I have a laptop with 1,3GHz Celeron M processor and 512MB RAM. Is this
configuration "strong" enough to run a workstation with Slackware and
Windows XP as guest OS in VMWare?

TH

Thomas Hansen <th@nomail.com> wrote:

> I have a laptop with 1,3GHz Celeron M processor and 512MB RAM. Is this
> configuration "strong" enough to run a workstation with Slackware and
> Windows XP as guest OS in VMWare?

What is 'strong'? If you want to sell speed to someone else, I cannot tell.
But some example from 'real life':

It worked even fine with a 360MHz pentium-ii laptop with 192Mb of RAM
(vmware version 3.x and w2k), when I needed it more often this way. Running
mail and newsgroups in Mozilla would be a bit on the edge, though. Poor
cashing strategy made it necessary to reboot at least once in two days. This
may have been due to w2k or vmware (or both). Linux does not need reboot.

Could as well have running several rather big applications at the same time
in w2k and I could go with it (e.g. one application feeding one serial port,
with an external interface, and a different application picking up the other
end from the interface through serial on PCMCIA, so some modestly rated
real-time work envolved, and at the same time something like Framemaker and
Openoffice to have some specs in view, and so on). Had memory organised
statically, so vmware could claim 92 Mb.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Hansen wrote:
| I have a laptop with 1,3GHz Celeron M processor and 512MB RAM. Is this
| configuration "strong" enough to run a workstation with Slackware and
| Windows XP as guest OS in VMWare?

You could easily run Slackware 9.1 on a 120MHz Pentium with 16Mb of ram. I
think a 1.3 GHz Celeron with 512Mb ram is more than enough for Slackware.


- --
Lew Pitcher

Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAwpc/agVFX4UWr64RAgb0AKDztLticCzYzRyWa4/8lW05A2nzggCcCHtn
uEi+9IjwDncfaqqCEm1cieA=
=bpB1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Lew Pitcher (lpitcher@sympatico.ca) writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thomas Hansen wrote:
> | I have a laptop with 1,3GHz Celeron M processor and 512MB RAM. Is this
> | configuration "strong" enough to run a workstation with Slackware and
> | Windows XP as guest OS in VMWare?
>
> You could easily run Slackware 9.1 on a 120MHz Pentium with 16Mb of ram. I
> think a 1.3 GHz Celeron with 512Mb ram is more than enough for Slackware.
>
>
I was going to say "surely you jest" to the original poster, but then
I caught the big about VMWare and running Windows, and I know nothing
about such things.

Obviously, one can use fairly primitive hardware to run Slackware (or
Linux for that matter).

Michael

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:40:00 +0000, Thomas Hansen wrote:

> I have a laptop with 1,3GHz Celeron M processor and 512MB RAM. Is this
> configuration "strong" enough to run a workstation with Slackware and
> Windows XP as guest OS in VMWare?
>
> TH

Definitely enough for Slackware.
If it's enough for WinXP in VMware, I don't know. I'd say just try it - if
everything grinds to a halt immediately, than it's not fast enough. If it
runs tolerably, it is fast enough.

Worst case scenario, it's too slow to run it well and you have to take
vmware off your machine. IMO, no big deal.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:40:00 +0000, Thomas Hansen wrote:
> I have a laptop with 1,3GHz Celeron M processor and 512MB RAM. Is this
> configuration "strong" enough to run a workstation with Slackware and
> Windows XP as guest OS in VMWare?

Probably. We have a machine with about twice the CPU and it runs Win2K
in VMware, also 512MB RAM. Performance of this machine is good. XP is
likely per the MS model to be more demanding of resources, but that is
managed by VMware. I'd guess that if this machine would run XP native
on whatever RAM you would give it in VMware, it will be fine.

If Windows and good performance are both important, you might want to
look at lighter alternatives. Win4Lin runs Win98 better than native,
for most purposes. And there's WINE, which is free software.
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

>Probably. We have a machine with about twice the CPU and it runs Win2K
>in VMware, also 512MB RAM. Performance of this machine is good. XP is
>likely per the MS model to be more demanding of resources, but that is
>managed by VMware. I'd guess that if this machine would run XP native
>on whatever RAM you would give it in VMware, it will be fine.
>
>If Windows and good performance are both important, you might want to
>look at lighter alternatives. Win4Lin runs Win98 better than native,
>for most purposes. And there's WINE, which is free software.
>--

I'd say 512 meg is enough. I ran out of RAM with SuSE 8.1 (guest) and Windows
XP (host), but I only had 256 meg RAM. I'm assuming you mean Slackware as host
OS, and XP as guest OS. If you mean two guest OS plus one host OS, that's a
different matter.

VMware isn't that resource intensive in my experience. It's only that your RAM
is split between two OS. For instance if XP needs 256 meg for OS and progs,
and Slack needs 128 meg for OS, apps, and a lightweight manager; then 512 meg
would be fine. It really depends on how greedy the apps you run are. In other
words the question is only relevant when you mention the apps and desktop
environment and/or window manager you plan to use.

WINE and Win4Lin are mentioned above, but aren't as flexible as VMware. VMware
totally rocks.

Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

SchroedingerzKat wrote:
|
| WINE and Win4Lin are mentioned above, but aren't as flexible as
VMware. VMware
| totally rocks.
|
| Michael

I guess that depends on what you mean by flexible. Wine's better
integration with the host gives it flexibility that Windows under <your
favorite virtual PC> simply can't have.

Ross
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAw2329bR4xmappRARAv5xAJ9IQ++gEowt+OevnMbHzf 7/bo6kQQCfQXFx
WTtQMVrnkh/bLEuPfjG/nek=
=s+/H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>I guess that depends on what you mean by flexible. Wine's better
>integration with the host gives it flexibility that Windows under <your
>favorite virtual PC> simply can't have.
>
>Ross

Well I might add that I've run WINE several times and been a tad disappointed.
There is a lot of simple stuff it can run. Crossover and WINEX can run even
more. But there's still a buttload that it can't run.

If you are hardcore WINE hacker, you can make stuff work no doubt. And if you
have access to the source (which you often don't), programs can be hacked /
compiled to work.

WINE reminds me of the Linux ABI on FreeBSD. The Linux ABI runs like 90
percent of programs, but it's inevitably the other 10 percent that one needs.
Yeah I could delve into the source code and fix the program, but I'm an end
luser, not a C programmer with 10 years experience.

Then again it's a matter of experience. I'm routinely told AOL won't work on
Linux, yet I routinely run it anyway under Crossover.

I have nothing against WINE, but there's no substitute for true emulation or
virtualization software. Perhaps there will one day be a free (no cost)
virtualization counterpart to WINE and Bochs (like the old Plex86).

Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

SchroedingerzKat wrote:
|>I guess that depends on what you mean by flexible. Wine's better
|>integration with the host gives it flexibility that Windows under <your
|>favorite virtual PC> simply can't have.
|>
|>Ross
|
|
| Well I might add that I've run WINE several times and been a tad
disappointed.
| There is a lot of simple stuff it can run. Crossover and WINEX can
run even
| more. But there's still a buttload that it can't run.
|

To clarify, I was talking about the (theoretical) version of Wine that
doesn't
have any bugs :-)

| If you are hardcore WINE hacker, you can make stuff work no doubt.
And if you
| have access to the source (which you often don't), programs can be
hacked /
| compiled to work.
|
| WINE reminds me of the Linux ABI on FreeBSD. The Linux ABI runs like 90
| percent of programs, but it's inevitably the other 10 percent that one
needs.
| Yeah I could delve into the source code and fix the program, but I'm
an end
| luser, not a C programmer with 10 years experience.
|
| Then again it's a matter of experience. I'm routinely told AOL won't
work on
| Linux, yet I routinely run it anyway under Crossover.
|
| I have nothing against WINE, but there's no substitute for true
emulation or
| virtualization software. Perhaps there will one day be a free (no cost)
| virtualization counterpart to WINE and Bochs (like the old Plex86).
|
| Michael

Have you tried QEMU? It's an emulator, but a fast one. And it's free :-)

Ross



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAw7iv9bR4xmappRARAjpRAKDnrNu4/h2vMPoE15c80txGPvzBcQCfbyRW
s1PzJ9cDSBJ6MwEBft3mDUg=
=b0bv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----