>>
>>I don't see any advantage - VFP would still be running on XP, while XP would be hosted in a VM.
>>
>>Microsoft would still require you to buy a copy of XP to do this.
>
>And you would be running slower than VFP on a native XP installation.
True. IIRC though, performance is getting pretty good, assuming you have enough RAM so VMs don't get starved.
The way I see it, using VMs are handy to let you work simultaneously with different OSs (or even multiple instances of the same OS) on one box. These instances can even be thrown away/restored later for testing purposes. The downsides include:
- hefty hardware requirements to run all the VMs well
- if a VM doesn't support a specialized piece of hardware on your system, the hosted OSs can't either
- another layer of complexity, with all that entails
Regards. Al
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- Isaac Asimov
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." -- Isaac Asimov
Neither a despot, nor a doormat, be
Every app wants to be a database app when it grows up
