Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Virtual machine or dual boot?

  • 24-08-2008 10:23am
    #1
    corblimey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭


    I'm converting this machine to Ubuntu but I suspect I'll need my Win XP from time to time (if only to say "ha! what rubbish!!!12! l33t etc") I've found a good guide for converting XP to a VM and then running it in Linux, but it doesn't tell you the advantages/disadvantages of this over a dual boot. To my mind, the VM would be the obvious solution, but there must be some limitations (speed? memory usage?). Is there any quick and easy guide (using words of less than 2 syllables) that would explain which solution (or other) is better for which purpose?


Comments

  • #2
    KeRbDoG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,335 ✭✭✭KeRbDoG


    I would go for dual boot - performacnce of a virtual machine differs greatly depending on what type of machine yea have.
    If yea don't use XP that much (say once a week) dual booting is a clean and easy way. Just insure you format the XP partition as FAT32 so yea can mount it in Ubuntu without any read/write worries.


  • #3
    ethernet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,568 ✭✭✭ethernet


    Forget gaming in a virtual machine -- no direct access to graphics card, so no eye candy (in Vista, at least).

    Converting an existing native install to a VM can throw some errors. Could be more hassle than it's worth.

    Have XP in a VM on my Mac here just for a TV capture card. As you've mentioned yourself, it's not as fast as a native install but ideal for occasional and not overly-demanding work.


  • #4
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,260 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Dual boot. Piss easy to set up.

    VMs are very irritating. You would be surprised at how many mundane things you do everyday that you cannot do with a VM.


  • #5
    corblimey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭corblimey


    Ah this is just the sort of feedback I needed. Dual boot it is then, thanks all


  • #6
    aidan_walsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,208 ✭✭✭✭aidan_walsh


    What exactly are you looking to use the Windows installation for?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    That's the main question alright. If you want it for gaming - then dual-boot. (or use Wine - that's what I do). But if it's for mundane stuff like VPN or just using IE then a VM.

    I have an XP VM myself - it's used purely for VPN to work and the occasional Betfair poker game.


  • #8
    Khannie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    jmccrohan wrote: »
    You would be surprised at how many mundane things you do everyday that you cannot do with a VM.

    Go on.....

    I haven't hit one yet. I only really use an XP VM for Office. The sooner the better I can get rid of that.


  • #9
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Why don't you use Crossover for Office?


  • #10
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,260 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Khannie wrote: »
    Go on.....
    No native access to any hardware makes things awkward.


  • #11
    leeroybrown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,563 ✭✭✭leeroybrown


    I think it comes down to a reasonably simple call. If you need to use Windows for specific tasks that take a long time (such as working in one particular app for hours), tasks that require a lot of memory or native access to the hardware for performance then dual boot. Otherwise using a VM makes sense. Most of the time it will be less hassle to put up with a couple of minor pinch points in a VM rather than going through two full boot cycles. For me native access to hardware would be an 'edge case' that only really affects specific users..


  • Advertisement
Advertisement