Kujila wrote:
I don't recall you saying that but whatever it isn't really important. sure it is important, because it shows you don't read the posts very thoroughly! :p [link] (and repeated by Crispy in his post that followed) "...darwin itself is just the core shell-based system- you would have to install a gui on top, like xfree86 for example..." which means (for example) that you don't get a gui with the OS, like (for example) the MacOSX gui. :p | |
digitalmouse wrote:
sure it is important, because it shows you don't read the posts very thoroughly! :p Woopee-dee-doo. ;) ~Kujila | |
SquallX7 wrote:
Dear god! Windows was NEVER meant to be on Linux! the Horror! Actually, it turns out that running Windows under Linux gives you a more stable machine in the sense that if Windows crashes while running under Linux, it won't take the whole machine down with it - blue-screens-of-death don't become too annoying anymore. | |
Sure, but how fast can you get Windows running? On a virtual PC your poor computer has to emulate another entire PC on top of an existing OS.
~Kujila | |
Kujila wrote:
Sure, but how fast can you get Windows running? On a virtual PC your poor computer has to emulate another entire PC on top of an existing OS. Not true in the case of Wine, since it does not emulate the x86 instruction set. Read http://winehq.com/site/myths for the truth of the matter, specifically the first myth, Myth 1: "Wine is slow because it is an emulator." I've run several apps under Wine (like my cherished HTMLKit), and I notice no significant performance hit. | |
~Kujila