Not Qwite Getting VM's, Questions, VM or Dual Boot?

[happydog500]

I've heard about VM's for years but never looked into them to see what it was. I've always run Linux on a separate HD or dual booted.

Without fully understanding VM's yet, Id think the first choice would be dual boot, then if had certain circumstances you could use a VM.

Is it best to dual boot if you can or is it best to use VM?

Here is the biggest thing I don't understand. I read people have to set aside cores, and memory, to use in the VM. Usually only part of what you have. If I ran Linux in a VM, why wouldn't I set aside the whole computer to use?

Illustration: I have a computer using Windows, I run Linux in a VM, give it the whole computer, then if I have to boot to Windows, shut down and boot into Windows. I have the whole computer back with Windows?

Is it that VM's use the resources even if your not using them?

If I give a VM part of my machine, later can i go in and delete it like a normal program and get the computer back?

Can you see by my questions what I'm not getting and what information I need to understand more about VM?

Thank you,
C

[Kendoori]

What programs do you want to use in a VM?

As long as you have disk space, I highly recommend trying it. I have had really good success with Virtual Box and if you go down that road, just let it allocate whatever it thinks you need and try it. Worst case is you can not use this Virtual Machine. I have run Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows Server, and Windows 10 in VMs on various vintage laptops with great success.

If you are looking to do some serious computing that requires graphic intensive (e.g. 3D Rendering, or Video editing), Dual Boot maybe a better option.

[gittiest personITW]

Is it best to dual boot if you can or is it best to use VM?

Is it best to eat apples or eat oranges?
Without context it is hard to say.
Depends on your computer hardware/software/function.

If I ran Linux in a VM, why wouldn't I set aside the whole computer to use?

You still need to run the host system as well as the guest system - again it depends on what you are hoping to use it for.

Is it that VM's use the resources even if your not using them?

If they are running in the background, yes. If you switch them off and close the VM program, then, no.

It might be worth reading up about it. Just do a search - VM for beginners or something like that and you will find some good explanations.

You could try it by following the instructions at the following link for instance, but take a Timeshift snapshot first and if you don't like it, just go back to how it was before by using Timeshift.
https://linuxhint.com/install-virtualbox-linux-mint/

[Reddog1]

Even when I have a dual-boot Win/Linux machine, I use Linux as the host and run Windows as a VM. I could do the opposite, but Windows Update is such a PITA that I disable the internet connection so that I don't need to deal with it. The advantage of the Linux host is, if I need to use Windows for something (some stuff I use professionally is Windows only), I can just start the Virtual Machine Manager (I use VirtualBox) and then start the Windows machine. While the Windows machine is running in VM, I can switch back to the Mint host with a click of the mouse and browse the internet (friends don't let friends on the internet with Windows). If I want to test drive a Linux distribution I can install it in a VM and check it out thoroughly (and I often use a distro that is not Mint that I find I like as a daily-driver, in a VM). You should have at least an I3 and 8GB of ram because Mint needs about 4GB and Windows needs about 4GB of memory. If I want to learn something different, such as FreeBSD, I can install it in a VM and find out what it's all about. If I don't like a distro, or am done 'checking it out', I can delete it completely with a couple of clicks of the mouse. And, I can do all this without messing with the partitioning of my actual hard drive, because everything is installed on a 'virtual' hard drive. On my modern Mac machines, I always install Mint as a VM because Mac's can be a real pain in the rear to dual boot and a VM is easy, once I got the hang of the Mac version.
As has been pointed out, VM's don't work for everything--high-end gaming and high-end video editing that requires lots of gpu power won't work with VirtualBox (but might work with another VM manager).
This particular machine is a I5, 8GB ram, and Mint 20 host with:
Windows 10
Windows 7 64-bit
Windows 7 32-bit
FreeBSD 12
Sparky Linux 5 (debian based)
Q4OS kde
EndeavourOS

[happydog500]

This computer I will just do basic internet stuff, some audio stuff (audacity) and zoom.

Its a i3 with 4GB's of ram. A while back I wanted to see how a SSD worked so I got a 128GB HD. I know that's not enought so I plan to get a 500GB for the VM set up.

If you can't do heavy video stuff on a VM, I can always log out and do it on the host machine.

Unlike many Linux users who hate Windows, I like them both. I would describe Windows as an excellent OS. To make an OS that is used all over the world, Business, home and to be able to do what it does, Wow! What a great OS.

What was mentioned was the updates. I remember when Windows 10 first came out, OMG, that sucked. That was years a go. It doesn't take over like it did.

When I used Linux as my daily driver, I always had to go back into Windows to get things done. A lot of that stuff I don't do anymore.

One was my TV Tuner Card recording software. A couple years a go when I started using Zoom, worked for hours and hours to get my video to work. Had to go to Windows to do it. Inaccurate laptop battery.

Hope I'm not forgetting something.

C

[RIH]

Its a i3 with 4GB's of ram

Then, personally, I wouldn't consider using VirtualBox on that equipment with Windows involved.
That is about minimal to run Windows with anything else running in it.

With that equipment I would be looking at dual booting or increasing the size of the RAM.
As others have already said, it is 'horses for courses'.

[Reddog1]

The I3 is fine. The 4GB of ram is not. 4GB of ram is the minimum amount for Windows and 4GB of ram is the recommended amount for Mint. Even with 4GB I would use Xfce and not Cinnamon. Ram for an older machine isn't expensive. If you have 4 slots and 2 slots occupied I'd add 8 more GB. I run old machines and they work fine.

[happydog500]

Wow! Are we really here? I remember Linux ran good on 256MB of Ram.

It would probably run better on more, but my Windows 10 runs good on the 4GB of Ram. Quick, responsive. I've done heavy video editing on it. I used to do heavy editing on 2GB tho.

In Windows you can easily go in and click TurboBoost. It uses a thumb drive as system RAM. Format, click on turboboost and it associates flash memory as system Ram. I have an old 16GB drive I can use to update to 20GB ram to see how much improvement.

Is there a way to do that in Mint?

I found a person who installed Mint "persistently" on a USB drive. Format and partition it like it's a HD. Run Linux, each time the updates and changes are kept.

I could always run it from the USB drive or an external HD.

This would be funny. Have a USB stick as system memory, and when running Linux, have a USB stick for the OS.

I finally found uses for the 10-12 USB's I have laying around. :D

Edit: Even when used Linux on my super nice desktop, I used xfce as my most used DE. Favorite all time DE.

[Reddog1]

Some linux versions run very well with less ram. Mint is not a low resource distribution. If you need one of those, there are several.

Sparky Linux, Q4OS, Puppy Linux, EndeavourOS, etc. And within those distributions, different desktops are designed to be frugal (and more frugal) with the ram available. Sparky Xfce is supposed to run with only 512MB of ram and LXDE, LXQT and Openbox with only 256MB. I haven't tried it, but I'll bet Firefox won't be usable. Mint Xfce and MATE aren't big resource hogs, and I've used Mint Xfce with 2GB of ram, in a VM, so I'm certain it will work. On a system with only 4GB, I wouldn't attempt to run a VM if either the host or guest were Windows. If the host is a low-resource Linux (maybe even Mint Xfce) and the guest is also a low-resource Linux, I would give it a try. The beauty of the VM is, if it doesn't work it can be deleted with only a couple of mouse clicks and there is no monkeying around with the partitioning of the host system. Personally, for a host machine, my minimum requirements are an I3 and 8GB of ram. That doesn't mean you can't do with less--you can always give it a try. With 4GB of ram, I'd be doing dual-boot.

[Pierre]

well .. I've done it, with just 4Gn of Host ram,
and was shared to the usual 40% to the Guest System.


that will work on most Linux Systems,
but the Windows System will have troubles with such an low memory allocation.

the other issue, that I've had recently,
is with the virtual Ethernet connection .. win-10 fails on using that.
- -- there is some resolution methods, that are available.

[happydog500]

Thanks for the replies,
I'll have 8GB of ram soon. Ill open mine up to see if I have 2, 2GB or one 4GB. Hoping to have one 4GB so I can just get another 4GB. I have a few laptops laying around so I will see about borrowing from another machine and getting more for that one.

Using Linux with 256mb of Ram was years a go.

Sounds like it's best to run Linux as host machine and windows in VM. That makes sense and was opposite from what I was thinning.

Thank you for that information.

C

[Reddog1]

Sounds like it's best to run Linux as host machine and windows in VM.

Linux hosts, unless you are a gamer or do something that requires high-end gpu. Then a Windows host is better. Even when I have a dual-boot, Win/Linux machine, I still install a Windows VM on my Linux host because I don't want to shut down and reboot. Boot once and do all my stuff is better.