Hmm - I can't say that we've seen much in the way of performance difference though. It simply seems to be Virtual PC vNext
Cheers Ken From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Walsh Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2011 1:46 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: [OT] Virtual machine alternatives I know what XP Mode is, Virtual PC by itself is worse than the XP Mode implementation of it. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2011 3:44 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: [OT] Virtual machine alternatives What do you think XP Mode is? Cheers Ken From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Walsh Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2011 1:28 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: [OT] Virtual machine alternatives Haha, when one talks about Virtualization, one shouldn't mention Virtual PC. *shudders* From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig van Nieuwkerk Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2011 3:26 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Virtual machine alternatives Unless you are comparing to Microsoft Virtual PC in which case VirtualBox performance is outstanding! On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Chris Walsh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Virtual box is okish, but when you're looking for semi decent perf I wouldn't bother.
