OK, so I'm currently looking for some VM software I can run on my home PC.

At work, I use VMware Workstation. Which works vastly better than 
anything else I've seen, but it's expensive. Really expensive. I just 
looked it up, and it's, like, £170.

There is VMware Player, of course. That's free. But being free it's also 
crippled with all sorts of artificial limitations; no linked clones, no 
snapshots, no teams. Basically it lets you run another OS, but without 
any of the benefits of a VM.

In the past, I've tried BOCHS and QEMU. The interface is CLI-only. You 
have to manually manage all the files involved. You end up having to 
write elaborate scripts to fire up a VM. It works, but it's extremely 
complicated. Plus this stuff runs very, very slowly.

I also tried Virtual Box. This offers a familiar GUI interface. (And I 
particularly like the way each VM has its own window, so you can SEE 
multiple VMs at the same time. On the other hand, it lacks activity 
lights...) However, there are two main problems with it. The first is 
that you still have to manually manage disks and VMs separately. But the 
big, big problem is IT'S TOTALLY UNRELIABLE! It just will NOT do what 
you tell it to. The number of times it's crashed on me, or a particular 
VM has become unusable is utterly unacceptable.

Are there any other VM products with investigating? (Clearly there are 
other VM products; I'm asking whether any of them are any good.)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Are there any other VM products with investigating? (Clearly there are 
> other VM products; I'm asking whether any of them are any good.)

Have you tried VirtualBox?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.08.2012 14:23, schrieb Warp:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Are there any other VM products with investigating? (Clearly there are
>> other VM products; I'm asking whether any of them are any good.)
>
> Have you tried VirtualBox?

If "VirtualBox" == "Virtual Box" then yes, he did mention it.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/27/2012 3:24, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Are there any other VM products with investigating? (Clearly there are other
> VM products; I'm asking whether any of them are any good.)

If you're talking about Windows, Microsoft makes a Virtual PC that comes 
with certain versions of Windows that works well.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:24:08 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> I also tried Virtual Box. This offers a familiar GUI interface. (And I
> particularly like the way each VM has its own window, so you can SEE
> multiple VMs at the same time. On the other hand, it lacks activity
> lights...) However, there are two main problems with it. The first is
> that you still have to manually manage disks and VMs separately. But the
> big, big problem is IT'S TOTALLY UNRELIABLE! It just will NOT do what
> you tell it to. The number of times it's crashed on me, or a particular
> VM has become unusable is utterly unacceptable.

FWIW, I use VirtualBox on Linux pretty much daily, never have stability 
problems at all.

I'm also not sure what you  mean by "manag[ing] disks and VMs separately" 
- the GUI that I use (which is the default GUI AFAIK) doesn't do that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2012 07:37 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/27/2012 3:24, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Are there any other VM products with investigating? (Clearly there are
>> other
>> VM products; I'm asking whether any of them are any good.)
>
> If you're talking about Windows, Microsoft makes a Virtual PC that comes
> with certain versions of Windows that works well.

I thought that was limited to only running one single instance of 
Windows XP for backwards compatibility.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:52:54 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 27/08/2012 07:37 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 8/27/2012 3:24, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Are there any other VM products with investigating? (Clearly there are
>>> other VM products; I'm asking whether any of them are any good.)
>>
>> If you're talking about Windows, Microsoft makes a Virtual PC that
>> comes with certain versions of Windows that works well.
> 
> I thought that was limited to only running one single instance of
> Windows XP for backwards compatibility.

No, you're thinking of "compatibility mode", not Virtual PC.

There's also Hyper-V if you have Windows Server.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2012 08:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> FWIW, I use VirtualBox on Linux pretty much daily, never have stability
> problems at all.

You never had it pop up and say "This process has performed an illegal 
operation and must be terminated. Do you wish to send an error report"? 
(Oh, well, I guess you wouldn't be seeing a Windows-specific error 
message on Linux... But you get what I'm saying.)

You never had a VM working perfectly, and then the next day VirtualBox 
utterly /refuses/ to start that VM? (Like, you click "start", and either 
nothing happens or VirtualBox instantly crashes.)

You never had it refuse to delete a snapshot for no defined reason? 
(E.g., you have a VM powered down, you take a snapshot, realise you 
wanted to do something first, go to delete the snapshot you just made, 
and it says "sorry, I can't do that Dave".)

> I'm also not sure what you  mean by "manag[ing] disks and VMs separately"
> - the GUI that I use (which is the default GUI AFAIK) doesn't do that.

When you create a VM, it asks to create a virtual disk. (Which isn't 
surprising; VMware does this also.) But it seems to want to put all the 
VM files in one place, and all the virtual disk files in another place. 
And it asks me if I want to reuse one of my existing disk files. (Why 
would I *ever* want to do that??) And when I delete a VM, this does 
/not/ delete the disk image files with it. I have to manually do that 
from the disk management window.

Maybe the GUI is completely different on Linux or something. But on 
Windows, you can't even edit a snapshot description while the VM it 
belongs to is running. (I can understand, from a technical perspective, 
how that could end up not working. What I can't figure out is why the 
heck nobody has fixed this. It can't be that damned hard...)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:59:13 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 27/08/2012 08:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> FWIW, I use VirtualBox on Linux pretty much daily, never have stability
>> problems at all.
> 
> You never had it pop up and say "This process has performed an illegal
> operation and must be terminated. Do you wish to send an error report"?
> (Oh, well, I guess you wouldn't be seeing a Windows-specific error
> message on Linux... But you get what I'm saying.)

Nope, never.

> You never had a VM working perfectly, and then the next day VirtualBox
> utterly /refuses/ to start that VM? (Like, you click "start", and either
> nothing happens or VirtualBox instantly crashes.)

Nope, never.  I've even had my entire Linux DE crash on me and I've been 
able to restart the VM when it came back up.

What version are you running?  Sounds like an old version maybe, or just 
that the Windows version is garbage and you should use the Linux 
version.  I've had nothing but good luck with the Linux version - enough 
so that I stopped using even VMware Player.

> You never had it refuse to delete a snapshot for no defined reason?
> (E.g., you have a VM powered down, you take a snapshot, realise you
> wanted to do something first, go to delete the snapshot you just made,
> and it says "sorry, I can't do that Dave".)

Nope, never had it do that, either.

>> I'm also not sure what you  mean by "manag[ing] disks and VMs
>> separately"
>> - the GUI that I use (which is the default GUI AFAIK) doesn't do that.
> 
> When you create a VM, it asks to create a virtual disk. (Which isn't
> surprising; VMware does this also.) But it seems to want to put all the
> VM files in one place, and all the virtual disk files in another place.
> And it asks me if I want to reuse one of my existing disk files. (Why
> would I *ever* want to do that??) And when I delete a VM, this does
> /not/ delete the disk image files with it. I have to manually do that
> from the disk management window.

All of my VMs' disk files are with the configuration, but this actually 
makes sense on a couple different levels, because you can do 'linked 
cloning', in which case deleting the disk file would affect multiple VMs 
(ie, it would break them).  But in the Linux GUI, you do have the option 
when deleting a VM to also delete the disk files at the same time if 
they're not linked/in use by another VM.

> Maybe the GUI is completely different on Linux or something. But on
> Windows, you can't even edit a snapshot description while the VM it
> belongs to is running. (I can understand, from a technical perspective,
> how that could end up not working. What I can't figure out is why the
> heck nobody has fixed this. It can't be that damned hard...)

That works just fine on Linux.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/27/2012 13:59, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> asks me if I want to reuse one of my existing disk files. (Why would I
> *ever* want to do that??) And when I delete a VM, this does /not/ delete the
> disk image files with it.

I think you just answered your own question.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

>> asks me if I want to reuse one of my existing disk files. (Why would I
>> *ever* want to do that??) And when I delete a VM, this does /not/
>> delete the disk image files with it.
>
> I think you just answered your own question.

How so?

If you put the disks from one VM into another VM, then the other VM 
*becomes* the first VM. All VMs are essentially identical; the disks are 
the only thing that makes them different. Either you want to delete a 
VM, or you don't. So deleting the settings file and then still using the 
existing disks is a nonsensical thing to do.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:32:03 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> asks me if I want to reuse one of my existing disk files. (Why would I
>>> *ever* want to do that??) And when I delete a VM, this does /not/
>>> delete the disk image files with it.
>>
>> I think you just answered your own question.
> 
> How so?
> 
> If you put the disks from one VM into another VM, then the other VM
> *becomes* the first VM. All VMs are essentially identical; the disks are
> the only thing that makes them different. Either you want to delete a
> VM, or you don't. So deleting the settings file and then still using the
> existing disks is a nonsensical thing to do.

Not if the disk is a data disk, or is used as something other than the 
boot disk.

Or if it's a base for multiple linked clones where you started from a 
common base, but the clones are different.  It's not unusual at all, for 
example, when testing networked setups of identical OSes to create a 
common base image and then customize multiple linked clones.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> If you put the disks from one VM into another VM, then the other VM
>> *becomes* the first VM. All VMs are essentially identical; the disks are
>> the only thing that makes them different. Either you want to delete a
>> VM, or you don't. So deleting the settings file and then still using the
>> existing disks is a nonsensical thing to do.
>
> Not if the disk is a data disk, or is used as something other than the
> boot disk.

Wouldn't you just clone the disk for something like that? (Otherwise 
only one VM can access it at a time.)

> Or if it's a base for multiple linked clones where you started from a
> common base, but the clones are different.

Then wouldn't each clone have its own local cloned disk image?

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.08.2012 18:03, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> If you put the disks from one VM into another VM, then the other VM
>>> *becomes* the first VM. All VMs are essentially identical; the disks are
>>> the only thing that makes them different. Either you want to delete a
>>> VM, or you don't. So deleting the settings file and then still using the
>>> existing disks is a nonsensical thing to do.
>>
>> Not if the disk is a data disk, or is used as something other than the
>> boot disk.
>
> Wouldn't you just clone the disk for something like that? (Otherwise
> only one VM can access it at a time.)
>
>> Or if it's a base for multiple linked clones where you started from a
>> common base, but the clones are different.
>
> Then wouldn't each clone have its own local cloned disk image?

Virtual Box is pretty smart when it comes to saving disk space: When you 
clone a disk image, it "freezes" the original disk's state into a save 
point, and the clone will actually be a reference to that save point 
plus a delta tracking any changes.

Likewise, the original disk will further on be managed as that "frozen" 
state plus another delta tracking any changes made by /that/ VM.

(Note that a "frozen" state itself may already be a reference to an 
earlier save point plus a delta.)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:03:25 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> If you put the disks from one VM into another VM, then the other VM
>>> *becomes* the first VM. All VMs are essentially identical; the disks
>>> are the only thing that makes them different. Either you want to
>>> delete a VM, or you don't. So deleting the settings file and then
>>> still using the existing disks is a nonsensical thing to do.
>>
>> Not if the disk is a data disk, or is used as something other than the
>> boot disk.
> 
> Wouldn't you just clone the disk for something like that? (Otherwise
> only one VM can access it at a time.)

No, and no.

Linking the clone means that you don't waste the disk space with 
duplicate data.

And no, only one VM can *write* to it at a time, but multiple VMs can 
*read* from it at the same time.  Changes get written to a secondary file 
that contains the differences between the combined images and the base 
image - just like a snapshot.

>> Or if it's a base for multiple linked clones where you started from a
>> common base, but the clones are different.
> 
> Then wouldn't each clone have its own local cloned disk image?

Again, no.  That's not what a linked clone is.

I might be inclined to suggest "RTFM", as the VirtualBox and VMware 
documentation both describe what a linked clone is.  Rather than assume 
what it is and then make statements based on those assumptions, you could 
actually learn what the idea is behind it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> Or if it's a base for multiple linked clones where you started from a
>>> common base, but the clones are different.
>>
>> Then wouldn't each clone have its own local cloned disk image?
>
> Virtual Box is pretty smart when it comes to saving disk space: When you
> clone a disk image, it "freezes" the original disk's state into a save
> point, and the clone will actually be a reference to that save point
> plus a delta tracking any changes.

Isn't this how /all/ VM products work?

Post a reply to this message

>>> Or if it's a base for multiple linked clones where you started from a
>>> common base, but the clones are different.
>>
>> Then wouldn't each clone have its own local cloned disk image?
>
> Again, no.  That's not what a linked clone is.
>
> I might be inclined to suggest "RTFM", as the VirtualBox and VMware
> documentation both describe what a linked clone is.  Rather than assume
> what it is and then make statements based on those assumptions, you could
> actually learn what the idea is behind it.

Oh, so now you're claiming that I don't know how VMware works?

When you create a VM, it starts with one file for the disk image. Each 
time you take a snapshot, it stops writing to the current image file, 
and creates a new file which is a delta against the previous one. When 
you make a "full clone", it copies all the data. When you create a 
"linked clone", it creates a new VM, but it's base disk image is just a 
delta against the linked VM, just like a snapshot.

I don't know off the top of my head how Virtual Box does it.

I'm still not seeing why you would want to transfer a disk from one VM 
to another - except perhaps, as you say, for data transfer (if you can't 
get a more sane method to work).

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.08.2012 09:49, schrieb Invisible:
>>>> Or if it's a base for multiple linked clones where you started from a
>>>> common base, but the clones are different.
>>>
>>> Then wouldn't each clone have its own local cloned disk image?
>>
>> Virtual Box is pretty smart when it comes to saving disk space: When you
>> clone a disk image, it "freezes" the original disk's state into a save
>> point, and the clone will actually be a reference to that save point
>> plus a delta tracking any changes.
>
> Isn't this how /all/ VM products work?

Don't know; if that's the case, how come you didn't seem to know about 
that concept?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/28/2012 1:32, Invisible wrote:
> If you put the disks from one VM into another VM, then the other VM
> *becomes* the first VM.

Well there you go. You have a VM on your desktop machine, and now you want 
to run it in the colo facility.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/29/2012 0:49, Invisible wrote:
> Isn't this how /all/ VM products work?

It depends how you configure them. This is additional space overhead, remember.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:53:51 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Or if it's a base for multiple linked clones where you started from a
>>>> common base, but the clones are different.
>>>
>>> Then wouldn't each clone have its own local cloned disk image?
>>
>> Again, no.  That's not what a linked clone is.
>>
>> I might be inclined to suggest "RTFM", as the VirtualBox and VMware
>> documentation both describe what a linked clone is.  Rather than assume
>> what it is and then make statements based on those assumptions, you
>> could actually learn what the idea is behind it.
> 
> Oh, so now you're claiming that I don't know how VMware works?

Given that you don't seem to understand how linked clones work or how 
they are, I'm suggesting that maybe you should read up on the idea rather 
than making wild assumptions about it.

> When you create a VM, it starts with one file for the disk image. Each
> time you take a snapshot, it stops writing to the current image file,
> and creates a new file which is a delta against the previous one. When
> you make a "full clone", it copies all the data. When you create a
> "linked clone", it creates a new VM, but it's base disk image is just a
> delta against the linked VM, just like a snapshot.

Correct.  And if you delete the base vmdk image, what would you expect to 
happen when using a linked clone?

> I don't know off the top of my head how Virtual Box does it.

And the VirtualBox documentation does in fact describe this.  But hey, at 
least you're saying "I don't know how it does this" rather than making an 
incorrect assumption based on no knowledge.  So that's progress. ;)

> I'm still not seeing why you would want to transfer a disk from one VM
> to another - except perhaps, as you say, for data transfer (if you can't
> get a more sane method to work).

I'm working with a product right now that actually does this in order to 
personalize the image.  The underlying virtualization technology is 
XenServer, and the developers opted to create a LiveCD ISO to boot the VM 
from that customizes the image (due to a lack of APIs in XenServer to do 
this).  They transfer the disk files to a temporary VM that mounts them 
after booting the LiveCD image.

One benefit is that this allows them to be hypervisor-agnostic - it's a 
technique that works with any hypervisor that can boot from an ISO.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Given that you don't seem to understand how linked clones work or how
> they are, I'm suggesting that maybe you should read up on the idea rather
> than making wild assumptions about it.

> Correct.

So my understanding is correct, and this constitutes making "wild 
assumptions"?

> And if you delete the base vmdk image, what would you expect to
> happen when using a linked clone?

VMware won't let you do that.

None of which explains why I have to manage disk images and VMs 
separately in Virtual Box, when they are nearly synonymous.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/08/2012 04:18 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 1:32, Invisible wrote:
>> If you put the disks from one VM into another VM, then the other VM
>> *becomes* the first VM.
>
> Well there you go. You have a VM on your desktop machine, and now you
> want to run it in the colo facility.

So... you just move the entire VM. I'm still not seeing why you would 
want to move just the disk.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:50:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> Given that you don't seem to understand how linked clones work or how
>> they are, I'm suggesting that maybe you should read up on the idea
>> rather than making wild assumptions about it.
> 
>> Correct.
> 
> So my understanding is correct, and this constitutes making "wild
> assumptions"?

Your understanding of the mechanics is correct, but your conclusions are 
not.

>> And if you delete the base vmdk image, what would you expect to happen
>> when using a linked clone?
> 
> VMware won't let you do that.

Right, and neither will VBox.

> None of which explains why I have to manage disk images and VMs
> separately in Virtual Box, when they are nearly synonymous.

Because they /aren't/.  A disk image can be used by multiple VMs.  You 
understand the mechanics, but your conclusion that they're "nearly 
synonymous" is faulty.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> None of which explains why I have to manage disk images and VMs
>> separately in Virtual Box, when they are nearly synonymous.
>
> Because they /aren't/.  A disk image can be used by multiple VMs.  You
> understand the mechanics, but your conclusion that they're "nearly
> synonymous" is faulty.

A virtual machine is just a simulation of a computer. You can create and 
destroy an unlimited number of them at will. The only thing that 
distinguishes one from another is the data it does or does not have on 
it - i.e., the disk image(s).

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:31:56 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> None of which explains why I have to manage disk images and VMs
>>> separately in Virtual Box, when they are nearly synonymous.
>>
>> Because they /aren't/.  A disk image can be used by multiple VMs.  You
>> understand the mechanics, but your conclusion that they're "nearly
>> synonymous" is faulty.
> 
> A virtual machine is just a simulation of a computer. You can create and
> destroy an unlimited number of them at will. The only thing that
> distinguishes one from another is the data it does or does not have on
> it - i.e., the disk image(s).

Well, no, there's the virtual hardware configuration as well.

But again, when dealing with linked clones, you have a common base and 
then things change from VM to VM.  Linked clones use both a common disk 
and their own differentiating disk overlays that make them unique.

As such, disks/VMs are not "nearly synonymous".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.08.2012 22:31, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> None of which explains why I have to manage disk images and VMs
>>> separately in Virtual Box, when they are nearly synonymous.
>>
>> Because they /aren't/.  A disk image can be used by multiple VMs.  You
>> understand the mechanics, but your conclusion that they're "nearly
>> synonymous" is faulty.
>
> A virtual machine is just a simulation of a computer. You can create and
> destroy an unlimited number of them at will. The only thing that
> distinguishes one from another is the data it does or does not have on
> it - i.e., the disk image(s).

Think of VMs as mainboards (+ CPU and memory installed), and disk images 
as hard drives.

You can disconnect a hard drive from one mainboard and plug it into 
another, can't you?

Post a reply to this message

On 30/08/2012 11:14 PM, clipka wrote:
> Think of VMs as mainboards (+ CPU and memory installed), and disk images
> as hard drives.
>
> You can disconnect a hard drive from one mainboard and plug it into
> another, can't you?

Sure, you /can/... but why would you /want/ to?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:23:39 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 30/08/2012 11:14 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Think of VMs as mainboards (+ CPU and memory installed), and disk
>> images as hard drives.
>>
>> You can disconnect a hard drive from one mainboard and plug it into
>> another, can't you?
> 
> Sure, you /can/... but why would you /want/ to?

Because you're upgrading the hardware and want to preserve your data?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-08-30 03:50, Invisible a écrit :
> On 29/08/2012 04:18 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 8/28/2012 1:32, Invisible wrote:
>>> If you put the disks from one VM into another VM, then the other VM
>>> *becomes* the first VM.
>>
>> Well there you go. You have a VM on your desktop machine, and now you
>> want to run it in the colo facility.
>
> So... you just move the entire VM. I'm still not seeing why you would
> want to move just the disk.

Because the colo facility may offer you different numbers of CPUs, RAM, 
disk space, NICs, DVD drives, etc...

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2012 11:24 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> OK, so I'm currently looking for some VM software I can run on my home PC.
>
> At work, I use VMware Workstation. Which works vastly better than
> anything else I've seen, but it's expensive. Really expensive. I just
> looked it up, and it's, like, £170.

OK, so today I bought VMware Workstation. Because, hey, I get paid now. ;-)

At work I had VMware Workstation 6.5.4. However, apparently the latest 
version is 9.0.0 - which, as it turns out, looks much more pretty. And 
there's a few minor irritations that are now gone. This is much better! :-D

On the other hand, sadly they /still/ haven't added an option to still 
show disk indicator lights in fullscreen mode. Nor have they added a CPU 
light. There's lights for every other resource, but not CPU. So I 
honestly can't tell if my VM has crashed, or is just compute-bound...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> On the other hand, sadly they /still/ haven't added an option to still
> show disk indicator lights in fullscreen mode. Nor have they added a CPU
> light. There's lights for every other resource, but not CPU. So I
> honestly can't tell if my VM has crashed, or is just compute-bound...

What would be the difference to check how much CPU the Vmware 
Workstation's process is using?

Post a reply to this message

On 15/10/2012 04:22 PM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, sadly they /still/ haven't added an option to still
>> show disk indicator lights in fullscreen mode. Nor have they added a CPU
>> light. There's lights for every other resource, but not CPU. So I
>> honestly can't tell if my VM has crashed, or is just compute-bound...
>
> What would be the difference to check how much CPU the Vmware
> Workstation's process is using?

It's just annoying having to constantly flick between the VMware window 
and the Process Explorer window to try to see what the thing is doing. 
By contrast, disk and network activity are nicely displayed right there. 
(Unless it's in full-screen mode...)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> It's just annoying having to constantly flick between the VMware window
> and the Process Explorer window to try to see what the thing is doing.
> By contrast, disk and network activity are nicely displayed right there.
> (Unless it's in full-screen mode...)
>

Well yes, that's true. OTOH you could finally buy yourself also a decent 
monitor and put those 2 windows side by side ;).

Post a reply to this message

On 15/10/2012 06:28 PM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>> It's just annoying having to constantly flick between the VMware window
>> and the Process Explorer window to try to see what the thing is doing.
>> By contrast, disk and network activity are nicely displayed right there.
>> (Unless it's in full-screen mode...)
>>
>
> Well yes, that's true. OTOH you could finally buy yourself also a decent
> monitor and put those 2 windows side by side ;).

Not unless I also buy myself a bigger desk to put them on, and maybe a 
bigger room to fit the bigger desk into. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> Not unless I also buy myself a bigger desk to put them on, and maybe a
> bigger room to fit the bigger desk into. ;-)

That's not a bad plan. But don't hold your breath, it might take couple 
of months ;).

Post a reply to this message

Le 16/10/2012 16:22, Eero Ahonen a écrit :
> Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>> Not unless I also buy myself a bigger desk to put them on, and maybe a
>> bigger room to fit the bigger desk into. ;-)
> 
> That's not a bad plan. But don't hold your breath, it might take couple
> of months ;).


You're thinking too small.
Screen / Desk / Room... what about House instead ?
Make your day, buy a city!

Post a reply to this message