Ubuntu - Virtual Machine V Dual Boot

[worzelGummidge]

Yes, Thanks for that. I was thinking along the same lines. Just wanted to hear from anyone who could share their thoughts on it. VB it is then.

Kipper

Yep. That's the way to go.
If your Unix environment is not actually doing very much then use a Virtual machine.
I have one Windows 2008 PC with two disks and 16gb RAM and 20 Virtual Linux and Solaris machines can run very well all at once - so long as they are not doing anything that requires alot of processing.

Go for it. VirtualBox is great.

[Kipper]

Yes, Thanks for that. I was thinking along the same lines. Just wanted to hear from anyone who could share their thoughts on it. VB it is then.

Kipper

[aa2006]

I am setting about rebuilding a windows PC that was running XP Pro. It was rendered useless by a file infecting virus - Ramnit a.

I pulled the drive and fitted in in my Linux computer. Using this I have recovered all my 'can't loose' files.

I am now looking at rebuilding the PC and have already decided that Ubuntu will figure in this build in some form but I am having a headache working out if it should be a Virtual Machine with XP or set up a Dual Boot.

The new build will have a few identities on it for personal family and business use. I think (and would prefer) I can do without any Win stuff for the business and go 100% Linux, but the family will use some windows apps and a couple of games.

The computer is a Dell dual core running 4GB RAM with a 500GB H/D and another 350GB hard drive available.

I am leaning more towards the Virtual set up because of the ease of switching between the two with no restart. But I have heard of networking problems and performance issue in doing this.

I know that no one can ultimately decide this for me, I am just looking for a few experienced based opinions and advice in which option you'd consider.

Kind Regards

For the last 4/5 years I have been running Kubuntu in a virtual machine (VirtualBox) on my macbook pro. It has 4gb of memory and also a 500gb h/d. I was using Kubuntu as my dev environment when working for clients, never had a performance issue. (Even when i had an IDE and server running in it, both are memory hungry). I would assign the virtual machine around 1800mb of RAM so the host (mac) and guest (linux) don't slow down.

Connecting to the internet or anything was never a problem.

I never tried dual booting simply because as you said i didn't want to have to do a restart just to switch between the two.

It's a personal preference, and remember you can try the virtual setup option and if you find it not to be ideal for you, all you need to do is simply delete the one file. No big deal

hope that helps

[Kipper]

I am setting about rebuilding a windows PC that was running XP Pro. It was rendered useless by a file infecting virus - Ramnit a.

I pulled the drive and fitted in in my Linux computer. Using this I have recovered all my 'can't loose' files.

I am now looking at rebuilding the PC and have already decided that Ubuntu will figure in this build in some form but I am having a headache working out if it should be a Virtual Machine with XP or set up a Dual Boot.

The new build will have a few identities on it for personal family and business use. I think (and would prefer) I can do without any Win stuff for the business and go 100% Linux, but the family will use some windows apps and a couple of games.

The computer is a Dell dual core running 4GB RAM with a 500GB H/D and another 350GB hard drive available.

I am leaning more towards the Virtual set up because of the ease of switching between the two with no restart. But I have heard of networking problems and performance issue in doing this.

I know that no one can ultimately decide this for me, I am just looking for a few experienced based opinions and advice in which option you'd consider.

Kind Regards