Ubuntu and Windows
-
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
-
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
I didn't hijack the thread, my reply had nothing to do with XP mode except as the reason to get Ubunto to work in Win7 Virtual PC rather than another VM. I was talking about running Ubuntu on Win7 in a VM in a reply to someone else on the thread who said he was doing that. But yes, I'm coming to the same conclusion about the limited usefullness of Virtual PC.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
ubuntu os, windows xp virtual box vm <--- been using it for years without reinstall and no crash
01101111 01100010 01101010 01100101 01100011 01110100 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01101101 01101001 01110010 01110010 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100011 01101100 01101111 01110011 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01100001 01110010
Same configuration, works like a charm.
-
Virtualbox is good. Lately I got a few 32 gig Sandisk thumb drives for $18, and installed Ubuntu 386 with Gnome on that and 64bit. Seems to run faster then Virtual machines and is persistent as opposed to LiveDVD's. Also, I can take it with me and boot any computer hardware to Linux that has USB boot option enabled..computer on a stick. Windows can then be still installed by default, and the running Linux easily accesses the native drive. Also, you can boot the linux..even if the native hard drive goes on you. I like windows 7 and C# alot, I also like Linux with Gnome and C# ALOT.
-
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.
I use VirtualBox on a Windows 7 machine. I have Linux Mint 12 (Ubuntu derivative) as one (using different desktop - XFCE is close to Ubuntu 10.04/10.10), Ubuntu 10.04, Ubuntu 12.04 (Unity, which I do not like), ZorinOS Core 5.2 (provides Gnome 2 desktop (even though Ubuntu 11.04 based) and also XP and Windows 7 GUI look and feel and, finally, ReactOS (an XP freeware version). I know my browsers run faster on these OSes running in a VM than they do native on Windows 7 - I use Firefox, Google Chrome and Opera. The occasional glitch I get is when switching OSes under VirtualBox, it seems to lose it being plugged in. Not sure if it is a Windows 7 problem or VirtualBox. I do know that Windows 7 does not always play nice with my non-MS browsers. I did try to install the first two versions (Developer and Consumer Preview) of Windows 8 and could not get through the install process in spite of allocating sufficient RAM and virtual HD space for the virtual machines. I have not tried the latest Win. 8 Release Preview yet. If the USB flash drive continues to be a problem, I might try VMWare.
-
I went to the Hiren BootCD website, but there is no download link for the CD. Do you know where to get it from?
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
You need to go to the bottom of the page. It is a ZIP file. See: http://www.hirensbootcd.org/download/ - (www.hirensbootcd.org/download). You should see: Filename: Hirens.BootCD.15.1.zip Filesize: 498.36 MB (522565534 bytes) ISO MD5: B5DE7A10DD1586D47535372EA1AD9BED ZIP MD5: 5B8E9240AE8CF74939B60AD872CBBABA It contains the ISO and other files.
-
Hmm. I have heard all different opinions here, and I have several machines available that I could use. That seems like it may be the best option. Also, by safer all I meant was that viruses are less of a concern due to Windows being the target of most. I will probably stick with Windows 7 on my desktop for normal operations and Ubuntu on my laptop or a VM. The server environment I'm developing is entirely self contained, and I have several remote cloud servers I can test it on, so the scariness of a VM for me isn't as big of a factor. At the same time, I just plane like Ubuntu. There isn't a perfect solution I don't think. The bottom line is this for me: Ubuntu, although it should be (IMO), isn't as popular or mainstream as Windows, and is doesn't run everything Windows can. I find myself rebooting several times in a day due to different things (I have two projects currently, one using .Net/C++ and one for Linux).
Collin Biedenkapp
