Dual booting is (mostly) obsolete.

[sxjthefirst]

Maybe dual booting was a good idea before Virtualization got to be easy. Why run only one OS at a time when I can run all of them at the same time? I can test apps I develop on all platforms right away.

 

If you install in extra ram and a powerful processor you can get good performance.

 

Unless you have a game or something that hogs lots of resources and which runs only on a particular platform virtual seems the way to go. What say you?

[BigPimpin]

Rubbish. There are plenty of apps that simply run better when they have all the resources of the machine at their disposal. Virtualization doesn't magically create CPU cycles out of thin air.

 

There are still hardware incompatibilities too. For instance, my only interest in Mac OSX, on Intel or anything else, is certain Firewire apps I want to run. That's it. If Windows or Linux had similar apps I wouldn't even be here right now. I have vmware workstation on my XP system. I use it all the time (I didn't say virtualization was worthless ). If I could run OSX in a VM and get the Firewire apps to run I wouldn't need to dual-boot Windows/OSX. One problem: vmware doesn't virtualize Firewire hardware.

 

That's only one example. There are others.

[sxjthefirst]

OS X isn't officially supported by VMware ( http://pubs.vmware.com/guestnotes/wwhelp/w...html/wwhelp.htm ) my OpenSuse VM picked up all my hardware without me meddling.

[Kwaaku]

looks like a hot topic

 

Personally I come from the get the abosolute maximum mileage out of what you have before you upgrade or replace it. That means I am always a generation or two behind. It also means that the os'es & setups I use a VERY well tested & supported.

 

The NASA apollo project only ever used a Z80 processor & they got to the moon & back with it. My first work computer was an IBM with a 20MB hard drive - it cost £5000 & supported an office with 12 staff for 3 years without running out of capacity.

 

might be up to VM'ing in a few years. My everyday computer has 384Mb ram, it runs everthing I throw at it.

 

Obsolete=reliably underwhelming

 

[Urbz]

Virtualization doesn't magically create CPU cycles out of thin air.

he didn't say that.

 

Anyways, I agree with the TO simply because it's more convenient to virtualize than dual boot, particularly when you want to test an OS (Linux comes to mind...). I don't do either, though, because apps like Wine/Darwine and Crossover do everything I need when things aren't available on my platform (and by that I mean Grand Theft Auto...).

So unless there is a vested interest in dual-boot (like buying an iMac for the hardware but running Windows on it in a business environment), it seems sorta obsolete to me!

[wmarsh]

Maybe dual booting was a good idea before Virtualization got to be easy. Why run only one OS at a time when I can run all of them at the same time? I can test apps I develop on all platforms right away.

 

If you install in extra ram and a powerful processor you can get good performance.

 

Unless you have a game or something that hogs lots of resources and which runs only on a particular platform virtual seems the way to go. What say you?

Well, I have 4 gig ram and a core 2 duo, but still the speed difference between virtual and native is noticeable.

 

And like kwaaku, I remember the z80. In fact I still have a z80 box that runs, and some software I run on a cp/m 80 emulator for dos inside a dos emulator on Vista. It still works. And there is a place for emulation. You can switch between OSs quickly, and by running in a sandbox the main system is isolated and stable. But dual booting is not obsolete. If for no other reason than getting around hardware limitations. For instance, "expired" HP ink cartridges won't print in Windows, but work perfectly with the open source printer driver under Linux.