On Saturday 23 June 2007 17:28, S Glasoe wrote: > On Friday June 22 2007 12:50:05 pm Kai Ponte wrote: > > On Fri, June 22, 2007 10:30 am, Randall R Schulz wrote: > > > On Friday 22 June 2007 10:22, Alexey Eremenko wrote: > > >> ... > > >> > > >> Alternatively, you could try VirtualBox. > > > > > > He's happy with what he's got. Why mess with it? VMware is very > > > good, very sound, very mature, very well supported. I doubt that > > > can yet be said of VirtualBox. > > > > Agreed. I spent hours setting up my virtual machine the way I want > > it. I don't plan to scrap it and start over. > > > > ... > > Do like I did and install both on the same hardware. VirtualBox seems > to be a lighter weight option in that it runs very well on <1GHz > processors and <512MB RAM. VirtualBox doesn't have all the bells and > whistles of VMware especially in the network setup. It does seem to > me on my hardware to be quicker though; faster to load, faster to > shutdown, faster running. Same application load, same updates, same > virtual disk size, same memory size usage, etc. I have a free copy of > VMware 5.5 so the cost isn't an issue.
How well does VirtualBox integerate the clipboard between the host and guest environments? I think of all the functions of the VMware Tools, clipboard integration is what I use most. Second would probably be file sharing (i.e., the guest, at least Windows, can see select portions of the host file system as Windows / CIFS shares). And, of course, I make ubiquitous use of the virtualized network connections. I do like knowing that my Windows is behind a NAT, at least. > ... > Stan Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
