Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Virtual Machines
| Virtual Machines [message #84633] |
Tue, 15 May 2007 18:17  |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What's the go hear?
I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my work
laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
What's the popular option software wise?
Cheers,
Kim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84663 is a reply to message #84660] |
Wed, 16 May 2007 09:01  |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option in terms
of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made a
.deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it from
source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm avoiding
their software whenever possible.
Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does Debian
Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
is practically as offensive as running XP.
Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go that
route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email me
off list.
TCB
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything in
>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>
>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and paste,
>display resolutions).
>
>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>
>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the expansive
>feature set.
>
>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of linux
>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
anything
>the VM may do.
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>What's the go hear?
>>
>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my
work
>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>
>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Kim.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84664 is a reply to message #84663] |
Wed, 16 May 2007 09:16 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
PC setup?
Neil
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option in
terms
>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
a
>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it from
>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm avoiding
>their software whenever possible.
>
>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
Debian
>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>
>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go that
>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email me
>off list.
>
>TCB
>
>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything in
>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>
>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
paste,
>>display resolutions).
>>
>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>
>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the expansive
>>feature set.
>>
>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of linux
>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>anything
>>the VM may do.
>>
>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>What's the go hear?
>>>
>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my
>work
>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>
>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Kim.
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84671 is a reply to message #84664] |
Wed, 16 May 2007 11:07 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Neil,
Here are some practical examples of why I use a VM exclusively for all desktop
apps.
The entire file system of the virtual machine is contained in a virtual hard
disk, which is a single physical disk file. All of my corporate applications,
including Office, Email, etc are installed on this VM. This file can be
moved freely from physical machine to machine. Software is installed only
once. Software is authorized only once. This brings several advantages:
1. I can back up my entire machine by simply copying this file to an external
hard drive, an operation that takes 7 minutes on my machine. I copy the
VM from my primary work laptop to my home desktop machine every night. If
anything were to happen to my laptop, I could be back up and running on a
new laptop by simply copying the file.
2. I can move this file to any of my other machines. For example... I have
an ultralight laptop that I use for travel. It weighs 4 lbs and is very
small. I move the virtual hard disk file to this machine, and my complete
desktop environment including all applications and files is ready for action.
I have a kick ass multi-monitor desktop at home at my desk. When I want
to use that machine - same thing, copy over a file.
3. Testing software... I backup the virtual machine, then am free to install
and test anything I want, including virus infected malware without any risk.
If the wheels come off I simply shut down the virtual machine and restart
from the backup.
etc. etc. :-)
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
>that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
>PC setup?
>
>Neil
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option in
>terms
>>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
>a
>>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
>>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it from
>>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
>>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm avoiding
>>their software whenever possible.
>>
>>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
>Debian
>>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
>>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>>
>>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go that
>>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email me
>>off list.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything
in
>>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>>
>>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>>> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
>paste,
>>>display resolutions).
>>>
>>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>>
>>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the expansive
>>>feature set.
>>>
>>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of
linux
>>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>>anything
>>>the VM may do.
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's the go hear?
>>>>
>>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my
>>work
>>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>>
>>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Kim.
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84672 is a reply to message #84664] |
Wed, 16 May 2007 11:37 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In addition to what Chuck said, you also can have all of your 'dirty' apps
web browsers, games, flash players, development suites, and all of that crap,
on your audio box. It's completely segmented.
Lastly, for me my desktop at work is an XP box but everything I code I put
on a linux/perl/apache box, so I can write all of that in it's native environment
and just copy it over to the right folders on the web server and it's done.
TCB
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
>that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
>PC setup?
>
>Neil
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option in
>terms
>>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
>a
>>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
>>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it from
>>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
>>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm avoiding
>>their software whenever possible.
>>
>>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
>Debian
>>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
>>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>>
>>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go that
>>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email me
>>off list.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything
in
>>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>>
>>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>>> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
>paste,
>>>display resolutions).
>>>
>>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>>
>>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the expansive
>>>feature set.
>>>
>>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of
linux
>>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>>anything
>>>the VM may do.
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's the go hear?
>>>>
>>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my
>>work
>>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>>
>>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Kim.
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84673 is a reply to message #84672] |
Wed, 16 May 2007 11:44 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thad,
Good point!
Chuck
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>In addition to what Chuck said, you also can have all of your 'dirty' apps
>web browsers, games, flash players, development suites, and all of that
crap,
>on your audio box. It's completely segmented.
>
>Lastly, for me my desktop at work is an XP box but everything I code I put
>on a linux/perl/apache box, so I can write all of that in it's native environment
>and just copy it over to the right folders on the web server and it's done.
>
>
>TCB
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
>>that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
>>PC setup?
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option
in
>>terms
>>>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
>>a
>>>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
>>>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it
from
>>>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
>>>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm
avoiding
>>>their software whenever possible.
>>>
>>>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
>>Debian
>>>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
>>>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>>>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>>>
>>>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go
that
>>>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email
me
>>>off list.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>>>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything
>in
>>>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>>>
>>>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>>>> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
>>paste,
>>>>display resolutions).
>>>>
>>>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>>>
>>>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the
expansive
>>>>feature set.
>>>>
>>>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of
>linux
>>>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>>>anything
>>>>the VM may do.
>>>>
>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What's the go hear?
>>>>>
>>>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on
my
>>>work
>>>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Kim.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84676 is a reply to message #84673] |
Wed, 16 May 2007 12:18 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
guys-
does this mean you have rendered all copy protection schemes irrelevant?
How do dongles work into this?
-steve
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Thad,
>
>Good point!
>
>Chuck
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>In addition to what Chuck said, you also can have all of your 'dirty' apps
>>web browsers, games, flash players, development suites, and all of that
>crap,
>>on your audio box. It's completely segmented.
>>
>>Lastly, for me my desktop at work is an XP box but everything I code I
put
>>on a linux/perl/apache box, so I can write all of that in it's native environment
>>and just copy it over to the right folders on the web server and it's done.
>>
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
>>>that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
>>>PC setup?
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option
>in
>>>terms
>>>>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
>>>a
>>>>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual
box
>>>>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it
>from
>>>>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this
means
>>>>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm
>avoiding
>>>>their software whenever possible.
>>>>
>>>>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
>>>Debian
>>>>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my
guess
>>>>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>>>>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>>>>
>>>>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go
>that
>>>>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email
>me
>>>>off list.
>>>>
>>>>TCB
>>>>
>>>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical
machine
>>>>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything
>>in
>>>>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>>>>> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
>>>paste,
>>>>>display resolutions).
>>>>>
>>>>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>>>>
>>>>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the
>expansive
>>>>>feature set.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of
>>linux
>>>>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>>>>anything
>>>>>the VM may do.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the go hear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on
>my
>>>>work
>>>>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>Kim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84694 is a reply to message #84671] |
Wed, 16 May 2007 18:00 |
JeffH
Messages: 307
Registered: October 2007
Location: Wamic, OR
|
Senior Member |
|
|
chuck (and Thad),
Any of VM options recognize USB devices? I'm running VPC 2007 and my
understanding is it won't actually poll and grab USB printers/ scanners/
etc.
JH
> Hi Neil,
>
> Here are some practical examples of why I use a VM exclusively for all desktop
> apps.
>
> The entire file system of the virtual machine is contained in a virtual hard
> disk, which is a single physical disk file. All of my corporate applications,
> including Office, Email, etc are installed on this VM. This file can be
> moved freely from physical machine to machine. Software is installed only
> once. Software is authorized only once. This brings several advantages:
>
> 1. I can back up my entire machine by simply copying this file to an external
> hard drive, an operation that takes 7 minutes on my machine. I copy the
> VM from my primary work laptop to my home desktop machine every night. If
> anything were to happen to my laptop, I could be back up and running on a
> new laptop by simply copying the file.
>
> 2. I can move this file to any of my other machines. For example... I have
> an ultralight laptop that I use for travel. It weighs 4 lbs and is very
> small. I move the virtual hard disk file to this machine, and my complete
> desktop environment including all applications and files is ready for action.
> I have a kick ass multi-monitor desktop at home at my desk. When I want
> to use that machine - same thing, copy over a file.
>
> 3. Testing software... I backup the virtual machine, then am free to install
> and test anything I want, including virus infected malware without any risk.
> If the wheels come off I simply shut down the virtual machine and restart
> from the backup.
>
> etc. etc. :-)
>
>
>
> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
>>that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
>>PC setup?
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option in
>>
>>terms
>>
>>>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
>>
>>a
>>
>>>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
>>>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it from
>>>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
>>>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm avoiding
>>>their software whenever possible.
>>>
>>>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
>>
>>Debian
>>
>>>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
>>>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>>>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>>>
>>>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go that
>>>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email me
>>>off list.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>>>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything
>
> in
>
>>>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>>>
>>>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>>>>Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
>>
>>paste,
>>
>>>>display resolutions).
>>>>
>>>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>>>
>>>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the expansive
>>>>feature set.
>>>>
>>>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of
>
> linux
>
>>>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>>>
>>>anything
>>>
>>>>the VM may do.
>>>>
>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What's the go hear?
>>>>>
>>>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my
>>>
>>>work
>>>
>>>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Kim.
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84707 is a reply to message #84694] |
Thu, 17 May 2007 05:03 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Jeff,
That's a good question. VirtualBox and VMWare support USB devices. I never
thought about that much because my printers are all network printers, and
I don't have a scanner anymore :-)
You can share the printer on the physical machine and connect to it from
the VM, but I don't know what to do about a scanner.
Chuck
Chuck
Jeff Hoover <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote:
>chuck (and Thad),
>
>Any of VM options recognize USB devices? I'm running VPC 2007 and my
>understanding is it won't actually poll and grab USB printers/ scanners/
>etc.
>
>JH
>
>
>> Hi Neil,
>>
>> Here are some practical examples of why I use a VM exclusively for all
desktop
>> apps.
>>
>> The entire file system of the virtual machine is contained in a virtual
hard
>> disk, which is a single physical disk file. All of my corporate applications,
>> including Office, Email, etc are installed on this VM. This file can
be
>> moved freely from physical machine to machine. Software is installed
only
>> once. Software is authorized only once. This brings several advantages:
>>
>> 1. I can back up my entire machine by simply copying this file to an external
>> hard drive, an operation that takes 7 minutes on my machine. I copy the
>> VM from my primary work laptop to my home desktop machine every night.
If
>> anything were to happen to my laptop, I could be back up and running on
a
>> new laptop by simply copying the file.
>>
>> 2. I can move this file to any of my other machines. For example... I
have
>> an ultralight laptop that I use for travel. It weighs 4 lbs and is very
>> small. I move the virtual hard disk file to this machine, and my complete
>> desktop environment including all applications and files is ready for
action.
>> I have a kick ass multi-monitor desktop at home at my desk. When I want
>> to use that machine - same thing, copy over a file.
>>
>> 3. Testing software... I backup the virtual machine, then am free to install
>> and test anything I want, including virus infected malware without any
risk.
>> If the wheels come off I simply shut down the virtual machine and restart
>> from the backup.
>>
>> etc. etc. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
>>>that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
>>>PC setup?
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option
in
>>>
>>>terms
>>>
>>>>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual
box
>>>>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it
from
>>>>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this
means
>>>>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm
avoiding
>>>>their software whenever possible.
>>>>
>>>>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
>>>
>>>Debian
>>>
>>>>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my
guess
>>>>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>>>>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>>>>
>>>>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go
that
>>>>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email
me
>>>>off list.
>>>>
>>>>TCB
>>>>
>>>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical
machine
>>>>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything
>>
>> in
>>
>>>>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>>>>>Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
>>>
>>>paste,
>>>
>>>>>display resolutions).
>>>>>
>>>>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>>>>
>>>>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the
expansive
>>>>>feature set.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of
>>
>> linux
>>
>>>>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>>>>
>>>>anything
>>>>
>>>>>the VM may do.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the go hear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on
my
>>>>
>>>>work
>>>>
>>>>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>Kim.
>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Virtual Machines [message #84740 is a reply to message #84707] |
Thu, 17 May 2007 19:40 |
JeffH
Messages: 307
Registered: October 2007
Location: Wamic, OR
|
Senior Member |
|
|
chuck,
Thanks for the reply. I'll give one of the other two a try on the USB
side. I've gotten into this whole "get rid of the file cabinet and
image it all" thing, so I am constantly needed access to my scanner.
JH
> Hi Jeff,
>
> That's a good question. VirtualBox and VMWare support USB devices. I never
> thought about that much because my printers are all network printers, and
> I don't have a scanner anymore :-)
>
> You can share the printer on the physical machine and connect to it from
> the VM, but I don't know what to do about a scanner.
>
> Chuck
>
> Chuck
>
> Jeff Hoover <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>chuck (and Thad),
>>
>>Any of VM options recognize USB devices? I'm running VPC 2007 and my
>>understanding is it won't actually poll and grab USB printers/ scanners/
>
>
>>etc.
>>
>>JH
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Neil,
>>>
>>>Here are some practical examples of why I use a VM exclusively for all
>
> desktop
>
>>>apps.
>>>
>>>The entire file system of the virtual machine is contained in a virtual
>
> hard
>
>>>disk, which is a single physical disk file. All of my corporate applications,
>>>including Office, Email, etc are installed on this VM. This file can
>
> be
>
>>>moved freely from physical machine to machine. Software is installed
>
> only
>
>>>once. Software is authorized only once. This brings several advantages:
>>>
>>>1. I can back up my entire machine by simply copying this file to an external
>>>hard drive, an operation that takes 7 minutes on my machine. I copy the
>>>VM from my primary work laptop to my home desktop machine every night.
>
> If
>
>>>anything were to happen to my laptop, I could be back up and running on
>
> a
>
>>>new laptop by simply copying the file.
>>>
>>>2. I can move this file to any of my other machines. For example... I
>
> have
>
>>>an ultralight laptop that I use for travel. It weighs 4 lbs and is very
>>>small. I move the virtual hard disk file to this machine, and my complete
>>>desktop environment including all applications and files is ready for
>
> action.
>
>>> I have a kick ass multi-monitor desktop at home at my desk. When I want
>>>to use that machine - same thing, copy over a file.
>>>
>>>3. Testing software... I backup the virtual machine, then am free to install
>>>and test anything I want, including virus infected malware without any
>
> risk.
>
>>> If the wheels come off I simply shut down the virtual machine and restart
>>>from the backup.
>>>
>>>etc. etc. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
>>>>that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
>>>>PC setup?
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option
>
> in
>
>>>>terms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
>>>>
>>>>a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual
>
> box
>
>>>>>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it
>
> from
>
>>>>>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this
>
> means
>
>>>>>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm
>
> avoiding
>
>>>>>their software whenever possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
>>>>
>>>>Debian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my
>
> guess
>
>>>>>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>>>>>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go
>
> that
>
>>>>>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email
>
> me
>
>>>>>off list.
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB
>>>>>
>>>>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical
>
> machine
>
>>>>>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything
>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>>>>>>Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
>>>>
>>>>paste,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>display resolutions).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the
>
> expansive
>
>>>>>>feature set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of
>>>
>>>linux
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>>>>>
>>>>>anything
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the VM may do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's the go hear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on
>
> my
>
>>>>>work
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>Kim.
>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Feb 12 02:46:41 PST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02293 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
