In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rex Ballard
<rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on 6 Jun 2006 11:52:14 -0700
<1149619934.546080.272210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dual-Boot is probably a good idea, but a more agressive and practical
> approach, and one that is more "up to date" would be "Concurrent"
> operation. Both Linux and Windows provide the mechanisims to run the
> other concurrently.
Why not just have the *machine* run them more or less
concurrently, and flip between them?
One could flip between them using a special switch on the
keyboard, which both operating systems would respect; the
main issues is that the active OS would go into quiescence
(hibernation?), and activate the other OS, which would then
take over. Each OS would take half the RAM, or perhaps this
can be partitioned at the BIOS level. An alternative possibility
is that the OS "out-of-sight" would continue running, which would
be very handy if it's doing something like rendering, SETI, or
pharmacology computations. (There are some issues if network
or disk are needed.)
Ideally, one would be able to run "OS-within-OS-window",
somewhat similar to Xnest or UML in Linux or
picture-in-picture in many TV screens, if one has this
capability.
The problem with VMWare and similar solutions is the
overhead in emulation of privileged instructions. However,
bigger mainframes do this sort of thing all the time, AIUI.
The problem of course with dual-boot is that it takes 60-90
seconds to switch. Even with this scheme there would be
some issues, mostly because one cannot "cut and paste"
between operating systems without a lot of hassle.
>
> Perhaps the dual-boot should also be configured to support each other.
> The Linux boot would allow the Windows VM to use the Windows partition,
> and the Windows boot would allow the Linux VM to use the Linux
> partition.
There's a few issues with that, mostly because Windows will want to
write to the Windows partition and Linux may get into a situation with
stale pages therein. The other way has similar problems.
>
> 32 bit Machines could probably still run Windows since Linux is
> probably a secondary operating system (VM), but on a more "occaisional"
> basis.
>
> 64 bit Machines running Linux as the primary operating system would run
> Windows as the secondary operating system. This is probably a more
> practical configuration anyway, since the 64 bit machines and Linux can
> deal with larger drives, larger memory, and multiple core and multiple
> processor processors more efficiently than Windows. Don't know about
> Vista yet.
>
Vista will Fix Everything(tm).
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- insert random fantasy here
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
