Re: Various virtual machines compared

["Kari Eveli" lexitec@xxxxxxxx]

>In my judgment, Parallels is considerably better than the others, at least
if you are using Tame. They do have good customer *phone* support, and you
can reach their support (in India, judging by accents) without a great
number of voice menus and with surprising little wait time. I made about 8
calls, each one lasting for 20 minutes to an hour.

This may be. But why try to "Tame" an unwilling Windows version, when you could run DOS
under a virtual machine without any need for it? After all, DOS does not need to be tamed. The
DOS/Win 3.11 w/DOS boxes under VirtualPC works (under XP 32-bit at least) without any taming and
just as a dedicated DOS/Win 3.11 machine would. Setting up XP under a virtual machine is not the
most economical thing you could do as computer resources are concerned. It is a lot of unnecessary
baggage. Win 3.11 DOS boxes were designed for running DOS applications, whereas later variants (Win
95- onwards) are just compatibility boxes. The bad news is: support for this kind of virtualization
is getting scarse. Win7 with VirtualPC may be the last working solution.

Best regards,

Kari Eveli
LEXITEC Book Publishing (Finland)
lexitec@xxxxxxxx

*** Lexitec Online ***
Lexitec in English: http://www.lexitec.fi/english.html
Home page in Finnish: http://www.lexitec.fi/