Windows on Ubuntu - Linux

This is a discussion on Windows on Ubuntu - Linux ; I have Adobe's CS2 Windows production suite, and it leads me to ask a question. Since I refuse to allow Vista near any of my hardware, and since I honestly see no point in getting faster hardware to run XP, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Windows on Ubuntu

  1. Windows on Ubuntu

    I have Adobe's CS2 Windows production suite, and it leads me to ask a
    question.
    Since I refuse to allow Vista near any of my hardware, and
    since I honestly see no point in getting faster hardware to run XP,
    and
    since it wouldn't take much to get me to invest my hard-earned cash
    into a smokin' linux box, and
    since I currently dual-boot but don't much like it,
    Is there an Ubuntu version optimized to run XP inside?

    Here's what I'm really trying to say
    - I don't see the point in buying faster Windows hardware for XP.
    - I don't especially like dual-booting
    - I will not run linux inside windows - what's the point of a stable
    os inside a relatively unstable one?
    - I like the idea of investing in hardware if the OS is stable and
    fast (like Ubuntu).
    - If I buy a dual or quad core, I'll bet the end result would be a
    faster XP inside linux than what I have running XP now .
    (3.2ghz with 2gig of RAM)
    - Here's the question... Is there now or will there soon be (H. Heron)
    a version of Linux optimized to run XP inside of?
    - (I know, the preposition thing - I couldn't figure out how else to
    say it.)
    - Lastly, would a quad core know how to handle Windows inside of
    Linux?

    Looking for wisdom far beyond mine...
    ron


  2. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:00:23 -0700 (PDT), Ron in L.A. wrote:

    > I have Adobe's CS2 Windows production suite, and it leads me to ask a
    > question.
    > Since I refuse to allow Vista near any of my hardware, and
    > since I honestly see no point in getting faster hardware to run XP,
    > and
    > since it wouldn't take much to get me to invest my hard-earned cash
    > into a smokin' linux box, and
    > since I currently dual-boot but don't much like it,
    > Is there an Ubuntu version optimized to run XP inside?


    Look into VMware.....


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    * Ron in L.A. peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I have Adobe's CS2 Windows production suite, and it leads me to ask a
    > question. Since I refuse to allow Vista near any of my hardware, and
    > since I honestly see no point in getting faster hardware to run XP,
    > and since it wouldn't take much to get me to invest my hard-earned
    > cash into a smokin' linux box, and since I currently dual-boot but
    > don't much like it, Is there an Ubuntu version optimized to run XP
    > inside?


    Any Linux distro will do. I personally don't know of any distro that
    is built for VMs in the way that, say, Cedega is built for gaming or AV.
    But I've never looked, either.

    More important is whether you want to try QEMU, VMware, or some other VM
    technology.

    So basically I have not helped you.

    --
    We've done some good work, but all of these products become obsolete so
    fast... It will be some finite number of years, and I don't know the number
    -- before our doom comes.
    -- Bill Gates, Forbes Greatest Business Stories of All Time (1997) by Daniel
    Gross ISBN 0471196533

  4. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:00:23 -0700, Ron in L.A. wrote:

    > I have Adobe's CS2 Windows production suite, and it leads me to ask a
    > question.
    > Since I refuse to allow Vista near any of my hardware, and since I
    > honestly see no point in getting faster hardware to run XP, and
    > since it wouldn't take much to get me to invest my hard-earned cash into
    > a smokin' linux box, and
    > since I currently dual-boot but don't much like it, Is there an Ubuntu
    > version optimized to run XP inside?
    >
    > Here's what I'm really trying to say
    > - I don't see the point in buying faster Windows hardware for XP. - I
    > don't especially like dual-booting - I will not run linux inside windows
    > - what's the point of a stable os inside a relatively unstable one?
    > - I like the idea of investing in hardware if the OS is stable and fast
    > (like Ubuntu).
    > - If I buy a dual or quad core, I'll bet the end result would be a
    > faster XP inside linux than what I have running XP now . (3.2ghz
    > with 2gig of RAM)
    > - Here's the question... Is there now or will there soon be (H. Heron) a
    > version of Linux optimized to run XP inside of? - (I know, the
    > preposition thing - I couldn't figure out how else to say it.)
    > - Lastly, would a quad core know how to handle Windows inside of Linux?
    >
    > Looking for wisdom far beyond mine... ron


    I've recently tried VirtualBox - it seems quite promising.

  5. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:00:23 -0700, Ron in L.A. wrote:

    > I have Adobe's CS2 Windows production suite, and it leads me to ask a
    > question.
    > Since I refuse to allow Vista near any of my hardware, and since I
    > honestly see no point in getting faster hardware to run XP, and
    > since it wouldn't take much to get me to invest my hard-earned cash into
    > a smokin' linux box, and
    > since I currently dual-boot but don't much like it, Is there an Ubuntu
    > version optimized to run XP inside?
    >
    > Here's what I'm really trying to say
    > - I don't see the point in buying faster Windows hardware for XP. - I
    > don't especially like dual-booting - I will not run linux inside windows
    > - what's the point of a stable os inside a relatively unstable one?
    > - I like the idea of investing in hardware if the OS is stable and fast
    > (like Ubuntu).
    > - If I buy a dual or quad core, I'll bet the end result would be a
    > faster XP inside linux than what I have running XP now . (3.2ghz
    > with 2gig of RAM)
    > - Here's the question... Is there now or will there soon be (H. Heron) a
    > version of Linux optimized to run XP inside of? - (I know, the
    > preposition thing - I couldn't figure out how else to say it.)
    > - Lastly, would a quad core know how to handle Windows inside of Linux?
    >
    > Looking for wisdom far beyond mine... ron


    I don't have any need of Windows, but I like to play with Win2K in a
    Virtualbox VM just to see what can be done. It seems pretty snappy on a
    2 ghz system. Virtualized software isn't emulated, it runs on the CPU at
    full speed. Where you run into slowdows is that hardware acceleration
    can't be simulated at real-world speed in software. If it could, we
    wouldn't *need* hardware acceleration. :-)

    So if CS2 requires 3D hardware acceleration then I doubt a VM will
    help. Otherwise, the only way to know if it'll be fast enough is to grab
    Virtualbox and give it a try.

    One thing, you're going to run up against product-activation problems
    with Windows XP. If you're clever enough you can coerce it into running
    on the VM for 30 days while you see if everything will work. But then
    you'll have to buy a license for it.

    Windows 2000 is very popular among VMers because it doesn't use product
    activation. That means you don't get all the product-activation
    headaches when installing it or reconfiguring your VM. However, it's
    getting a bit dated and can sometimes be problematic with the newer
    Windows applications. You will also have to manually install some things
    that come standard with WinXP, such as Media player.

  6. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On Apr 3, 12:09 pm, netcat wrote:
    > Windows 2000 is very popular among VMers because it doesn't use product
    > activation.


    The reason that I was forced from win2k to XP was Adobe's CS suite. I
    found
    win2000 to be roughly twice as fast at rendering video as XP so I
    certainly
    didn't go along willingly. Adobe forced the issue by requiring XP so I
    went
    along (albeit kicking and screaming). No amount of intimidation or
    other
    coercion could possibly ever, ever move me to Vista.

    As it is, I find myself unwilling to invest in faster hardware for XP
    since at
    best, it's a dying breed, and not all that stable to begin with. On
    the other
    hand, I dual boot into ubuntu linux and like what I see. If I were
    able to still
    use the Adobe products that I've invested in, but on top of a stable
    OS that
    is both fast and stable, I'd do it in a flash. And if that means
    running XP
    within linux, so be it.

    Perhaps it's laziness, but I would love to obtain a version of Linux
    that is
    optimized and pre-installed with virtualization built-in. All I would
    have to
    do at that point is install my copy of XP and my software. I really
    don't
    think it's laziness. I just don't have the experience to know all the
    bells
    and whistles to optimize or re-compile or tweak linux to make USB,
    sound
    drivers, network drivers, you know - all that stuff work as it should.
    That's
    honestly what it boils down to for me.

    And thanks all for your insights on this topic. Interesting reading!
    ron

  7. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    Sorry for the mess above. I'll try again here, perhaps it will format
    better. 'Can't do much worse!

    On Apr 3, 12:09 pm, netcat wrote:

    > Windows 2000 is very popular among VMers because it doesn't use
    > product activation.


    The reason that I was forced from win2k to XP was Adobe's CS suite. I
    found win2000 to be roughly twice as fast at rendering video as XP so
    I certainly didn't go along willingly. Adobe forced the issue by
    requiring XP so I went along (albeit kicking and screaming). No amount
    of intimidation or other coercion could possibly ever, ever move me to
    Vista.

    As it is, I find myself unwilling to invest in faster hardware for XP
    since at best, it's a dying breed, and not all that stable to begin
    with. On the other hand, I dual boot into ubuntu linux and like what I
    see. If I were able to still use the Adobe products that I've invested
    in, but on top of a stable OS that is both fast and stable, I'd do it
    in a flash. And if that means running XP within linux, so be it.

    Perhaps it's laziness, but I would love to obtain a version of Linux
    that is optimized and pre-installed with virtualization built-in. All
    I would have to do at that point is install my copy of XP and my
    software. I really don't think it's laziness. I just don't have the
    experience to know all the bells and whistles to optimize or re-
    compile or tweak linux to make USB, sound drivers, network drivers,
    you know - all that stuff work as it should. That's honestly what it
    boils down to for me.

    And thanks all for your insights on this topic. Interesting reading!
    ron

  8. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:31:20 -0700, Ron in L.A. wrote:

    > Perhaps it's laziness, but I would love to obtain a version of Linux
    > that is optimized and pre-installed with virtualization built-in. All I
    > would have to do at that point is install my copy of XP and my software.
    > I really don't think it's laziness. I just don't have the experience to
    > know all the bells and whistles to optimize or re- compile or tweak
    > linux to make USB, sound drivers, network drivers, you know - all that
    > stuff work as it should. That's honestly what it boils down to for me.


    You don't have to worry about all that stuff if the hardware is Linux-
    compatible. Determining that is one of the things LiveCD's were created
    for. If you can boot a Ubuntu LiveCD and it runs all your hardware, then
    you should be able to install Ubuntu onto your hard drive and everything
    will be taken care of automatically. Virtual machines sound exotic but
    installing and running VM software doesn't take any high level of
    technical expertise. It's like any other program, just follow the
    cookbook instructions and it should work. If you don't want to get too
    absorbed in installation details, you can install Vmware Player from
    Ubuntu's list of applications. You can't create virtual machines directly
    with Vmware Player, but there are sites on the Internet that provide step-
    by-step instructions for creating your own Windows XP VM to run under
    Player.

    Another way to go is to install Vmware or virtualbox onto Windows XP and
    install a Ubuntu machine in that. Play with the VM software and Ubuntu
    until you're comfortable with things, then when you feel compfortable you
    can install Ubuntu as your primary OS and run Windows under it.

    One nice thing about virtual machines is that once you get XP activated,
    and assuming you don't alter any of the VM's simulated hardware, your VM
    becomes portable to later systems but to XP it appears that it's still on
    the same machine. That avoids problems with XP not being able to run on
    new hardware or refusing to activate after MS pulls the plug someday.
    (But it is, of course, a violation of the Windows EULA to run more than
    one instance or copy of that VM)













  9. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On 2008-04-04, netcat wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:31:20 -0700, Ron in L.A. wrote:
    >
    >> Perhaps it's laziness, but I would love to obtain a version of Linux
    >> that is optimized and pre-installed with virtualization built-in. All I
    >> would have to do at that point is install my copy of XP and my software.
    >> I really don't think it's laziness. I just don't have the experience to
    >> know all the bells and whistles to optimize or re- compile or tweak
    >> linux to make USB, sound drivers, network drivers, you know - all that
    >> stuff work as it should. That's honestly what it boils down to for me.

    >
    > You don't have to worry about all that stuff if the hardware is Linux-
    > compatible. Determining that is one of the things LiveCD's were created
    > for. If you can boot a Ubuntu LiveCD and it runs all your hardware, then
    > you should be able to install Ubuntu onto your hard drive and everything
    > will be taken care of automatically. Virtual machines sound exotic but
    > installing and running VM software doesn't take any high level of
    > technical expertise. It's like any other program, just follow the
    > cookbook instructions and it should work. If you don't want to get too
    > absorbed in installation details, you can install Vmware Player from
    > Ubuntu's list of applications. You can't create virtual machines directly
    > with Vmware Player, but there are sites on the Internet that provide step-
    > by-step instructions for creating your own Windows XP VM to run under
    > Player.
    >
    > Another way to go is to install Vmware or virtualbox onto Windows XP and
    > install a Ubuntu machine in that. Play with the VM software and Ubuntu
    > until you're comfortable with things, then when you feel compfortable you
    > can install Ubuntu as your primary OS and run Windows under it.
    >
    > One nice thing about virtual machines is that once you get XP activated,
    > and assuming you don't alter any of the VM's simulated hardware, your VM
    > becomes portable to later systems but to XP it appears that it's still on
    > the same machine. That avoids problems with XP not being able to run on
    > new hardware or refusing to activate after MS pulls the plug someday.
    > (But it is, of course, a violation of the Windows EULA to run more than
    > one instance or copy of that VM)
    >


    Another nice thing is you can do the base install, activate it once -
    and then create multiple vm configurations out of that one base image

    --
    Tom Shelton

  10. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:42:15 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > Another nice thing is you can do the base install, activate it once -
    > and then create multiple vm configurations out of that one base image


    Shhhhh! ;-)



  11. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:42:15 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    > > ... then create multiple vm configurations out of that one base image



    What does that mean?

    -
    ron

  12. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On 2008-04-04, Ron in L.A. wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:42:15 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >> > ... then create multiple vm configurations out of that one base image

    >
    >
    > What does that mean?
    >


    Essentially, VMWare can allow you to create new images from a base
    image. That means you can have a clean xp install, use it for a base
    image say for a development environment - where you install all your
    development tools. You could ahve another for testing installs, etc.

    Basically, for most normal users, it probably doesn't matter - but for
    developers/testers it's great. You can get back to an original clean
    image with the click of a button - no reinstall

    --
    Tom Shelton

  13. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:51:32 -0700 (PDT), troll Ron in L.A. said after being slapped:
    > On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:42:15 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >> > ... then create multiple vm configurations out of that one base image

    >
    >
    > What does that mean?


    Your mother's a bitch.


  14. Re: Windows on Ubuntu

    Tom Shelton wrote:
    > On 2008-04-04, Ron in L.A. wrote:
    >> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:42:15 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:


    >>>> ... then create multiple vm configurations out of that one base
    >>>> image

    >>
    >> What does that mean?

    >
    > Essentially, VMWare can allow you to create new images from a base
    > image. That means you can have a clean xp install, use it for a base
    > image say for a development environment - where you install all your
    > development tools. You could ahve another for testing installs,
    > etc.


    Another advantage is where one is not usually allowed to install an
    application on more than one system (I'm not talking about licensing).

    One example is the Sky Anytime package, that enables Sky customers to
    download programmes and films from their site. However, the content is
    DRM encumbered; the key is locked to the machine; and they only permit
    each customer to run that software on /one/ PC (for some reason that
    they have yet to explain). This is a royal pain in the neck, especially
    when the PC in question breaks, or when one is travelling with a laptop,
    etc.

    The solution is to install the package inside a VMWare image, call Sky
    to reactivate the account on that new virtual PC, then clone it to as
    many systems as you want. VoilĂ*.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    17:29:28 up 111 days, 14:05, 2 users, load average: 0.39, 0.27, 0.32

+ Reply to Thread