I haven't tried Virtual Box, but I make the following observation, and welcome anyone's comment on it:
Windows 7 has a virtualizer which allows XP to be run "in a window" as it were. However, when starting this, it's just like booting XP from scratch on a machine where it's the only OS in use. In other words, you don't save any time this way. And it's not really straightforward to share files or data between W7 and the virtual XP, altho it is possible.
If this is representative of the performance of Virtual Box, also, then is it worth the trouble to use it?
--doug
Performance, as usual, will depend upon the machine. Generally XP runs fine with 512MB of RAM. If you can allocate this or as much as a gig, and you have a modern processor (esp multi-core so you can allocate a core to the vm), then you're probably good to go. On this machine XP in VBox starts in <30 seconds and typical sw performs as well as native. Shared folders are very easy to set up and use (just be sure to also install Guest Additions; you'll need that anyway for other features). VBox even maintains a repository, so installation and updates are easy, too (you do need to remember to re-install with a kernel change, to rebuild the driver). Much more convenient than dual-boot, just another window (or window[s] if you go seamless) on the desktop. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org