Login to Account Create an Account
What Virtual machine do you use?
Posted 14 September 2005 - 05:51 AM
I definately go for Vmware, since I believe Virtual PC is crap (although I have to use it sometimes)
If your option is not listed (maybe a new program or one I never heard about), post here and I will be happy to try it too.
Posted 14 September 2005 - 08:19 AM
Posted 14 September 2005 - 08:56 AM
Posted 14 September 2005 - 09:00 AM
I mean I want a snapshot option in vpc ! and of course vmware is easier to use. at least that is what is think.
Edited by sadicq, 14 September 2005 - 09:01 AM.
Posted 14 September 2005 - 10:53 AM
Linux support for VPC is pretty bad as well...
Posted 14 September 2005 - 11:44 AM
Personally, I just make a copy of the VHD and VMC files. Then I have a copy of the OS in its current state.
I want a snapshot option in vpc
Edited by At0mic, 14 September 2005 - 12:12 PM.
Posted 14 September 2005 - 12:23 PM
Posted 14 September 2005 - 02:05 PM
Posted 07 October 2005 - 10:24 AM
Posted 08 October 2005 - 08:13 PM
Posted 09 October 2005 - 03:57 AM
I got 2x80gb 1x160gb 1x60gb all in removable racks. If I stuff something up I just reinstall the OS and do it differently. I just couldnt be bothered with virtual machines, prefer having everything run at full speed.
Also this way I can run Linux, (whatever flavour I like), win98, winxp, or anything else that I decide I want to try this week.
Posted 10 October 2005 - 05:14 PM
Posted 11 June 2008 - 02:25 PM
I've run VMware both in windows and Linux hosts and fully satisfied.
Recently though, I started using also VPC in order to run their windows XP-SP2-with-IE7 free from MSDN (time bombed demo, but for me a way to explore Windows XP). I'm not displeased with it, but it's not on par with VMware.
edit: now seing this poll is very old. Sorry, or rather, not, for resurrecting it. If others want to take the poll we'll see how VPC is doing vs. VMware in these days...
Edited by Ninho, 11 June 2008 - 02:27 PM.
Posted 11 June 2008 - 11:21 PM
Posted 15 June 2008 - 11:52 PM
I've used VirtualBox and in some ways it's better than VPC, but I avoid it generally due to some bad experiences in the past that have since been fixed, I've just never felt like I needed to use it. When I need linux VM's I use it since VPC fails at linux.
Posted 10 July 2008 - 10:26 PM
Posted 10 July 2008 - 11:29 PM
VMware for me, because:
- It's reliable and time-tested (mature), and still fast & easy
- You have a full-featured desktop app for those with more complex needs, and it just keeps getting better and better: ACE, VDI, record/replay debugging, etc
- You have the freeware player
- You have a free version for servers (also works fine for "standard" needs on a workstation)
- You have an upgrade path to a high-end server product (ESX/ESXi)
- Lots of extremely powerful & useful features on the server products, such as VMotion
- Large set of different management tools for different needs -- they're good too
- It runs on different platforms and also accepts mostly anything as a guest OS
- There's loads of pre-built appliances for it
- Advanced networking: multiple virtual NICs per guest, multiple virtual switches, VLANs, etc, using one or more physical NICs/ports
- All the other and extremely useful apps that one uses with it, like P2V and the Converter
- The powerful scripting APIs: VmPerl (using perl) and VmCOM (using any language that supports COM objects -- VBScript, JScript, C++, C#, VB.NET, Java, etc) & VIX
- The incredibly cool Visual Studio addon (debug your processes running inside a VM!) and so many other perks for programmers
- The new and amazing VI toolkit, that lets you use PowerShell to do anything with your VMs
- The various SDKs supplementing the scripting APIs
- Support for a good range of hardware, like USB devices and smardcard readers in guest OS'es, plus 3D acceleration and such
- Solid drivers for the guest OS'es (and not just for windows either)
- Great documentation
- Support forums, blogs, sites, books written about it, support contracts if you need it, etc.
- Doesn't require you to rush out to buy Win2008 licenses + CALs and all that expensive stuff to use (unlike Hyper V) -- it'll even run on a free OS!
Nothing comes even close. It's light-years ahead of the rest.
Edited by crahak, 11 July 2008 - 11:16 AM.
Posted 11 July 2008 - 02:32 PM
i use vbox on my laptop. it's allright. supports usb. networking was hard to setup as i use wireless. only thing is i can't access the hard drive files offline like vpc hard drives files.
Posted 11 July 2008 - 02:50 PM
Very nice list!
We use VMWare Server (on top of 2003) to host 5 guest Win2003/2000 server OSs. We will be migrating to ESX 3.5 very soon.
Posted 11 July 2008 - 04:56 PM
Thanks! One could probably add LOTS more stuff to it.
Very nice list!
VMware Server is free too (and a FAR better product IMO). You don't have to make use of the server features (like starting VMs as a service) to use it.
Virtual PC on my desktop - it's free.
That's not what snapshots are at all! This is extremely wasteful at best. When you use snapshots, it only stores the differences from that point (in a different file). You can even make snapshots from an existing snapshot (stores only the differences since that one). It's extremely useful for many purposes (repackaging apps, testing apps/patches, etc). I sure wouldn't want to be using various snapshots on different VMs this way (copying the whole multi-GB virtual disk) when testing something, I'd quickly be wasting hundreds of GBs (and wasting time copying huge files too).
just create a copy of the VHD and you got yourself a snapshot
Hardly a new/special/exclusive feature. You can mount vdmk images using DiskMount (vmware-mount.exe) for free, no need to buy things like winimage or such. And it's not windows-only either! Comes with full documentation too. And there's even several front ends for it (in case "vmware-mount x: somefile.vdmk" is too scary) and loads of other such utilities.
you can open vhd with winimage or a similar program in case you need to access files offline
Again, nothing comes even close to VMware in terms of features.
Edited by crahak, 11 July 2008 - 05:13 PM.
Posted 11 July 2008 - 05:27 PM
I think it's also larger. I tend to go for installs that are small. And the price is functionality but that I can sacrifice.
VMware Server is free too
Perhaps if you make a lot of changes you may need incremental snapshots as you describe them. I'm a home user and my virt machine hardly changes much so one backup suffices for me.
That's not what snapshots are at all! This is extremely wasteful at best.
Hardly a new/special/exclusive feature. You can mount vdmk images using DiskMount (vmware-mount.exe) for free, ...
Never said it was new/special/exclusive feature. As a matter of fact, I hardly ever access my virtual drive offline. Was just mentioning it's possible.
Okay, okay man. I'm not arguing that VPC is great and better than VMWare. All I'm saying is it meets my needs. Calm down. We're just sharing what virtual machine we use; not arguing about which one is best.
Again, nothing comes even close to VMware in terms of features.
Posted 12 July 2008 - 07:10 AM
One plus point of VMware which has not been mentioned yet is the ability to run an installed OS from a physical hard disk (not for the faint of heart but so cool!) Not possible or at least not documented with MS VPC far as I know.
Now I think I'll ask a question : among the virtual machine software products, is there a (free) one that will run on g'd old Windows 9x ? I know the old versions of Connectix VPC used to, but they are not free. Oh, I should add the product should not make use of hardware virtualisation facilities (IA or AMD64)...
Posted 12 July 2008 - 08:19 PM
And seemingly MS is back to the old lying to make their sub-par virtualization products look good, namely by using SSDs to make I/O speed look good with Hyper-V (and using stupid small block sizes too), drastically inflating their apparent performance (until you read the fine print). They're WAY behind in performance & features, and way more expensive too (why am I not even surprised?): $495 for ESXi (total cost, for a better product), or $999 for Win 2008 standard with Hyper-V plus an extra $140/every 5 users for extra CALs (only 5 included) e.g. $700 more if you need 25 extra CALs (nevermind the ESXi box can likely handle twice as many VMs too)
Edited by crahak, 12 July 2008 - 09:02 PM.
Posted 14 July 2008 - 07:14 AM
Posted 17 September 2008 - 10:48 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users