digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Running OSX and Windows XP/Vista on Ubuntu

ubuntuvideo.com — Nice video. Please post how-to's below.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JesseJ, on 10/11/2007, -66/+18Let's make this thread a collection of good links!
    Please keep unnessecary comments at minimum.

    Here is two awesome resources for how-to's:
    http://jamie.dumbill.googlepages.com/ubuntuhowto
    http://www.howtoforge.com/the_perfect_desktop_ubuntustudio7.04
    • quomen, on 10/11/2007, -58/+17You are unnecessary.
    • ablez3, on 10/11/2007, -47/+76comment abuse.

      ***** the blog spam
      here is the youtube vid.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0mNWQTw0nc
    • superpotential, on 10/11/2007, -2/+77This seems more like a beryl effects show than a VM show that the title makes it out to be
    • th3heretic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27Anyone else notice the HUGE cpu usage on OSX?
    • Scheissenegger, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3Still prefer the OSX 10.4.9 / Windows Vista dual boot: http://www.profit42.com/index.php/2007/04/07/osx-1049-vista-dual-boot-on-your-windows-machine/
    • Konstantino, on 10/11/2007, -7/+58@ ablez3
      Yes, because www.ubuntuvideo.com is obviously blog spam!
    • IMustBeEmo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Ok guys I have a few questions on this. I am about to get a new computer and I was going to take that opportunity to start using Linux.

      First, are Mac OSX and Windows running virtually like with VMWare? Or is this triple-booting? Which is better?
      Second, what kind of specs can you expect to run these things at? It looks like it would use an incredible amount of resources. I am getting an X2 4000+, 1GB RAM, and a 7900 GS (I think it's a GS). Would I at least be able run virtual Windows/dual boot with Windows?
    • gadgetuk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9@imustbeemo

      The "host" OS is Ubuntu Linux, OS X and Windows are running within virtual machines (not sure if it's VMWare or not but that would do the job). You could triple boot but you'd obviously lose the ability to use the different systems simultaneously.

      As for your system spec, double your RAM... no, triple it :) Don't forget that your CPU is 64 bit so it would be better utilised by a 64bit OS (although there are still occasional software issues).
    • IMustBeEmo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3thanks gadgetuk! and my RAM is just fine thanks =P actually I'd upgrade it if I had the money
    • TomP, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1I bet you need hell of a system to run all of that....
    • HalFTW, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@n0n4m3

      VMware server is free for Linux & Windows. All most people need.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5macintu?
      (mac)intosh w(in)dows Ubun(tu)
  • RedTroll, on 11/06/2007, -3/+42Yeah, the video is all nice and cool but some info about performance/stability and software required would be even nicer and cooler.
    • sid0, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14OK. In a VM (at least right now) you won't get 3D accelerated graphics. So forget Aero, forget games, forget Beryl (if you have the grand plan of Linux in Linux). If you really ARE interested in Linux and want to move from Windows you should do a dual-boot.

      Performance is also a bit slower than when not running in a VM (which is understandable).
    • eqisow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Performance is quite on-par, if you have the RAM.
    • drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -45/+8Ya but haven't you noticed linux people don't want to explain it because it takes a days of configuration tweaking to get OS X and Ubuntu to play nice together like that. Linux people would rather show off the new compiz feature and not discuss those advanced configurations. Just like Microsot likes to say Linux breaks patents without actually telling you which patents they break. You want to distract people away from the areas that you suck in.
    • eqisow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+43http://mac-on-linux.sourceforge.net/

      See, drake, that wasn't so hard.

      There are instructions here:

      https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacOnLinuxHowto

      MoL also has their own wiki:

      http://mac-on-linux.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

    • Snarfy, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1blah digg...
    • daftman, on 10/11/2007, -10/+34@drakethegreat
      Wtf is wrong with digg comment lately? A bunch of dumbass ms fanboy just migrated here?
      You show me a step by step instruction on how to get linux and osx running in vmware under vista and I'll show you a shorter instruction on ubuntu.
      You can digg me down but I am telling the truth.
    • cdmarcus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@drakethegreat: At least with Windows XP it was a simple download from http://www.virtualbox.org and installing the .deb (double clicking on it), creating a new VM with the GUI interface, putting the XP CD in, and starting it. From there it was like any normal Windows installation.
    • Julolidine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The amount of RAM is the critical parameter, since you need enough to sufficiently run all 2 or all 3 systems. So if you want XP with a gig of RAM, and I'd say 512 is sufficient to run Ubuntu, you're looking in the vicinity of 2 GB for it to work properly. Otherwise the speed slows down drastically, as you get an incredible amount of swapping.

      Also I've noticed, at least with VMWare, that it works much better in full screen mode than in windowed mode.
    • SEMW, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6> You show me a step by step instruction on how to get linux and osx running in vmware under vista and I'll show you a shorter instruction on ubuntu.

      Ummm... No. VMWare is VMWare. There's nothing fundamentally different about running a VM on VMWare with Linux as the host OS as compared to with Windows or Mac OS as the host OS.
    • zarathustra911, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@eqisow :

      All the links you provide are for running MacOS inside linux on a PowerPC processor. For all practical purposes that means a Mac.

      I am sure that the original question was regarding installing MacOS inside Linux on a regular Vanilla x86 PC. That might be a little hairier.
    • dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Yeah, the video is all nice and cool but some info about performance/stability and software required would be even nicer and cooler."
      On a P4 2.8GHz/1GB of RAM, with about 700MB of it given to the Virtual Machine, OS X runs horribly in VMWare (on Windows, but visualization is pretty much the same regardless of the host OS..), although it was an older version (About 10.3.4? It was a few months back I tried it).
      The version of OS X I tried was pretty much unusable (Took over 5-10 minutes to start, took several minutes to start applications etc), but even on a not-particularly-fast machine XP runs perfectly (Probably since VMWare supports running XP, to the point where I could run the VM full screen and you'd struggle to guess it was a virtual machine (until you tried to run a 3D game/application, I suppose)
    • warragul, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@dbr_onix

      If you were running 10.3 then you were running CPU emulation as well because 10.3 was PPC-only.
      That would slow things down more than a bit.
  • chingy1788, on 10/11/2007, -33/+3To get that running it must take thousands of lines of commands and research
    or
    you can just tripple boot the OSs

    Carpal Tunnel All around!
    • UKsHaDoW, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Just use a Linux equivalent of parallels ?
    • lengau, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19@UKshadow - There's a company that releases a product like Parallels for Linux. I believe they call it Parallels. http://www.parallels.com/

      Seriously, Parallels is great if you have the money. Otherwise, VirtualBox is also great.

      QEMU with KQEMU or KVM is very nice (KVM only if you have jardware virtualization)
      VMWare is slower than the others (in my experience, but I last used it about a year ago), but it's definitely one of the most compete systems.
    • Julolidine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I had my virtual machine up in a couple hours - and that was including research time, and I'm not really a guru. I even virtualized my Windows that was already installed on my dual-boot system, so I didn't even have to reinstall windows...Tough I know.
  • borninda818, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15showoff...
  • linkin1, on 10/11/2007, -58/+9Linux rules!!! we(open source community) are taking over so quick, microsoft is ***** itself, hahahaha
    have you seen vista? I honestly did not notice anything new but more glossy icons and slower FPS rates than xp
    Linux may not have that many games now but it is taking over, Dell will roll out ubuntu soon and more companies will and eventually we will see computer games on Linux
    • emorphien, on 10/11/2007, -23/+48Have YOU seen Vista? I use Vista, Ubuntu, XP Pro and OSX and Ubuntu sure as hell isn't as trouble free as people would like to think.

      Vista is as good as the rest of those 4 operating systems and in some ways better. They all have their pros and cons.
    • cdyson37, on 10/11/2007, -21/+3You forgot to say mwahaha
    • stev3, on 10/11/2007, -4/+35You don't need to sound like a 11 year old. All you're doing lowering the reputation of the more mature Linux users.


      If other people want to switch, they can switch. If not, that's okay too. It's they're loss, not ours.
    • thetaco82, on 10/11/2007, -7/+16Actually, no. I haven't seen Vista. I made the switch to open source a few months before its release and haven't had a reason to go back. Ditching Windows wasn't painless, but I enjoyed being able to geek out and learn new ways of doing things. If all goes well, Vista will be the only Microsoft OS that I haven't used.
    • darthsuo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I'd say the OP was karma whoring, but there's no karma on digg, so he's just a retard.
    • SEMW, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14> Linux rules!!! we(open source community) are taking over so quick, microsoft is ***** itself, hahahaha

      I'm reasonably sure that the "Open Source Community", to the extent that it is a single, cohesive body (which it... isn't) would be embarrassed to have you associated with it.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12"I honestly did not notice anything new but more glossy icons and slower FPS rates than xp"

      How about the completely re-written network stack, the completely re-written audio stack that allows you to adjust the individual volume of each application, ReadyBoost, and four Wikipedia articles' worth of more new features :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

      I don't particularly like Windows, but please don't be ignorant.
    • EnderTheThird, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3linkin1:

      My teen angst meter is going through the roof right now. I wonder why...?
  • mpeters13, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16I'm just going to say right now that ubuntu doesn't run that nicely on any machine I've used. I'm just dying to know the configuration of the machine used in this demo. Beryl/Compiz is running so beautifully in that video. I'm oozing with jealousy.
    • emorphien, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Bery/Compiz runs OK on my X31 laptop, not accounting for the problems that Beryl itself has as far as bugs are concerned. Overloading on the graphical trickery just bogs down the interface, OSX and Vista strike an OK balance, but a lot of people go too far with Beryl. I was using it, but now I'm not using Beryl due to bugs I don't feel like tracking down and fixing.
    • superpotential, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2yeah... i think you just have to have the right graphics card. too bad none of my graphics cards will work with beryl because they all have bugs, or don't have full acceleration support in linux.
    • markdall, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2I never could get the older versions to work with my ATI or NVidia graphics cards. (Knoppix always worked though.) This was when trying to boot from the Live CD. The latest version of Ubuntu finally works on my GeForce GTX 8800.
  • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -20/+2That's so fake. Has anyone ever got OS X running on a VM before?
    • mpeters13, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19lulz yes. In fact, most people have had better luck getting it to run in vm than natively. You should take the blue pill and spend some free time browsing the old forum posts.
    • stmiller, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15http://www.osx86project.org/
    • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7So if it wouldn't run natively on my AMD Athlon XP 3000+, it might run in a VM?
    • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Still though, the way the video is made looks fake - it only shows OSX at the beginning, and it's fullscreen. Then there's an unnatural cut back to the desktop.
    • rhettnyedotorg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2.... see how far the rabbit hole goes....
  • lordshank, on 10/11/2007, -27/+6Wow, now everyone can enjoy vista's insane system requirements and lame ass GUI eye candy, way to go!
    • ScottMaximus1, on 10/11/2007, -15/+20Insane system requirements?

      "1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
      512 MB of system memory
      20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
      Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory
      DVD-ROM drive
      Audio Output
      Internet access (fees may apply"

      Sounds like any computer made in the last...4 years.
    • lordshank, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9Should have specified w/Aero, ah well. What can I say, I am not an MS fan.
    • hufman, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4Why can't I have a blank comment?
    • daftman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@ScottMaximus1
      Do you get the WOW factor with that requirements. I recall many customer complain that alot of vista-ready desktop doesn't have that WOW factor especially with that type of requirement.
      But why would the OS need 15GB? I am sure this doesn't include ms-office, IIS, VS 2005, etc
      Kubuntu with Beryl, media burners, firefox, eclipse, kdevelop, apache 2, mysql, open-office is less than 10GB


    • zmigliozzi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3with those high of requirements and vista STILL uses >50% cpu resources, at idle... No thanks. My pc running ubuntu can fold and still run apps faster and multi-task better than vista.
    • SEMW, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6> Wow, now everyone can enjoy vista's insane system requirements and lame ass GUI eye candy, way to go!

      Actually no; TFA was talking about running it in a Virtual Machine on VMWare; thus, no hardware accellerated GUI (since VMWare only emulates basic integrated graphics) so Aero.

      > Do you get the WOW factor with *those requirements

      Assuming that by "the WOW factor" you're talking about the DWM (Aero Glass etc.), the key factor is a DirectX 9 supporting GPU (GeForce FX 5200 or later, Radeon 9500 or later, Intel GMA 950 or later).

      > But why would the OS need 15GB? I am sure this doesn't include ms-office, IIS, VS 2005, etc

      No to Office & VS, but yes to IIS which is included in the business versions. No, it doesn't take up 15GB; it takes up 5 to 7 GB, but I assume MS put the system reqs at 15GB to stop people installing it on a 7GB HD and suing MS because "My Vista wouldn't let me save my stuff".

      > with those high of requirements and vista STILL uses >50% cpu resources, at idle...

      Source or it doesn't happen. Which it... doesn't. Most sources put CPU usage at 1-2% with Aero on; slightly lower than XP (2-3%) due to the desktop being composited by the graphics card rather than the CPU.
    • Thorlord, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3zmigliozzi on my computer
      vista uses about 5% of my CPU power peak while idle.
      my second core uses about 2% power peak while idle.
      Ram usage though is at 660mb idle, with my max ram being 2gb (so about 32%)
      and thats while i have uTorrent, AVG, and vista sidebar running in the background.

      its fairly responsive. attacking the system specs of vista is fairly absurd, as they are really not that outrageous, and will become more minor in the future. i would attack it being buggy, as i have experienced much of that.
    • Thorlord, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2[edit]double post.
    • sneakerpimps, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ScottMaximus Said:
      > 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
      > 512 MB of system memory

      I've seen brand new computers with better processor specs run like crap with 512 MB of RAM under Vista. You certainly need a better processor and at least 2 GB of RAM with Vista to get it running good. I know that those are just the minimum specs... But if you've ever seen it run with the minimum, you'll *know* what I'm talking about.
    • PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I use vista with 512 and i doesn't run like crap, that's complete *****, it runs fine with Aero on, in fact it's slightly more responsive (the ui), i guess it's because of the hardware acceleration.
      The task manager says that it uses 50% of the RAM though, firefox runs exactly as in my XP installation and the new explorer runs much better.
  • SGTWhitman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I still use Vista(I hear the 'boooo's' already) as my main OS buuuut....it was 'free' soooo.....

    Beryl with Ubuntu runs that nice on mine...not in VMWare just straight up. I've had no problems with Ubuntu as long as I can find the answer to the million and one questions a newb has when he installs. :) Fast smooth and simple.
  • xevidentx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+29::insert linux rules comment, followed by linux sucks OSX is better, followed by windows vista is too buggy, etc.... ::
    welcome to digg
    • emorphien, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18no kidding, you try to be the voice of reason and you get dugg down by the linux fanboys, OSX fanboys or Windows fanboys.
    • cvrefugee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7You forgot to mention obligatory wobbly windows effect when making a screencast.
    • emorphien, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Hah, seriously wtf is the point of the wobbly windows. That was the first thing I made sure was off.
  • MrSarcasm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4ummm... ok, so how do I set it up like that?
    • eqisow, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Well, 3D effects are default in Ubuntu now, you just have to turn them on. Of course, to make it as flashy as he has, you need Beryl, which I don't think is ready for production machines. Nonetheless, it's relatively easy to install as well. Basically you just install it in add/remove programs and run it. Windows in VMware is a snap, just get VMware server from their site and follow their instructions. OSX on the other hand.. that's tricky. Start by Googling "Mac on Linux".
  • shanelu87, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Seems like this video is more about Ubuntu's eyecandy than XP/OSX.
    • thetaco82, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15I agree. It lost my attention pretty quickly once it turned into another "Beryl Rulz!" video.
  • nextsteposx, on 11/06/2007, -1/+15So... how to I install OS X on Linux?
  • mick6885, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3ummm, correct me if im wrong, but doesn't running a non-open source OS on top of linux defeat the purpose?
    ...and another thing, honestly how long do people here spend switching between apps,
    if the answer is alot, wouldn't you rather a dual monitor setup instead of a pointless twirly effect.
    perfect setup for me has always been iTunes and notepad on the left screen, and dreamweaver or fotoshop or illustrator on the other.
    • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4fotoshop?
    • keitho, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12amarok > itunes
    • ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9"doesn't running a non-open source OS on top of linux defeat the purpose?"

      Only if you are running a Linux system for political reasons. Ubuntu is not pure FOSS (Debian is better for that), it's already got a ton of proprietary code and drivers in it. A lot of us use Linux because we like having control of our machines. It's about functionality and having the tools to do what we want and need.
  • Beatmiser, on 10/11/2007, -10/+16Or I could just use my non-buggy, non-crashing XP Professional which believe it or not loads a hell of a lot faster than Ubuntu when I tried to install it on this machine- not to mention that XP also recognizes my wireless router- because some of us have better things to do than try and figure out f*ing NDISWrapper.
    • eqisow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24Hey, would you be upset with Microsoft if you bought a wireless card that didn't support Windows? Or would you bitch at the manufacturer? Same deal.

      That's what you meant btw, because I promise that if your card worked Linux would recognize the signal from the router. Wireless is a standard.
    • saintdesy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Why would you need drivers for your router?
    • daftman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@Beatmiser
      As I recalled, when Nvidia didn't work on Vista a bunch of rabid ms fanboy come out and said that it's nvidia's fault
      So why would you blame Linux for when your wireless card didn't work on linux?
      Do you buy any computer and try to put OSX on it? No you wouldn't because you can't.
      So don't buy just any hardware and put ubuntu or vista on it. Buy the hardware that is recommended by the os developer.

      If you have better things to do then why install ubuntu? go play games or download p0rn or something.
    • ThatEvilGuy, on 10/11/2007, -15/+3I agree, while Mac OS X and Ubuntu might look very pretty, XP/Vista are more productive.

      That guy set up OSX and Vista on Ubuntu, so... now what?

      People who like to fiddle and experiment with things use Linux, people who do work use Windows.
    • daftman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"I agree, while Mac OS X and Ubuntu might look very pretty, XP/Vista are more productive.

      That guy set up OSX and Vista on Ubuntu, so... now what?

      People who like to fiddle and experiment with things use Linux, people who do work use Windows."
      WTF are you on about. If you are trolling for comment go to slashdot.
      I write j2ee apps on ubuntu using eclipse and/or netbeans. I write web app on ubuntu using radrails / vim
      I would say ubuntu and osx is more productive because i don't stop every 10 minutes and play games.
    • Avalontor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2OK guys, who f*ing cares whose fault it is that my wireless/graphics/sound card does not work with Linux. Using analogies just makes you look stupid because guess what, that person is not going to use Linux or any OS that they can't get to work wether it's the fault of Linux or the card manufacturer or a 3rd party company. Things that don't work, well don't work and people tend to find things that do.

      This trend of not trying to blame Linux for these Linux only troubles is all well and good but you have a
    • daftman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@avalontor
      It does matter because it makes you look like a fool.
      Instead of solving the solution by buying hardware that is compatible for the os, you just whine and bitch about the developers.
      If you don't want to use linux fine! Nobody here is asking you to. But don't blame the developers for your incompetence for not buying the right hardware.
      It's very much like you buying a ps3 and blame xbox360 games developers for not making it work on your ps3.

      A good worker never blame his tool.
  • zmigliozzi, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6Wow virtualization, and beryl. Show a normal linux user something interesting...
    • JesseJ, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23A live nude woman?
    • FredSpeaking, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22OSX and Ubuntu in the same title... must restrain involuntary pelvic thrusts...
    • HsoKinees, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Fred, are you a Hard Gay fan? :O
    • fishsoda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8live, nude, or beautiful. you may pick only two.
  • Athens101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@zmigliozzi

    Amen! Been running VMWare since... 1998 under Linux.
    • zmigliozzi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I think it's safe to say the submitter is a windows user :P
  • jhuebel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6I could be wrong, but it looks like "OSX Running on Ubuntu" is in reality OSX being remote controlled by rdesktop or something similar.

    Besides, there's nothing special about running an operating system in virtualization anymore. I run XP on my Macbook with Parallels. Does that get me all hot and bothered? Nope.
    • Thargok, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Remote machines are too slow for the video. However, knowing that iTunes is an old version it is easy to assume that it is an illegal pirate copy, as it would have to be if not remote.
  • bedouin, on 10/11/2007, -13/+1This story should have been titled, "Another example of why Linux UI designers don't get it: glitz over function." OS X is just a side-story.
    • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Wha? So Beryl's developers are representative of all Linux developers? okaaaay...

      For the record, Beryl is very functional.
    • eqisow, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Yes yes, of course. Beryl is flashy so the Gnome, XFCE, Fluxbox, etc devs clearly only go for flashiness. *roll eyes*

      Edit: Also, I should point out that all of that beryl "glitz" is because the user set it up that way. he didn't have to. See, that's what great about Linux, flexibility. Like glitz? Great! Don't like it? That's great too!
    • emorphien, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3yeah, even the bugs in beryl are functions!

      Seriously, Beryl is overrated.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4To me, posts like this reveal the poster's frustration. Frustration that Linux is a slow moving steamroller that is crushing the rest of the computing world, including his (OR HER LOL) platform of choice. These people are always going to overreact and find something they hate.
    • bedouin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"To me, posts like this reveal the poster's frustration. Frustration that Linux is a slow moving steamroller that is crushing the rest of the computing world."

      Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
  • Genout, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I see no point in running xp,vista,osx and ubuntu at the same time what is the point really. allot of people give me it it great for when i have to check something to see how it looks and functions on ____ that is great yo will get the look down but not the function. The whole running multi OS thing is a need litle trick but i never see it taking on as much as people think it will. Only the extreme Home user and tech nerd may use it just for the because i can factor.

    I do post production and motion graphics for a living i have a linux box,windows box, a mac box, 3 monitors, KVM switcher and guess what it works allot better then trying to run 3 or more OS at one time on one system.

    If you have the need to be running 3 or more OS's at the same time. then you or your company should have the means of getting 3 boxes and a KVM
    • xspinkickx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5can I ask why you use a kvm if you have three monitors and 3 machines, when you could just use synergy to share your keyboard and mouse with your mac, linux, bsd, windows, etc. over your network?? I used a kvm when I did not have enough monitors for my 3 machines, but synergy is way way better then a kvm, imho.
  • ElbridgeGerry, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9This isn't blogspam, it's from an official Ubuntu site.
    And we have a video section.
  • celeb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4one word, vmware

    This is very simple to achieve as there are vmware images of mac osx (darwin) out on the torrent sites right now which you could run on top of any OS which is supported by vmware.

  • porcupus, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Does this infringe on any patents?
    Does anyone care?
    Is anyone Listening?
  • Ratteler, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Call me when Parallel's has Hardware3D acceleration under Linux.
  • STKD, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4That's just... great.
    Wait? What's this? I have 9SE, 2K, XP, 2K3 Compute Cluster Edition, Vista, Ubuntu, OSX x86 10.4.8 *and* Longhorn Server Beta 3 all running at the same time right now in vmware machines on Server 2003 R2 SP2? Oh... I guess I win then.
  • SiMuchacho, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4isn't running MAC OS on anything but a MAC illegal?

    Although this has inspired me to try duel booting XP/ Ubuntu
    • STKD, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7There's such a thing as a Media Access Control OS?
      (Or "It's Mac not MAC", whichever you prefer).
      Duel booting? Sounds like quite a fight.
    • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1illegal? Who gives a *****.
  • Avalontor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Video
  • m0tbaillie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Not to sound like I'm trolling or flaming, but this isn't exactly novel or new -- this is *exactly* what VMWare is designed to do and it works, very, very well. We have a development server where I work and my colleague and I have about 12 different OSes installed, to include Vista, OS X, Windows 3.1 comedy option, Solaris, and BSD (we do research/testing). We often have 8 or 9 of them running at once flawlessly. Even on a desktop machine (3.2ghz P4 & 1GB RAM) I've run 4 or 5 OSes concurrently.
  • dsterry, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is a very useful combo. If you've got a mission critical Windows app that you don't feel like porting right this moment, if you need to learn OSX to support your customers, if you want to give top billing to software that doesn't restrict your use, do this. The kicker would be to see this all under a free vm.
  • websyndicate, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4funny how eveybody hates mac but still want to run it on something other than a mac.
    • MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Exactly.

      I really love using the Mac, especially with Mac OS X. I started my computing life with the AMIGA in the 80s and after Commodore went bankrupt I switched to the Macintosh platform. Since switching to the Mac, I have gone through a couple of computers with my latest being the Mac Pro - 2 x dual core Xeon @ 3.00 GHz. This baby is fast! I can run Windows XP Pro alongside Mac OS X 10.4.9 without any problems at all.

      Mac OS X is running on a RAID 0 array with two 500 GB Samsung SATA HDs, and Windows XP Pro is running on one 500 GB Samsung SATA HD. The other Samsung SATA HD is used for backing up data from Mac OS X side. Booting up into either OS is quite simple with Boot Camp. Also, I use Parallels for Mac for an Ubuntu Linux installation.

      Installing Windows XP or Vista on its own HD is better than partitioning one drive. HDs are cheap now so their is no excuse for not putting four of them in a Mac Pro.
  • jdong, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I think this kinda goes without saying, but from my experiences OSX's almost purely OpenGL UI runs so ridiculously slowly in a vmware that it is not at all practical to use OSX in a virtual machine -- until some sort of accelerated graphics is implemented in VM software, then implemented for an OS X client.
  • puppetj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Hey just check this guide out: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=47303&hl=
  • mohdzaid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0VirtuaBox.Runing anathor OS in Linux.
  • thephosphorbox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ok I have to ask.. why? I thought the whole point of running Linux was so you weren't bowing down to "the man". By running Windows and OS X on your Linux machine via an emulator or what-have-you defeats the purpose, no? Doesn't it serve as an admission that you NEED to run another OS?
    • NeonTempest, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@ thephosphorbox
      That is hardly the point. Linux allows for more flexibility and customization of your OS. It has nothing to do with 'the man'. Every Operating System has its flaws and advantages and that is why administrators will run multiple servers. The fact of the matter is many companies are starting to use VMWare servers because it can be much more cost effective then having a warehouses full of terminals.
  • syafthegeek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Now everyone can install 3 OSs in one place.
  • magnakai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Also, Shift+CTRL+T re-opens last closed tab.
    Very handy.
  • ron1n541, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0VMware is a ridiculous attempt at emulating operating system software. If you're running a GNU/Linux based operating system, use GNU/Linux software, preferably open source. If you are using OSX, operating using software designed for OSX. If you are foolish enough to believe anything good will come out of using Windows Vista, use software designed for Windows Vista. This will solve MANY compatibility issues, save a lot of headaches, and ease these displeased fan boys. Your only hurting yourself when you try to emulate poor renditions of of software, where they don't belong.
    • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm not usually this harsh but; SHUT THE ***** UP!

      You think the only use of VMware is giving nerdy kids the opportunity to run several OS's at once so they can post it on a site be dug about it? At least have the decency, take the time to check the variety of products EMC offers, or the solutions that Vmware gives.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMware
    • SEMW, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ron1n541: you seem to be arguing that cross-platform software is somehow inherently a bad thing. Well, I say arguing, more like stating unilaterally -- would you care to support your position with a little logic, evidence, or facts?
  • aristotle0dude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Do people running linux actually do anything useful besides making demo videos and playing with their new found gfx effects that other platforms have had for years in a less gaudy and more productive form?

    This is all very nice and all. I'm sure the rotating box is fun for the first week or so but then what? Shouldn't the linux community stop their bickering, kick RMS out of the club and get down to business of creating a viable desktop platform? How about stowing the hippy/commie free beer or GNU Freedom crap and start giving people real freedom and allowing companies to port software to linux without fear of viral licenses and dependency hell?

    RMS should grow up and realize that people who are no longer in academia have to be pragmatists rather than idealists and that business needs to have a profit motive in order to create things.

    Seriously folks, if you guys cannot get RMS to face facts, I would suggest buying him a one way ticket to Cuba and tell him to stay there.
  • rifman5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0yes yes yes
  • JesseJ, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think the idea of running multiple OS is great while migrating to a new working platform. There will be certain old customers and projects you will have to open in old versions of software and export data to get them to work on the new platform. Some commercial software you have bought only works on the old OS and so on, multibooting is really time consuming when doing exports and imports, going back and forth between two apps on two different OSs.

    Also another thing that benefits greatly from virtualization is the testing process for webdevelopers, speed is not a crucial thing when you want to open a (for example) webpage and see how it renders on different platforms and browsers.. you just want to see how it looks.

    One thing is to play and test, another is to actually earn a living and work with computers across different platforms. Don't forget that.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.