Running Windows XP on a MacBook
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Migration Assistant
Next: [Recent Items] - folders?
From: Stefan Patric on 14 Feb 2010 17:14 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:56:22 -0800, Richard Maine wrote: > Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:58:17 -0500, Mike Rosenberg wrote: >> >> > Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: >> > >> >> VirtualBox is the easiest VM to set up and work with, and for >> >> personal use, it's free. >> >> >> >> http://www.virtualbox.org >> > >> > The price is definitely right, but how is it easier than Fusion or >> > Parallels? >> >> Perhaps it isn't anymore. They all have GUI interfaces now. >> >> It has been about 4 years since I last seriously looked at VMWare. At >> that time, VMWare--I don't even think they had a Mac version then... > > They didn't. It was released in late 2007, if Wikipedia has it right. So > no, you don't have any experience with the Mac product. And... > >> Have no experience with Parallels. > > Ok. So you have no basis for judging whether "it is the easiest VM to > set up and work with". Since your reply a few days ago, I've familiarized myself with Parallels: perused their web site, read through the User Manual and a few reviews, tests, comparisons of all three VMs as well as updated myself with VMWare Fusion and Player. The last time I checked (a year or so ago) Fusion was still in beta and Player couldn't create its own VMs. And I'm currently using VirtualBox 3.1, the latest version, on Linux Fedora 12 having upgraded a couple months ago from VirtualBox 2.something on Fedora 9. So, as far as my statement to the OP on the ease of use of VB, my opinion remains unchanged. VB is easiest simply because it's simplier: Less features, less options, less user choices needed to get up and running. It is the perfect choice, cost or lack of cost aside, for the casual non- techie user who needs another OS on rare occasions. > It might be easy. Not having tried it myself. I couldn't say. (I have > used both Parallels and VMWare on the Mac, in addition to a much older > VMWare product on Linux some time ago). I don't dispute that VirtualBox > might be a fine product, and that the price is right. I just note that > your statement about it being "the easiest" is, by definition, a > statement of comparison, for which you appear to have no basis. Why don't you try VirtualBox and see if it's "easiest." I would be interested in your opinion. Really. And to the OP: FWIW, another option other than a VM is Codeweavers Crossover Mac (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/). You can run Windows apps with no need of the Windows OS. Although, it is optimized to only run some Windows apps well like Office, Word, etc. Stef
From: Richard Maine on 14 Feb 2010 18:16 Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: > Why don't you try VirtualBox and see if it's "easiest." I would be > interested in your opinion. I've thought about it in the past. At the moment, I'm in the position of having a paid-for copy of VMWare that is doing what I want. My system not being broken in this regard, I'm not at all sure that I want to "fix" it just for curiosity about whether another solution would also work. Yes, I'm also curious, but probably not enough so to risk breaking what I have now (I can easily imagine conflicts from having multiple virtualization apps installed.) Maybe one of these days I'll try it on my wife's machine, as we aren't currently using VMWare for anything important there. It would be quite awkward if my VMWare installation on this machine broke; I suppose I'd figure out some way to get the employees of my wife's small business paid (I do the bookkeeping for her and the payroll app I'm using is a Windows one), but I really don't want to have to. Seems to me that when I first looked at it, it was missing features that I needed/wanted. USB support comes to mind. Looking at its current page, USB suport is claimed to be one of the closed-source features, though that would be ok for my personal use. Hmm, though maybe not, as running my wife's payroll probably means it doesn't count as completely personal use. I didn't spend the time to carefully study all the definitions in the license terms, but at a first guess, I'd say that means that it won't meet my needs unless I pay for it. That might be fine if VMWare wasn't working for me. After all, I have paid for both VMWare and Parallels licenses (though my Parallels license is for an old version that I don't think will even run on my current machines). But I'd need more than curiosity to motivate buying it. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Stefan Patric on 15 Feb 2010 01:57 On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:16:20 -0800, Richard Maine wrote: > Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: > >> Why don't you try VirtualBox and see if it's "easiest." I would be >> interested in your opinion. > > I've thought about it in the past. At the moment, I'm in the position of > having a paid-for copy of VMWare that is doing what I want. My system > not being broken in this regard, I'm not at all sure that I want to > "fix" it just for curiosity about whether another solution would also > work. Yes, I'm also curious, but probably not enough so to risk breaking > what I have now (I can easily imagine conflicts from having multiple > virtualization apps installed.) Maybe one of these days I'll try it on > [big snip] Here's an idea: Use VMWare to create a new virtual machine; install VirtualBox on THAT machine, then use VB to create a virtual machine on it. That way VB is isolated from the host machine, and in no way can it muck it up, and you can safely play with VirtualBox. Stef
From: Richard Maine on 15 Feb 2010 02:12 Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:16:20 -0800, Richard Maine wrote: > > > work. Yes, I'm also curious, but probably not enough so to risk breaking > > what I have now (I can easily imagine conflicts from having multiple > > virtualization apps installed.) ... > > Here's an idea: Use VMWare to create a new virtual machine; install > VirtualBox on THAT machine, then use VB to create a virtual machine on > it. That way VB is isolated from the host machine, and in no way can it > muck it up, and you can safely play with VirtualBox. I wouldn't expect that to work. Suppose I could be wrong. Even if it did, it wouldn't really end up being the particular port of VirtualBox that I'd have any interest in. I can't do an OS-X guest OS, which is what I'd need in order to then run in it the port of VirtualBox that uses an OS-X host. I have no interest in any other host systems. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Stefan Patric on 15 Feb 2010 17:53
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:12:56 -0800, Richard Maine wrote: > Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:16:20 -0800, Richard Maine wrote: >> >> > work. Yes, I'm also curious, but probably not enough so to risk >> > breaking what I have now (I can easily imagine conflicts from having >> > multiple virtualization apps installed.) ... >> >> Here's an idea: Use VMWare to create a new virtual machine; install >> VirtualBox on THAT machine, then use VB to create a virtual machine on >> it. That way VB is isolated from the host machine, and in no way can >> it muck it up, and you can safely play with VirtualBox. > > I wouldn't expect that to work. Suppose I could be wrong. Even if it > did, it wouldn't really end up being the particular port of VirtualBox > that I'd have any interest in. I can't do an OS-X guest OS, which is > what I'd need in order to then run in it the port of VirtualBox that > uses an OS-X host. I have no interest in any other host systems. Well, it does work, at least, on PCs running Windows or Linux. I've done it. Although, I don't know if it serves any useful purpose other than just seeing if it would work. As far as OS X Snow Leopard, there are those (and the instructions on doing it) who have installed it on standard PCs running Windows inside VMWare without too much difficulty. Doing the same with VMWare on a Mac host shouldn't be all that much more involved, since the VM is a PC in both cases. However, that's a lot to go through just to look at VirtualBox, which in no way matches the performance or feature set of either VMWare or Parallels. Since you already have, and have paid for VMWare and Parallels, I'd just forget about VB all together, even if it is free. Stef |