Yes it is okay if you are running a 32 bit virtual machine (VM). For a 64bit VM, processor should support hardware virtualization and it should be enabled in BIOs settings.
My recommendation is since you are spending on i7 processor, check if the one you are ordering supports hardware virtualization. Go to intel web site and check the processor feature list. Don't rely on Dell/HP customer support solely. As mentioned earlier having a processor with this feature does not always add to cost but performance is always way much better if you take advantage of harware for running.VM rather then just relying on software for virtualization. On 4/12/10, Lori Ayre <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I like that "in case I break it" clause. So does 8GB RAM and an Intel > i7 QUAD Core 860 processor with Windows 7 64-bit Professional have what one > needs to use VirtualBox or VMWare? > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM, chintan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For a newbie/developer I always recommend using a virtual machine coz >> of ease of restoring back the system in the event you happen to break >> it. Your host remains intact regardless of how many times you break >> the ILS. And also you can have windows or linux host. >> >> If you plan to use Virtual machine and are buying a new piece of >> hardware then make sure the processor supports hardware >> virtualizaltion and the manufactorer provi des option to enable it via >> Bios. This will improve your performance greatly and take the >> advantage of advanced capability of the new age processors. This >> should not cost you more. Also the new intel processors support >> extended paging which when used with virtual box can even boost your >> performance further. >> >> Also in my opinion VMware is a better option if you decide to go with >> Virtual machine and can find a VMWare image or built one. Coz I have >> always had problems in making Virtual box make use of mutliple cores >> from processor. Not sure if it has been improved lately. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/12/10, Lori Ayre <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thanks Jason and Chris and Nicole, So, my question is....should I >> > bother >> > with two partitions or could I just go with a new Windows 7 machine and >> use >> > VirtualBox for when I'm messing with Koha and Evergreen. >> > >> > Or....go with Ubuntu and run a virtual version of Windows when I need to >> use >> > Word or some other Windows-only app...... >> > >> > Seems like a dual boot system isn't really necessary. More opinions >> please! >> > >> > Lori >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Sharp, Chris >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Lori, >> >> >> >> I use VirtualBox machines running barebones Debian lenny for both >> >> Evergreen >> >> and Koha (the latter of which I have not yet fully installed), which >> works >> >> well for me. I run it on Ubuntu, which is generally less memory >> intensive >> >> than Windows. You'll want plenty of RAM and hard disk space (I use an >> >> external HD), depending on how "realistic" you want it to be (loading >> >> records, accumulating patron histories, etc.). >> >> >> >> For your purposes I think VirtualBox would be a good choice. >> >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> Chris Sharp >> >> PINES Program Manager >> >> Georgia Public Library Service >> >> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 >> >> Atlanta, Georgia 30345 >> >> (404) 235-7147 >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://pines.georgialibraries.org/ >> >> >> >> ----- "Lori Bowen Ayre" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi All, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I'm in the midst of buying a new computer and I want to be able to >> >> > install my own copy of Koha and Evergreen. I was planning to get a >> >> > dual boot system with Ubuntu. I would just want to be able to use my >> >> > copies of Koha and Evergreen to learn the system better. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Would this be the approach you would recommend? Or should I do it >> >> > with >> >> > virtual box or something more along those lines? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Lori >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com >> > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
