Best virtualization: Ubuntu within Windows or Windows within Ubuntu?

[the8thstar]

Hello,

After several attempts at running XP (and soon Vista) with VMWare and VirtualBox within Ubuntu, I'm now wondering if the reverse option could be a more appropriate solution. I would like your opinion on this. Either way, I want to virtualize an existing partition into the other (raw disk if you prefer).

Virtual Ubuntu in Vista - Ultimate Flexibility

Pros: all the drivers load, all the media play and I have several thousands Linux programs to choose from (Ubuntu) in a native directX friendly environment where Office 2007 runs fine (Vista).

Cons: is the security as good in Vista as it is in Ubuntu, even with programs like Norton, RegCleaner, etc. ? Will the ports be open or closed like in Ubuntu? What about permissions?

Virtual Vista in Ubuntu - Ultimate Security

Pros: Compiz fest for everyone if the seamless mode works one day, best threat protection for Vista based programs thanks to Ubuntu hosting/craddling

Cons: no sound in Vista with VMWare and Vbox, no support for my webcam (MS VX-6000) for Skype, no 3D accel feature in Vista

Additional question: will I have enough memory with only 1Gb to run both systems?

Your comments are welcome.

[Depressed Man]

For situation 1) Security won't be as good as natively running Ubuntu (though to be fair it all boils down to the user). But it's easier to break into a Windows machine since it has a bigger market share. Ports would be controlled by the Windows firewall (or whatever firewall you choose to install which would usually deactive the windows one). Permissions, what do you mean? In Vista they're controlled by the UAC and in Ubuntu..well if it was running virtualized Ubuntu would apply its permissions to its own file system.

And with 1 GB? I doubt it. Perhaps if you weren't running any memory hogging programs (e.g. Firefox, Open Office, Thunderbird). But my 1 GB desktop with its current load of screenlets, firefox, thunderbird, pidgin, and Open Office running is around 800 MBs of usage). Virtualization requires a nice bit of RAM, then the RAM used by the virtualized OS itself.

My laptop has Ubuntu with a virtualized XP. It uses about 1.5 GBs of RAM (with the programs running in Ubuntu) + 512 MBs of RAM for the stripped down XP I run. Vista requires alot more I think judging by its normal use on my laptop.

[the8thstar]

Thanks for your reply, Depressed Man. My Ubuntu 7.10 + Virtual XP MCE 2005 ran smooth and nice together with only 1Gb of RAM, even with Office 2007 open in XP and Firefox 2 in Gutsy. I guess the processor speed and the material conf also play their part in the deal.

I will try with 1Gb... if it doesn't work, I guess I'll buy some more RAM or ReadyBoost my flashstick.

[P4man]

I guess it makes sense to select the OS you prefer/use most as host. I agree with the above poster though, that 1 GB is going to be extremely tight, especially for Vista. Vista by itself requires 1GB to function decently. If you are going to virtualize windows though, I see no reason to use Vista. Use XP.

[Depressed Man]

Thanks for your reply, Depressed Man. My Ubuntu 7.10 + Virtual XP MCE 2005 ran smooth and nice together with only 1Gb of RAM, even with Office 2007 open in XP and Firefox 2 in Gutsy. I guess the processor speed and the material conf also play their part in the deal.

I will try with 1Gb... if it doesn't work, I guess I'll buy some more RAM or ReadyBoost my flashstick.

I don't think Office 2007 eats up as much RAM as Open Office (I can always test it out myself later though). And yeah, processing speed will help out alot. Both my PCs are dual cores (but my laptop sports a new Intel Core 2 Duo compared to my desktop's AMD Opteron).

I would think ReadyBoost would only work if Vista was the host and Ubuntu was being virtualized. And Vista does use up more RAM then XP so keep that in mind (never tried the MCE version of XP). Don't know the specific amount though..

[the8thstar]

Hopefully I should get my Vista copy in a few days, so we'll know pretty soon which config is the best.

[ericesque]

I've had some trouble with XP in VirtualBox. Then again, I'm trying to us MS Money installed on a virtual machine to access data on a physical partition through a samba share that is being shared from Ubuntu-- which is installed on a loopback mounted virtual partition.

LOL. I deserve.

[jsmithy]

Hello,

I'm a nooby to Linux and Ubuntu.

I have installed Dapper x64 in a machine with dual cores and it runs extremely good.

I installed VMware Workstation 6.0.2 (the latest build) and I created a Windows XP x32 as a guest. It is running on the default 256MB memory allocation and I works as good as a real installation I have running in a similar hardware.

I figured out that having a 64x host to run x86 guests was the way to go.

It turns out that after a long time of testing, this setup is much much safer than any Windows setup alone.

Just a hint: I have installed Firehol in the host to make it more secure and make security easier that to have to deal with iptables directly. The guests are running the same firewall I was using on my real installations.

Since the guests are running with two net interfaces each, multiplexed both, guest traffic is not controlled by the host and as such there is not interference by the host at all.

Security tests of both the host and the guests have concluded that all ports on both are secured.

I can conclude that for me, this is the best setup.

I hope this helps you.

Peace for all

[dpj23]

My current on configurations using VM workstation is as follows:

XP Pro SP2 = 512mb
Vista Enterprise = 640mb

Note that Vista does experience slow downs due to the limits I put on it with only 640mb RAM... If I had to make a suggestion it would be to run Vista with 768mb RAM...

[tomot]

Offering my 2 cents:

I don't care about rotating cubes in Ubuntu,
(and they don't work under VM in anyway event)
and I definitely dont care to do 3d desktops in Vista that requires
even more memory.

I do care that I can use my Dual Monitors which have different
resolutions, with an extented Desktop across both monitors.

I can only do that with XP as host and Ubuntu as guest,
because the ATI/amd windows drivers are a lot better
at this time than their Linux counterparts.

AND, Ubuntu/Gutsy does not crash anymore since I
virtualised it using the ATI XP video drivers.

cheers!