Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I find myself wasting more and more time the last few years when I have to reinstall an OS and 20+ development tools and apps. I'm looking to do more work in virtual machines.
Now that you are starting to see 32GB and 64GB thumb drives. I was wondering can you run a Virtual PC or VMWare image from a USB Thumb drive? Any issues with doing this? I would plan on backing up the image daily just in case something happened to the drive.
Running a VM off a flash drive would have positively putrid performance. I guess you could copy the virtual hard drive to local storage first, though. I run my VMs off an external hard drive, myself.
I suggest you invest in an external SSD to put those VMs on. Thumb drives are not known for speed.
This is entirely doable. Take a look at VMware Player -- To Go. Performance will be worse than an internal hard drive but not completely terrible. Jeff did a brief comparison.
I've never tried a thumb drive, but I use external USB drives for virtual machines all the time. I use VirtualPC 2007 and have had no problems. In fact, sometimes if the host machine is on the weaker side, having the VM on an external drive increases performance. I recommend the external USB drive route.
Windows XP (and Vista and 7) can boot on multiple hardware configurations, each with different drivers (retail license, not OEM).
I started out with a 2.5" USB HDD for my portable enviroment. It was booting fine on multiple machines (#home, #work, or in any VMWare).
I don't recommend a flash stick, but I do recommend a SSD stick. Today you can find SSD sticks with 2 ends, one USB and one eSATA.
For booting USB drives with Windows XP you need USBoot.
After booting the first time, Windows will install some drivers, including the Disk Controller drivers (without which, if booting directly on SATA Windows would BSOD with 0x0000007b).
Since the first Intel SSD came out, I switched to using a SSD.
I have 2 2.5" trays (insert 2.5" drive like a floppy) both #home and #work.
I can boot that Windows in VMWare and on many other computers using USB (and I have, and it was life saving). I even booted from the backup VHD once :)
I use Windows Backup to backup to a versioned VHD (in command line, see wbadmin command on Windows Vista, 7, 2008, 2008 R2).
I can restore the entire enviroment including the OS pretty fast, and I have recovered from several disasters.
I also use EFS for important files (don't forget to backup your EFS files).
I pretty much have the smallest laptop arround, and I am very happy I don't have to carry a laptop bag back and forth to my workplace.
USBoot should work with Windows Vista and 7, yet I haven't had the time to switch (time consuming process for the size and complexity of my stuff).
Related
I have old enough laptop. And decided to buy a new one.
Usually I use Chrome, Docker, Datagrip, Intellij, Slack etc..
Now I have only 8gb and it is really few.
I think that MB Pro 2018 (touch-bar) (i7, 16g RAM, 512g ssd) will be enough for my needs.
Or I should take 32g RAM?
Or I should not take MB at all ? (never used it before)
I have a i7/4 cores/8 threads/8GB PC which I still find comfortable to do development in different areas (Web Development/Embedded/Mobile/Qt5 on Virtualbox).
There is one key item that you did not mention which is a huge performance improver: switching from HDD to SSD.
My previous PC with similar caracteristics that broke down had a HDD inside and at some point I got tired of its slowness. I replaced the disk with an SSD and the slowness was gone. I've done the same on many other systems, including old ones (Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 10, Linux, Pentium, Core i5, Core i7): all show significant improvements when switching to SSD.
Now when I buy a computer, I change the HDD into a SSD - it is worth the cost when using it professionnaly for development purposes.
The Web applications I develop are pretty "heavy". Of course my portable computer is about half as slow as the web application running on a server with higher clock speed, more memory (usefull for caching, ...). But I could surely tune my local server a bit more.
Of course, RAM will matter when you plan on running multiple virtual "computers" at the same time. I could clearly use more memory when running Android Studio, with one emulated android system running - running a Virtualbox instance with Ubuntu at the same time gets my computer in trouble.
And remember: it is better to choose a computer that allows you to upgrade RAM and disk(s). I always make sure that the computer can host a 2.5" SATA drive and that it is easily accessible.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am installing virtual box on my window
I will use it for anonymous web browsing and nothing else.
I will also install ccleaner on the VM.
The total Amount is 2GB.
How much ram should I put on my Virtual Machine?
Which version of window is the best for Anonymous Web Browsing?
Is linux a better option for anonymity web browsing?
Though i agree with above comments, it doesn't hurt to add some info. I take that you mean you have 2GB Ram in total.
First, the amount of ram required is proportional to how much you actually use it(VM) for and whether will you be using your primary machine in parallel or not.
For e.g. i have a 64 bit system windows 7 with 8 GB ram. I frequently use 1 linux VM in parallel with my host machine. So i have dedicated 2GB per VM. Though i have multiple VM's, it is almost guaranteed that i don't use two VM's simultaneously. However, i am extensively using VM + host together.
Now if you are going to do a lot of browsing, that probably means a lot of tabs, perhaps including you tube videos and stuff. Since your total is 2GB, i won't recommended allocating more than 512MB to your VM, unless you are willing to sacrifice your host performance for the time you are running VM.
Anonymous browsing has little to do with OS rather more important is browser or intermediate application. The only possible difference is for e.g. if you are using Linux and use an open source application such as
tor
which may or may not be available on windows. [Edit: just verified that tor does exist on windows too]
CCleaner is of no use if you are already using a common feature of FF/Ch/IE "Start private browsing". However, this does not leave any thing in your history and cache.
I also believe you are some what confusing anonymous browsing. Use of VM or CCcleaner refers to anonymity which is local to your machine i.e. if some one else uses your pc, he/she would not be able to track what you have been doing by ordinary means.
However, your real ip and request info is not hidden from your network in general. Using of Tor or some proxies etc. results in network anonymity where you leave no trace on a site which you have visited or perhaps that is blocked in your region.
Another thing is, if you have a 32bit machine / OS which is windows, it doesn't utilize more than 3GB ram in practice.
regarding ram: 0.5 gb should be enough but in any case virtual box recomends those values when you telling it what you about to install on the vm.
Windows 7 is best os I seen comming out from MS house till today especially in security.
IE9 private browsing can do what you ask for without a vm at all.
I am planning to build a new development computer for both Windows & Linux platforms. On Windows, my development would be primarily in .NET/C#/IIS/MSSQL Server. On Linux—preferably Ubuntu—my development would be in Ruby and Python.
I am thinking of buying a laptop with Windows 7 pre-installed with 4GB RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo, and 320 GB HD; running 2 VMs for both Windows and Linux development with the host OS as my work station. Of course, I would be running DBs and web servers on the respective platforms.
Is this a typical setup? My only concern is running two VMs side by side. Not sure if this configuration would be optimal. Alternative would be to do my Windows development on the host Windows 7 OS. What are your thoughts?
I really like using VMs for development, because it makes it really easy to maintain different configurations, make backups, test comms between machines, experiment, and so forth.
Linux VMs work pretty well. Windows in a VM on Windows, however, can be a resource hog. You probably want more than 4 GB on the laptop.
If your not going to be switching between the two platform frequently, I would recommend repartitioning your hard drive after you get your machine, and installing Windows in one partition and Linux in the other. Doing things that way is usually simpler, in that you don't need the over head of the VMs.
Sounds like you will get 15 minutes out of this laptop's battery, maybe 20.
Speaking from experience, you will prefer a desktop plus a "more mobile" laptop. You can do this without spending more than you had budgeted (remember you can skip the monitor on the deskop), but that will probably get you slightly less specs in exchange for the flexibility and a laptop you really can take with you. But I recommend spending slightly more than you would on the single laptop, and remember you do get two machines out of it.
You can network between them (e.g. use remote desktop programs from the laptop to connect to VMs on the desktop).
In my particular case, about 6 years ago I needed a new machine that could be used for on-location photography and had the power, screen-size, disk space, etc. to run Photoshop and other tools (e.g. batch processing ~900 largish images was one use case). I got a beefy laptop, which worked great for that, but the battery quickly died and never had much lifetime in the first place. The system has always been more of a "slightly-easier-to-move desktop" than a laptop, and it sounds like you'd rather have a real laptop.
I recently build myself a semi beef up PC (Q9450, 8GB DDR2 1066, 1TB HDD, Dual 8600GT, Vista Ultimate and Dual 22' Monitors) and I'm evaluating whether i should develop on a VPC/VMWare session on top of Vista or not?
One benefit I can see is that I can run the same VM on my Vista laptop so my development environment is the same on any of my machines. I also plan on purchasing a MBP before the end of the year as well.
Found a couple of articles online that semi-help Here
Any other thoughts would be really appreciated?
For webdevelopment I like to have the serverpart separeted out into a VM. My current setup is a Macbook Pro with several Debian VM's inside. I like the isolation aspect of it. I can try new software on the servers and have the ability to revert them back if something is messed up.
I do the programming via network-share (samba) in Textmate on the host system.
Another advantage of a VM is having a clean installed base. I use my desktop and laptop for lots of things aside from development. You never know when a piece of software you install is going to conflict, or if the little tweaks and what not you play around with are going to trash your OS. Reinstalling/configuring all your tools so they are exactly the way you want them can take quite some time. If you have a backup of your Development VM Image you can mess up your PC as much as you want but still be able to code without downtime. It also allows you to run Win/Visual Studio/Etc on a box that you would otherwise prefer Linux or MacOS on.
You can also make multiple copies of the same Image and use each one for a separate project.
Being able to transition between a laptop/desktop/server/remote connection, and always be in the same environment is also very helpful.
One problem I found (at least when using VMWare Server) is that no matter how fast your machine is, the screen refresh rate is still around ~30hz. That makes for a slightly unpleasant experience after using it for a while.
Where I'm working at now I use a VM for all of my development because I don't have admin rights to my base copy of XP.
Pros:
I like using a VM's because it give you some flexibility - you can switch between machines - have programs running on both and have a cool environment to work on.
Cons:
You have to boot up multiple operating systems. This takes time, memory and resources.
Clipboard operations on VM's can be interesting at times. Sometimes copying to clipboard does not work or gets mixed up between VM's. (Using VMWare).
File operations can be interesting when you plug in USB drives and other external devices. VM's sometimes do not see the devices, sometimes it does.
If your VM image become corrupt - you can easily loose everything in it.... unless it is backed up.....
It's great for presenting development talks, you can revert to a snapshot and give the talk from the exact same starting point each time.
Bulk-up your RAM on your future MacBookPro if VMWare will be used. I haven't (yet) and the performance with several other (mac-side) apps open really starts to feel sluggish.
All the best.
I was doing some work with Visual Studio recently with a Windows XP vm on Linux and somehow the guys who made the vm (vmware) made the windows machine actually run faster. We did some time tests to make sure and it wasn't major, but a few things (autocomplete for example) really did pop up faster.
If you are on Windows, Virtual PC is pretty decent for development work. VMWare Virtual Server is not really designed for use as a desktop and you will get very tired of it with any prolonged use. Sun's VirtualBox is another option competing with Virtual PC. VMWare has a workstation product but it is not free.
Typically, I do development on the real desktop (non-virtual) and then deploy or test to virtual machines which I can snapshot and roll back easily.
For a long time, we were developing on very early versions of Visual Studio 2005 and the associated .Net bits that went along with it. To protect our real machines from the various problems associated with pre-release software, we did all of our development work inside virtual machines. It worked amazingly well. I've been considering moving back to that model as it makes upgrading the physical hardware a snap (not to mention making it easier to deal with hardware failures by just replacing the entire machine): you just copy the VM image over.
On my current machine (A Core2Duo with 4GB of RAM), the performance drop when running one VM is almost not noticeable. Running two VMs, however, is painful.
I also can't figure out how to get VMWare Server to work across two monitors well.
I wouldnt want to develop in a VM so much as test things in a VM. For instance, it might be nice to set up a couple VM's to emulate an n-tier architecture, or a client-server setup or finally simply to test code on multiple OSs
It depends what you are developing and in what language.
VM's tend to take a fairly hard hit on disk access, so compiling may slow down significantly, especially for large C/C++ projects. Not sure if this would be such an issue with .NET/Java.
If you are doing anything that is graphics intensive (3D, video, etc) then I would steer clear of a VM too.
I don't know if it is so useful as a development platform unless you are doing something that ties into software you don't want to have installed on your regular working machine or that needs to work around a certain event that you need to be able to reset on a regular basis. It can also be handy when you are working with code that risks crashing your computer as it will at least only crash your VM.
It is brilliant for testing different configurations and setups- working with installers and so on, that is where virtualisation really shines as far as I am concerned, being able to roll things back whenever you need to and run through stuff repeatedy is amazingly useful for identifying problems before your end users run into them.
While doing development at home, I have to VPN into my company to be able to use the collaborative tools that are on the intranet. I also have a desktop + laptop that are hooked together through Synergy.
The problem that I have is that our VPN software wants things to be so secure that it will force all network routing through the VPN gateway -- even if I'm using additional NICs to network my desktop and laptop through a separate private network. The end result is that I can't use Synergy between my desktop and laptop and VPN into my company at the same time.
The solution suggested to me by a co-worker was to setup a VM instance on my desktop and use that for all my VPN needs. Works like a charm!
Speaking from personal experience developing java in an Ubuntu VM on Windows 7, I've found this to be quite productive. Mainly because my local IT support on the ground supports Windows 7, so I can do things like access all the local file shares and printers in Windows, and then config my Ubuntu VM to my heart's content.
Huge productivity benefits around remote access and desktop sharing. Windows allowed me to very quickly and easily use tools like logmein.com and join.me to access my machine from home and to desktop share the VM with other people in the company (both work seamlessly with the VM in a nearly full screen window). Neither of these services are supported on Linux, and I wouldn't want to deal with all the associated VNC/X setup and network config on Ubuntu.
My machine is fairly beefy. Quad core, with 16Gb RAM - 8Gb for the VM. Java dev in the VM is pretty quick.
Is virtual PC practical on a home personal development computer. I do some custom .net programming at home and I was wondering if in terms of performance and overall use, Virtual PC is useful. Do the applications inside Virtual PC session run slower. It will help me with my personal dev machine. Would you recommend any other products?
In my estimation virtual machines are one of the best tools that a developer can have. I have my base dev machine and on it I run VPC for different platforms to test installations and application functionality. For web development I keep VPC;s running each of the major browsers that I support, so I continually test my websites on various browsers. I even still maintain an old VB6 app and I have replicated my old VB6 build environment to a VPC image. Make sure you have lots of RAM. My machine runs with 4GB and that works well for most everything I need. I also have Sourcegear Vault set up for source code management. I have the clients loaded on the various VPC's that I use for development and they all check data in and out from my central SQL Server box. It works great.
It really depends on what your home computer is like. I've used VPC to test different versions of Visual Studio (e.g. to make sure that a solution is VS2005 compatible, and to check out VS2010).
I wouldn't want to use it all the time, but then I am working on a laptop. Given a really meaty multicore home desktop (preferrably with hardware support, of course, and lots of memory) it could be reasonably practical for day-to-day use.
VMWare Player is free and some people find it faster - I haven't used it enough to compare the two properly myself. If you're spend a lot of time "in" the VM, it would probably be worth giving both a proper test-drive.
VPC is a very good choice. I use it to test deployments and for presentation purposes.
If you have a PC with a new Intel chip and at least 2 gigs of RAM it actually works just as fast as a regular PC would :).
I recommend 4 gigs of ram though, they're cheap as hell these days and it really matters.
I've had some success with this; I had to develop some older .NET 1.1 software on Vista, which wasn't supported. I had to run XP in a virtual PC container in order to get the project done.
The biggest issue was available RAM; I'd recommend maxing out your home PC to use as much as it can- this will likely be less than 4GB unless you're running a 64Bit OS. I found that getting an extra gig of ram made life much better. Ram is cheap right now, so I'd start there if it didn't work well enough for me at first.
Yes applications will run slower but the hit isn't as big as you might expect. It is pretty reasonable to do development on a virtual machine. Obviously the performance is relative to how fast your computer is, a mulitcore machine will do nicely.
If you develop driver or core routines, where every mistake can and usually will result in a crash. A VM is the best you can use.
I tried Virtual PC and VMWare. They are both pretty good for such stuff.
Virtual PC should be fast enough, unless your driver or code is really time sensitive. A cross-platform, free alternative to Virtual PC is Virtual box.
If you've got a VirtualPC license already, by all means use it. If not, you might have a look at Sun's VirtualBox. It's Free/Libre and cross-platform. I use it to run windows and linux on mac os x and linux and have been quite happy with it.
You can run your dev tooling natively on your pick of O/S. and use VM's to test on other environments. Get lots of memory if you're going to do this, say 2GB or more - if you haven't already.
AMD chips have some facilities (nested page tables etc.) that improve VM performance. 2nd gen Opterons and some Athlon 64 chips will support this for reasonable money. You can even get brand-name hardware like an HP XW4550 with this sort of chip for fairly reasonable money. I'm not sure to what extent Intel has caught up with this yet.
Assuming your host machine has enough raw power then a virtual machine works fine. I have a 2.5GB ram, 2Ghz duel core work laptop and don't want to install vs2008 for personal development so have a virtual machine for that. I've given it 1 GB of dedicated memory at the moment and it runs great, no problems. If needed I'll up the ram allocation but for now I'm happy.
Hope this helps :-)
I use VirtualBox for all development and find the performance much better than VPC. My machine is about a 2 year old dual core with 4gb ram and performance is not noticeably slower than running natively. The virtual machines are Vista and the host OS is Windows 2008. I would definitely recommend using virtual machines as creating a fresh new machine for a new project is very easy.
I have a toshiba notebook with 2Gig of Ram. I am wondering if its worth to install Virtual box and use it to browse web, do quicken, some small dev work etc.? How would I install Windows OS on virtualbox virtual session? Are there good tutorials out there? Would 2gig of ram be enough to run virtual sessions on notebook computer with following configuration:
2 gig of ram
Intel Pentium 4 cpu
60 gig hdd