Two Operating systems?

[dbowlin17]

I am interested in seeing if I can run two operating systems at once. I would essentially like to have 2 monitors, and two keyboards and 2 operating systems and 2 mice. I want to only have 1 physical computer box, but be able to have it like a terminal station where there are 2 users using 1 machine at the same time. However, would it be possible to also be using 2 different operating systems at the same time? Like I would want to install ubuntu, and windows xp, but I would want to be able to use either operating system at anytime without restarting and without virtualization. so essentially, splitting the computers resources between 2 operating systems... is that possible, or am I just crazy?

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

I'm pretty sure you're just crazy.

 

[Shappo]

Just get two computers in there actual cases.

Put them in a cardboard box, and make some holes to put the cables though the back

And there you go, haha.

 

[Houndsteeth]

Without virtualization, this would be next to impossible unless you build two computers inside one case. With virtualization, the hypervisor layer would act as the go-between from the hardware to the operating system(s), allowing both operating systems to share the same resources simultaneously.

There are some resources out there that allow you to run multiple user sessions on the same operating system using a separate keyboard-video-mouse for each session. But this isn't what you are asking for.

So, no, this is not possible to do with the restrictions you have made unless you allow for separate hardware for each operating system, multiple users on the same operating system, or a hypervisor that manages hardware resources between multiple operating systems. As someone who works with virtualization day-in, day-out, I have never noticed the difference, and if there were any disadvantages, they are far outweighed by the advantages of going with virtualization.

 

[dbowlin17]

Without virtualization, this would be next to impossible unless you build two computers inside one case. With virtualization, the hypervisor layer would act as the go-between from the hardware to the operating system(s), allowing both operating systems to share the same resources simultaneously.

There are some resources out there that allow you to run multiple user sessions on the same operating system using a separate keyboard-video-mouse for each session. But this isn't what you are asking for.

So, no, this is not possible to do with the restrictions you have made unless you allow for separate hardware for each operating system, multiple users on the same operating system, or a hypervisor that manages hardware resources between multiple operating systems. As someone who works with virtualization day-in, day-out, I have never noticed the difference, and if there were any disadvantages, they are far outweighed by the advantages of going with virtualization.

So, if i were to use http://www2.userful.com/products/downloads/free-2-user software to have 2 monitors and keyboard mice set up, could I then, while using an E8200 Core 2 Duo, virtualize XP with Parallels Desktop 4?

 

[bgd73]

 

[branflakes71]

That might work, though I've never used that software before. Looks like it'll work if the main OS is Linux, then virtualize XP. I don't know if both users would have access to XP, though.

 

[coldsleep]

Looks like it's some sort of solution. Though that appears to be a standalone product, probably no need to use Parallels. It doesn't really meet the requirement of "no virtualization" in your original post though, as that appears to be exactly virtualization.

However, there is no way to split the resources of your computer without resorting to virtualization of some sort. Parallels, VMWare, VBox, OS-native (like some flavors of UNIX), etc. all rely on high- or low-level virtualization to make multiple OSes run on a single machine.

Houndsteeth said it best, "...if there are any disadvantages [to virtualization], they are far outweighed by the advantages..."

 

[dbowlin17]

Coldsleep, Why is there no need to use Parallels? and also, i think i would like it set up with userful and then i can virtualize xp in one user. but essentially use the virtualized xp almost always.

 

[coldsleep]

If you're going to the trouble of using Parallels, why not just use something free like VMWare or VBox?

I've never used the software from userful.com, and it may be a very fine product, but this software appears to simply be a repackaging of the old thin-client model aimed at small-businesses, possibly ones that want to run kiosks of some sort (?). Thin client pretty much bombed in most corporate environments because it didn't achieve the savings that people claimed, and it wasn't a great experience for most users. That being said, it's probably great for running kiosks.

I'm really not sure what you want to do, it seems like you've changed your mind from your initial post. What do you think Parallels is going to do for you that you can't do natively or do with a free product?

 

[dbowlin17]

I have heard that parallels splits my resources, so i have one core devoted to host and one to guest. that being said, i want to find out how userful divides resources, because if one screen/machine only has one core then parallels can't divide it into 2 cores for each os to use. I have emailed both sides of the equation to find out more. but no replys yet. Im thinking i may need to use a quad core if the userful software were to split resources. i dunno.