At 06:07 PM 4/21/01 +0100, you wrote:
>I had checked out vmware and decided it was not viable due to slowness
This always got me too, till I did some testing on other systems. I found
that on low-end systems with relatively slow CPUs and little RAM, etc.,
VMware ran noticeably slower than Win4Lin 1.0, but the difference slimmed
down quite a lot with Win4Lin 2.0. As Netraverse adds more features to
Win4Lin to approach VMware's capability set, I believe the difference will
become negligible even on low-end systems. On medium- to high-end systems,
speed was never an issue.
I ended up using VMware at work because I needed seamless Netware
integration, which Win4Lin did not provide. At home I used Win4Lin till
recently, but now I find myself using VMware more and more. I'm not sure if
I'll upgrade to Win4Lin 3.0 because I too don't like the fact that I was
able to use the product for only a few months before needing to pay yet
again (I was a late 1.0 purchaser and got a free 2.0 upgrade within a
week). Many folks may not see any reason to upgrade to the 2.4.x series of
Linux kernels, but quite a lot do, and for many reasons, performance and
security issues both.
People will always buy what suits them. I like (and dislike) both VMware
and Win4Lin for different reasons, but I always hated having to forgo
kernel upgrades with Win4Lin, whereas with VMware, all I needed to do was
rerun the perl script to reconfigure the modules and get working again
painlessly and fast.
Each company has two different ways of attacking the problem, and each has
its own merits and downfalls. But one thing's for sure: Going with
Netraverse ultimately becomes more expensive than VMware because of having
to repurchase the software just because you upgrade your kernel.
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
