From: "Stuart Powell"
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:48:04 -0600
Message-ID:
Subject: RE: [SLE] SuSE 7, VMware and XFree86 4.0
Hello, all.
I have only tried out VMWare v2.x on one machine so far. It is a PIII-733
box, with 256MB PC133 RAM, and a Diamond A50 AGP vid card. Installing W2K
was a snap, with a 2GB NTFS virtual partition (you just have to love that),
and dedicating a mere 64MB of memory to it. Everyone in the office was
amazed at how well it ran. To us, it seemed to actually run faster than it
did natively on the same machine. We could run it natively, as the PC had
removable drives, which makes this kind of thing a real snap.
This may sound like insane ramblings, especially since W2K would have the
entire 256MB RAM to itself when running natively, but it really did seem to
run faster. We also had the same experience of super low CPU utilisation
when the system was idle. It was generally in the 1%-2% range measured from
either the SuSE side or from within W2K. Everyone we demoed this to was
very impressed with how well it ran. Kudos to the VMWare developers for an
outstanding product.
Unfortunately, I can't remember if it was running XFree3 or XFree4, and we
have since rebuilt the machine so I can't check it either.
Bye for now,
Stuart.
-----Original Message-----
From: ewhiting@suse.com [mailto:ewhiting@suse.com]On Behalf Of Eric
Whiting
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:28 AM
To: Derek Fountain
Cc: SuSE English
Subject: Re: [SLE] SuSE 7, VMware and XFree86 4.0
<p>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 have 512M ram and dual 400 CPUs. I can run all 4 MS os's under
vmware at the same time (giving each about 80M RAM).
<p>eric
<p><p><p><p>Derek Fountain wrote:
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