[spacesurfer]

Quote

VMware Server is free too

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.

Quote

That's not what snapshots are at all! This is extremely wasteful at best.

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

Again, nothing comes even close to VMware in terms of features.

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.

[Ninho]

Good! Looks like we are a plethora of virtualisation adepts with differing scope and needs here.

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)...


Cheers,

[CoffeeFiend]

Talking about mounting disk images, VMware just released their VDDK -- Virtual Disk Development Kit (again, with full docs and all). Should come in handy!

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)

This post has been edited by crahak: 12 July 2008 - 09:02 PM

[Dblake1]

what about Sun xVM VirtualBox? its pretty good, and it offers an open-source version

[Nerwin]

Vmware & VirtualBox All the way!

[Tripredacus]

I use VPC 2007 on XP. It has an NT4 Workstation, NT4 Server, Server 2003 Standard and Windows 2000 Pro. I use it just for fun or when i'm bored.

[spacesurfer]

I played around with VBox some more and a couple of things were irritating:

1) Somehow it screwed up my HDD registration after doing the some snapshots to the point where I couldn't start the VM I had created. What's with this HDD registration?

2) Networking is overly complicated if you plan to network guest and host... you have to create a network bridge. VPC is so simple, nothing needed at all, it just works.

[lawrencep93]

Virtual PC only because it is free and I also use virtual box for ubuntu.

[GrofLuigi]

QEMU only.

GL

[MillenX]

vmware is the best of its kind...
virtual pc doens't support 64-bit guest.. not sure if now it does...
in vmware you can do dozens of configuration
so i choose virtual pc - you won't believe this.
joking... craps

[JohnMS]

i use VMware server v1.x...

v2.0 and Ms virtual pc are crap..

[pm*]

both are best
but VMware for me

This post has been edited by pm*: 01 July 2009 - 10:53 PM

[Angelico_Payne]

Vmware, top class

[vaska94]

vmare 5 ( why 5 ? its a long story )

[MagicAndre1981]

not in the list, but I use Virtual Box 3.0