PDA

View Full Version : :) Using my VMware machine as an my actual machine :)


Swampert_66
January 24th, 2010, 04:54 AM
You think my idea is good? I'm using this Guest OS because my Host OS is slow. On this Guest OS I'm running Windows XP Pro SP3, 344 GB (Twice as much as my Host OS), 2 gigs of RAM, and plus, I think XP is the best Windows OS anyway :P

Bianca Paragon
January 24th, 2010, 07:46 AM
How does your guest have twice as much HDD space as your host? it doesn't work like that.
The guest will always live in the constraints of the host. And will always be slower.

mr. ck
January 24th, 2010, 08:13 AM
You think my idea is good? I'm using this Guest OS because my Host OS is slow. On this Guest OS I'm running Windows XP Pro SP3, 344 GB (Twice as much as my Host OS), 2 gigs of RAM, and plus, I think XP is the best Windows OS anyway :P
As Bianca said...

It defies all logic how a virtual machine could be faster than the host... Wouldn't make sense to buy high class servers etc. :P

A virtual machine is like using a part of your system's resources to run an independent system.

donavannj
January 24th, 2010, 03:45 PM
You think my idea is good? I'm using this Guest OS because my Host OS is slow. On this Guest OS I'm running Windows XP Pro SP3, 344 GB (Twice as much as my Host OS), 2 gigs of RAM, and plus, I think XP is the best Windows OS anyway :P

A few things... some of which have already been asked before:

1. What is your host OS?

2. How the duck does your guest box have twice as much HDD space as the host box? You're going to crash your whole system once you use all the space that is physically there on your hard drive unless you change it so the hard drive is smaller than the host HDD. :\

3. Unless you physically have more than 2 GB of RAM, you're guest OS is using your HDD as a source of virtual memory, which eats up a lot of your precious space. :\

4. Someone has not tried Windows 7 Ultimate. That is good fun to use.

twocows
January 24th, 2010, 08:55 PM
_n5E7feJHw0
This is why I don't recommend VMware to newbies. I don't think it's even possible to set your guest OS' specs higher than the host OS in VirtualBox.

Also, if your host OS is running THAT slow, take inventory of your programs, back all your data up besides your programs, and reinstall the OS. Better yet, make a proper partitioning scheme upon re-installation wherein you don't NEED to back up your data before reinstalling.

Archer
January 25th, 2010, 05:41 AM
With all due respect, that's the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. Running your VM more than the host OS is like clamping yourself with a beartrap in an attempt to be more agile. If you really like XP, Dual Boot it, at least.

mr. ck
January 25th, 2010, 06:33 AM
_n5E7feJHw0
This is why I don't recommend VMware to newbies. I don't think it's even possible to set your guest OS' specs higher than the host OS in VirtualBox.

Also, if your host OS is running THAT slow, take inventory of your programs, back all your data up besides your programs, and reinstall the OS. Better yet, make a proper partitioning scheme upon re-installation wherein you don't NEED to back up your data before reinstalling.
Why is that the reason you prefer VirtualBox over VMware? I mean...I have used VMware, and it has many features that I can't find in other VM software, specifically 3D support....

linkinpark187
January 25th, 2010, 06:38 AM
You absolutely, positively can not run a VM with higher specs than what the host PC has. In fact, it's incredibly stupid to think that your VM will run faster than your host. Do you even know what a VM does? In order to run, the VM is going to pull resources from your host OS, and it can't pull them all, because obviously the host needs something to run on.

Let's say you've got a 40GB HDD, 1024MB (1GB) of RAM, and a 2GHz CPU. Now let's say that you're computer is already using 45% of the HDD and 512MB of ram. That leaves you with only 50% of the HDD and another 512MB to use for the VM (as you don't want to completely fill up your HDD, and assuming that the application you're using uses physical memory). Not to mention that part of that 512MB needs to be allocated to VRAM (or video memory).

What you really want to do, and I think has been mentioned here already, is to check to see what programs are running in the background and remove them from startup. Just go to Start --> Run (or in Vista/7, click in the Search box) and type in MSCONFIG, then enter. Once there, go to the startup tab and figure out what does and does not need to run at startup (things such as iTunes, Quicktime, JavaUpdater, Adobe Updater, etc...do not need to be running at startup).

If all else fails, back-up all of your data (or at least what you want to save), and reinstall your OS. That's all the advice I give for today! :D

donavannj
January 25th, 2010, 10:59 AM
Why is that the reason you prefer VirtualBox over VMware? I mean...I have used VMware, and it has many features that I can't find in other VM software, specifically 3D support....

He didn't say he preferred it... he just said he preferred recommending it for newbies to virtual machines.

twocows
January 25th, 2010, 01:01 PM
Why is that the reason you prefer VirtualBox over VMware? I mean...I have used VMware, and it has many features that I can't find in other VM software, specifically 3D support....
Well, specifically it has different features, and I believe VirtualBox has some 3D support. However, unlike VirtualBox, VMware assumes you actually know what you're doing, which means if you don't know what you're doing, you're going to cause major problems.

mr. ck
January 25th, 2010, 09:34 PM
Well, specifically it has different features, and I believe VirtualBox has some 3D support. However, unlike VirtualBox, VMware assumes you actually know what you're doing, which means if you don't know what you're doing, you're going to cause major problems.
Not if you buy the paid versions... But yeah, if you have the free versions, you need to be able to understand it...
Like VMware workstation is damn easy to handle... It even installs the OS on its own o.o
I guess its their way of discouraging freeware?

Bianca Paragon
January 26th, 2010, 12:11 AM
Btw VMware supports Aero Glass and Compiz Fusion and other nice little 3D effects ~ not sure where VitualBox is at; but I suspect like all Open Source software it's a pale imitation.

donavannj
January 26th, 2010, 05:58 AM
Btw VMware supports Aero Glass and Compiz Fusion and other nice little 3D effects ~ not sure where VitualBox is at; but I suspect like all Open Source software it's a pale imitation.

VB is better than Virtual PC by a ton, but that should go without saying. And VMWare is far more capable, from personal experience (though I would've gone Virtual Box if it offered emulation for more than two COM ports).

Amachi
January 26th, 2010, 07:36 AM
I still don't get why you don't just reinstall your OS. Or install Windows 7.

donavannj
January 26th, 2010, 07:54 AM
I still don't get why you don't just reinstall your OS. Or install Windows 7.

Maybe the OS is one that requires a new product key to reinstall. Plus, virtual machines are good fun to use. ;)

twocows
January 26th, 2010, 08:22 AM
Btw VMware supports Aero Glass and Compiz Fusion and other nice little 3D effects ~ not sure where VitualBox is at; but I suspect like all Open Source software it's a pale imitation.
Yes, because as we all know, open source software is written entirely by amateur coders (http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm).

Bianca Paragon
January 26th, 2010, 08:30 AM
I love your implication that amateurs that get paid are any less amateur.
Open Source Software is *always* worse than Commercial. We know this to be a fact by the virtue of Windows' complete and unchallenged dominance.

donavannj
January 26th, 2010, 08:42 AM
Linux has been far more stable than Windows from personal experience, in the little time I've had with it (lifelong Windows user here). But it is a lot less user-friendly for those who aren't competent with computers.

Bianca Paragon
January 26th, 2010, 08:50 AM
I love the "you'll only like linux if you're tech savvy" argument :3 It implies that because I know lots about computers ~ that I must want to use an OS that is more difficult to use than it needs be. Makes sense to me! *rollseyes*

donavannj
January 26th, 2010, 08:57 AM
I love the "you'll only like linux if you're tech savvy" argument :3 It implies that because I know lots about computers ~ that I must want to use an OS that is more difficult to use than it needs be. Makes sense to me! *rollseyes*

I'm just saying that those who program the various versions of Linux seem to only want to convert the skilled/savvy who are looking for something more stable than Windows but can't stand a Mac (be it price, the OS itself, or just on principle, though the Fedora GUI reminds me very much of Apple's GUIs of the last decade).

twocows
January 26th, 2010, 09:59 AM
I love your implication that amateurs that get paid are any less amateur.
Open Source Software is *always* worse than Commercial. We know this to be a fact by the virtue of Windows' complete and unchallenged dominance.
So I'm assuming your definition of an amateur is someone that doesn't work for a big corporation, and a professional is someone that does? You realize there are plenty of amateurs in big corporations, and plenty of professionals that are either out of work or at positions in smaller companies. And if you're implying that, because open source software is somehow "worse" (subjective to begin with; there are plenty of arguments to that alone), that the people who make it must be amateurs, then you're affirming the consequent; there are plenty of other reasons that open source software could be "bad" that have nothing to do with the capability (or lack thereof) of the programmers (not to mention that there are plenty of reasons why software could be "good," despite having amateurs programming it).

Amachi
January 26th, 2010, 05:26 PM
Maybe the OS is one that requires a new product key to reinstall. Plus, virtual machines are good fun to use. ;)
They're already using XP in the VM, so they must already have a product key or at least some way to activate it ;). Sure they're fun, but this is ridiculous.

donavannj
January 26th, 2010, 05:31 PM
They're already using XP in the VM, so they must already have a product key or at least some way to activate it ;). Sure they're fun, but this is ridiculous.

The OP never came back and said what their host OS was... so if it were something like Vista or 7, they would have issues. :\

Amachi
January 26th, 2010, 05:53 PM
The OP never came back and said what their host OS was... so if it were something like Vista or 7, they would have issues. :\
Well they seem to love XP so much and are somehow using it now, so I don't see what the problem is.

donavannj
January 26th, 2010, 05:56 PM
Well they seem to love XP so much and are somehow using it now, so I don't see what the problem is.

Maybe other family members of theirs have stuff on the host.

evilishan
January 26th, 2010, 08:19 PM
Technically speaking, the emulated pc can run "faster" than the host machine even on less specs. Try running TinyXP emulated using VirtualBox or Vmware on a Vista Home Basic machine, it will run faster on 512mb ram (Vista should have 2gb ram). It can also depend if the host is crap. Which is why I upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate. It runs faster than the emulated machine almost no matter what.

For all intents and purposes, I've run TinyXP legitimately by selecting option nine during installation and entering my own product key. Emulated on a Dell Inspiron 1545 running Vista Home Basic and later Windows 7 Ultimate.

Though in terms of "Double the amount of space" is probably a reference to the 344GB he allocated on his emulated machine of the 500GB hard drive he has. Thus leaving 156GB for his host (very roughly half of his guest).

FYI, 3D support and DirectX in VirtualBox is really scratchy relative to the performance of VMware, just confirming if anyone was wondering.

donavannj
January 26th, 2010, 09:08 PM
Actually technically speaking, the emulated pc can run "faster" than the host machine even on less specs. Try running TinyXP emulated using VirtualBox or Vmware on a Vista Home Basic machine, it will run faster on 512mb ram (Vista should have 2gb ram). It can also depend if the host is crap. Which is why I upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate. It runs faster than the emulated machine almost no matter what.

Fresh installs also run faster for those who don't know what processes can be turned off at startup. The OP probably has a fresh install in their guest.

Bianca Paragon
January 26th, 2010, 10:00 PM
For all intensive purposes
Please stop raping my language.

donavannj
January 26th, 2010, 10:12 PM
Please stop raping my language.

:O I can't believe I didn't notice that! /actually, I can - I basically skipped over that paragraph

evilishan
January 26th, 2010, 10:30 PM
I'm usually not that much of a stooge.
Sorry for making you angry.
I've changed it.

mr. ck
January 27th, 2010, 07:05 AM
In any case, a fresh install of XP or even 98 would be faster than any OS they are using...

Even a copy of Linux, popular ones like Ubuntu can almost run twice as a fast as XP with that much features.

Even if the OP requires a product key, he also requires one for the VM :)

EDIT: When did I say Linux was slow? I didn't even say popular ones are faster? O.o

twocows
January 27th, 2010, 07:12 AM
In any case, a fresh install of XP or even 98 would be faster than any OS they are using...

Even a copy of Linux, popular ones like Ubuntu can almost run twice as a fast as XP with that much features.

Even if the OP requires a product key, he also requires one for the VM :)
I don't understand your implication that Linux is slow, and especially that popular distros are faster than less popular ones. You can configure Arch or Gentoo to go at the SPEED OF LIGHT.