A place still for multibooting

[ITWombat]

Virtualisation has become quite popular as a solution for running more than one OS on the same computer. Provided that the host PC has enough RAM, disk space and CPU power, then you can create a mini network of virtual machines all in the one physical box. Handling OS builds becomes as easy as manipulating disk files.

 

There are limitations, however. The performance hit is the most obvious one. You can never get the virtual machines running at native speeds.

There is also the fact that the virtual machines have to use idealised hardware compements rather than the video card or SATA contoller you spent a lot of money on.

 

If you don't need to run all the operating systems concurrently then mulitbooting is another solution. Install each OS on in a separate parition and then reboot to switch between them.

 

This is the approach used by Apple's Boot Camp. An Intel Mac can run either Mac OS X or Windows XP/Vista ( Linux is also possible and has been even in the old PowerPC days). You get to run each OS at native speeds with all the hardware of the host machine at your disposal (so long as you can get all the necessary drivers for XP or Linux).

 

What are the options for normal Windows PCs and what's in it for EduGeeks. For while I've been wondering if mulitbooting might be the answer to that old school/home laptop dilema. Have a normal domain client in one partition and a standalone build in another for home use. Perhaps have profiles in a common partition visible to both installations. The teacher gets the full admin power at home but return to a malware free build at school.

 

The possibilities don't end there. In PC suites what about having a separate build for each class and all a reboot way. This means you don't overload any one Windows installion with too many apps.

 

What do others think? There would be issues with licensing and deployment. RIS (at least pre-Vista RIS) would be out of the question, leaving Symantec Ghost or Acronis True Image as the only solution.

[webman]

We've had this option with RM CC3 for ages but we've never needed to use it.

[meastaugh1]

The possibilities don't end there. In PC suites what about having a separate build for each class and all a reboot way. This means you don't overload any one Windows installion with too many apps.

 

I can recall reading about Altiris' Software Virtualisation a while ago, which layers applications in their own bubble to avoid conflict. At the time I couldn't imagine it being particularly economically viable, particularly for the educational market, in the short term at least.

 

I don't know whether this concept is now dated and has been superseded by something else?

[Dos_Box]

The possibilities don't end there. In PC suites what about having a separate build for each class and all a reboot way. This means you don't overload any one Windows installion with too many apps.

 

I can recall reading about Altiris' Software Virtualisation a while ago, which layers applications in their own bubble to avoid conflict. At the time I couldn't imagine it being particularly economically viable, particularly for the educational market, in the short term at least.

 

I don't know whether this concept is now dated and has been superseded by something else?

 

Its not cheap, but os free for personal use (IIRC), and I have tried it, and it is quite good for smaller apps, big ones like Macromedia Studio 8 fall over though. To get the best out of it you have to tie it in with a management product of theirs to roll out program images.

[ajbritton]

I've also looked briefly at SVS. The basic freebie kit comes with a primitive repackager type application that attempts to capture the changes made to your PC when you install a piece of software. As DB says, it's fine for small or simple apps, but when start using more complexe apps (which don't always submit well to conventional repackaging anywat), then the learning curve becomes more like a learning wall.

 

SVS is alive and well though. The current version of Wise Package Studio (7.x) supports repackaging to a virtual software layer. I've not tried it though.

[ajbritton]

As for dual booting, I can see the use for Power Users, but I think for general users, virtualization gives performance which is more than adequate. I've not actually tried VPC on a Core 2 Duo equipped machine, but I have run Virtual Server 2005 on a Dell 2900 server with super dooper dual core xeons, and a virtual XP machine was at least as fast as most of the P4 based classroom PCs.

[CyberNerd]

There are limitations, however. The performance hit is the most obvious one. You can never get the virtual machines running at native speeds.

 

Xen runs at 'native' speed. I don't think 3% difference is much of a problem.

 

OS-level virtualisation is described as "native" speed, however some groups have found overhead as high as 3% for some operations, but generally figures come under 1%, so long as secondary effects do not appear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_machines

[PiqueABoo]

I've not actually tried VPC on a Core 2 Duo equipped machine

 

The other machine I run VMWare on is a dual P-III, currently its a Core 2 Duo... and it works well for me on either. YMMV, but CPU is rarely a bottleneck for me. Disk performance definitely counts though.