Linked by snydeq on Wed 16th Dec 2009 20:13 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 400086
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I don't think....
by Slambert666 on Thu 17th Dec 2009 13:00
in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think...."
RE[3]: I don't think....
by ctl_alt_del on Thu 17th Dec 2009 19:00
in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think...."
When the 2.0 series first came out, you couldn't even setup a vm on 386 hardware with Windows XP (it kept crashing although the software was released as final).
"386 hardware", really?!? That's so 1980s and to top it off, WinXP requires a Pentium (586) anyway.
After asking a technical presales guy from Sun about this issue, his remark was: "don't take the first releases, they need to stabilize over time". So it is a bit like FreeBSD and KDE, where you need to wait 3 releases before it really gets where you want it to be, only with FreeBSD and KDE they don't hide that tip from you...
Insert YMMV here . . . Pretty much the same could be said for the initial release of any new software version (or cars for that matter
.




Member since:
2009-12-17
When the 2.0 series first came out, you couldn't even setup a vm on 386 hardware with Windows XP (it kept crashing although the software was released as final).
After asking a technical presales guy from Sun about this issue, his remark was: "don't take the first releases, they need to stabilize over time". So it is a bit like FreeBSD and KDE, where you need to wait 3 releases before it really gets where you want it to be, only with FreeBSD and KDE they don't hide that tip from you...
For me, a filesystem and a vm are such basic building blocks that I don't want to use the experimental versions as the base of my solutions. If the creators hide the real status of their product, then I lose all confidence and stop using it.