SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
A question that always generates calm and reasonable discussion: What OS do you use?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 149 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey.
-- Andy Warhol
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:14AM
Still? Throw some RAM in your rig and toss Winblows into a VM already.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @09:12AM
That's not an option if you want to actually utilize your gfx/sfx hardware properly.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Thursday August 06 2015, @09:41PM
Whoever modded this up hasn't been paying attention to virtualisation in years. it is possible if you have hardware that supports pci and vga passthrough. needs a second gpu dedicated to the vm, but it's been possible for years. Not sure exactly how long, but I first saw it done as a demo by Ubisoft with gtx 400 series cards when that was still current-gen nvidia tech.
Biggest caveat is the cpu+motherboard both need iommu support, and nvidia started artificially restricting their drivers for that use somehow after the 400 series so you need an AMD gpu or high-end (workstation, not consumer/gaming) nvidia gpu. Best setup seems to currently be amd for both the cpu and guest gpu because not all intel cpus have the necessary virt extensions.
You can also pass other hardware through the same way, usually more easily than the gpu.
(Score: 4, Touché) by mhajicek on Friday August 07 2015, @03:54AM
So basically, buy a new computer so you can run Windows in a VM. If you're going to do that, why not run two computers?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Marand on Saturday August 08 2015, @05:00AM
So basically, buy a new computer so you can run Windows in a VM.
First off, I was responding to the AC's absolute that virtualisation is not an option at all if you want to use certain types of hardware, suggesting that dual booting is the only viable option. That statement is outdated and incorrect, so I mentioned the IOMMU extensions that have made VMs a viable dual-boot alternative for users with compatible hardware.
Second, I never suggested people buy new computers explicitly for that purpose. Some people might already have compatible hardware -- especially if they're primarily AMD buyers -- allowing them to avoid dual booting by adding an extra GPU if interested in avoidingd dual-boot. Others might be preparing to upgrade for other reasons (outdated or failing hardware, for example) and could decide to seek out compatible hardware as an additional requirement, much like how one still has to verify Linux compatibility with hardware.
If you're going to do that, why not run two computers?
Instead of putting money into two machines and redundant components -- two cases, two motherboards, two power supplies, CPUs and RAM for two separate systems, etc. -- you can use all that money to make one beefier system and allocate resources accordingly.
Say for example, a user that primarily uses Linux but also likes to play games. When doing productive things, the VM is off and the full system resources are available to the Linux host and whatever the user needs. When it's time to goof off with a Windows game, he can also fire up a VM that has most of the resources (CPU/RAM) allocated to the VM, play until bored, and then turn the VM back off and get those resources back.
Of course, this takes you back to the question of whether you would prefer to dual boot or not, because you could also just make the beefy system and dual-boot instead. It's a question of what the individual user finds more convenient in the long-term. Still, it's a viable option and shouldn't be dismissed with a remark of "just buy two computers"
(Score: 1) by WillR on Monday August 17 2015, @08:20PM
It's not 1998 anymore, we aren't going to judge your short uptime!
(Score: 2) by Marand on Tuesday August 18 2015, @03:19AM
It's not about the uptime, at least in my case; it's about the inconvenience. I've been dual booting for games for a long time and it's frequently a massive pain in the ass, enough so that I decided I want to move away from it in the future even if it requires extra setup.
One of the problems is that dual-booting just for games means that you take away access to your primary OS any time you want to fire up a game. So, you either can't do anything else during that time or you have to duplicate parts of your primary environment in Windows too. Plus you can't do something else while waiting on Windows to boot, update, reboot, etc.
So, instead of just "boot Windows, play game" it ends up being "boot Windows, wait for updates to apply, get harassed about Flash to update, start browser to check something related to game, have to update that browser," and so on. The more stuff you need or want access to while playing, the more you have to install and manage, and it's still going to be a half-assed environment compared to your main environment.
It might not seem like a big deal, but there's a lot of waiting involved and it gets frustrating. It's even worse if the games are online, since you tend to have downtime waiting on other people, or waiting in lobbies, etc. where you could normally alt-tab during and do something else, but with dual-boot you can't without duplicating your environment.
With a VM or a second machine (maybe accessed via Steam's remote desktop thing), you don't have to duplicate your environment to access things, you don't have to deal with as much Windows environment generally, and when those Windows parts are updating or you're waiting on players, queues, etc. you can still do something useful with the main or host system. With dual-boot I find myself avoiding certain games just because I know I have to reboot to do it. All said, I find I'd rather do just about anything else instead of another dual-boot system.
Of the two options (VM with passthough or a second system), a second system is the easier way, but I've been that route and want to do something different next time, partly "just because" and partly due to space, power use, and heat generation. So, the next update I do, I'm going to try getting a working passhtrough setup. I don't mind doing extra up-front work for easier management later (which is one of the reasons I use Debian) and, difficult or easy, it will be educational.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Pino P on Sunday August 09 2015, @12:18AM
One laptop fits in a backpack better than two laptops.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday August 07 2015, @03:12PM
I've tried building a system along these lines, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without a lot of time to burn on the initial setup. To say YMMV would be a major understatement, even with AMD hardware end-to-end.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Saturday August 08 2015, @05:06AM
Yeah, it's a wild frontier, but the time investment might be worth it for people that really want to avoid dual booting or duplicating hardware to have separate systems for each OS.
Of course, if you're only using Windows for gaming, dual booting is probably the safest option because it creates an extra barrier between you and your time wasting habits. Make it more convenient to fire up Windows and a game and you might regret the lost productivity :)