anandpursahibwale@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > I'm planning my first Linux/Wine install. Is there any advantage to > having a Windows (say W2K) partition to install Win apps to, when the > plan is to run them under Wine/Linux? Not really. Wine doesn't use local DLLs unless overrides are set. > I do have a licensed copy of W2K, so I could do that if it were an > advantage (e.g., is it easier to install difficult or unruly win apps > under windows first?). Only if the installers fail but in most cases you also need the registry entries. > Any other suggestions (I'm planning out my partition sizes on a blank > 73GB SCSI HD now). Since Wine is installed in your home directory there really is no difference to a normal Linux install unless you want to dual-boot Win2K and Linux. There is a security advantage to installing Windows apps under a separate account in a different home directory but it depends on how paranoid you are. I would never install IE in my normal home folder for instance. For IE or Office you may want to use an emulator like QEMU or VMWare to host a Win2K install in a virtual file system. The guest OS filesystem would then be stored in a single large file that you can simply overwrite from a backup when some virus turns it into a pr0n spam server. > Actually, I did install Linux successfully once about 7 years ago, but > I didn't use it. I'm giving up on OS/2 after 13 years, and don't > really want to rely on W2K, though I may need to use MS Office and a > few other win apps on occasion. > > Thanks > APSW Don't forget to try out FOSS alternatives to your Win apps. It will eliminate a lot of legacy overhead. _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
