Which is more stable as Host OS? WinXP or Linux?

I just started trying Parallels in my WinXP Pro for a few days. So far it seems very stable and giving not much problem. Resources like network connection etc. Very tempted to try it out on Ubuntu but not sure if it is less stable compared to the WinXP version.

Can anybody comment about it?

 

.
Are you kidding?

According to all but the Redmond Devil.........Linux.
.

 

I'm using Ubuntu and parallels kills d-bus on my laptop Beta version though.

 

David Corrales, that's what I'm worrying too. Now I'm considering using Mac OS X as host instead. Can the technical team advice me on the stability comparison between WinXP vs Mac OS X in hosting multiple Win98 OS? I am doing some migration trial right now.

 

I'm running Parallels on Mac OS X as the host. I run ONLY Windows XP for work but play in Linux VMs at times. Windows XP has been AMAZINGLY stable and provided your base Mac OS X install is stable I see no reason the whole system cannot be stable.

On my Mac Mini I had Mac OS X running for 44 days straight with a Windows XP VM loaded the entire time. The Windows VM was not active all the time and sat idle (but windows running) sometimes for days like over a weekend but it never crashed and Windows remained fully operational and functional. Mac OS X was perfect as well.

The only thing that required a reboot of Mac OS X was the recent updates to iTunes and a few others.

The stability of Mac OS X is great and windows XP under it is extremely stable for me. But I don't run games and do crazy stuff in the VM. I run MS Office, Delphi, some paint programs for image editing and that is about it.

Mark

 

I've never run Parallels under Linux. But I have run Linux servers before for say Apache webserver and have them up for 400 days straight at times. I just don't know how Paralles works under Linux.

 

.
If you run Parallels with SuSE 10.0 host, then you too can experience the stable joy I do.
.

 

So SuSE is that good huh!? And Parallels just works great under it? Nice to hear.

I'm happy with Mac OS X. I play in Linux but so far have no real development or business needs for it other than file servers/web servers.

 

.
Mark,

I do really think so hey. There are many features in SuSE that make the whole experience enjoyable. Plus many Linux programs today are designed to run on only Red Hat or SuSE. I'm interested in the user point of view, and Red Hat is still to techie, so SuSE is the logical choice.

I use Parallels a bit myself, but now have 2 customers using it all day, every day. One since May this year. And it just runs, it just runs, it just runs.

Have a good day.
.

 

SuSE is not free, and if I need to set up multiple user environment for remote access, I have to purchase the enterprise edition, which could be very costly. Any idea how much would it cost?

Mac Pro comes with Xserve, so I am considering it. In terms of maintenance and ease of use, functionalities etc, I think Mac OS X is still a better choice over SuSE or other linux. do correct me if i'm wrong

just curious, was Parallels' first product the Mac edition of Parallels? Would it mean it shall be more stable to host Windows on Mac OS X?

 

Actually linux is good and stable. You can also trim it down if you need extra ram/power for your virtual machines. I use linux myself on 2 machines and it's my main os now. -Very- rarely boot windows (to record music with a firewire interface).
I'd recommend Ubuntu, OpenSuse, SLED or Fedora as a base system. Personally I love the apt package management from Ubuntu, but all of them are good choices.

 

actually i intend to try Ubuntu as it's free. But I am afraid that my users may not be familiar with linux platform. Somehow I have the impression that Mac OS X is easier to use compared to linux. Uhm......or is it just a mindset issue? lol

 

.
Open SuSE is free. And the same thing as the pay for version.

Parallels was on Linux and Windohs long before Mac.

I feel that there are no more degrees of difference between windose and either Linux or Mac.
.

 

I see. Thanks for enlighting by the way, does Open SuSE considered a client version of linux or server version? I have multiple users who needs to access the server that host Parallels remotely.

 

.
It's a client version.
.

 

I can't use a client version as I need remote access for multiple users. Any free version of linux server that is able to support Parallels?

 

Open Suse is just the free version of Suse. It can of course be set up as a server (you can add apache, dns,dhcp,ftp,etc,etc). It's just a matter of installing the packages.
Actually, if you use bridging in Parallels, users will be able to connect to your virtual machines via tcp/ip.

 

David Corrales, what I meant is the possibility to have concurrent multiple logon sessions by the individual named users. Can Open SuSE do the same? I am still quite new to linux.

 

Yes. Linux, being a Unix clone is multiuser oriented by design. You can add accounts so people can log onto the server and start parallels as they need to. There's several tools to lock-down configurations should you need it (sabayon for gnome is one example).
http://www.gnome.org/projects/sabayon/