On 03 9, 07, at 11:40 AM, Orlando Andico wrote:
On 3/8/07, Cocoy Dayao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not correct.
Intel Mac hardware does not cost any more than ordinary Intel
hardware.
Try comparing the price of a Macbook with a Core Duo, with a Toshiba
with a Core Duo. Surprise surprise, the Macbook is often CHEAPER.
sorry. i was thinking along the lines of a mac pro. those fb-dimms
are expensive... i won't run a vm on anything less than 2gb of ram
and on a mac pro i'd want at least 4gb. the fb-dimms have kept me
from buying one. the price is another. i've ran numbers because i'd
really prefer to get a mac pro. the fact of the matter is: i could
build several linux-based white box servers running core 2 duo linux
for the price of the mac pro spec that i wanted. so business-wise
makes me rethink about getting the mac pro.
now if we were thinking along the lines of a notebook--- then i must
totally agree with you. the price of a mac notebook and its value
far outweighs the competition. having os x alone on a desktop (i.e.
imac) or laptop (i.e. macbook or mbpro) machine is deal breaker
enough for me. not to be a zealot or anything--- but the mac as a
desktop is the better experience compared to linux and windows.
dual-booting just doesn't cut it in this day and age anymore.
you can test a product on your virtualized linux on your laptop
without
having to run it by a real server. US$80 (cost of parallels, sorry
i don't
know the cost of vmware) versus the cost of a real server+electrical
consumption+physical real-estate versus time spent reading how-
tos, backing
up data and implementing them= a lot of savings.
That doesn't work for me. Virtualized OS'es often have many
limitations (e.g. the maximum SHM size you can use often is capped at
unknown and unreasonably small values).
Try running Oracle 10g under VMWare under Windows, and prepare for
mayhem. Of course, this is due to Windows having a shitty SHM
implementation, but my premise stands: dual-booting is often still
necessary.
i've never tried running oracle 10g under a vm. so i apologize for
the sweeping generalization.
so i wouldn't know. that said, parallels for mac, has met my needs
and exceeded my expectations.
i've never tried to run a vm on windows and don't think will ever.
there are better platfroms to do that on like linux or os x.
I haven't tried running Oracle 10g or TimesTen under Xen or OpenVZ,
because frankly I don't have the time to see if it works and these
aren't supported configurations. For these (which are highly necessary
it being my job...) dual-booting is still the win.
i haven't tried running xen or openvz or kvm. xen i've tried to play
with about a year ago. having to have the guest os know it's being
ran on a vm... kinda sucks. and even if i did have the time to play
around i've no linux box running any processor with virtualization to
play with kvm. i've read interesting things about xen--- they were
able to making clusters out of vms, which is really good.
based on experience, i'd rather have one box dedicated to linux, and
if i needed windows, i'd have another box dedicated to it. the thing
with dual booting is that you keep rebooting. and i've used dual
booting on desktops and laptops since 2001. but hey, if that works
for you then great. to each his own i guess.
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
