So ... what OS is it?

[onesixright]

As the title implies, what OS are you running for you electronic development. Take into account that some tools don't run on specific platforms.

Software like:

• MPLAB
• EAGLE
• Bluetooth Developer Studio
• Autodesk
• CNC software
• etc.

[suicidaleggroll]

Linux here.  If a device doesn't have a Linux option for its necessary support software, I pick one that does.  I do have a Windows 7 VM for those cases when it's absolutely necessary, but it almost never is.

[John Coloccia]

I do everything in Windows.

[rs20]

Windows, because Windows is the Arduino of operating systems -- technically awful (I mean some of the design decision are just horrendous), but all the software runs on it. It's standard, as opposed to intrinsically good, is what I'm trying to say.

(I normally employ the above metaphor the other way around, as in "Arduino is the Windows of MCU dev boards...")

(I also have some RPis and other linux boxes to keep me sane.)

[codeboy2k]

Linux. 

For any tools that don't run in Linux I first try Wine .  If that doesn't work then I load it up inside a VirtualBox running Windows 7.
My Windows virtual box runs full-screen on a virtual screen of my linux desktop, so it just looks and runs like a normal Windows install when I switch to it.

[c4757p]

Another OS thread?

As the title implies, what OS are you running for you electronic development. Take into account that some tools don't run on specific platforms.

Huh? Is this "which OS are you running" or "which OS is the best"? I can't "take into account" anything, other than the fact that Arch Linux happens to be installed on my hard drive, when telling you which one I'm running...

[Whales]

Linux.

Similarly: if I can't find a native version then Wine is very mature and when that eventually fails I have some VMs of Windows handy.  Sometimes Windows is necessary, but keeping it in a VM allows me to avoid most of the cons of it.  I basically get the best parts from both worlds. 

Todo: get rid of systemd.  It bricks my ARM laptop every time I update, let alone the philosophical/security issues with it.

[c4757p]

when that eventually fails I have some VMs of Windows handy

+1 for VMs. I've got pretty much every OS in a VM somewhere (except for OS X, but that's a toy anyway... ) so I don't care so much about OSes. I like Linux for day-to-day stuff, but if a tool I need from time to time doesn't work on it, nbd, just start up a VM.

[Whales]

(except for OS X, but that's a toy anyway... )

Tangent: paste this into the terminal app on OSX and be amazed: 🍕 .   Highly amusing, but probably not that useful.

[rs20]

How good are VMs these days? With respect to, say, lagginess scrolling around a complex 2D PCB view, or even 3D cad? Any particular VMs anyone recommends?

[c4757p]

I use VirtualBox. 3D doesn't work well, but everything else including 2D CAD might as well be native.

[Armxnian]

How good are VMs these days? With respect to, say, lagginess scrolling around a complex 2D PCB view, or even 3D cad? Any particular VMs anyone recommends?

Virtualbox is widely used and is great for running something light like Sage. However, I wouldn't recommend it for something like Windows or a heavy Linux distro. It's too slow, and is limited in many ways, like cores, ram, hardware virtualizion, etc. VMware is better if you're going to be using the VM a lot. Personally I just install Linux natively and avoid all potential issues.

[suicidaleggroll]

How good are VMs these days? With respect to, say, lagginess scrolling around a complex 2D PCB view, or even 3D cad? Any particular VMs anyone recommends?

Virtualbox is widely used and is great for running something light like Sage. However, I wouldn't recommend it for something like Windows or a heavy Linux distro. It's too slow, and is limited in many ways, like cores, ram, hardware virtualizion, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean.  VirtualBox works just fine with Windows and "heavy Linux distros".  What core/ram/virtualization limitations are you referring to?  I have a server at work that has 28 cores and 128 GB of RAM.  VirtualBox has no issues giving all of it to a VM (well, 85% of the RAM, since VB can't be configured to give 100% to the VM or there would be nothing left for the host).  If VB can hand over at least 28 cores and 100 GB of RAM to a VM, then I have no earthly idea what cores/ram limitations you're talking about...certainly nothing that would affect Windows or even the heaviest Linux distros.  VirtualBox definitely supports hardware virtualization as well, not supporting it would be a dealbreaker these days.

This thread has a few of the limits spelled out:
https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=41211

For a Linux x64 host, the limit is 256 cores, 16 TiB of RAM, and 1023 VMs.  That's one hell of a Windows system you're trying to run if you're limited by those numbers...

[Armxnian]

I'm not sure what you mean.  VirtualBox works just fine with Windows and "heavy Linux distros".  What core/ram/virtualization limitations are you referring to?  I have a server at work that has 28 cores and 128 GB of RAM.  VirtualBox has no issues giving all of it to a VM (well, 85% of the RAM, since VB can't be configured to give 100% to the VM or there would be nothing left for the host).  If VB can hand over at least 28 cores and 100 GB of RAM to a VM, then I have no earthly idea what cores/ram limitations you're talking about...certainly nothing that would affect Windows or even the heaviest Linux distros.  VirtualBox definitely supports hardware virtualization as well, not supporting it would be a dealbreaker these days.

This thread has a few of the limits spelled out:
https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=41211

For a Linux x64 host, the limit is 256 cores, 16 TiB of RAM, and 1023 VMs.  That's one hell of a Windows system you're trying to run if you're limited by those numbers...

Limited amount of Vram support, and 3D acceleration doesn't work properly. Vmware also has support for newer hardware visualization extensions and is in general more customizable. Clicking on the start menu in Virtualbox running windows lags... run vmware in exclusive mode and it feels like you are running a native installation. I hate paid software, and exclusively use open source when I can, but there is no comparison in this area. Try it for yourself.

[mtdoc]

VM you say?   Does this count?   

[suicidaleggroll]

Limited amount of Vram support

I supposed 256 MB might not be enough for some tasks, but it's plenty for everything I've ever tried to do.

and 3D acceleration doesn't work properly.

You might be right, I don't do a lot of (read: any) 3D work.

Vmware also has support for newer hardware visualization extensions

They both support VT-x and AMD-V.  Are you talking about a subset of these?  Do you have any sources since I'd like to read about it more.

and is in general more customizable.

How so?

Clicking on the start menu in Virtualbox running windows lags...

Not for me it doesn't.  Clicking on the start menu is instant, the only way it would be faster is if it opened up before I clicked the mouse.  From cold boot Windows 7 is at a working desktop in 12 seconds flat (I just timed it), most bare metal Windows installations would struggle to keep up with that. 

I'm not saying VMWare isn't better, but nothing you've said so far about VirtualBox's limitations or "lagging" has been true in my experience.

[Armxnian]

I supposed 256 MB might not be enough for some tasks, but it's plenty for everything I've ever tried to do.

You might be right, I don't do a lot of (read: any) 3D work.

Modern workstation graphics cards have up to 12GB of vram. Nvidia Pascal is said to support 32GB. Anything above 256MB and Virtualbox crashes on boot. Obviously vmware isn't perfect either, and can't match a native machine, but it does support much more vram. For many applications, 256MB is unusable. Furthermore, the actual gpu performance suffers greatly in virtualbox. I had UI lag on a 1080p monitor with a 780ti in ubuntu.

They both support VT-x and AMD-V.  Are you talking about a subset of these?  Do you have any sources since I'd like to read about it more.

I don't have vmware workstation 11 installed anymore, and can't for the life of me remember what it was called. But if IIRC it had a newer hardware visualization extension that Virtualbox did not have.

How so?

I don't think Virtualbox supports nesting; other various features in the setup and live menus and things that the vmware tools extension enables.

Not for me it doesn't.  Clicking on the start menu is instant, the only way it would be faster is if it opened up before I clicked the mouse.  From cold boot Windows 7 is at a working desktop in 12 seconds flat (I just timed it), most bare metal Windows installations would struggle to keep up with that. 
I'm not saying VMWare isn't better, but nothing you've said so far about VirtualBox's limitations or "lagging" has been true in my experience.

I ran Ubuntu on Virtualbox and vmware workstation 11 when I had it installed. Using it as an actual os (browsing the web, managing files, etc) was night and day. This could be because of the better implemented 3D acceleration. Benchmarks show CPU performance much closer however, with vmware products having the slight edge.

Finally, vmware just works. It is extremely easy to get going. With virtualbox, I run into countless errors getting it to boot various os's. I just tried Windows 10 insider with default/conservative settings and it didn't even get to the boot screen. It's annoying to troubleshoot. With vmware I ran the less stable Windows 10 technical preview as a VM in a Ubuntu 14.10 VM running on a Windows 8.1 machine.

Obviously one is paid and the other is free. You can try out vmware however using alternative methods  , only then can you make comparisons.

[nctnico]

Clicking on the start menu in Virtualbox running windows lags...

Not for me it doesn't.  Clicking on the start menu is instant, the only way it would be faster is if it opened up before I clicked the mouse.  From cold boot Windows 7 is at a working desktop in 12 seconds flat (I just timed it), most bare metal Windows installations would struggle to keep up with that. 

I'm not saying VMWare isn't better, but nothing you've said so far about VirtualBox's limitations or "lagging" has been true in my experience.

Same here. Virtualbox runs just as quick (or better said: slow) as a regular Windows machine. I have to note that the Linux machine I run Virtual box on has been choosen to have good support for running virtual machines. Also copying and pasting works just fine between the host and virtual machines.

[TerraHertz]

Windows. Mainly because it's the most unacceptable pile of crap, and so is a constant source of inspiration and ideas for 'something else' - a long term background project. I suspect if I switched to Linux I might lose that motivation.


Btw speaking of virtual machines, this is amusing:

http://9gag.com/gag/a0Y5EDn
Hack makes playing 'Doom' on a computer inside 'Doom' a reality

[Mechanical Menace]

Really depends on what I'm doing and what the machine gets used for.

How good are VMs these days? With respect to, say, lagginess scrolling around a complex 2D PCB view, or even 3D cad? Any particular VMs anyone recommends?

My main PC and main entertainment PC are both currently using KVM and VFIO for games that don't like Linux, I maybe drop 2-3 percent in performance compared to running the heaviest games native in Windows.

EDIT:The only real down side is that I run a cut down distro just to do the VM hosting and then everything else is virtualised so I might not stick with it.

[XOIIO]

Windows. It's a standard, works well enough in most cases, and is simply easier to get most things released for the consumer marked (like games) working on.

[BradC]

How good are VMs these days? With respect to, say, lagginess scrolling around a complex 2D PCB view, or even 3D cad? Any particular VMs anyone recommends?

I use Autodesk Revit in a Win2k3 instance inside a KVM VM on Linux. I use SPICE for the display to a remote machine and run dual head. One 2560x1600 & the other 1920x1200. Revit on 2k3 runs faster in the VM than on any windows version on the bare hardware. I don't set the models photorealistic and panning can be a little bit laggy, but to be honest everything else is so much faster that I just learned to pan less.

So yes, 3D CAD inside a VM is certainly possible and useable. I've used VMWare, VirtualBox qemu with kqemu and Win4Lin. Now days, qemu/kvm does everything I need it to without needing proprietary modules or extraneous fluff.

[Halcyon]

Yep, Windows for me too. It's solid, stable and just works without fiddling about. Mind you, I also have decent hardware, that's the key to getting a great Windows setup. If you want to run Windows on bog-standard, low-grade consumer crap, then expect the same performance/stability in return.

[Mephitus]

Windows 7 & server, several varients of Debian Linux, and one Red Hat. I am not "counting" it, but I also have to run OSX  (shudder) on a test box at work. I keep breaking that one...

I have been wanting to try a new one called MenuetOS. An OS written completely in assembly. It looks rather interesting: http://www.menuetos.net/

[bingo600]

Linux w. virtualbox , and a single dualboot Linux/W7 for my garmin gps updates.

/Bingo