Got my feet wet - now getting cold feet.

[Ian Goldberg]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 06:49:52AM -0700, Taavi Burns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 06:29:39PM -0600, Garth Meisel wrote:
> > On Sun February 22 2004 6:09 pm, Taavi Burns wrote:
> > I'm glad you added that.  I didn't now the nice way of saying ONE of the 
> > things you mentioned which was "Slow."  IMHO, no matter what though, the end  
> > result is still Windoze and it isn't going to be any better or any more 
> > stable just because it's being babysat by *nix.  : )
> 
> Actually...I have heard purely anecdotal evidence that Windoze
> can in fact be more stable in the virtual PC.  Why?  NO clue.
> Perhaps Windows has crappy drivers (oh my!)?
> 
> But that's 3rd party anecdotal evidence.  Don't listen to it.  :)

That's my understanding as well.  It's because the "virutalized"
hardware offered by the VMWare environment (or whatever other emulator
you're using) is designed to be "ideal": it doesn't have any of the
weird flakinesses associated with real hardware.  You're essentially
running Windows on an extremely slim, clean, *and standard* set of
hardware.  It's much more likely to be stable than running it on
whatever hardware you've actually got in your box.

   - Ian
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml