![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/77cb4da5f72bc176182dcc33f03a18f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 2014-12-20 00:59, John Andersen wrote:
On 12/19/2014 3:52 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Then, in my experience, the virtualized Windows runs slower than the "real" one. As my laptop came with it installed, with a proper license, why change it? Making it work, with the same license, virtualized, can be a problem.
I think you are right, there is a performance penalty. But its less than the penalty of what I could afford as a second laptop.
Oh, absolutely.
My experience is mostly VMware, and if you have enough memory, and enough cores, I've found the performance penalty to be manageable. On my Quad Core I give each VM at least two cores. Performance is more than acceptable. On my dual core laptop its still acceptable, but noticeably slower, and I can't really run more than one VM at a time.
I do it, for testing purposes, on my desktop. But my laptop I bought reasonabl good but cheap. It is a Compaq, intel video, dual core processor, but not "modern and bright". A simple machine for use when on the move, not for heavy work. So the penalty for virtualization would be too much. Instead I double boot, which I have to do once or twice a month. And being a preinstalled Windows 7, it would simply refuse to run with a change of "hardware", even if it the same machine. Under vmware it looks a different one. For once a month use, not worth the hassle :-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)