[lug] VMWare Resources

[Jeffrey Siegal]

john starkey wrote:

> Thus spake Sean Reifschneider (jafo at tummy.com):
> 
> 
>>On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 11:56:41AM -0700, john starkey wrote:
>>
>>>I tried VMWare on a 333 AMD with 192 megs and it was slow.... really
>>>slow. Also very hard to work with *at times with very little resources
>>>available*. But it (the window Windows was in) locked up all the time
>>>so you had that genuine Windows feeling. :}
>>>
>>We've been running VMWare for access to quickbooks for a couple of years
>>now, and have been pretty happy with it.  I found that giving the GuestOS
>>64MB worked fine if I had 256MB of RAM.  This is on a Celeron 500...
>>256MB is the minimum I recommend for VMWare.  These days 256MB is pretty
>>cheap, though, so no reason not to.
>>
> 
> I was so inspired by this thread I installed VMware again last night. Big, big change from 2.x to 3.0, 333MHz to 900MHz, and 192 megs to 512 megs. 
> 
> So does VMware have any of the issues of wine? Some apps work and some don't?? Explorer gave me a few illegal exception errors. Flash and Outlook run like a gem so far. 

I used it a while back 1.x and 2.x and I never had any serious 
compatabilty issues.  As far as the apps are concerned, they're just 
running on Windows.  (This is very different from WINE which tries to 
provide a Windows-like environment for apps without Windows -- much harder.)