You are not logged in.
I am looking to run xp or windows 7 in a virtual machine so I can run connectwise client. I am familiar with openbox, but was wondering if qemu is a better option. Qemu sounds like it's built more for a nix system... any opinions? or other options?
Kindest Regards,
Tim A
Offline
Based on what I've read in the past, Qemu can be more difficult to set up than Virtualbox. However, I've never really used Qemu, so I can't speak from experience. I've pretty much always used Virtualbox and it has always worked for me.
Have you tried Googling "QEMU vs Virtualbox"?
"The Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive...the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Offline
Have you tried Googling "QEMU vs Virtualbox"?
No I have not, but I will. Thanks for the input.
Kindest Regards,
Tim A
Offline
I also have no experience with QEMU, but use VBox everyday in both directions between linux and Win and can say it would be tough to beat it's performance and ease of setup. Once you're familiar with it's workings, you can have a guest installed with additions in under 10 minutes. As for stability, my main work OS is #! inside a VM on a Win 8 machine. Absolutely no hiccups related to the VM.
Offline
the performance of vmplayer is hard to beat.
http://www.vmware.com/products/player/
-Hinto
"Sometimes I wish I hadn't taken the red pill" -Me
Offline
I am looking to run xp or windows 7 in a virtual machine so I can run connectwise client. I am familiar with openbox, but was wondering if qemu is a better option. Qemu sounds like it's built more for a nix system... any opinions? or other options?
You don't need QEMU, you need qemu-kvm. QEMU itself is a virtualization packege, the real deal is KVM (kernel-based virtual machine), the built-in kernel hypervisor. You manage it with virt-manager (qemu-kvm is a dependency), a GUI or CLI frontend. This is assuming you have virtual extensions in your CPU, otherwise you will be using QEMU's software virtualization, which I hear is not very good compared to VB.
Software or hardware virtualization, VirtualBox is much easier to administer for users not accustomed to reading a stack of documentation. KVM has somewhat better performance, but this is not really an issue on desktops, any modern CPU can virtualize another one with very little trouble. KVM is much cooler, of course, and gives you sweet street cred.
Last edited by el_koraco (2013-02-19 21:27:37)
Offline
KVM is much cooler, of course, and gives you sweet street cred.
Went with Virtualbox, now I'm disappointed I lost my street cred.
Last edited by txbahai (2013-02-19 21:59:04)
Kindest Regards,
Tim A
Offline
What el_k said. Qemu's useless unless you add "accel=kvm" to the start command.
For me, it's like this at this moment in time.
KVM/qemu/virt-manager (Linux) / Parallels (OS X) > VMware Fusion/Workstation > VirtualBox.
Though all are pretty mature these days, and even Vbox should prove more than enough if it's just one virtual machine at a time. They each have their own set of quirks and idiosyncrasies, but you'll only be aware of those through actual usage.
Point & Squirt
Offline
Vmplayer is pretty damn good for basic use. Frankly I steer away from anything Oracle touches,
Offline
Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.