miamizsun wrote:
So how many food sample women did you take out? 

That is a really great price! So I went on line to see and they’re sold out.

 miamizsun wrote:
So how many food sample women did you take out? 

That is a really great price! So I went on line to see and they’re sold out.

 Bill_J wrote: 
That is generally how I roll.  By my experience, upgrading an existing Windows OS doesn't always go smoothly.  If by upgrading it means getting a whole new PC, that is a different story.

I recently had to get a new PC cause my Win 7 rig got the blue screen of death and died.  Pretty sure the HDD failed.  Haven't got around to trying to bring it back to life yet.

Win 11, to my surprise is ok.  Was not a fan of Win 10 that I have to use on the PC's at work.  Win 7 was working just fine as far as I was concerned.  I still use XP with an offline music puter.

Again, I have gotten used to 11.  I can live with it.  Pretty intuitive once you get familiar with the new names for old things.  Do know that if getting a new PC, the way the hard drives are installed, there are no more bays or easy way to add more inside a desktop box.  The SSD's are mounted directly to the motherboard as I recently discovered when I got my Mom a new one.  The Win 11 Dell I bought for myself evidently was one of the last ones made with SATA hard drives and bays for more.

I'm looking for reasons to upgrade/not upgrade to Windows11. My normal default is to not upgrade anything that is working fine for me, but then I may eventually be forced to. Thoughts?

 miamizsun wrote:

My employer is supposed to be looking at a maxxed out mini for me; I'll tell him Costco's got the price.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

few days ago i ended up with an hp work box (got a black friday deal i couldn't refuse)

and yesterday i was in costco for food and spotted a new mac mini m1, 8gb ram and 256 ssd for $569
helper guy told me they were flying out of there and i had 90 days to return if i so desired
i thought what would sfw do...
so i snapped

I’ve used Parallels for many years so I could use it for testing with Web Dev. on one computer with Mac OS, Windows and Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the only one I had trouble getting to work right, but that was probably my fault in downloading the OS.

In fact I was looking to update Parallels last month to a more current version to run on my older desktop and OS X.

 miamizsun wrote:
Nope. It takes some space on your local harddrive in the form of files. VMs are running in a sandbox, isolated from your local operating system, so they can't do any harm to it. VMs share computing power (CPU, graphics, RAM, storage) with the host operating system and hardware they run on.
Most all resources used in a VM are tunable to the degree one prefers.


Explainer.

 miamizsun wrote:
Thanks!  

 rgio wrote:


the whole virtual machine proposition looks interesting
isn;t that where you log on to a provider and set up how much compute that you need for a monthly charge?
of course i could have that confused with something else
i watched a few videos some time back and it looked a bit costly
probably great for those who travel or access from multiple locations tho

edit: got an older video on virtual box playing now

edit edit: so it's a partition program?

 westslope wrote:
for practicality, windows and mac, hands down
i'm tech curious but this isn't my area of expertise

if i was an IT professional and had the time and space
maybe a machine or two with mint and or ubuntu for fun
with linux/debian i'd use mint for personal stuff and ubuntu for anything stronger
seems ubuntu has better support in place

i'm not a power user
i use ms office for some work stuff
at home i stream a lot of music and video , burn a disc or two

really hard to beat an ipad around the house for consuming media on youtube
imho, the basic ipad is one of the best bargains out there for portable home media consumption/surfing
it is one of the first things i grab in the morning to check news feed and stream media
shower and shave with it daily
steam, heat, etc. and it just keeps on plugging

 thisbody wrote:
Parallels runs alongside OS...literally shares the desktop... you can save in OS native apps (say MS office) and open immediately in the Windows version.  It's cool...but...

You're right, it requires Mac as one of the systems...so VirtualBox is the choice for Kurt.

My guess...it'll take a while to get it set up...but once it runs it'll be surprisingly easy and fast for him.

 kurtster wrote:

Keep going, Kurt. It is not THAT difficult, really. Here're some hints on How-To-Do-IT...
The configuration of your virtual machine in VirtualBox would be the same on any other host-system, be it Win11, MacOS, or Linux.

The virtual system's performance largely depends on the amount of RAM and CPU power, which you are able to assign to the machine, as VirtualBox is always running on top of your host-system. As Windows is always quite resource-hungry on CPU, RAM, and graphics power, it usually needs a strong hardware-setup for the Windows-host to run a VM in a productive environment, which seems to be your intention.

Also, sound-issues (crackling) are commonplace in VirtualBox, if listening directly from a VBox guest-session instead of listening from the host-system.

Parallels only runs on Macs, and afaik it does not run on-top of the host-system, but needs a reboot to decide, which system to start (MacOS or Windows). A different story... although I have never used Parallels-Desktop so far, and I may be wrong there.


EDIT:
Yes, I'm wrong. 
The same things apply to Parallels (running on top of the host-system), needing as much CPU, RAM and GPU-RAM as possible...

Caveat:
VirtualBox is free.

 rgio wrote: 
It gives me a little bit of hope going forward.  I tried the virtual XP with Win 7 and it was very disappointing.  I saw Parallel and it actually has the entire alternate operating system in place and functional.  I will read up and explore the the Virtual Box going forward because standalone XP is motherboard dependent.  I recently found a rebuilt motherboard for around $200, but ...  I have an unused XP OS to install on my Win 11 box if need be if the Virtual Box works.

 kurtster wrote:
I had it running a few years ago, but it took me some time to configure it.   It's a lot faster and lighter than parallels.  I say that appreciating you aren't looking to do anything on a Mac, but I would think if you can get it running, it would work well.

I upgraded from a 2010 MBP to a 2016 MBP 3 years ago and never migrated. 

Edit - just looked, and they are up to VirtualBox 7.  I think I used 4.  I may give it a go if I need a VM again.

 rgio wrote: 
This looks really interesting.  I could put XP on my Win 11 computer and run all of my music software on it.

Anyone here ever use it ?

 miamizsun wrote:
Thanks!   

Allow me to sneak in a question then.

If budget and time was no obstacle and security was not a concern, which operating system family would you chose for music?    Ubuntu, Mac OS, MS Windoze?   

 miamizsun wrote:
Be careful on the RAM settings.  I think the published numbers in the comparison (ie 8 vs. 32 or 64) are the Maximum allocation, not the requirement.  You can set the RAM allocation inside the app, to use more or less of your available memory. 

If you're talking about migrating to a new machine, I'd recommend getting at least 16GB of RAM (or more).  Quick rule I've followed is buying as much RAM as you can...you never get upset having it (just maybe paying for it).   I run parallels on a 2016 MBP with 16GB of RAM...and it works fine.  I think I have 4GB allocated to the VM when it's running.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
I'm pretty sure you were typing your response as I was...I honestly doubt it was there when you started (i think your post was 3 mins after mine).

First the exact same picks last week...now this.  

 miamizsun wrote:

Oh, don't look, just get out your wallet.