I am not trying to promote vmware here although I think both Win4Lin and
Vmware are pretty useful. Since I use both of them extensively (right
tools for the right job) I notice that
1) Win4Lin beats Vmware in speed no matter which version.
2) You are totally correct that on P3 class machine both ran good.
3) Win98 takes the longest to boot on Vmware. Win95, NT, and 2000 boot up
much faster on Vmware (have absolutely no clue why).
4) Win98 VM was not tolerable on my old Gateway Pentium 233. However,
Win95 did work with acceptable speed. Because of the controlled
environment situation, Win95 ran relatively stable. The catch is of course
there are programs that will run on Win98 but will not run on Win95.
atc
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Dave Gardner wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
