In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andrew T Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>I am not trying to promote vmware here although I think both Win4Lin and
>Vmware are pretty useful.
agreed - I have both - and don't forget wine, especially if you play
games...
>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.
I did some speed trials a bit back and posted the results - won't go
through all the details again, but for a database sort (I used the
rebuild of the Turnpike mailer newsgroup database - 30,000 entries)
native win95 is about 30% quicker than win4lin which is about twice as
fast as vmware (IIRC). But on a cpu-intensive MathCad calc, though the
order (native win95, win4lin, vmware) was the same, the overall
difference was only about 20%. All this on a Cyrix M2-300 with 104Mb
RAM.
I also tested wine, which was close to native for the cpu-intensive
test, but miles adrift for the file-shuffling test ( this is because it
uses a socket to a second process, wineserver, for file-handling).
>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.
'important if true' :-)
>On medium- to high-end systems,
>> speed was never an issue.
lucky man!
>>
And now abideth these three
VmWare, Win4Lin & Wine
(but by far the most useful of these for me is win4lin)
--
robert w hall
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
