Discussion in 'Trading Software' started by pkts, Aug 5, 2009.

  1. pkts


    I was reading some of the posts on virtualization setups. I decided to go ahead and set a similar system up myself. Ubuntu with VirtualBox and Windows 7. I read in posts that one guy has 4 monitors (2 with Ubuntu and 2 with the virtualization software). I have 2 monitors with ubuntu (though it's not optimal - dual view is only option and I prefer unique windows/desktops). But I am at a loss to get the virtual Windows 7 to open on two screens. I have a NVIDIA 8600GT and a 22 inch and 30 inch monitor. The best virtualbox can do is 1600 X 1200 on one screen and that's not cutting it.

    Any suggestions?

  2. did you try any of the VMWare products?

    that may do it. I use VMWare workstation quite a bit & have no complaints.
  3. pkts


    I haven't tried VMware. The reviews I read favored Sun's system. Supposedly it's much smaller and more efficient. I'll take a look.

    Perhaps some people run multiple instances of the program and put each instance on a different screen?
  4. thstart


    VMWare has the best functionality, small footprint, fast. I believe they released a free version too.
  5. Jachyra


    I use VMWare and VirtualBox... If you forget about benchmarks, and looks at just the user experience, in terms of real world performance (what a human will notice), they both run about the same although VirtualBox does seem to be a little more responsive if you're constantly toggling back and forth between your native environment and your virtual machines... but not so much that I'd be afraid to use VMWare.

    VMWare Tools is much better than what VirtualBox offers in terms of driver support and screen resolutions... if you can't get it to work in VirtualBox, I'd just switch over to VMWare instead of trying to come up with some ad-hoc solution.

    In my mind it makes no sense to run multiple virtual machines as a workaround to your screen resolution issue, because then, you're losing whatever incremental performance advantage you're gaining by using VirtualBox over VMWare anyways.
  6. I use VMWare workstation but have used Player (free one) in the past.

    My current project is to learn VMWare ESXi which is the free server virtualization software. Its great for testing things out quickly and wiping it out easily if the test goes wacky on you.
  7. Anyone of you are using Ubuntu 64 bit host with VmWare in order to run faster Windows XP Pro x86 or XP Pro x64 guests?
  8. Would hadly make sense.

    Seriously, get a grip on reality. A virtual computer can always only be AS FAST AS THE UNDERLYING COMPUTER. Running XP on a virtual platform will never be faster than running it on bare iron.

    The ONE exception I can see is if you simulate a small memory system, and the host has a lot of memory and uses it for IO caching - outside of the operating system. Runnin a 32 bit OS in a 64 bit virtualization platform may result in something like that.

    But after that, sorry, you can not run Virtual XP faster than Real XP (proper driver assumed). Just not possible. The Disc, Processor etc. do not get magically faster by running in virtualization.

    Virtualization has a LOT of advantages, but being faster than bare metal - is NOT one of them.
  9. I presume you are referring to Nvidia TwinView but would prefer two separate desktops ie two instances of the Gnome or KDE desktops - one per monitor.

    Such a config is possible. You just need to disable Twinview. You may have to edit xorg.conf by hand and comment out or remove the TwinView option in the device and screen sections. Then log out and log in again which will restart X.
  10. Ok, let's clearly exclude any VMware VMs vs. bare metal comparison.

    I meant whether (or in which circumstances) running a XP Pro 32 bit guest under Ubuntu 64 (host) could be faster than running it over a XP Pro x86 (host) or a XP Pro x64 (host).
    #10     Aug 7, 2009