfect sense since your blowing it away anyway. I made the mistake of making some snapshots for no real good reason and it was a big hassle to consolidate it all back into one single vm again. Ended up having to use VMWare Converter to do it. VMWare's command line disk management tools suck badly.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson