|
That was a long time ago (VMWare was version 2 at the time) after that, they really jacked up the prices, and broke compatibilty with FreeBSD, so I stopped paying much attention to it.
The other thing I never liked about WMWare was that it made it's own desktop that took up the full resolution that the Windows guest was running under. For example, if I enabled 1024x768 in the guest, it created a desktop window that was 1024x768, and everything had to run inside that window. It was just too awkward to switch between applications that way.
Has that changed at all? And, is the performance better now?Also, has anyone tried WDSC running under QEMU? QEMU runs faster than VMWare... but I still find it too awkward to get any real use out of.
It sure would be nice if someone would make IBM's tools (WDSC, iNav, etc) so that they don't force you to use Windows. But, I'm sure this is just a dream. IBM seems to really enjoy ramming Windows down my throat.
Arco Simonse wrote:
This is not true. I use the free VMWare server with XP Pro for testing environments. You can create VM's for a wide range of operating systems. For Windows it goes from Windows 3.1 to Vista x64 and Server 2003 x64. I have used the VM's with an XP Pro installation and WDSc, and it just runs fine in a VM, but you have to be carefull with memory allocation. Your VM host has to have plenty of memory that you can allocate to the VM guest, or else it will swap too much and you'll become a very bad performance.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
