Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007? - Ubuntu ; Timothy Daniels wrote: > > I've heard disparaging remarks about MS's Virtual PC 2007 and its > ability to run Ubuntu (or any Linux) as a guest OS. Those > experiences seem to have been with Ubuntu v. 7.04 or ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 101

Thread: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

  1. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    > I've heard disparaging remarks about MS's Virtual PC 2007 and its
    > ability to run Ubuntu (or any Linux) as a guest OS. Those
    > experiences seem to have been with Ubuntu v. 7.04 or earlier,
    > though. I've heard about mouse driver problems and video bit
    > depth which required modifications before the GUI would run
    > properly. Does anyone here know if Ubuntu v. 7.10 has any fixes
    > for those so that it would run well on Virtual PC 2007?


    Why should it? Both 7.04 and 7.10 run just fine and don't need
    anything from Winders. If you really need Winders access you can
    dual boot, or run a virtual machine under Linux. Never voluntarily
    use MS software.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:25:37 -0800, Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "NoStop" wrote:
    >>
    >> Why are you *stuck* with Vista? What kind of idiot is stuck with
    >> anything when there are so many ways to be unstuck?

    >
    >
    > I need Vista to run Visual Studio and SQL Server and IIS
    > at times. Vista is pre-installed on my Dell laptop, and I don't want to
    > mess it up with dual-booting to Linux. (See the treatise by Dan Goodell
    > on dual-booting Linux with Vista on a Dell laptop with Media Direct, and
    > you'll see that the Dell-proprietary boot loader complicates things.) I
    > had hoped to get around that by using VMs hosted by Vista. With VMware,
    > I don't know the differences between using VM Server, VM Player, and VM
    > Appliances. I just want to run a virtual Ubunto Server Edition on my
    > laptop with minimal hassles and learning curve.
    >
    > *TimDaniels*


    You are on your own with Vista. If I were you I'd give VMware a try
    first, and then VirtualBox it that doesn't work. It's possible that
    neither will work well on Vista. VMware Server is derived from VMware's
    commercial products which run on server systems. Windows 2003 is the
    server version of XP which means that all of the work that VMware does to
    make their product run on 2003 helps VMware Server to run well on XP. The
    server version of Vista is Windows Server 2008 which is due to be
    released in a week to two. Undoubtedly VMware will be fully supported on
    2008, but their is no guarantee that it will run on day 1, and because
    there is no history on 2008 yet it's possible that VMware Server won't
    run on Vista yet. I'm not speaking from direct experience here, I only
    run Windows in VMs on top of Linux, but I've been in the computer
    industry long enough to know how long things take to transition. The
    stable version of VMware is 1.0.4, you'll have to check on the VMware
    site to see if it runs on Vista at all. There is a beta out of VMWare
    Server 2.0 which you might try if 1.0.4 doesn't run. However I should
    warn you that the 2.0 Beta that's out there now has replaced the VMware
    Console with an awful browser based console. The performance of the
    browser based console is painfully slow. I've only used it to configure
    Linux VMs which I'm running without X. I ssh into those VMs so the
    console performance doesn't matter to me. If you want to run a GUI my
    guess is that it will be close to unusable.

  3. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    "John Bean" wrote:
    > Even Microsoft admit defeat by strongly recommend
    > you run Visual Studio as Administrator in Vista.



    Hmmm. Thanks for mentioning that. I've been running
    as Administrator and didn't know that I was dodging a
    bullet.

    *TimDaniels*



  4. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    "dennis@home" wrote:
    >
    > Yes you must be nuts asking for help to run linux in a linux group.
    >
    > Try asking the question in microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
    > where they will be able to help you run ubuntu in vpc.
    > With some here it doesn't matter how many linux machines you
    > run if you have a windows machine you don't know what you are
    > doing.



    I get your drift. :-) For those others who adamantly believe
    I'm a troll, please google-search the microsoft.publc.* NGs for
    my name, and most recently, microsoft.public.virtualpc . The troll
    paranoia and siege mentality of this NG is astonishing!

    *TimDaniels*



  5. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    "General Schvantzkopf" wrote:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    >> "NoStop" wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Why are you *stuck* with Vista? What kind of idiot is stuck with
    >>> anything when there are so many ways to be unstuck?

    >>
    >>
    >> I need Vista to run Visual Studio and SQL Server and IIS
    >> at times. Vista is pre-installed on my Dell laptop, and I don't want to
    >> mess it up with dual-booting to Linux. (See the treatise by Dan Goodell
    >> on dual-booting Linux with Vista on a Dell laptop with Media Direct, and
    >> you'll see that the Dell-proprietary boot loader complicates things.) I
    >> had hoped to get around that by using VMs hosted by Vista. With VMware,
    >> I don't know the differences between using VM Server, VM Player, and VM
    >> Appliances. I just want to run a virtual Ubunto Server Edition on my
    >> laptop with minimal hassles and learning curve.
    >>
    >> *TimDaniels*

    >
    > You are on your own with Vista. If I were you I'd give VMware a try
    > first, and then VirtualBox it that doesn't work. It's possible that
    > neither will work well on Vista. VMware Server is derived from VMware's
    > commercial products which run on server systems. Windows 2003 is the
    > server version of XP which means that all of the work that VMware does to
    > make their product run on 2003 helps VMware Server to run well on XP. The
    > server version of Vista is Windows Server 2008 which is due to be
    > released in a week to two. Undoubtedly VMware will be fully supported on
    > 2008, but their is no guarantee that it will run on day 1, and because
    > there is no history on 2008 yet it's possible that VMware Server won't
    > run on Vista yet. I'm not speaking from direct experience here, I only
    > run Windows in VMs on top of Linux, but I've been in the computer
    > industry long enough to know how long things take to transition. The
    > stable version of VMware is 1.0.4, you'll have to check on the VMware
    > site to see if it runs on Vista at all. There is a beta out of VMWare
    > Server 2.0 which you might try if 1.0.4 doesn't run. However I should
    > warn you that the 2.0 Beta that's out there now has replaced the VMware
    > Console with an awful browser based console. The performance of the
    > browser based console is painfully slow. I've only used it to configure
    > Linux VMs which I'm running without X. I ssh into those VMs so the
    > console performance doesn't matter to me. If you want to run a GUI my
    > guess is that it will be close to unusable.


    OK, thanks for the background. I guess I'll try VMware first,
    maybe an appliance to start if I can find a LAMP appliance that's
    free or almost free.

    *TimDaniels*



  6. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    There are no useless questions - only useless answers.

    *TimDaniels*



  7. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:57:45 -0800, Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "General Schvantzkopf" wrote:
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>
    >>> "NoStop" wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Why are you *stuck* with Vista? What kind of idiot is stuck with
    >>>> anything when there are so many ways to be unstuck?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I need Vista to run Visual Studio and SQL Server and IIS
    >>> at times. Vista is pre-installed on my Dell laptop, and I don't want
    >>> to mess it up with dual-booting to Linux. (See the treatise by Dan
    >>> Goodell on dual-booting Linux with Vista on a Dell laptop with Media
    >>> Direct, and you'll see that the Dell-proprietary boot loader
    >>> complicates things.) I had hoped to get around that by using VMs
    >>> hosted by Vista. With VMware, I don't know the differences between
    >>> using VM Server, VM Player, and VM Appliances. I just want to run a
    >>> virtual Ubunto Server Edition on my laptop with minimal hassles and
    >>> learning curve.
    >>>
    >>> *TimDaniels*

    >>
    >> You are on your own with Vista. If I were you I'd give VMware a try
    >> first, and then VirtualBox it that doesn't work. It's possible that
    >> neither will work well on Vista. VMware Server is derived from VMware's
    >> commercial products which run on server systems. Windows 2003 is the
    >> server version of XP which means that all of the work that VMware does
    >> to make their product run on 2003 helps VMware Server to run well on
    >> XP. The server version of Vista is Windows Server 2008 which is due to
    >> be released in a week to two. Undoubtedly VMware will be fully
    >> supported on 2008, but their is no guarantee that it will run on day 1,
    >> and because there is no history on 2008 yet it's possible that VMware
    >> Server won't run on Vista yet. I'm not speaking from direct experience
    >> here, I only run Windows in VMs on top of Linux, but I've been in the
    >> computer industry long enough to know how long things take to
    >> transition. The stable version of VMware is 1.0.4, you'll have to check
    >> on the VMware site to see if it runs on Vista at all. There is a beta
    >> out of VMWare Server 2.0 which you might try if 1.0.4 doesn't run.
    >> However I should warn you that the 2.0 Beta that's out there now has
    >> replaced the VMware Console with an awful browser based console. The
    >> performance of the browser based console is painfully slow. I've only
    >> used it to configure Linux VMs which I'm running without X. I ssh into
    >> those VMs so the console performance doesn't matter to me. If you want
    >> to run a GUI my guess is that it will be close to unusable.

    >
    > OK, thanks for the background. I guess I'll try VMware first,
    > maybe an appliance to start if I can find a LAMP appliance that's free
    > or almost free.
    >
    > *TimDaniels*


    Assuming that VMware will install on Vista doing an install of Ubuntu, or
    any other OS, is trivial. When you create a new VM you should select the
    Ubuntu install .iso as the CDROM. When you boot the VM it will start up
    Ubuntu live CD, after it's booted all you have to do is do the install.

  8. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Timothy Daniels illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > "Moog" wrote:
    >> You could also try VMware server. It's good,
    >> but I prefer Virtualbox.

    >
    >
    > Were your experiences with VirtualBox using
    > Windows as the host OS?


    Yup. I have Ubuntu Hardy running on my laptop and my desktop at the
    office is running Vista with a Vistual Hardy install via Virtualbox.

    Both Vista and VM Hardy have seperate IP addresses running over a
    bridged windows network and performance is sweet.

    Oh and, the reason I have to do it that way is my company uses an
    accountancy package that takes a fair bit of processor power and
    memory and won't run quickly enough in a Windows VM on a Ubuntu host.

    Ideally, I'd like to replace the accountancy package with a OSS
    version, but nothing is quite up to speed yet, although some software
    houses I've had dialogue with are telling me that they're going to
    implement a *nix solution "soon". We'll see.

    The first one to do it will certainly be on to a winner as far as I
    can tell.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  9. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    [ste parker] illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Moog wrote:
    >> Timothy Daniels illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>> I've heard disparaging remarks about MS's Virtual PC 2007
    >>> and its ability to run Ubuntu (or any Linux) as a guest OS. Those
    >>> experiences seem to have been with Ubuntu v. 7.04 or earlier,
    >>> though. I've heard about mouse driver problems and video
    >>> bit depth which required modifications before the GUI would
    >>> run properly. Does anyone here know if Ubuntu v. 7.10 has
    >>> any fixes for those so that it would run well on Virtual PC 2007?
    >>>
    >>> *TimDaniels*

    >>
    >> Disparaging? Not really VirtualPC is a poor VM implemtation. It's
    >> nowhere near as good as other solutions.
    >>
    >> There's one polished point and click solution
    >>
    >> www.virtualbox.org
    >>
    >> It is *far* better than VistualPC and is far easier to set up.
    >>
    >> You could also try VMware server. It's good, but I prefer Virtualbox.
    >>

    >
    > Not tired that one, will give it a go. Thanks!


    It's very, very good.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  10. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Peter Köhlmann illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    >> "NoStop" wrote:
    >>> Take it to a Windoze newsgroup if you want to look for
    >>> Windoze "solutions" for using virtual machines. Why do
    >>> you think you should get any help in the Ubuntu newsgroup
    >>> on how to use a Microsoft product? Are you nuts?

    >>
    >>
    >> I assume that anyone running Ubuntu under a VM might
    >> read this NG. Some of those people might be using Vista
    >> as a host OS.

    >
    > Yes. All three of them worldwide


    Hmmm. Well here's ome of them Peter.

    There can be many reasons for people using software. Many, many
    reasons.

    Don't close your eyes to the possibilities.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  11. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Timothy Daniels illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > "NoStop" wrote:
    >> Take it to a Windoze newsgroup if you want to look for
    >> Windoze "solutions" for using virtual machines. Why do
    >> you think you should get any help in the Ubuntu newsgroup
    >> on how to use a Microsoft product? Are you nuts?

    >
    >
    > I assume that anyone running Ubuntu under a VM might
    > read this NG. Some of those people might be using Vista
    > as a host OS.


    You assumed correctly and have found someone that does exactly that on
    one of his machines.

    Install Virtualbox. Download the .iso of ubuntu then set your new VM
    to boot from the iso. Install it and away you go.

    If you need any advice on any tweaks you may need to do, just ask.
    I've got a wealth of virtualbox experience on both Ubuntu and Vista
    hosts.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  12. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Timothy Daniels illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > "Moog" wrote:
    >> There's one polished point and click solution
    >>
    >> www.virtualbox.org
    >>
    >> It is *far* better than VistualPC and is far easier to set up.
    >>
    >> You could also try VMware server. It's good, but I prefer Virtualbox.

    >
    >
    > OK, thanks for pointing me back at VirtualBox. I somehow
    > thought that it had become a pay-for download when Sun bought
    > it recently.


    Hmmm. Why would they do that?

    And if they do, a lot fo people are going to be snookered if they do
    the same with MySQL.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  13. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > There are no useless questions - only useless answers.
    >
    > *TimDaniels*


    And plenty of useless posters.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    Q: What OS is built for lusers?
    A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

    My Killfile List: Frank, dennis@home ... Sorry, won't be able to read your
    BS any longer.

  14. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "NoStop" wrote:
    >> Take it to a Windoze newsgroup if you want to look for
    >> Windoze "solutions" for using virtual machines. Why do
    >> you think you should get any help in the Ubuntu newsgroup
    >> on how to use a Microsoft product? Are you nuts?

    >
    >
    > I assume that anyone running Ubuntu under a VM might
    > read this NG. Some of those people might be using Vista
    > as a host OS.
    >
    > *TimDaniels*


    Anyone interested in running Ubuntu, would not be running Vista as its host.
    That way when they learned how beneficial Ubuntu was, compared to Windoze,
    they could easily just kill Windoze and keep using their computer.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    Q: What OS is built for lusers?
    A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

    My Killfile List: Frank, dennis@home ... Sorry, won't be able to read your
    BS any longer.

  15. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "NoStop" wrote:
    >>
    >> Why are you *stuck* with Vista? What kind of idiot is stuck
    >> with anything when there are so many ways to be unstuck?

    >
    >
    > I need Vista to run Visual Studio and SQL Server and IIS
    > at times. Vista is pre-installed on my Dell laptop, and I don't
    > want to mess it up with dual-booting to Linux. (See the treatise
    > by Dan Goodell on dual-booting Linux with Vista on a Dell
    > laptop with Media Direct, and you'll see that the Dell-proprietary
    > boot loader complicates things.) I had hoped to get around that
    > by using VMs hosted by Vista. With VMware, I don't know
    > the differences between using VM Server, VM Player, and VM
    > Appliances. I just want to run a virtual Ubunto Server Edition
    > on my laptop with minimal hassles and learning curve.
    >
    > *TimDaniels*


    OK, then the "stuck" you're referring to is due to your own incompetence.
    That's fine. Remain stuck if you choose to. While you're stuck like this,
    then your only hope is to go and ask your Windoze friends how they manage
    to put lipstick on that pig and run their systems productively.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    Q: What OS is built for lusers?
    A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

    My Killfile List: Frank, dennis@home ... Sorry, won't be able to read your
    BS any longer.

  16. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "General Schvantzkopf" wrote:
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>
    >>> "NoStop" wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Why are you *stuck* with Vista? What kind of idiot is stuck with
    >>>> anything when there are so many ways to be unstuck?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I need Vista to run Visual Studio and SQL Server and IIS
    >>> at times. Vista is pre-installed on my Dell laptop, and I don't want to
    >>> mess it up with dual-booting to Linux. (See the treatise by Dan Goodell
    >>> on dual-booting Linux with Vista on a Dell laptop with Media Direct, and
    >>> you'll see that the Dell-proprietary boot loader complicates things.) I
    >>> had hoped to get around that by using VMs hosted by Vista. With VMware,
    >>> I don't know the differences between using VM Server, VM Player, and VM
    >>> Appliances. I just want to run a virtual Ubunto Server Edition on my
    >>> laptop with minimal hassles and learning curve.
    >>>
    >>> *TimDaniels*

    >>
    >> You are on your own with Vista. If I were you I'd give VMware a try
    >> first, and then VirtualBox it that doesn't work. It's possible that
    >> neither will work well on Vista. VMware Server is derived from VMware's
    >> commercial products which run on server systems. Windows 2003 is the
    >> server version of XP which means that all of the work that VMware does to
    >> make their product run on 2003 helps VMware Server to run well on XP. The
    >> server version of Vista is Windows Server 2008 which is due to be
    >> released in a week to two. Undoubtedly VMware will be fully supported on
    >> 2008, but their is no guarantee that it will run on day 1, and because
    >> there is no history on 2008 yet it's possible that VMware Server won't
    >> run on Vista yet. I'm not speaking from direct experience here, I only
    >> run Windows in VMs on top of Linux, but I've been in the computer
    >> industry long enough to know how long things take to transition. The
    >> stable version of VMware is 1.0.4, you'll have to check on the VMware
    >> site to see if it runs on Vista at all. There is a beta out of VMWare
    >> Server 2.0 which you might try if 1.0.4 doesn't run. However I should
    >> warn you that the 2.0 Beta that's out there now has replaced the VMware
    >> Console with an awful browser based console. The performance of the
    >> browser based console is painfully slow. I've only used it to configure
    >> Linux VMs which I'm running without X. I ssh into those VMs so the
    >> console performance doesn't matter to me. If you want to run a GUI my
    >> guess is that it will be close to unusable.

    >
    > OK, thanks for the background. I guess I'll try VMware first,
    > maybe an appliance to start if I can find a LAMP appliance that's
    > free or almost free.
    >
    > *TimDaniels*


    Do start searching! They've only been out there for years and free. Best of
    luck.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    Q: What OS is built for lusers?
    A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

    My Killfile List: Frank, dennis@home ... Sorry, won't be able to read your
    BS any longer.

  17. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    NoStop writes:

    *snip more nonsense and inane questions from the groups new troll Timmy Timkinson*

    >
    > Do start searching! They've only been out there for years and free. Best of
    > luck.
    >


    LOL. Nice bit of scathing pisstake their.

  18. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:28:02 +0000, John Bean
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:19:22 -0500, Jay Somerset
    > wrote:
    >>Not if it doesn't work properly. Running Ubuntu within a VM under
    >>Vista or XP works well -- running XP or Win2K within a VM under Ubuntu
    >>does not. I've tried it both ways (using 7.04). If there has been a
    >>significant improvement in this regard using 7.10, I have yet to hear
    >>of it.

    >
    >Not my experience, I run both Win2k and XP in Virtualbox
    >under Ubuntu without any issues at all. In fact my early
    >version of Win2k (build 2195 circa 1999) won't correctly
    >install on my 2006 hardware, it can't even initialise the
    >nic to download updated drivers, but it installs and runs
    >perfectly in Virtualbox and brings itself into the 21st
    >century after connecting to Windows Update.
    >
    >XP just installs and works both on the real and virtual
    >hardware. It also seems pretty much as quick (or slow) in
    >the virtual PC as it is in the real one.
    >
    >I first started using the virtual Win PCs under Feisty (they
    >worked just fine) but when I updated to Gutsy it broke
    >something in Virtualbox that needed a re-install. It has
    >worked fine ever since, I didn't lose any data in my virtual
    >machines of course.


    My, I certainly did hit a raw nerve with my post. But I must say,
    John, that yours was the most thoughtful, constructive and polite
    reply. Perhaps the only polite one. :-)

    It sounds as though I should try the experiment again.
    --
    Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

  19. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:05:17 -0800, NoStop wrote:

    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    >> "NoStop" wrote:
    >>> Take it to a Windoze newsgroup if you want to look for Windoze
    >>> "solutions" for using virtual machines. Why do you think you should
    >>> get any help in the Ubuntu newsgroup on how to use a Microsoft
    >>> product? Are you nuts?

    >>
    >>
    >> I assume that anyone running Ubuntu under a VM might
    >> read this NG. Some of those people might be using Vista as a host OS.
    >>
    >> *TimDaniels*

    >
    > Anyone interested in running Ubuntu, would not be running Vista as its
    > host. That way when they learned how beneficial Ubuntu was, compared to
    > Windoze, they could easily just kill Windoze and keep using their
    > computer.
    >
    > Cheers.


    The OP has given a good reason for running Vista, he's doing Windows
    development. Windows developers are the one group of people that need to
    be running Vista. I agree that for the majority of users it makes more
    sense to run Windows VMs on top of Linux, that's what I do and that's
    what you probably do, but we don't need to run Windows, we only need to
    run a few Windows applications.

  20. Re: Ubuntu 7.10 on Virtual PC 2007?

    On 2008-02-21, Jay Somerset wrote:
    >
    > Not if it doesn't work properly. Running Ubuntu within a VM under
    > Vista or XP works well -- running XP or Win2K within a VM under Ubuntu
    > does not. I've tried it both ways (using 7.04). If there has been a
    > significant improvement in this regard using 7.10, I have yet to hear
    > of it.
    >


    What do you mean "doesn't work properly"? I ONLY run windows through
    VMWare server on my Linux hosts, and it works great. Sure, you can't
    play games through it, but I don't use PC's for games.

    Hell, many large corporations are moving mass amounts of Windows
    servers to VMWare guests. My company has a few hundred Windows guests
    at this point, and it is growing rapidly.

    Since I actually USE linux, it makes much more sense for it to be the
    host PC, so that I can use all the resources I need.

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast