• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

30 GB for Windows Vista and Applications, 85 GB for game installations, and 70 GB for Data

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: pcslookout
That simple solution won't work if you want to make a image of just your window os and programs installed after you have all your games installed as well. Drivers update and if that driver creates a BSOD on the next reboots then it takes forever to get that huge 50 GB image to restore to your system. I rather a smaller 5 to 15 GB image which is a lot quicker to restore when a drive flips out your system.
Click to expand...

Hm. That would lead to my next question: why would you want to use images as your entire backup solution? I could see taking an occassional snapshot say once after your initial load. Beyond that use real backup software.

An image that includes a base OS plus backup software is probably as far as I would go but currently I'm not using any imaging software.

If it works for you that's cool. As long as you are backing up there isn't a wrong answer. Not something I would do though.


I think you've got Nothinman's suggestion about VMs backwards. In your sp2 testing scenario you would run XP sp1 as the host and use it to do your normal thing. You would run XP sp2 inside a guest. If sp2 gives you fits you can rollback the guest VM to sp1 & try again in like 5 seconds. If it utterly blows up then your sp1 install is not only fine but still running with no interruption required to reimage.


 
Originally posted by: Smilin
I think you've got Nothinman's suggestion about VMs backwards. In your sp2 testing scenario you would run XP sp1 as the host and use it to do your normal thing. You would run XP sp2 inside a guest. If sp2 gives you fits you can rollback the guest VM to sp1 & try again in like 5 seconds. If it utterly blows up then your sp1 install is not only fine but still running with no interruption required to reimage.
Click to expand...

I never considered it that way!

The machine with the SP2 on it is the machine I use every day. it is the machine I use for gaming. I do not want to game on a virtual machine. I need the maximum performance on my gaming machine.

I only occasionally work from home. I need the very stable machine only occasionally.
 
If I am running a beta OS, for example I ran XP SP2 release candidate when it was first released, I don't want to run a virtual machine on it and use that virtual machine to log into work. I don't consider that a secure and stable work setup!
Click to expand...

There are valid reasons for not wanting to run something in a VM but usually they're related to needing direct hardware access to test some device and/or driver. A VM is most certainly a stable and secure setup, probably more so than what you're currently doing now.

 
Originally posted by: Navid
Originally posted by: Smilin
I think you've got Nothinman's suggestion about VMs backwards. In your sp2 testing scenario you would run XP sp1 as the host and use it to do your normal thing. You would run XP sp2 inside a guest. If sp2 gives you fits you can rollback the guest VM to sp1 & try again in like 5 seconds. If it utterly blows up then your sp1 install is not only fine but still running with no interruption required to reimage.
Click to expand...

I never considered it that way!

The machine with the SP2 on it is the machine I use every day. it is the machine I use for gaming. I do not want to game on a virtual machine. I need the maximum performance on my gaming machine.

I only occasionally work from home. I need the very stable machine only occasionally.
Click to expand...

Your terminology is a bit ambiguous and maybe throwing us off. "Virtual Machine" when used by itself means a Guest Virtual Machine - aka one that is running inside the host.

No, you would never run games in a virtual machine (guest) since the virtualized video adapter offers very little gaming performance. You would want to game on the host. You would typically want to do all your normal stuff on the host actually. Just use the guests for testing.

If you are worried about the guests dragging your performance down when you are trying to game on the host, don't.

Nothing says the VM guests have to be running at a given moment. When you're playing games just put them into a paused or saved state. A Save/Resume of a large handful of VMs will be faster than a single reboot to go to a different install in a multiboot scenario. If you just need the CPU resources but not the memory you can use pause/resume which happens as fast as you can click the mouse.

VMs are the bomb for testing stuff. They only lack when you need to test some types of hardware that the host has installed.
 
Originally posted by: Smilin
Your terminology is a bit ambiguous and maybe throwing us off. "Virtual Machine" when used by itself means a Guest Virtual Machine - aka one that is running inside the host.

No, you would never run games in a virtual machine (guest) since the virtualized video adapter offers very little gaming performance. You would want to game on the host. You would typically want to do all your normal stuff on the host actually. Just use the guests for testing.

If you are worried about the guests dragging your performance down when you are trying to game on the host, don't.

Nothing says the VM guests have to be running at a given moment. When you're playing games just put them into a paused or saved state. A Save/Resume of a large handful of VMs will be faster than a single reboot to go to a different install in a multiboot scenario. If you just need the CPU resources but not the memory you can use pause/resume which happens as fast as you can click the mouse.

VMs are the bomb for testing stuff. They only lack when you need to test some types of hardware that the host has installed.
Click to expand...

I run the tests on my everyday machine.
I play games on my everyday machine.
My everyday machine does not need to be secure. It has to be fast!

I log into work may be once a month! The machine I use to log into work must be secure.
 
I'm not getting where there is a conflict with what you're after and what VMs would offer you. There is no reason your machine can't be both secure and fast. VMs are not a compromise for this. In fact they offer added security by separating test environments from your secure environment.

Do your testing in your guests.
Play your games on your host.

If you are dual-booting to do this already then you clearly don't do both at once.

Help me understand what wouldn't work. I might just not get it.
 
Think of me as someone whose main objective is to play games and download utilities off the web because I am crazy and want to try every new utility that I can get my hands on.

I do this on my machine everyday. So, this is what we are calling testing (perhaps that is where I went wrong calling it testing). I am testing everyday. When I was testing the XP SP2, I was using it everyday all the time. I was not just trying it for a few hours and then go back to SP1. No, I was using it all the time. Why, because I want to benefit from the advantages of SP2 and I can live with a few minor glitches that may still be around.

So, I use a non-secure machine for my everyday use.

Now, I want to work from home. When this happens, I need a different machine. I do not want to log into work with SP2 release candidate on the machine. I want to log into work with released software not pre-release.

You say use the released software for everyday use. Log into work with the released software. Do the testing using the virtual machine.

I am telling you that I am doing what we call testing everyday! I cannot log into work with my everyday machine.
 
Yep. You're not doing testing in the traditional sense.

More like russian roulette with a bag of bandages next to you. 🙂


You could run your work machine in a VM. That would be secure but not fast like you were after. Beyond that though VMs probably wouldn't do what you are after.
 
Yep. You're not doing testing in the traditional sense.

More like russian roulette with a bag of bandages next to you.
Click to expand...

And for things like service packs it makes sense to test those on a real machine. But for regular, random apps off the Internet there's no reason not to put them inside of a VM. Well, except for the fact that you might need another Windows license if you want to transfer one of your existing licenses to the copy in the VM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top