Re: [SLE] SuSE 7, VMware and XFree86 4.0
From: Chris.Smith@raytheon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:37:58 +0000
Message-Id:
Message-ID: <3A1A3D67.307F0CD0@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:16:23 -0500
From: Mark Hounschell
Hi,
** I read (on VMware's site?) that VMware only works with XFree86 3.3
Very true - I found this out the hard way.
** Also I see that VMware (trial) comes with SuSE 7 (Pro). If you ** install VMware are you restricted to running X3.3 and not 4.0, or ** is this a special version of VMware?
VMware will crash on 4.0, but as there is probably no use in using 4.0 unless you need DRI and/or Xinerama or something, then stick with 3.3.6. It's more reliable anyhow (I use V3-3000 AGP so it's probably my fault).
- Chris.
I've been using vmware with X4.0 every since it came out. Never a glitch. vmware version 2.05 and xf86 4.09. Only problem, no 3D graphics drivers. -- Mark Hounschell dmarkh@cfl.rr.com
From: "dids"
-----Original Message----- From: markh@tampabay.rr.com [mailto:markh@tampabay.rr.com]On Behalf Of Mark Hounschell Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 9:16 AM To: Chris.Smith@raytheon.co.uk Cc: Brett Delmage; suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] SuSE 7, VMware and XFree86 4.0
Chris.Smith@raytheon.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
** I read (on VMware's site?) that VMware only works with XFree86 3.3
Very true - I found this out the hard way.
** Also I see that VMware (trial) comes with SuSE 7 (Pro). If you ** install VMware are you restricted to running X3.3 and not 4.0, or ** is this a special version of VMware?
VMware will crash on 4.0, but as there is probably no use in using 4.0 unless you need DRI and/or Xinerama or something, then stick with 3.3.6. It's more reliable anyhow (I use V3-3000 AGP so it's probably my fault).
- Chris.
I've been using vmware with X4.0 every since it came out. Never a glitch. vmware version 2.05 and xf86 4.09. Only problem, no 3D graphics drivers.
-- Mark Hounschell dmarkh@cfl.rr.com
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:59:37 -0600
From: Jeffrey Taylor
I managed to get vm and xfree4.01 to work yesterday, but had a huge rigamorole trying to get the vmtools vga driver to work. it did eventually ( theres a faq on the vmware site on the matter )
but after all the effort, i wasnt sure that it was particularly worth the effort. I have a pIII700 and felt that using Flash4 was not a pleasant experience. also dreamweaver. and those are the progs i need windows for.
I set it up to use a previous v of win98, any one know if its any faster using a virtual windows drive?
oh well.
dids
-----Original Message----- From: markh@tampabay.rr.com [mailto:markh@tampabay.rr.com]On Behalf Of Mark Hounschell Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 9:16 AM To: Chris.Smith@raytheon.co.uk Cc: Brett Delmage; suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] SuSE 7, VMware and XFree86 4.0
Chris.Smith@raytheon.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
** I read (on VMware's site?) that VMware only works with XFree86 3.3
Very true - I found this out the hard way.
** Also I see that VMware (trial) comes with SuSE 7 (Pro). If you ** install VMware are you restricted to running X3.3 and not 4.0, or ** is this a special version of VMware?
VMware will crash on 4.0, but as there is probably no use in using 4.0 unless you need DRI and/or Xinerama or something, then stick with 3.3.6. It's more reliable anyhow (I use V3-3000 AGP so it's probably my fault).
- Chris.
I've been using vmware with X4.0 every since it came out. Never a glitch. vmware version 2.05 and xf86 4.09. Only problem, no 3D graphics drivers.
-- Mark Hounschell dmarkh@cfl.rr.com
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
Message-ID: <3A1A9DE1.B573CE2@hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:08:01 +0000
From: Derek Fountain
The docs I have read (V1.x only) indicate that raw disk drives are faster than virtual disk drives. That was my experience with version 1.x. I now have version 2.x. It seems slightly faster. Not a lot of difference. Talking to people, the key to speed is a lot of physical memory, at least 256MB. I have 128MB and Win98 runs at half speed in VMware. With 256MB, the speed penalty is 10-20%. Win98 requires 190MB of virtual memory, according to the little Resource widget, just to boot up to the desktop. Lot of swapping going on. Occasionally I have thoughts of wiping Win98 and installing Win95. Probably simpler to just go buy more memory.
WinNT runs much better that Win9x inside Vmware. I run WinNT on a Linux laptop with 128MB of RAM, giving the VM 48MB. I works fine and respectably quickly for IE, Wordperfect and Excel, as long as I only start one of those apps at a time. I think the Vmware guys did a lot of optimisation for WinNT and didn't bother much with Win98.
Message-ID: <3A1AA29C.91678F55@amis.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:28:12 -0700
From: Eric Whiting
The docs I have read (V1.x only) indicate that raw disk drives are faster than virtual disk drives. That was my experience with version 1.x. I now have version 2.x. It seems slightly faster. Not a lot of difference. Talking to people, the key to speed is a lot of physical memory, at least 256MB. I have 128MB and Win98 runs at half speed in VMware. With 256MB, the speed penalty is 10-20%. Win98 requires 190MB of virtual memory, according to the little Resource widget, just to boot up to the desktop. Lot of swapping going on. Occasionally I have thoughts of wiping Win98 and installing Win95. Probably simpler to just go buy more memory.
WinNT runs much better that Win9x inside Vmware. I run WinNT on a Linux laptop with 128MB of RAM, giving the VM 48MB. I works fine and respectably quickly for IE, Wordperfect and Excel, as long as I only start one of those apps at a time.
I think the Vmware guys did a lot of optimisation for WinNT and didn't bother much with Win98.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
From: "Stuart Powell"
The docs I have read (V1.x only) indicate that raw disk drives are faster than virtual disk drives. That was my experience with version 1.x. I now have version 2.x. It seems slightly faster. Not a lot of difference. Talking to people, the key to speed is a lot of physical memory, at least 256MB. I have 128MB and Win98 runs at half speed in VMware. With 256MB, the speed penalty is 10-20%. Win98 requires 190MB of virtual memory, according to the little Resource widget, just to boot up to the desktop. Lot of swapping going on. Occasionally I have thoughts of wiping Win98 and installing Win95. Probably simpler to just go buy more memory.
WinNT runs much better that Win9x inside Vmware. I run WinNT on a Linux laptop with 128MB of RAM, giving the VM 48MB. I works fine and respectably quickly for IE, Wordperfect and Excel, as long as I only start one of those apps at a time.
I think the Vmware guys did a lot of optimisation for WinNT and didn't bother much with Win98.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
Message-ID: <3A1B93C5.82D85B0D@hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:37:09 +0000
From: Derek Fountain
Same for me. WinNT and Win2000 runs better under VMWARE than W9x. I especially notice it if I do a top or watch my cpu on xosview. An idle W98 chews up about 20% of my linux CPU. NT/2000 in idle state only chew up about 1-4% of the CPU. I guess in some ways NT/2000 are better designed than 95/98. I don't think it is a VMWARE Problem -- I think we are seeing differences in MS operating systems.
I'm pretty sure it's because NT and 2K have decent schedulers in them, which means the Vmware process under Linux effectively runs a many to many multithreaded model. Actually, a proper many to many threading system is something which Linux desperately lacks, and the Vmware performance, along with some Java based tests I saw recently, just shows how much better Linux would be if such a thing were developed. It's very difficult to implement though, so it probably won't get done until SGI or IBM or someone donate the code to do it.
participants (7)
-
Chris.Smith＠raytheon.co.uk -
dmarkh＠cfl.rr.com -
ewhiting＠amis.com -
fountai＠hursley.ibm.com -
jeff.taylor＠ieee.org -
richard＠diddyland.com -
stuart＠yorkshirepudding.com