Re: What will many cores mean to future Windows releases?

Frank J wrote:
"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" <paul@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4661b6ad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The only time a VM is necessary, is when you are writing to different OS and hardware, IMHO. I certainly do not see why a VM is necessary for a single hardware platform and OS. To me, this makes no sense whatsoever.

We use VM to test against different version and flavors of Windows.
Vista Ultimate, Vista Business, XP Pro, XP Home, Win 2000, Win ME, the Server flavors, etc.


To *TEST*. The discussion is not about testing where I also agree (and I think that Paul also agrees) the VMs are a very good thing. To have a VMs somewhere in your computer run it when you like put some of your betas there to test them, I think that is a thing that it must be done, and, more, is a practice which it must be encouraged. But this is one story, and having _your_ computer (read: OS) be _that_ VM and run forever inside in at that performance/resource cost is an entire another story.

So I disagree, VM's are handy even on the same hardware and OS.


Yes, but we don't talk about VMs like VMWare or VirtualPC VM types. Can you build an app with D7 Architect and test it in Dot.Net? See my comment before.

hth,

m. th.
.