OSNews

virtualbox is nice and easy, but I had some stability issues (major ones) last time I tinkered with it. This could have been addressed by now, but it was a major show stopper for me at the time. Are you finding it stable at this point?

quite stable specially with latest 1.4 and Feisty.

Not to forget to install also the latest 1.4 guest additions you 'll find probably as an iso in /opt.

In the beginning had to tweak a little for usb support -add one line to fstab- and for getting a nice fullscreen.

All these things behind now. And it's pretty quick: XP boots in 40 sec against 35 on my main machine...

Care to point us to info about how you overcame these issues? I'm certainly interested in FOSS alts to the commercial VMs, but USB support is a deal breaker.

VirtualBox has the added advantage of its $0 price. Holy mole! $80 just to virtualize Windows, when Windows itself is not much more!

You have been able to do something similar to coherence mode using RDP and all the emulators you mentioned since before Parallels had it. It sounds like VirtualBox has a neat built in RDP feature too, I haven't used it though.

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

Hehe... well I dont need a 68k emulator as I have a 68k Mac SE/30. X-D

Mac werent just an x86 PC renamed like they are now, they were really different back then with totally different proprietary hardware.

Yup, and they were wonderful to use in a networked envirionment compared to Windows 3.x boxes. Not only that, but you could play games like Pararena, Glypha III, and Cyclone! :-)

I know. I wish they (Apple) would sell OSX separately. Even if they said OSX is only supported on X motherboard with such and such chipset, I'd still go for it. At least then you could pick the case you want, have more granular control over drives, etc.

It'd be cool. A lot of speculation this'll someday happen, but it's just that; speculation.

I'm just poor, but I would still like to run OSX. Can't afford to buy a new computer little on a new Mac.

I keep hope gold will rain from the skies and money will start growing on tree's.

You can get a Mac mini for $599. If you can't afford that then you don't have a very good Windows PC either. Sell your current PC and buy a Mac Mini and you can run both Mac and Windows on it.

I can afford the Mac mini-- Not sure why I'd want to, since it has parts that came from a 2 year old dell latitude. 512mb memory is barely enough for OSX, let alone Windows.

To beef it up to a useful spec (2gb memory) you're talking $250 more from Apple (You can buy 3rd party memory, and you don't void the warranty-- unless you break it opening up the case which wasn't meant to be cracked open).

The hard drives used to be 5400 RPM-- Not sure if they've gotten away from that or not. The complete lack of specs on their site isn't encouraging, and I know the drive used to be 2.5".

Finally, there's just nothing you can do about the built-in video on the mini-- It sucks. Period.

So, yeah, I can spend about the same on a Mini that runs both OSX and Windows poorly, or I can build a fairly fast windows box that plays all the games. OSX loses.

If Mac offered a headless machine that was specced like a mid-range iMac, I'd consider it. I already have a very nice LCD, so an iMac is silly, and I don't need a Mac Pro, especially when it starts at 2.5 grand.

Now go ask your mommy to make you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Now who's trolling?

Okay, both of you, cut it out with the trolling! I'll go make us some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and then we can all sit down together and talk it out like grown ups.

Sabon, some people really don't have $600 dollars to buy a new computer. That's no reason to tease them about it.

grat, I think you ought to try using a Mac mini before claiming OS X is unusable on it.

Now let's shake hands...

Edited 2007-06-13 17:26