Re: [Fed-Talk] XP Booting on Intel iMac: Confirmed
Re: [Fed-Talk] XP Booting on Intel iMac: Confirmed
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] XP Booting on Intel iMac: Confirmed
- From: Michael Pike <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:39:17 -0700
From a development standpoint, the PC virtualization is very
valuable. Dual boot is useless because the time it takes to shut
down one OS, boot another and go back takes too much time. The main
advantage to VMWare, VPC, etc (at least to me) is the Undo disk
command. A lot of times with development we screw up a few times
before we get it right and the ability to roll back to a system in an
unchanged state is reason enough for me to use a virtualized
solution. A dual boot solution to me has never been advantageous.
With that being said, I have a Sony VAIO laptop I bought before I
came to the Mac side. The ONLY use I get out of it (and it is just
within the last week it has been booted up in the last year) is
Windows XP, WinMedia 10, and AOL;s HI-Q TV. It works rather well. I
can select from hundreds of different TV episodes... watch them live
full screen, or record them with HI-Q and watch them wherever I want
without a network connection.
What sux is I hate doing this on a PC. I wish that Mac had a WM10
solution, but I do not think that is going to happen. So... my $3500
VAIO is now an expensive internet TV. It's worked so well I
cancelled my DirecTV subscription and TiVO. Hook the VAIO up to a
projector and I get all the old shows I like, and my kids have a ton
of cartoons to watch.
Mike
On Mar 19, 2006, at 11:44 PM, Amanda Walker wrote:
On Mar 19, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Todd Heberlein wrote:
So I expect by this time next year we won't be talking about dual-
boot or even PC emulation in Mac OS X but multiple OSes running
natively side-by-side on the same hardware.
I guess I don't see what the advantage is (for most purposes) of
this approach over having multiple ABIs (Application Binary
Interfaces) over a single OS (which is what both Mach and NT were
designed for, even though neither one ever developed fully in this
direction). Personally, I really don't want to have to keep up
with 2 (or more) sets of OS security updates, apply two sets of
STIGs, etc. (and make sure they don't conflict or otherwise
interact) and so on. I just want to be able to run multiple types
of application on a single OS. Running two OSs side by side means
I have to run and manage two machines in all respects except
weight. Now, granted, a weight reduction all by itself is
sometimes a bonus (I'd rather run dual OSes than carry both a
PowerBook and a PC laptop around, which I've been doing for the
past few years), but it doesn't help any of the other aspects.
Virtualization is great for servers--I'm not so convinced it's
equally great for workstations and laptops.
For example, which is a better user experience: Running under
Classic or a Carbonized application? The ABIs are very similar,
but having to have a whole second OS in there really complicated life.
Amanda Walker
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden