Ubuntu and Windows
-
I second that. This is what I used to do with Ubuntu, and now it's what I do with gentoo.
If it moves, compile it
how is gentoo by the way?
Regards, Jwalant Natvarlal Soneji http://jwalantsoneji.com[^]
-
Hi there guys, This is a question I have been dying to ask. I currently dual boot Ubuntu and Windows, but rebooting is a pain. So, my question is this: Of those of you that have used Windows (or use it still), if you've used Ubuntu, which did you like better and why? I am trying to decide if it is time to install Windows in a VBox from Ubuntu or vice-versa. I need a Linux environment regardless as I am developing a Linux server-side application. I like Ubuntu, and it is faster and safer than Windows, but it is less polished in some ways (IMO) than Windows. I have used Windows 8 and it seems that there are some drastic, less than idea (again, IMO) changes coming along. I am preparing to have to line myself up with another OS. Opinions everyone?
Collin Biedenkapp
I am not sure what could have annoyed you having Ubuntu and Win 8 side by side... I have Win 8, Win 7 and Ubuntu. The bootloader is a pain as Win 8 has combined both wins in it.
Regards, Jwalant Natvarlal Soneji http://jwalantsoneji.com[^]
-
You may well know this but I will mention it anyway as it caught me out. If you have a dual boot machine and remove or reformat the Ubuntu partition you may lose the ability to boot into Windows. What you need to do is rebuild the Master boot Record so that you reboot into Windows after you have removed the dual partition. There are tools out there which will do this for you - I mention this as I was caught out and even though I thought I was prepared it took me the best part of an evening to find something that would rebuild the MBR for Windows. I used Hiren's BootCD[^] to recreate the MBR. This is why I would recommend using something like Oracle's VirtualBox[^] as it is clean and you won't run into the issue with removing a dual boot from your computer.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
You can use a simple windows CD to boot and reinstall the MBR. No need for additional software.
-
For what it's worth: I loaded Ubuntu as the second partition on a Windows Box: No Problems. I loaded Windows as second partition on an Ubuntu box: it destroyed grub and I had to restore it and other sundry entries to even see Ubuntu again. Windows does not play nice with others - and entrusting your Ubuntu to the care of Windows (VM or otherwise) in my opinion, is risky business - and since it is your business at stake, is it a gamble you wish to take?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
What? Because Windows is badly behaved you are suggesting one gives it control? Do you have children? Because Windows is badly behaved, it SHOULD be relegated to a VM where it can be safely contained, and not allowed to stomp on its neighbours. I have run Windows (several version) in virtual machines for years. I currently use KVM and Qemu. One advantage is the ability now to tunnel into my Windows VMs using unix protocols such as ssh, or use VNC to access my Windows VM. I can even access my Windows applications in their own windows on my Linux Desktop - and create shortcuts to them on my desktop, or on the desktops of any Linux machine on the network. I can run these VMs WITHOUT anti-virus, and (intentionally) disable their Web browsers (and other clients) from going outside the local network. This is another significant benefit. I can still test my Web server apps using IE and other on Windows - but without Internet access in the VM, I don't need anti virus. That said, you should always install windows first in a multi-boot environment. You should usually install Linux root into a secondary partition (so you do not use up one of the (ONLY) 4 possible primary partitions, of which Windows needs one, and your PC probably ships with a recoevery partition (or two) that uses another. I recently bought an HP machine that had all 4 primary partitions used, with only one OS (Windows 7) installed, (and only one partition visible to the user). I deleted a "system restore" partition, resized the main Windows partition, and divided the released 4th parition into multiple secondary partitions in order to install Linux Mint (with its own swap partition). So - to give an overview of what has worked well for 15 years in various versions of Linux and Windows - Dual boot, Linux and Windows (Windows in a small partition), live in Linux. Windows in VMs using your favourtite Virtual Machine manager (I used to use VMWare, recently moved to KVM and Qemu).
-
What? Because Windows is badly behaved you are suggesting one gives it control? Do you have children? Because Windows is badly behaved, it SHOULD be relegated to a VM where it can be safely contained, and not allowed to stomp on its neighbours. I have run Windows (several version) in virtual machines for years. I currently use KVM and Qemu. One advantage is the ability now to tunnel into my Windows VMs using unix protocols such as ssh, or use VNC to access my Windows VM. I can even access my Windows applications in their own windows on my Linux Desktop - and create shortcuts to them on my desktop, or on the desktops of any Linux machine on the network. I can run these VMs WITHOUT anti-virus, and (intentionally) disable their Web browsers (and other clients) from going outside the local network. This is another significant benefit. I can still test my Web server apps using IE and other on Windows - but without Internet access in the VM, I don't need anti virus. That said, you should always install windows first in a multi-boot environment. You should usually install Linux root into a secondary partition (so you do not use up one of the (ONLY) 4 possible primary partitions, of which Windows needs one, and your PC probably ships with a recoevery partition (or two) that uses another. I recently bought an HP machine that had all 4 primary partitions used, with only one OS (Windows 7) installed, (and only one partition visible to the user). I deleted a "system restore" partition, resized the main Windows partition, and divided the released 4th parition into multiple secondary partitions in order to install Linux Mint (with its own swap partition). So - to give an overview of what has worked well for 15 years in various versions of Linux and Windows - Dual boot, Linux and Windows (Windows in a small partition), live in Linux. Windows in VMs using your favourtite Virtual Machine manager (I used to use VMWare, recently moved to KVM and Qemu).
Maybe you should reread what I wrote: Windows does not play well with others and my example of windows harming the other application (Ubuntu) clearly imply that I would not trust windows as the base FROM which to launch a VMs that is supposed to suport a non-Windows O/S - if one goes the VM route.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Hi there guys, This is a question I have been dying to ask. I currently dual boot Ubuntu and Windows, but rebooting is a pain. So, my question is this: Of those of you that have used Windows (or use it still), if you've used Ubuntu, which did you like better and why? I am trying to decide if it is time to install Windows in a VBox from Ubuntu or vice-versa. I need a Linux environment regardless as I am developing a Linux server-side application. I like Ubuntu, and it is faster and safer than Windows, but it is less polished in some ways (IMO) than Windows. I have used Windows 8 and it seems that there are some drastic, less than idea (again, IMO) changes coming along. I am preparing to have to line myself up with another OS. Opinions everyone?
Collin Biedenkapp
at home i only use linux (debian) at work i have a windows 7 machine with debian VM, i just spend all my time in the VM and i rarely ever have to even know windows 7 is there. between linux base with windows vm vs windows base with linux vm i would say...it depends on what you want windows for. if you want to play games, windows base. if its just dev linux base. i have a windows XP VM on my work machine as well which i use for windows development, its served just fine, dev isnt all that resource intensive nor graphic intensive so a VM can do it just fine
-
I'm currently dual-booting Win7 and Ubuntu, as I have a contract job that requires Ubuntu. I generally agree with your assessment. Ubuntu is faster and more responsive than Win7, but it has more rough edges than Windows. I wouldn't know about 'safer', other than to surmise that Ubuntu is safer chiefly because it is a far less prominent target. It sounds like Ubuntu is your normal working environment. My preference would be to definitely keep that as a 'native' boot. My suggestion is to buy a second computer, dedicate one to Ubuntu, the other to Windows. I've used enough virtual machines now that I prefer to test natively whenever possible. There always seems to be behavior differences between native boots and virtual machines that cause grief when testing.
Software Zen:
delete this;One note on this...if you go the 2 computer route, check out Synergy (virtual KM switch)
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
My suggestion is to buy a second computer, dedicate one to Ubuntu, the other to Windows.
I second this suggestion... :thumbsup:
Gary Wheeler wrote:
There always seems to be behavior differences between native boots and virtual machines that cause grief when testing.
Yep, sometimes you're not sure whether you're testing the VM software or your bug. Better off eliminating a middle man IMHO.
This depends on how close to the 'metal' you are. I've found VM boots to be quite sufficient for most higher level application type testing. If you are building device drivers, communications drivers, and such, then there is absolutely no substitute for a native booting machine.
-
Hi there guys, This is a question I have been dying to ask. I currently dual boot Ubuntu and Windows, but rebooting is a pain. So, my question is this: Of those of you that have used Windows (or use it still), if you've used Ubuntu, which did you like better and why? I am trying to decide if it is time to install Windows in a VBox from Ubuntu or vice-versa. I need a Linux environment regardless as I am developing a Linux server-side application. I like Ubuntu, and it is faster and safer than Windows, but it is less polished in some ways (IMO) than Windows. I have used Windows 8 and it seems that there are some drastic, less than idea (again, IMO) changes coming along. I am preparing to have to line myself up with another OS. Opinions everyone?
Collin Biedenkapp
Definitely Ubuntu. It works much faster then Windows, which has about 1000 programs that start at startup. It looks much better and it is a lot more customizable. Plus, most of the stuff is free. And most of the programs I use work with Wine perfectly, so I only boot Windows when I want to play a brand new game (most of the games before 2008 work perfectly with wine), or I need Visual Studio. Now, even if I work on cross-platform program I rarely boot Windows, because MinGW works nice on Wine too :)
-
I gave up Windows about 4 years ago at home, but at work I have one Windows box and one Ubuntu box. I share the keyboard and mouse with a kvm switch and each box has a dedicated monitor. I use synergy to allow the mouse and keyboard to be used across both monitors (and copy and paste between the 2 systems). This has been an ideal setup, although you need to make the Windows computer the synergy "server" and the Ubuntu box the client (due to uac). In order to communicate securely over the network between your 2 systems, install cygwin on Windows and use the ssh server, and run autossh on Ubuntu to create an encrypted tunnel between the two. On Windows, set up synergy server. On Ubuntu box run: autossh -fNL localhost:24800::24800 then: synergyc -f localhost It should connect to the windows synergs server right away, so switch the kvm to the Windows computer and your mouse and keyboard should work across both screens. Scott P.S. I used to run Windows in VirtualBox under ubuntu, but you need to give it at least 4GB RAM to be able to reliably run Visual Studio 10.
That's pretty cool. I will try that :)
-
The few times I've tried this I couldn't reliably or consistently get more than an 800x600 screen res. I managed to get a higher res once, but I couldn't get it to come back on reboot of the VM. Is there a publicly available pre-fab'd Ubuntu (or Redhat) VM for Windows 7 Virtual PC with higher screen resolutions? Or did you use a different VM engine, like VirtualBox or VMWare? I'd prefer to install and run only one VM manager, and let that be the one needed to run XP mode.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
The few times I've tried this I couldn't reliably or consistently get more than an 800x600 screen res. I managed to get a higher res once, but I couldn't get it to come back on reboot of the VM. Is there a publicly available pre-fab'd Ubuntu (or Redhat) VM for Windows 7 Virtual PC with higher screen resolutions? Or did you use a different VM engine, like VirtualBox or VMWare? I'd prefer to install and run only one VM manager, and let that be the one needed to run XP mode.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
Definitely Ubuntu. It works much faster then Windows, which has about 1000 programs that start at startup. It looks much better and it is a lot more customizable. Plus, most of the stuff is free. And most of the programs I use work with Wine perfectly, so I only boot Windows when I want to play a brand new game (most of the games before 2008 work perfectly with wine), or I need Visual Studio. Now, even if I work on cross-platform program I rarely boot Windows, because MinGW works nice on Wine too :)
I am for sure going to leave both on my machine, and I guess I will play around some more. I use my Windows for Flight Simulator, Visual Studio, and games. If I don't plan on using one of those things, I will stay in Ubunu. Otherwise, I'll use Windows. I love some of the discussions though! Windows 8 is growing on me a bit, but I'll wait a while before leaving my perfectly good Windows 7.
Collin
-
Maybe you should reread what I wrote: Windows does not play well with others and my example of windows harming the other application (Ubuntu) clearly imply that I would not trust windows as the base FROM which to launch a VMs that is supposed to suport a non-Windows O/S - if one goes the VM route.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
My apologies - I read the line "
Windows does not play nice with others - and entrusting your Ubuntu to the care of Windows (VM or otherwise) in my opinion, is risky business - and since it is your business at stake, is it a gamble you wish to take?
" as meaning the other way round to which you intended. It may be clear to you, but I can (now) see how it could read as either way.
-
We haven't tested this recently. Our application does process control in an industrial environment. We've seen differences in multithreading behavior and timing under the VM.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
We've seen differences in multithreading behavior and timing under the VM.
Not sure how one would not expect to see that? Given the following scenarios for a single box A. 1. Running only app X. 2. Running app X and app Y. 3. Running two VMS, M and N, with X in M and Y in N. None of the above are going to have the same timing/threading experience. And in general solution 3 is going to be the 'slowest' deployment although whether that is significant or even measurable depends on many things.
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
We've seen differences in multithreading behavior and timing under the VM.
Not sure how one would not expect to see that? Given the following scenarios for a single box A. 1. Running only app X. 2. Running app X and app Y. 3. Running two VMS, M and N, with X in M and Y in N. None of the above are going to have the same timing/threading experience. And in general solution 3 is going to be the 'slowest' deployment although whether that is significant or even measurable depends on many things.
We expected it. Unfortunately the differences were significant enough to make testing under a VM less than useful.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
The few times I've tried this I couldn't reliably or consistently get more than an 800x600 screen res. I managed to get a higher res once, but I couldn't get it to come back on reboot of the VM. Is there a publicly available pre-fab'd Ubuntu (or Redhat) VM for Windows 7 Virtual PC with higher screen resolutions? Or did you use a different VM engine, like VirtualBox or VMWare? I'd prefer to install and run only one VM manager, and let that be the one needed to run XP mode.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
TNCaver wrote:
The few times I've tried this I couldn't reliably or consistently get more than an 800x600 screen res
Did you install the guest additions (for VirtualBox) or VMWare Tools (for VMWare)? You need to install those to get cool functionality like mouse capture and auto-resize of the desktop.
Mike Poz
-
TNCaver wrote:
The few times I've tried this I couldn't reliably or consistently get more than an 800x600 screen res
Did you install the guest additions (for VirtualBox) or VMWare Tools (for VMWare)? You need to install those to get cool functionality like mouse capture and auto-resize of the desktop.
Mike Poz
-
No, as I wrote, I was using Win7 Virtual PC so that I'd only have one VM engine installed.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
Your first sentence in your first comment says this: "The few times I've tried this I couldn't reliably or consistently get more than an 800x600 screen res. I managed to get a higher res once, but I couldn't get it to come back on reboot of the VM. " I didn't realize you hijacked the thread to be an XP Mode on Virtual PC specific question. I thought you were trying to do what the original thread writer is asking about (using a virtual system for Linux/Windows and which to make the host/guest). That said: I gave up on Virtual PC a long time ago as, while it does have tight integration for XP mode support, it's darned near useless for anything else.
Mike Poz