Linux compatible laptop?
Joris Dolderer
I need a small (ca. 11,2') (Sub)notebook being sold now that is fully
compatible with Linux (Debian). It should have WLAN and a long battery
life.
Does anybody own/have heard of such a laptop? (I don't want to buy it, I
just want the model number)
Joris
Bill Marcum
Asus EEE?
Mark T.B. Carroll
Would something like the Asus Eee suffice?
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEeePC
I think that Asus suggest you should get a few hours' battery life from
it but I haven't looked at any independent realistic tests of that.
I'll be in the market myself for such a thing in a few months so I'd be
interested to hear of alternatives. Ease of getting Debian running on it
is of great interest to me.
Mark
Michael Black
I'm seriously tempted to buy one.
For a number of years, I've thought of buying a PDA, which is obviously
the most portable thing. But it's so limited, and no keyboard which I
couldn't live without, and you pay quite a bit for one with built in
wifi (which is one big reason I'd want a portable device).
I could buy a used laptop, I have no need for something really fast,
yet realistically I'd not bother carrying it around, too big and too
heavy.
The eeepc is a compromise, the price of a PDA yet a real computer.
The limitations, small permanent storage, I can live with for its intended
use. I don't need a primary computer (or else a full blown laptop)
would be the thing to get), I want a secondary to do some things around
the hosue and outside.
ANd out of the box, it runs linux. Maybe more important, I'm not paying
for Windows, since I'd not be running Windows. But I can shake it down
and have familiar programs, and then install a "real" distribution once
I'm ready to make the leap.
It seems a decent compromise. SOmething you are likely to carry around,
but still useable (though I've not seen one up close to know how limiting
the screen and keyboard are). Drop some of the extras in order to make
it more portable. My computing needs are limited, and they will fit in
fine. I'm not going to be doing all kinds of graphic processing, so the
limited storage space is not a problem (and of course, one can plug in
cards and USB drives). The only thing I wish it had was one of those
screens that could be rotated to make it more like a PDA (though that
would need something like a touchscreen to become viable); there was one
like that mentioned in "Linux Format" some years back and that dual
purpose format seemed like a good thing.
IN thinking about the eeepc, I keep thinking of the only laptop I bought
new, the Radio Shack Model 100 that I bought in 1985. Cost about $400 at
the time, a full blown keyboard but something like 4 lines of 40
characters on the screen. A whopping 8K of RAM built in, and I eventually
expanded it to 24K (and I bought a 4gig USB flash drive a month ago
for less than one of the 8K modules to expand the Model 100). To a large
extent, I found it too unuseable, that small screen, but it had no
mechanical drives to add weight, cost, or fragility. Ran for nearly
forever on 4 AA batteries. Light enough (though rather bulky) to
carry around.
When I remember I spent that much on that laptop back then, and can
spend the same amount for an eeepc today that is infinitely better,
it makes the eeepc very tempting.
Michael
ray
There are a variety of new sub-laptops available - most of them come with
Linux installed as they are marketed to be inexpensive. The aformentioned
ASUS eeepc is one. Have a look at www.viaarena.com to see several others.
Cloudbook comes to mind - I believe WalMart (the other evil empire) sells
it.
Joris Dolderer
a laptop in the range of e.g. the Samsung q45 aura (devesh etc.), but I
don't know wether that is Linux compatible.
Joris
Michael Black
> I'll be in the market myself for such a thing in a few months so I'd be
> interested to hear of alternatives. Ease of getting Debian running on it
> is of great interest to me.
>
the eeepc. I've not followed it all, so I'm not sure what's available or
whether they were in the works before the eeepc or have come as a result
of it, but I have seen references to small laptops that are either out
or coming out soon and there are comparisons to the eeepc.
Obviously, this is a new branch of small computers. Wait, and you likely
do get more possibilities (unless the subset ends up being a failure).
Michael
Michael Black
The eeepc has a 7" screen, weighs about 2lb, and is said to be about
the size of a hardcover book.
Michael
ray
Now you have me confused. Originally you referred to a "sub-notebook". Are
you looking for a more or less traditional sized portable, or a smaller
package? Lenovo are generally Linux compatible. You've been provided with
names of various small packages. How about looking at some of the
mentioned products (www.viaarena.com might be a good place to see several)
and let us know if we're on the same channel.
Bob Tennent
> I need a small (ca. 11,2') (Sub)notebook being sold now that is fully
> compatible with Linux (Debian). It should have WLAN and a long battery
> life.
ASUS sell "barebones" notebooks to re-sellers. You can then choose the
processor, hard drive, memory *and* operating system. Some models are
12". I have one of these and it's almost fully compatible with Linux.
There's a list of re-sellers here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=25849
Google for "Asus barebones notebook" and you'll get lots of hits.
Bob T.
bobharvey
There is a 9 inch version of the EEEpc available now. I've seen
reports but not the carcass, as it is not yet available in the UK.
The 701 is simply superb, although I don't think anything will top the
battery of the sadly lamented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psion_Netbook
which could get a week out of a handful of AA cells.
Trevor Hemsley
<robert...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> There is a 9 inch version of the EEEpc available now. I've seen
> reports but not the carcass, as it is not yet available in the UK.
They're listed as 'in stock' at dabs.com today. £336 inc VAT.
--
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com
General Schvantzkopf
The next generation that uses the Intel Atom processors are due around
June, the current ones use a Via processor.
Sheridan Hutchinson
Based on your criteria I would suggested the X range of Thinkpad's as
being particularly fitting. Specifically, the X40, X41, X60, X60s, X61,
X61s and the new X300 would all make ideal candidates.
I also use Debian (testing) on my X40 (which I'm typing on now) and all
the hardware is supported.
--
Regards,
Sheridan Hutchinson
Sher...@Shezza.org
General Schvantzkopf
Lenovo offers laptops with SuSE preinstalled, they offer it on their top
of the line T61, and they do it right out in the open. This is in
contrast to Dell who offers Ubuntu on an obsolete low spec laptop which
is nearly impossible to find on their website. Dell is treating Linux
like video stores treat porn, they put Linux behind a curtain in a dark
corner of their website where you can't find it unless you know it's
there. Lenovo puts Linux right by the front door. When get a new laptop
later this year it's going to be a Lenovo.
Hactar
I ordered an HP/Compaq with FreeDOS. That's not Linux, but at least I
avoided the MS tax. Once I got it, I put Ubuntu on it. The wifi,
display, sound, wired network, USB ports, CD/DVD reader/writer, and
extra battery are all fully supported. (The PCMCIA bay, second monitor
port, S-Video out, and modem may be too, but I haven't tried.) The
fingerprint reader, SD card bay, and SC(?) card bay aren't, AFAIK.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin
Ramu
My ask is a variation of this thread.
I work as a project management consultant and while I am at the client
site, it is mostly a Microsoft shop where I have to use the
applications such as Word, Excel, MS Project, Powerpoint and Outlook
("productivity apps").
I am currently running Windows XP (need to go thru the "mandatory
upgrade" to Vista shortly) and I find that the amount of time the
laptop spends joining the domain and then starting Word, Outlook, etc
takes over 5 to 8 minutes.
Here is my ASK:
Is there a way to configure Windows XP (or Vista) *AND* Linux to
jointly run on a laptop so that Linux is delivering the Internet (web)
experience while the non-Linux operating system is "reconfigured" to
focus only on productivity apps (mentioned above).
I am also looking for a one stop shop where I can order and buy this
appliance.
Thanks for any advice or pointers.
On May 4, 11:08 am, ebenZERO...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
> In article <xe2dna2MsI6DBIDVnZ2dnUVZ_tvin...@comcast.com>,
> -eben QebWenE...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
> They that can give up essential liberty to
> obtain a little temporary safety deserve
> neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill Marcum
>
>
>
> My ask is a variation of this thread.
>
> I work as a project management consultant and while I am at the client
> site, it is mostly a Microsoft shop where I have to use the
> applications such as Word, Excel, MS Project, Powerpoint and Outlook
> ("productivity apps").
>
> I am currently running Windows XP (need to go thru the "mandatory
> upgrade" to Vista shortly) and I find that the amount of time the
> laptop spends joining the domain and then starting Word, Outlook, etc
> takes over 5 to 8 minutes.
>
> Here is my ASK:
> Is there a way to configure Windows XP (or Vista) *AND* Linux to
> jointly run on a laptop so that Linux is delivering the Internet (web)
> experience while the non-Linux operating system is "reconfigured" to
> focus only on productivity apps (mentioned above).
>
might use OpenOffice instead of Word or Excel, and Evolution or
Thunderbird instead of Outlook.
Aragorn
> I work as a project management consultant and while I am at the client
> site, it is mostly a Microsoft shop where I have to use the
> applications such as Word, Excel, MS Project, Powerpoint and Outlook
> ("productivity apps").
>
> I am currently running Windows XP (need to go thru the "mandatory
> upgrade" to Vista shortly) [...
Just for the record, you could also upgrade to XP SP3. From all I've read
about Microsoft products so far, XP SP3 is just as capable as Vista at
being incompatible, crashing its kernel or hogging up your resources. :p
> ...] and I find that the amount of time the laptop spends joining the
> domain and then starting Word, Outlook, etc takes over 5 to 8 minutes.
>
> Here is my ASK:
> Is there a way to configure Windows XP (or Vista) *AND* Linux to
> jointly run on a laptop so that Linux is delivering the Internet (web)
> experience while the non-Linux operating system is "reconfigured" to
> focus only on productivity apps (mentioned above).
Yes it is. Alongside the advice given to you by Bill Marcum regarding
VMWare, there is also another free option...: If your machine has hardware
virtualization support, you could use Xen as a hypervisor, running
underneath both GNU/Linux and Windows.
The GNU/Linux virtual machine would be the "host" - although the host/guest
terminology is actually incorrect verbage in a Xen set-up - and the Windows
virtual machine would be the "guest".
You would be using your Windows desktop from within an X11 window in
GNU/Linux, and Xen can be configured to either have the Windows machine be
NAT'ed behind the GNU/Linux machine on a private LAN, or to have your
physical network adapter act as a bridge - in which case both your
GNU/Linux virtual machine and your Windows virtual machine need individual
IP addresses on the subnet you're connecting your laptop to.
Bear in mind that this will only work if your CPU, memory and I/O
controllers have virtualization extensions, as is the case with all recent
Intel and AMD machines. (Intel has VT (also known as Vanderpool), AMD has
SVM (also known as AMD-V or Pacifica).)
There is however a caveat... According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home
and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those
versions of Windows inside a virtual machine - whether it's via Xen,
VirtualBox, VMWare, Bochs or whatever other virtualization technology.
As such, you would be violating the law, so the responsibility is yours.
Should you decide to go ahead and do it anyway and they throw you in jail,
we won't come visit you. :p
> I am also looking for a one stop shop where I can order and buy this
> appliance.
VMWare Player is free - as in "gratis", not as in "freedom" - but to my
knowledge, the actual VMWare Workstation in which you can create virtual
machines is offered commercially only, so if you want to use VMWare Player,
you'd have to build a virtual Windows machine using another tool, e.g.
Microsoft's Virtual PC.
Xen and VirtualBox are Free & Open Source Software. Many GNU/Linux
distributions already pack at least one virtualization solution along with
the rest of the software. Fedora Core for instance comes with the Xen
hypervisor, the Xen tools and a generic XenLinux kernel that can be used
either as the management domain kernel - also known as "domain 0", "dom0"
or "the host" - or as an unprivileged domain kernel - also known as "domain
U", "domU" or "a guest".
If your distribution does not come with any virtualization solution by
default, then you can still download the free solutions from their
respective websites, i.e.
* Xen - http://www.xen.org
* VMWare - http://www.vmware.com
* VirtualBox - http://www.virtualbox.org
There are also commercial solutions from XenSource - now the property of
Citrix - or VMWare. It all depends on your needs and your preferences.
Hope this was helpful... :-)
--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
General Schvantzkopf
I do exactly that. I use VMware to run Windows on top of Fedora. I
usually run a 2K VM because it's lighter than XP, I run an XP VM when I
have an app that isn't supported by 2K. The performance of Windows on
VMware is excellent. You can cut and paste between Linux and Windows and
you can use SAMBA to share directories between Linux and Windows. I keep
all of my Windows data in Linux directories (exported with SAMBA) rather
than on the VMware virtual disk which I reserve for the OS. By keeping
all of the data files on Linux I can use Linux for backup or to check the
files into my CVS database. It's also easy to backup the Windows VM, just
tar up the machine's VMware directory.
You should be using Evolution instead of Outlook. Outlook is dangerous,
it's nothing more than a virus magnet. As a general rule you don't want
to let Windows touch the Internet except for a few trusted sites like the
update sites for Microsoft, Intuit and your other Windows apps. I've been
using Windows VMs on Linux since 2000 (Win98 on Win4Lin) and I've never
caught a virus even though I don't use antivirus software. I treat
Windows like a bubble boy, it's not allowed to access the Internet except
for a few trusted update sites and all of my machines are behind a router
so there are no incoming ports exposed. I've also never used any e-mail
client on Windows, I use Evolution which is terrific. I've never had to
deal with and Exchange Server, I use POP mail, but my understanding is
that Evolution works with Exchange if that's something you need.
I use OpenOffice for all of my new documents and Word2K on VMware for my
older documents or documents that I have to share with Word users.
The .doc compatibility of OpenOffice is very good these days but it's not
perfect. I like OpenOffice better than Word and I think it produces
better looking documents. OpenOffice has a built in PDF generator so you
can produce portable documents with it.
One more thing, you want to have at least 2G of RAM on any machine that
you run VMware on, more would be better. I've used it with as little as
1G but these days there is no reason to skimp, 4G of DDR2 costs $75 on
Newegg so you might has well have as much RAM as your machine can hold.
General Schvantzkopf
> There is however a caveat... According to Microsoft, the EULA for the
> Home and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run
> those versions of Windows inside a virtual machine - whether it's via
> Xen, VirtualBox, VMWare, Bochs or whatever other virtualization
> technology.
It's Vista which has the VM restriction, not XP. When XP came out it
didn't occur to them that anyone would want to use desktop
virtualization, the only cheap VM at the time was Win4Lin and that only
worked with Win98. Now there are a lot of free VMs which work with XP so
it's a real issue for them.
You wouldn't want to run a Vista VM anyway, XP is by far the better
choice. XP is lighter and it has much better application compatibility.
You don't care about any OS features in a VM because you are just using
it to run a few applications that you don't have Linux equivalents for.
XP will be supported until 2012 although that's not really important with
a VM because you don't care about driver updates or even security updates
(assuming you follow my bubble boy rules that I describe in my other
post). What's important is application support and that's not going to go
away for years. Most MS app vendors still support 2K so they will
undoubtedly continue to support XP for ate least 5 more years.
Aragorn
> [...]
> You should be using Evolution instead of Outlook. Outlook is dangerous,
> it's nothing more than a virus magnet.
In fact, all of Windows is a virus magnet. Hell, there wouldn't even be as
many viruses/trojans/worms and botnets today if it weren't for Windows
being so promiscuous.
> As a general rule you don't want to let Windows touch the Internet except
> for a few trusted sites like the update sites for Microsoft, [...]
"Trusted" is a relative term here. A few years ago, even Microsoft's own
Windows Update site was compromised and offered pre-infected binaries for
download... ;-)
> [...] OpenOffice has a built in PDF generator so you can produce portable
> documents with it.
If my memory serves me right, the new upcoming OpenOffice will also be able
to *edit* PDF files. :-)
Aragorn
> My ask is a variation of this thread.
>
> I work as a project management consultant and while I am at the client
> site, it is mostly a Microsoft shop where I have to use the
> applications such as Word, Excel, MS Project, Powerpoint and Outlook
> ("productivity apps").
>
> I am currently running Windows XP (need to go thru the "mandatory
> upgrade" to Vista shortly) and I find that the amount of time the
> laptop spends joining the domain and then starting Word, Outlook, etc
> takes over 5 to 8 minutes.
>
> Here is my ASK:
> Is there a way to configure Windows XP (or Vista) *AND* Linux to
> jointly run on a laptop so that Linux is delivering the Internet (web)
> experience while the non-Linux operating system is "reconfigured" to
> focus only on productivity apps (mentioned above).
In addition to all other replies you've gotten to your query, I would also
like to add that Crossover Office is a special application of /wine/ -
which stands for "Wine Is No Emulator" and makes up for a Windows ABI on
top of UNIX systems - with which you can run MS Office applications on
GNU/Linux natively.
> I am also looking for a one stop shop where I can order and buy this
> appliance.
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxlinux/
Crossover Office is a commercial solution only, though. /wine/ on the other
hand comes as part of the software offer of just about any desktop-oriented
GNU/Linux distribution, e.g. Mandriva, RedHat/CentOS/Fedora, SuSE, et al.
Hactar
Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> Ramu wrote:
>
> > Here is my ASK:
> > Is there a way to configure Windows XP (or Vista) *AND* Linux to
> > jointly run on a laptop so that Linux is delivering the Internet (web)
> > experience while the non-Linux operating system is "reconfigured" to
> > focus only on productivity apps (mentioned above).
>
> Yes it is. Alongside the advice given to you by Bill Marcum regarding
> VMWare, there is also another free option...: If your machine has hardware
> virtualization support, you could use Xen as a hypervisor, running
> underneath both GNU/Linux and Windows.
>
> The GNU/Linux virtual machine would be the "host" - although the host/guest
> terminology is actually incorrect verbage in a Xen set-up - and the Windows
> virtual machine would be the "guest".
>
> You would be using your Windows desktop from within an X11 window in
> GNU/Linux,
Or you whack a key combo, and it's full-screen. But don't expect Windows
to see the Whizzbang-3000 video card you just bought -- IME, it always
sees the one card VMware presents to it, a (restoring VMware to find out)
"VMware SVGA II", which can be the same resolution as one of (? the
larger of?) your X monitors. The same goes for the NIC and sound card,
BTW -- Linux gets native access to them, and VMware emulates a specific
card to its guest machine. Most of the time, this won't matter.
> There is however a caveat... According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home
> and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those
> versions of Windows inside a virtual machine - whether it's via Xen,
> VirtualBox, VMWare, Bochs or whatever other virtualization technology.
Yeah, it's a different CPU, chipset, cards, monitor, the works.
> As such, you would be violating the law, so the responsibility is yours.
> Should you decide to go ahead and do it anyway and they throw you in jail,
> we won't come visit you. :p
Can you sell a license (e.g. to yourself, for a dollar)?
> > I am also looking for a one stop shop where I can order and buy this
> > appliance.
>
> VMWare Player is free - as in "gratis", not as in "freedom" - but to my
> knowledge, the actual VMWare Workstation in which you can create virtual
> machines is offered commercially only, so if you want to use VMWare Player,
> you'd have to build a virtual Windows machine using another tool, e.g.
> Microsoft's Virtual PC.
If you have an XP license, you can make a blank VMware "hard drive" on
which to install it (GIYF) and use it with VMWare Player.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
When we've nuked the world to a cinder, the cockroaches picking
over the remains will be crawling over the remaining artifacts
and wondering what "PC LOAD LETTER" means. -- PC / ASR
Aragorn
> In article <aZfVj.32893$_k2....@newsfe11.ams2>,
> Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The GNU/Linux virtual machine would be the "host" - although the
>> host/guest terminology is actually incorrect verbage in a Xen set-up -
>> and the Windows virtual machine would be the "guest".
>>
>> You would be using your Windows desktop from within an X11 window in
>> GNU/Linux,
>
> Or you whack a key combo, and it's full-screen.
Yes, of course, but what I meant (and failed) to say was that you cannot
have Windows control the hardware directly as if it were running on bare
metal, so the GNU/Linux system and the VMWare Player would always be there
underneath Windows.
> But don't expect Windows to see the Whizzbang-3000 video card you just
> bought -- IME, it always sees the one card VMware presents to it, a
> (restoring VMware to find out) "VMware SVGA II", which can be the same
> resolution as one of (? the larger of?) your X monitors.
Exactly. Most of the hardware is being emulated, and only a small subset of
the Windows instructions actually makes it to the processor directly, and
then still, via a set of traps.
>> There is however a caveat... According to Microsoft, the EULA for the
>> Home and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run
>> those versions of Windows inside a virtual machine - whether it's via
>> Xen, VirtualBox, VMWare, Bochs or whatever other virtualization
>> technology.
>
> Yeah, it's a different CPU, chipset, cards, monitor, the works.
>
>> As such, you would be violating the law, so the responsibility is yours.
>> Should you decide to go ahead and do it anyway and they throw you in
>> jail, we won't come visit you. :p
>
> Can you sell a license (e.g. to yourself, for a dollar)?
I believe that the Microsoft EULA does not allow resale of the license.
Basically, if the shrinkwrap plastic is removed from the box,
you're /foobarred./ :p
Trevor Hemsley
<ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home
> and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those
> versions of Windows inside a virtual machine
I think your information on this is out of date and this has now been rescinded.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/microsoft_virtualisation_vista/
Aragorn
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:54:51 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Aragorn
> <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
>> According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home
>> and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those
>> versions of Windows inside a virtual machine
>
> I think your information on this is out of date and this has now been
> rescinded.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/microsoft_virtualisation_vista/
I only know what I know about Windows and Microsoft from what I read on the
internet and in magazines, and then I usually only read the stuff that
pertains to Microsoft as a monopolist.
I feel that I've already read enough about Windows internals to be bored
about it and wonder how such an atrocious design could be permitted to
still exist in this day and age. :p I don't use Windows myself, and it's
already been ages again since I've installed Windows on anybody's machine.
The last time I remember was when someone asked me to reinstall Windows 98
SE on their machine after they had upgraded to WinME and nothing worked
anymore. So that must have been... 2000, 2001? A long time ago
anyway. ;-)
Hactar
Trevor Hemsley <Trevor....@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:54:51 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Aragorn
> <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
> > According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home
> > and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those
> > versions of Windows inside a virtual machine
>
> I think your information on this is out of date and this has now been rescinded.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/microsoft_virtualisation_vista/
If you have Vista running in a VM and change the underlying hardware
(either all at once or "George Washington's axe"-style), is that OK by
them?
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
A. A Top Poster \ http://www.fscked.co.uk/
B. Who's there? \ writing/
A. Knock-knock -- from bob...@xxx.com \ top-posting-cuss.html
General Schvantzkopf
> In article <gvHvIHdLQUQpwF...@trevor2.dsl.pipex.com>, Trevor
> Hemsley <Trevor....@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:54:51 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Aragorn
>> <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home and Professional
>> > editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those versions of
>> > Windows inside a virtual machine
>>
>> I think your information on this is out of date and this has now been
>> rescinded.
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/microsoft_virtualisation_vista/
>
> If you have Vista running in a VM and change the underlying hardware
> (either all at once or "George Washington's axe"-style), is that OK by
> them?
The virtual harware is what the client OS sees not the physical hardware
so it shouldn't detect that it's been moved. I've been using the same XP
and 2K VMs for years on different hardware, they have never complained.
If you are using the VMs at a large company that is subject to audit then
chances are you would need a separate license for each physical box.
Ramu
> Hactar wrote:
> > In article <aZfVj.32893$_k2.13...@newsfe11.ams2>,
> > Aragorn <arag...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> The GNU/Linux virtual machine would be the "host" - although the
> >> host/guest terminology is actually incorrect verbage in a Xen set-up -
> >> and the Windows virtual machine would be the "guest".
>
> >> You would be using your Windows desktop from within an X11 window in
> >> GNU/Linux,
>
> > Or you whack a key combo, and it's full-screen.
>
> Yes, of course, but what I meant (and failed) to say was that you cannot
> have Windows control the hardware directly as if it were running on bare
> metal, so the GNU/Linux system and the VMWare Player would always be there
> underneath Windows.
>
> > But don't expect Windows to see the Whizzbang-3000 video card you just
> > bought -- IME, it always sees the one card VMware presents to it, a
> > (restoring VMware to find out) "VMware SVGA II", which can be the same
> > resolution as one of (? the larger of?) your X monitors.
>
> Exactly. Most of the hardware is being emulated, and only a small subset of
> the Windows instructions actually makes it to the processor directly, and
> then still, via a set of traps.
>
> >> There is however a caveat... According to Microsoft, the EULA for the
> >> Home and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run
> >> those versions of Windows inside a virtual machine - whether it's via
> >> Xen, VirtualBox, VMWare, Bochs or whatever other virtualization
> >> technology.
>
> > Yeah, it's a different CPU, chipset, cards, monitor, the works.
Based on the thread, which is the best Linux laptop that I should
consider so that I can comfortably run both Linux and Windows XP.
Thanks!
Ramu
Hactar
I thought the gist of the article referenced above is that it's now OK
to move Vista from real to virtual on one machine on the same license.
If true, is it also OK to move it the other direction? IOW, does the
same license allow one real and one virtual non-simultaneous
installation?
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP
1101000 1110100 1110100 1110000 0111010 0101111 0101111 1110010 1101111
1111001 1100001 1101100 1110100 1111001 0101110 1101101 1101001 1101110
1100101 0101110 1101110 1110101 0111010 0111000 0110001 0101111
Aragorn
> Based on the thread, which is the best Linux laptop that I should
> consider so that I can comfortably run both Linux and Windows XP.
>
>
http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/na/LenovoPortal/en_US/special-offers.workflow:ShowPromo?LandingPage=/All/US/Landing_pages/Info/08/Linux
Well, it all depends on your preferences. The R61 is obviously more
affordable than both T61s. The T61 with the 15.4" screen might be more
interesting than the R61 and T61 with the 14.1" screen if you value a
bigger screen and a longer battery life.
It's also got a slightly faster processor, but that difference is rather
marginal. 2.0 GHz for both 14.1" screen models, 2.2 GHz for the 15.4"
screen model. All depends on your budget and on what you prefer. :-)
Either way, all three models come with hardware that's fully supported in
GNU/Linux, and Crimosoft would be very foolish not to support such standard
hardware in Vista. You may however want to opt for 2 GB of RAM at the very
least - 4 GB would even be better - if you really want to run Windows
inside a virtual machine.
Yet, since you're talking of office productivity applications, you should be
able to get them to work natively on GNU/Linux with Crossover Office, which
is an enhanced (and commercial) version of /wine,/ which in turn - as I've
written elsewhere - is an ABI (Application Binary Interface) for Windows
programs on UNIX systems.
So you wouldn't need to run a fully fledged Windows and a virtual machine
monitor or a hypervisor. Instead, you just install the applications in
GNU/Linux via the Crossover Office layer and you start them in the same
manner.
Trevor Hemsley
ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
> I thought the gist of the article referenced above is that it's now OK
> to move Vista from real to virtual on one machine on the same license.
I don't see anything either way about that in that article. The only thing I
thought of interest was the story that MS had gone back on the original EULA and
now allow users to install both varieties of Vista Home in a virtualized
environment.
The problem you would have with moving it from real to virtual and vice versa is
the inordinate amount of time and shenannigans it takes for any flavour of
Windows to 'detect' the hardware it's running on and reconfigure itself to run
on it. It's possible - at least with XP which I have run from the same partition
on the bare metal and under VirtualBox - but it not only spends ages finding the
hardware it's already running on but then decides it has to be reactivated when
you move in both directions.
Aragorn
> In article <tHvzJtDG0dTDRu...@trevor2.dsl.pipex.com>,
> Trevor Hemsley <Trevor....@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:07:40 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware,
>> ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>>
>> > I thought the gist of the article referenced above is that it's now OK
>> > to move Vista from real to virtual on one machine on the same license.
>>
>> I don't see anything either way about that in that article. The only
>> thing I thought of interest was the story that MS had gone back on the
>> original EULA and now allow users to install both varieties of Vista Home
>> in a virtualized environment.
>
> Fair enough. Was that impossible to do legally before this change?
Yep.
>> The problem you would have with moving it from real to virtual and vice
>> versa is the inordinate amount of time and shenannigans it takes for any
>> flavour of Windows to 'detect' the hardware it's running on and
>> reconfigure itself to run on it. It's possible - at least with XP which I
>> have run from the same partition on the bare metal and under VirtualBox -
>> but it not only spends ages finding the hardware it's already running on
>> but then decides it has to be reactivated when you move in both
>> directions.
>
> Yup, changing hardware underneath a recent Windows is a recipe for
> disaster.
_*Putting*_ hardware underneath Windows is a recipe for disaster. :p