SpaceBass

If ubuntu runs slower than XP in VPC I'd call that very fishy.... Maybe Microsoft would make the argument that they can optimize VPC for windows b/c they know the code...but true virtualization on a dual core should be pretty much like native...

VMware has a free product and Parallels is like $50 for the windows version. I'm not suggesting that you need ubuntu badly enough to shell out $50 or anything. I think that you are probably right in that you won't get a whole lot out of ubuntu that you cannot do with vista (except the shell, which to me is invaluable )... but I'd be paranoid about why one OS runs faster than another, epically when ubuntu really should be smoking fast... on the other hand, surfing in ubuntu is considerably safer than XP and maybe marginally safer than Vista... so it does make a nice sandbox environment.

PTravel

I didn't know there was a free version of VMware -- I'll check it out. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Microsoft "de-optimizted" Virtual PC for Linux-based OSs.

One of the advantages of Virtual PC is that it isolated the rest of the computer from anything that can get through my firewall and various anti-malware software.

LIH Prem

When I looked at the VPC 2007 page, it doesn't even claim to support linux. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, but I'm not surprised it doesn't work optimally. Though I recall hearing something that VPC supported Linux at some point.

-David

PTravel

When you set up a virtual machine, one of the options presented, in addition to all the Windows OSes, is "other." I'd also note that I had installed Ubuntu (and now Suse) on an old desktop machine that formerly ran Win2000 for my wife (I recently replaced it with a nice new laptop for her). Ubuntu was just horrible on that machine -- slower than Win2000. I haven't used Suse enough yet to form an opinion -- I just installed it last night. However, I've already noted problems -- I have to manually install Flash for FireFox, it's missing the most basic codecs to play, for example, DV-codec encoded AVIs, etc.

I want the Linux box to use an FTP and file server. However, I can't imagine using Linux as an alternative to Vista or XP or, even, Win2000.

SpaceBass

For videos, check out VLC (www.videolan.org), it plays everything and you dont have to worry about codecs

lavalyn

Thankfully, not everybody that uses Linux is looking for such an alternative. Software working together, doing what they do best. That's how it should be. Just as Mac OS and Windows seem to be best at desktops, Linux servers rock.

PTravel

I've been monitoring some of the Vista newsgroups and you'd be suprised at the number of trolls who post over there saying something, like "Vista is for losers, Linux rocks!" (actually, usually "Linux rocks, dude!"). There's nothing wrong with choosing an OS simply because it's Not Microsoft, but Linux on the desktop is clearly not fungible with Vista (though I could see someone who needs only basic word processing, mail, web browsing and the like managing with a Linux box).

ClueByFour

This is true of a bunch of hardware with Ubuntu, which is a shame because it tends to turn people off--when all that is usually required is the text (nee alternate) installation and to tweak a conf file and a reboot. I most recently ran into this while resurrecting an old doorstop (IBM T21) into a toy to browse with.

While I would not put Ubuntu onto a server platform, it's as good as it gets for the desktop. Do that, spend some time (or $50 to codeweavers) gettin wine to run office, and have at it.

dyung

I would argue this is a gross oversimplification. Virtualizing a hardware platform is NOT an easy task. In particular, the x86 architecture has many "features" which are difficult to get right and implement efficiently. The addition of hardware assistance (AMD Pacifica and Intel Vanderpool technologies) makes it slightly easier, but it is still a challenge.

For linux distributions that have "supported" optimizations, see this webpage: http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy...03/566273.aspx. Although the stuff is written for Virtual Server, they can be used with VPC 2007 as well.

SFOtoORD

No conspiracy theories needed.. Linux is officially supported on MS Virtual Server product which is an enterprise-oriented product:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...t/default.mspx

Not sure what the VPC story is, but 2007 is very new so it could still have some issues.