On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Rajagopal Swaminathan <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings, > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:04 PM, narendra sisodiya > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am planning to buy a new laptop. >> a) Do anybody have idea which laptop will be suitable for such task, >> Like high processing >> shows {Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) == No} . is it the >> same vmx flag ?? because I have a netbook with ATOM z520 >> http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35472&processor=Z500&spec-codes=SLB6Q >> which shows a vmx flag. but in the above link, it show it do not have >> {Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) } > > ensure that the virtualization is enabled in CMOS.
I was in the same quandry a few months back looking for a laptop on which I could run the Linux KVM. In my research, I learnt the following: (a) it is not sufficient that the laptop CPU has VT-x or AMD-v capability - the BIOS must have a Virtualization setting or not preclude VT-x/AMD-v usage. (b) On the Intel front, only the more expensive models have CPU with VT-x but ... most of them come with a b0rked BIOS that prevents the loading of KVM modules. (c) On the AMD front, I could not find much information Ultimately, I really **lucked** out when I bought the ACER Aspire 5542. The BIOS, even though there is no Virtualization setting, does not preclude the loading of KVM modules. It is a minor irritation which can be fixed with a small script. >> c) buying a laptop, with Graphics card with 1GB/512MB memory, How does >> it help in performance. It depends on what *you* want out of the system. Are you into playing games, developing games and/or animation? Then fork out the money for dedicated graphics memory. On the 5542, The performance of the graphics is nothing to write home about though, even with the proprietary ATI drivers - but to me KVM was more important than graphics performance. HTH -- Arun Khan _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
