[CentOS] virtualization on the desktop a myth, or a reality?

[compdoc]

> Yes, I know KVM is included, but at this stage XEN is the default and
>when you use the Virtual Machine Manager, it uses XEN.

Select Server Gui only, when it's up, use yum to install everything else. I
think yum is a better way to install than the OS installer.


>No, I'm not using VNC. My approach was from a single, non-networked
>PC-point-of-view.
>Someone who's never played with Virtual PC's and then opens up Virtual
>Machine Manager thinking it would be cool to use, wouldn't think of
>using VNC or something similar.

The virt-manager is good for monitoring the boot process, and provides the
console you would need to do initial configuring of an OS. But it's not the
best way to interact with the desktop of a VM.


>I thought, just for the fun of it, let's install Windows 2008 Small
>Business Server.
>Interestingly, using the same Virtual Machine Manager, the
>installation wasn't as slow as with CentOS. It's almost asif it's more
>optimized for Windows? I used the exact same settings for the
>installation as with CentOS

Windows Server does well in a VM, but use Remote Desktop to connect - it's
very usable for tasks that you would normally do on a server. Just not good
for videos, or graphic intensive programs.


>Can, or will virtualization replace dual boot systems or even give one
>the ability to use your Desktop PC to it's full advantage?

Dual boot can be problematic judging by the number of support requests on
the net. Virtualization certainly has advantages.

It's the interfacing with the VM's desktop that's the bottleneck. Spice is
what Redhat seems to like at the moment.