Dual Booting XP & Ubuntu vs Ubuntu and VMware XP

[.nox]

Hi guys,


I won't be doing any gaming on my T61 , so I was wondering if it was just better for me to opt for a Ubuntu boot along with XP in a VMware or should I still dual boot them ?


Thanks for the input

EDIT :

Here are the machine's specs :

Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz
4GB Crucial Memory (upgrade)
14.1" SXGA+ (TMD no dead pixel)
Intel X3100 Graphics
80GB HDD
CDRW/DVD-ROM
Bluetooth
Intel 4965AGN (upgrade)
6 cell Battery

[snessiram]

What are you still using windows for? If it's not too much you can just run it in vmware (also depending on your laptop amount of memory and processor) as that offers the big advantage of using both at the same time, continiously rebooting is a pain. I for example could even run Visual Studio in vmware on my macbook.

[.nox]

Updated with the machine's specs...

EDIT:

What are you still using windows for? If it's not too much you can just run it in vmware (also depending on your laptop amount of memory and processor) as that offers the big advantage of using both at the same time, continiously rebooting is a pain. I for example could even run Visual Studio in vmware on my macbook.

I sometimes bump into some special software with school stuff ( I study in software engineering ) that requires Windows. I personally switched my main rig to Ubuntu LTS 8.04 64bits, but my laptop is used at school and eventually at work so it's really just for those "in case" moments that I need windows. I've always found XP light and fast with a proper user. I usually install firefox and nod32 and I know what not to open...

[puma]

Hey guys, just have a few questions and in now way meaning to start any flaming wars or a windows vs ubuntu discusion.. i tried loading ubuntu on my thinkpad and had weird issues.. one with the mouse being choppy and the other with the wireless capabilities. i could connect to a network wirelessly but if i putthe pc to sleep or switch to wired.. it would not go back to the wireless at all but will show it is still connected. something very strange.. have any ideas why? i thought the thinkpad would be the perfect hardware for loading this OS.

[.nox]

Hey guys, just have a few questions and in now way meaning to start any flaming wars or a windows vs ubuntu discusion.. i tried loading ubuntu on my thinkpad and had weird issues.. one with the mouse being choppy and the other with the wireless capabilities. i could connect to a network wirelessly but if i putthe pc to sleep or switch to wired.. it would not go back to the wireless at all but will show it is still connected. something very strange.. have any ideas why? i thought the thinkpad would be the perfect hardware for loading this OS.

Start a new thread so people can help you specifically buddy. Don't "hijack" other people's threads . Just copy paste your question in a new thread and bingo .

[Superego]

I sometimes bump into some special software with school stuff ( I study in software engineering ) that requires Windows.

I would definitely go with an XP install in a virtual machine. I basically only use Windows for Qucken and MS Office (I tend to use OpenOffice or LaTeX but sometimes MS Office is more convenient when working on a group project at school). A VM is definitely more convenient than a dual-boot setup, especially if you're only using a few programs. Your machine specs look fine for using VM.

The only issue I can see is if you ever need a Windows application that is graphics-intensive. Given your field, you probably won't have that problem, but one never knows.

If you haven't made up your mind on what VM program to use I'd recommend looking at VirtualBox. It's open-source and it's been running great for me on both Ubuntu and openSuSE.

[.nox]

I sometimes bump into some special software with school stuff ( I study in software engineering ) that requires Windows.

I would definitely go with an XP install in a virtual machine. I basically only use Windows for Qucken and MS Office (I tend to use OpenOffice or LaTeX but sometimes MS Office is more convenient when working on a group project at school). A VM is definitely more convenient than a dual-boot setup, especially if you're only using a few programs. Your machine specs look fine for using VM.

The only issue I can see is if you ever need a Windows application that is graphics-intensive. Given your field, you probably won't have that problem, but one never knows.

If you haven't made up your mind on what VM program to use I'd recommend looking at VirtualBox. It's open-source and it's been running great for me on both Ubuntu and openSuSE.

Great insight on the matter, thanks ! What would the main differences between VirtualBox and Virt-Manager ? It was suggested to me on another forum :

I am looking into the same thing as you. I think I am going to take the plunge and run a virtual xp or vista system within my ubuntu 8.04 os.

I do have an advantage of having a cpu that has virtualization features (intel 7300) so I am able to get quite a speed increase. I've heard that running an os virtualized in KVM is near native speed and high intensity tasks only run an average of about a second or two slower than non-virtual.

The KVM software with virt-manager is in the ubuntu repositories.

Read this very good article named virtualization made easy in ubuntu 8.04 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... =983&num=1

I would try running KVM/Virt-Manager over Virtualbox or VMWare Server because of the KVM's large community, its better performance, open source code, and its support for cpu virtualization.

[Superego]

What would the main differences between VirtualBox and Virt-Manager ? It was suggested to me on another forum :

I'm not that familiar with virt-manager, so I welcome any corrections to what I say here, but I think the major difference is that virt-manager is really more of a front-end for managing QEMU, KVM and XEN guests. Virtualbox is semi-proprietary, so basically if you want to manage a guest in Vbox you need to have it in a certain format (VDI). It seems virt-manager would be a good choice for managing multiple VMs of different type (more like a sys-admin's tool). Virtualbox is drop-dead easy to use and is geared more toward personal, simplified use (that's not to say it isn't robust).

Contrary to what you quoted in the other forum, Virtualbox does support cpu virtualization, it has what I would consider a large community for support, and is open source. I should exand on the open source part; Vbox actually comes in two flavors: fully open-source and a proprietary version (which is still free for personal use). The proprietary version has the features you'd want, like USB support.

You may want to check out this site:

http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/

It gives a nice comparison of all the virtualization technologies available in Linux. My advice would be to check out a few and see what works best/fastest for you.

One final note: VBox has a seamless feature that I absolutely love (I'm not sure if other programs have this feature). Basically, your windows taskbar will sit on top of your Linux taskbar and you can minimize windows programs as if they were running natively on Linux. Very cool and very convenient.