I'm a software engineer by trade. Most of the stuff you currently own or will own was made possible in part by the code and applications that I and my co-workers write for our clients. You would be surprised at our customer list. I have years of experience with all types of hardware and software. They are tools.
This past week I have written C++ code in Visual Studio 2005 on (obviously) a WinXP box, java using Eclipse which runs on a Linux server, and troubleshooting regression tests on an iSeries box. Today I am dealing with an issue that deals with Japanese business document standards.
Got it?
A key principle is "does it work for you"? Evidently the original poster had a problem using Windows and has found relief using a particular Linux distribution. Good for them.
My singular point was that "if you have M$ apps that you absolutely must have", then use a VM or WINE for them. Some are better than others. Be flexible, find the best solution and mitigate the minuses when possible.
A VM or WINE didn't work for you - for whatever reason. But it is a legitimate solution for some people and situations.
I switched from Windows to Apple this past year and needed to run a few Windows applications and found Parallels to be an excellent solution. FWIW, I have yet to have the WinXP VM lock up running on the iMac.
But to answer your question: "why should I run a second operating system on top of another (Virtual Machine) just so I can use Windows by itself."
It's because I (and many others) need to. You don't. Good for you. Duh.
I didn't jump. I was using the word 'You' in the broad sense. Sorry for the confusion.
You're right. Its what fits the needs of the user. My point is, I see little use for running Windows in a VM environment over Linux. If the user has Windows apps they absolutely 'must' have, then why run Linux? I see nothing that Linux offers that is 'must' have. Surely not the security. Windows security is safe when one takes the necessary precautions. And those precautions don't cost anything, one a little homework is applied. Application wise, I can't think of a Linux application that isn't already offered in a Windows environment. Virtually all are applications that are offered as replacements for common Windows apps. Some (like Gimp) that are Linux originals, have Windows versions.
The speed? There's some speed improvement, yes. Although that has a lot to do with the PC. My Ubuntu 10 was no improvement on boot-up over Windows XP. The earlier version booted faster. But again, is this so dramatic a difference to make Linux a de facto choice? Not for me.
Though Linux has been around for years, much of the interest came with the advent of Vista and its horrible design. Now that Windows 7 has come, and appears to be a much needed improvement, I wonder just how long that love affair with Linux will last. All-in-all, I can see stripped-down versions of Linux as viable on older PCs. That may be a viable market. And there's always that die-hard anti-MS crowd who'll pander to 'anything but MS' offerings. But for those who have needs that only MS can deliver on, I see little use for running two operating systems when the one they already have will suffice. Finally, I wonder just how many there are who fall into that 'I (and many others) need to' category, as you put it.
Good chatting with you.