|
|
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm waiting for Vista 2.0 to come out.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
What, Vista 2.0 or Vista ME
mfg
Phil
Who the f*** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
|
|
|
Phil.Benson wrote: What, Vista 2.0 or Vista ME
Vista XP Service Pack 2
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Why have dual or more boot with hard disk space partitioned for more os when you could have all os u want without restarting your machine???
i have only one os at boot (xp pro sp3) but with virtualization (i use virtual server 2005 rc2 sp1) i can have every os i need for testing
Indeed i have 4gb rams and one hd mainly dedicated for virtual machine hdd... 
the pool should be:
How many operating systems do you have on your development machine
checkbox: check if you use virtualization
radio: 1 only
radio: 2
radio: 3
radio: 4
radio: 5 or more
|
|
|
|
|
I had to say one only because I only have one bootable OS on my home development machine (gentoo linux) and one bootable OS (win XP) on my work development machine. However I do use virtualization on both when needed.
John
|
|
|
|
|
giammin wrote: Why have dual or more boot with hard disk space partitioned for more os when you could have all os u want without restarting your machine???
well, in my personal opinion, i like virtualization but in that way it doesn't take advantage of the real hardware, because it only uses a restricted set of drivers and generic hardware.
in order to really test or use an operating system i prefer install it instead of virtualization
|
|
|
|
|
nightynvid wrote: well, in my personal opinion, i like virtualization but in that way it doesn't take advantage of the real hardware, because it only uses a restricted set of drivers and generic hardware.
in order to really test or use an operating system i prefer install it instead of virtualization
you are right... 
i was referring to my situation... i usually develop application or web site that don't mind about hardware so i don't need to test them on real hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
I currently have one installed Operating System - Windows XP SP2, but also run DOS and Knoppix in Virtual PC. If OS does not fully support hardware, virtualization is better
I have also several small DOS-style OS (and bootable programs) I had written. Do they count?
One very interesting question: How many Operating Systems should have an OS development machine?
|
|
|
|
|
IlluminateBG wrote: I have also several small DOS-style OS (and bootable programs) I had written. Do they count?
Well if we count that, I have memtest86 as a direct boot from grub so I guess that would count. Although since this has no files and only a single app I am not sure I can call it an os...
John
|
|
|
|
|
Pedantic much? Technically you don't boot more than one, but you know what the question meant, you don't have to be so pedantic...then again...this is a programming forum...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I use dual boat XP and window server 2003 and also two machines with remote access. Because on one machine we have Microsoft CRM and on an other one we have SQL Reporting Server and bla bla.
Why not Microsoft applications often conflict with each other ? 
|
|
|
|
|
Guys was vista suppose to be a test program or what? I must admit that am impressed by half of its properties.
|
|
|
|
|
We have boxes in data centers in different states.
I've got a slackware linux server running which we use for remote code compiling.
But on my personal development machine its Windows 2003 (most of us are using that)
|
|
|
|
|
I used to be a huge believer in dual, triple and quadruple-booting...until virtualization came along. Nowadays multi-booting isn't worth the aggravation. I'm not going to stop whatever I'm doing, shut down and restart my system just to test my app's behavior under another OS (and then reverse the process to get back into my development environment). I've done way too much of that for years, and I'm not going back.
Nowadays, where virtualization is impractical, I'll just use another box. Multi-booting is just a huge interruption of my work flow.
I think a followup question would be, if you're not using virtualization already, why not?
|
|
|
|
|
Not all hardware runs virtualized enviroments well. I have a P4 2.6 GHz HT with 2 GBs of RAM, and while the machine is quite well performing (considering it's ~3 years old), I found that multi-boot is the best option so far: VMs are incredibly slow here.
I have XP, Vista and Ubuntu on different partitions, but I use XP for daily use - the other two os are for testing purposes.
Of course it adds its share of overhead, when reinstalling one of the systems for example, but it's easy to get used to fixboot and grub
Luca
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. -- Wing Commander IV
En Það Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað, Er Nýr Dagur.
(But the best thing God has created, is a New Day.)
-- Sigur Ròs - Viðrar vel til loftárása
|
|
|
|
|
Luca Leonardo Scorcia wrote: Not all hardware runs virtualized enviroments well.
...those would be the circumstances where I mentioned I'd use a separate physical machine. If I just need to do a quick test on, say, a plain Win2K box (which is something I'd never use otherwise) with no particular hardware requirement, a VM will serve my needs. I suppose it all depends on what it is you need to do while you've got those other OSes up and running.
I have a P4 2.6 GHz HT with 2 GBs of RAM, and while the machine is quite well performing (considering it's ~3 years old), I found that multi-boot is the best option so far: VMs are incredibly slow here.
I've run VMware and Virtual PC/Server on older hardware. Of course, yes, the virtual machines are slower than running natively, but whatever it is I need to test, I can still accomplish that faster than stopping my development environment, rebooting, doing my tests, rebooting again, and getting my development environment back in the state it was in. It would only get more painful to code/test/code/test if I had to reboot every single time. I'd rather put up with slower guest OSes.
If the host OS is starved for RAM, I can just suspend the VMs until I need them again--it's still faster to resume a VM than completely rebooting the physical machine. If that becomes too much of a pain, then I'll throw more RAM at the host; it'll pay for itself in no time.
Bottom line, my productivity as a developer can't be optimal if I spend half my time waiting for a machine to reboot. I've done it for so many years, I couldn't justify going down that route ever again.
|
|
|
|
|
I am a big fan of virtualization, but sometimes it just does not work. At my previous job, gdb would sometimes completelly freeze the VM. Eventually, I got a separate machine for Linux.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm completely with you. I wasn't claiming virtualization was the answer to everything. I'll get another machine long before I ever contemplate a multi-boot setup, however. I've gone through enough upgrades at this point that I've build more machines than I currently need.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree to an extent. It's hard to justify buying a new box for testing games or other hardware intensive apps for different OS's with the same hardware spec though. Say a game or other app needs to tested to run on a specific hardware set for 3 different OS's. It's impractical for any company or individual (that is not generating some immediate revenue) to say that it's more cost-efficient to save 3 minutes time lost from a reboot to reproduce a 2000$ gaming rig. In fact, it would be more practical in some cases, to have two versions of the same OS installed on one machine(each with a different vid card and driver set that it has been configured for) as long as you have relatively quick access to the guts of it), but that's all relative to your number of employess/salaries/budget. That said, i do most(if not all) of my managed development on a xp virt. machine in VPC 2007, but if I need some real hardware access and performance I'll reboot, although I do have more than one pc on a kvm if i really need to do something important in the 1-3 minute timeframe that it takes to reboot.
DrewG, MCSD .Net
|
|
|
|
|
for me virtualization is everything - I hate if I have to shut down my laptop.
btw, intel's new processors support virtualization - and on dell machines, by default virtualization support is off. have to turn it on from bios setup
-------------------
Therez No Place like ... 127.0.0.1
|
|
|
|
|
These days i tend to use Kubuntu as my primary OS and I have a VM that runs XP perfectly well inside it. Unfortunately some GFX card features that are used by the latest game engines haven't been ported to Cedega yet so if I want to play DirectX games with all the features working I have to reboot in an XP partition, I guess i should be glad that none of the games I play requires directx10 yet. This setup does have a great advantage that while I'm working at home I don't skive off for 10 mins playing computer games.
|
|
|
|
|
1 Debian 4 (The best choice so far)
1 win xp (for my vb.net appz)
1 win 2003 server (for asp.net development)
1 ubuntu (to run them all in a vm
If i could run asp.net and win apps in debian out of the box , i would be the happiest man in the world!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
