>From my experience, I think that VirtualBox and VmWare ran equally
well on my machine.

One side note: In VmWare, the hardest combination that you can set to
'ungrab' your mouse and keyboard is Ctrl+Alt+Shift - so it drives me
mad when I needed to use the combination in applications like Adobe
Photoshop.

- Huan.


On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Jason Novinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott,
>
>  I really like VirtualBox.  After installing the guest additions in the
>  guest OS, you can use the "seamless" mode, which just puts the Windows
>  task bar at the bottom.  Windows windows then act like regular
>  windows.  That may be a exaggeration, but it works fairly.
>
>  Give me a holler sometime and I can show you on my laptop.
>
>  Jason
>
>
>
>  On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Scott Thatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > I'm considering which virtualization product to use for my SPSS needs, 
> since
>  >  getting a license for the new Linux version seems too expensive for 
> Truman,
>  >  and I'm wondering if any of you have an opinion or experience between kvm 
> and
>  >  Virtualbox?  I have used VMWare for a long time, but I'd like to try 
> something
>  >  new, and Ubuntu's decision to no longer package VMWare is giving me the
>  >  motivation.  (I've installed VMWare manually lots of times, but I'd also 
> like
>  >  something that Carol could use that doesn't require more than Ubuntu 
> package
>  >  management).
>  >
>  >  I've done a web search, and I can see these differences:
>  >
>  >  - Virtualbox has a nice user interface, while there appear to still be 
> some
>  >   things that one needs to do on the command line with kvm.
>  >  - Virtualbox suggests _not_ enabling on-chip virtualization support 
> because
>  >   they claim their software is designed to be just as fast without that
>  >   support, whereas kvm requires chip-based virtualization support.
>  >  - kvm is supported in the kernel (I think), whereas Virtualbox still 
> requires
>  >   extra kernel module packages in ubuntu.
>  >
>  >  I haven't found any numeric speed estimates, except very general 
> comparisons
>  >  that say they're in the same ballpark.  I'm tempted to go with kvm, just
>  >  because it appears that it doesn't need extra support packages that might 
> go
>  >  out of date with a new kernel.  Does anyone have experience to share?
>  >
>  >  Scott
>  >  --
>  >  Scott Thatcher
>  >  Associate Professor of Mathematics
>  >  Truman State University
>  >  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >
>  >  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  >  To get off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >  with Subject: unsubscribe
>  >  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >
>
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  To get off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  with Subject: unsubscribe
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>



-- 
"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
http://tnhh.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To get off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with Subject: unsubscribe
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to