Slashdot Mirror
VirtualPC 2004 Versus VMWare 4.5?
BackNBlack writes "Ars Technica has an interesting comparison shootout between Microsoft's VirtualPC 2004 and VMWare Workstation 4.5. Has VirtualPC improved since Microsoft bought it from Connectix? It looks as though VMWare is really the choice of those who can afford it. I'm also a little surprised that Microsoft is not as compatible as it could be, given the competition."
I've used both and I have to say that Microsoft's Virtual PC is ASS-slow. VMWare is actually usable and has far more features and compatibility.
VMWare is superior in all regards. I've had significant problems running Linux under Virtual PC where VMWare handles it without any problems at all. Also, I've found that VMWare has drivers for most host operating systems to enable drive sharing, video, and sound. VirtualPC's guest os driver set is pretty bad. Virtual PC is a lot cheaper (free for us, as Solution Providers) but if I ever really need to get something done, VMWare is the only way to go.
Ok mine's slightly different, I've used the previous version of Virtual PC and VMware 3.1. I found Linux easier to install on Virtual PC. First of all since Virtual PC emulates a real video card (s3 Trio64 iirc) the Vesa framebuffer works. You can use the bootsplash kernel patch or just have a high resolution console. The network card was a DEC Tulip as well which is well supported. For whatever reason the fake video card in VMware always seems to have some issues working in my experience. The network card is an AMD PCnet32 card which seems equally well supported (even solaris picks it up). The feature that is in VMware that I really missed in Virtual PC was the ability to boot from real hard drives. If you dual boot windows and linux, you could boot into windows and then boot up your linux partition as well. Both offerred excelent performance provided you had enough ram. VMware 3.1 though seems to crash with 2.6 series kernels but I suspect that has been fixed in newer versions. So if I were VMware, I'd offer VESA compatable video card rather than their made up one.
The article is incorrect in stating that VirtualPC 2004 does not support using ISOs as optical drives. It certainly supports this functionality and I use it all of the time. There is a menu item called Capture ISO which lets you select an ISO and mount it like a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive.
I've used both products a good deal, mostly for the purpose of beta testing operating systems and development software. I've not noticed any serious speed differences. VMWare is most definitely more configurable. However I get VirtualPC 2004 for "free" with my MSDN Universal subscription so I can't really beat that.
It should also be noted that while VMWare does run on Linux, VirtualPC runs on Macintosh. It is still supported, although a hardware difference causes it to fail on G5 CPUs because these CPUs do not permit little-endian mode. A new version will be out shortly to accomodate.
What about QEMU. http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/
Get ready made images at http://www.freeoszoo.org/.
VMWare is available with an educational discount, can't remember what I paid for it a while back, but it was considerably cheaper than the list...
Virtual machine shootout: VMware vs. Virtual PC
by Adam Baratz
Introduction
A recent film ignited a new generation of armchair epistemologists when it
proposed that we could be living inside an elaborate computer simulation. While
your philosophy major friends were quick to point out that thinkers since
Descartes have posed the same question, it's likely that none of them ever
considered the converse: what if, unbeknownst to them, our computers were
really running inside other computers for the selfish interests of a special
group of people?
As esoteric as this may sound, such a setup has been in use for a very long
time. Virtual machine software can fool an operating system into thinking it's
running on its own hardware, when in reality it's simply mooching off unused
CPU cycles and RAM. Since the OS is running on its native platform, no
emulation is necessary; virtualization allows it to run with little cost to CPU
performance. However, since display and I/O functions are mapped to slightly
different components (a window or a virtual partition, for example), they incur
a slight performance hit.
Why should I use a VM?
Say you're developing an application under Windows XP. If you need to test your
program on other versions of Windows, virtual machine (VM) software allows you
to run Windows 98 without forcing you to reboot your computer.
Decent VM software also allows some exchange between the host machine (the real
one) and the virtual one. If you encounter a bug, you can switch back to the
host, correct the code, and send an updated executable back for further
testing.
On especially beefy hardware, VMs can be used to simulate complicated network
operations. With the right VM software, you can setup a virtual network to
practice domain management and software rollouts without putting production
equipment on the line.
More robust pieces of software are available for virtualizing servers. VMware
has two products in this category (VMware GSX Server 3 and ESX Server 2).
Microsoft is getting ready to release Virtual Server 2005. The feature sets of
both companies' offerings are more specialized for integration with server
OSes. They also include strong scripting tools for automating VMs.
You can also use VM software to sample alternative operating systems without
committing a dedicated partition to the job. Since VMs can use virtual
partitions (a partition that lives inside a file of dynamic or fixed size), you
don't have to worry about reclaiming any hard drive space lost to
experimentation. Also, since VM software tends to emulate common hardware,
you're less likely to encounter driver issues with an esoteric OS.
Anyone hoping to use VM software to play favorite DOS games will probably be
disappointed. Tests with a couple random games (Terra Nova: Strike Force
Centauri and Gabriel Knight 2) didn't get far beyond their installation.
Simpler games ran reasonably, but people solely interested in gaming should try
something like DOSBox first.
Let's get down to business...
If you're interested in running applications, Virtual PC 2004 (Microsoft;
US129) and VMware Workstation 4.5 (VMware; US189 to download, US199 with
packaging) are both competitive tools for the job. In fact, they're both so
refined that your ultimate purchase decision will be affected more by your own
needs than by any inherent problems with the programs. While general
performance is an important consideration (and easily quantified), your
eventual uses for the software are more important.
Are you planning on rigorous compatibility testing or just sampling other
possible configurations? Do you want pure performance or just an environment
for containing potential accidents? Do you want to run lots of different OSes
or will you stay within the Windows family? Will you need to use special
hardware within your VM or is a generic setup acceptable?
Both pieces of software come with
---
Also, configuring bochs is a major pain in the ass. I have a 2.6 kernel and (I misremember some details but) I tried to use the method recommended for 2.6, had all appropriate support compiled in as far as I could tell, and it still wouldn't work, but the method recommended for 2.4 worked fine. Bochs may fit some needs, but anyone willing to look at virtual pc is surely not someone who will be using bochs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you're interested in a free (as in both beer and speech) emulator with speed that almost rivals VMWare, but runs all in user-mode, I suggest you have a look at QEMU (intentionally no link to not /. yet another site - please do your own Googling, and please don't link directly).
Win4Lin is dead
What the hell are you talking about??? What's wrong with the BUY link on this page? It's $89 bucks, you can't even get the educational version of VMWare for that price. Beisdes, they're rolling out support for W2K this fall without resorting to CPU intensive hardware emulation.
Anyhow, Bochs is your only "free" option to get W98 running. I don't know what the performance will be like, I've never used it.
No way.
I've had an account/e-mail with VMware since they were in beta (many, many years ago) and I've never once gotten spam on that account (not a single spam message other than annoucements from VMware).
Must be from somewhere else.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
There are some bug reports about it on the slashcode bugtracker, report 1002074 and 1002056. It appears that it primarily affects people using Firefox and Mozilla, while Microsoft IE works fine (conspiracy?).
Virtual PC emulated very standard, stable, and available hardware. A Soundblaster 16, a DEC tulip-compatible NIC, and S3 Trio 32 with 8M video card. Drivers are available for all of these from Windows 3.1 to 2003 and Linux. The "additions" for Windows (from 3.1 to 2kx) include "mouse-sharing", file sharing, and timesync (not for 3.1 unfortunately). There is a timesync daemon for Linux, but it only works with the Connectix versions of VPC (unless someone has updated it). Linux has drivers that work with all the emulated hardware, but there is no "mouse-sharing" or file sharing. That is the only downside, really. VPC's guest os driver set is NULL because Windows and Linux come with all the drivers required; you just don't get some nice additions under Linux (file sharing being the main thing).
I actually prefer Virtual PC 5.2 to Microsoft's edition, 2004. Got 'em both from MSDN subscription services.
fp?
This guy installed every operating system out there on his Mac OS X using Virtual PC. His website includes screen shots of each OS, plus what he had to do to get it working. I would like to see a public archive of OS images people can download and try (minus proprietary stuff). That would be pretty cool.
Both products can boot off raw hard disks. I even setup a new Gentoo system that way. VPC does however have a 137GB limit on raw disks which VMWare doesn't. Both products run quite slowly when installing an OS - they have to run in a maximum compatibility mode because of all the probing and other stuff OS installs do. Once the guest OS is installed they run faster.
Both products allow you to modify the virtual hardware (adding/removing ports, drives, images etc) after installation. Both products have undoable disks and various forms of networking (host only, share real NIC etc).
The last Connectix version of VPC had VNC access to your guests which was really neat. Microsoft removed that for VPC 2004 on "security" grounds. Technically that is true (VNC is an unecrypted protocol) but I suspect they would have removed it for marketing reasons anyway.
VPC does have a restriction that access to the host from the guest has to be done from kernel mode in the guest. That means for example that the Additions (VPC speak) / Tools (VMWare speak) have to be loaded into the OS in the guest. This prevents random user space programs in the guest from getting host access. I don't know if VMWare does something similar or not. It is however something to consider if untrusted software will be running in your guest.
The 2.6 kernel used in some distros doesn't work on VPC 2004 due to some self modifying code allegedly used in conjunction with the X server. Of course the VPC folks claim it is a Linux problem and the Linux folks say it is a VPC problem. Just remember that Linux is not a supported guest for VPC even though it usually works and MS haven't done anything (yet) to prevent it.
I have never had a response ever to a support issue raised with VMWare. I have had way more compatibility issues with VMWare. For example I have a bootcd that works on every real machine (I have tried over 10) and in VPC but fails in VMWare. With VPC I haven't had to raise support issues since it just works. There is a Microsoft newsgroup for VPC that works well.
Fundamentally both products work well. VPC is simpler and cheaper and does what it does well. VMWare is larger and more complicated and has lots more knobs for fine tuning and is also available for a Linux host.
We can thank MS for buying VPC as it resulted in VMWare dropping their price by almost 40%.
VMWare - Nonpersistent Disk Mode Changes to disks in nonpersistent mode are not saved to the disks, but are lost when the virtual machine is powered off or reset. Nonpersistent mode is convenient for people who always want to start with a virtual machine in the same state. Example uses include providing known environments for software test and technical support users as well as doing demonstrations of software.
The fault might be XP. I'm running it on my 1.25Ghz Powerbook. I've tried some old games under Windows 95 and they run too fast - no Sierra games, but Ultima VI, Sam & Max, Scorched Earth, Battle Chess 2... I never tried them under XP. Once XP was running I copied over an old 95 I've had since Vpc 1 and installed a fresh 2000 Server for work which generally runs fast enough, even with a SQL server active. (Heck, even with the 2000 Server running games run too quickly in 95.)
I suggest if you're trying to run old games go ahead and make a 95 or 98 install, if you can find someone with an installation CD you can use. Even if you're booting into 'MS'-mode, I think an actual DOS or 95/98 install would help, though frankly I have no idea how to set up a DOS install these days.
Of course, more memory will definitely help, but trying an older Windows might help more. Of course, it may be how King's Quest 4 interacts with the Video-card - games with FMV don't work very well, nor do modern, bloated games of any kind.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
You're right about Virtual PC support for ISOs. Virtual PC also supports adding extra hard disks, NICs, serial ports, and parallel ports. The article incorrectly states that Virtual PC does not support any of these.
I use VirtualPC in MacOS X 10.2.8 on a PowerBook G4 (1 Ghz; 15"; 512 MB of RAM), and it is a slower than VMware v3.2.0 (P3 1 Ghz; 512 MB of RAM; Windows 2000 host) and v4.x (Windows XP Home host; P4 3 Ghz; 512 MB of RAM). I used Windows 2000 SP4 as guest OS' with about 128 MB of RAM. VMware beats in loading, GUI drawings, and everything else.
:)
VirtualPC seems to dislike Windows Updates in my Windows 2000 SP4. Sometimes blue screens after updating and required reboots and updates failing to install.
Also, VMware can do a lot more OS' than VirtualPC!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The review's introduction says that the Mac version is an emulator but the PC version is simply a VM like VMWare.
Microsoft's VirtualPC site calls the PC version "a powerful software virtualization solution" (not that these sorts of blurbs are noted for their technical accuracy, but take it for what it's worth).
I cant say much about it since it's unreleased, but i beleive its public knowledge. Virtual Server has a feature called "differencing disks", where you have a base virtual server image and then any changes to that image are written to a separate file - a difference disk.
.vhd over the .vhd of the machine im wiping, and fire it back up. I have one active virtual server image for each different code branch i need to work with (different branches will have different platform requirements that make putting multiple branches on the same box impossible)
This would let you do what you suggest.
Personally, i love virtual server, and i do all of my development and test work inside of virtual server images. Our product has an atrocious number of pre-relased platform requirements and rebuilding a bunch of physical machines is a big pain. I have a base Windows 2003 Server image with sysprep, and anytime i need a clean machine i just copy that
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Strange that this article should come out now. The other day I tried both products in order to figure out which one would work better to 1) host a windows OS instance to work as a print server for the winprinter that I bought real cheap, and 2) to host mythbackend.
To keep things simple I settled on KnopMyth as a quick way to install MythTV. I had the opposite experience of the reviewer: Microsoft Virtual PC installed KnopMyth seamlessly, while VMWare 4.5 crashed when the image tried to boot (KnopMyth is based on a hybrid Debian distro, and I used the straight Linux optimization on VMWare).
It turns out that neither VMWare or Virtual PC were able to access my Hauppauge card, so I had to figure out another option, but I figured I'd add my $.02 to the issue.
Also, VirtualPC actually seemed a bit more zippy to me during the post phase, although I never got KnopMyth installed on it so I didn't really run any benchmarks.
Amazing magic tricks
I installed win XP pro on my machine first. I dual boot with Gentoo. Then I booted into gentoo and installed win xp pro again in vmware. It asked me to activate the product. I called up tech support for activation and explained them that I am not going to use my previous installation and I need one activation code. They gave me one without any more question. I have been true to them by not using my first installation after that. I just use the virtual xp any time I want to do something in xp.
Not only that, but they can run previous versions of Windows -- or at least some of the sub-systems -- under Longhorn, thereby allowing backwards compatibility without having to design it directly into Longhorn's own APIs. (Like Apple did when they went to OS X, I believe).
Just to clarify, what Apple did was make these available:
1) A complete API set called Cocoa, derived from NeXTStep (which GNUStep is also based on)
2) Another complete API called Carbon, derived from the classic Mac OS Toolbox with some things taken out (e.g. stuff that directly touches the hardware) and some new things added in
3) CarbonLib for classic Mac OS, which is the new things added as mentioned above. Carbon applications can, in theory, run completely natively on either Mac OS X or Mac OS 9 with CarbonLib.
4) Classic is an emulation environment that runs on Mac OS X and boots Mac OS 9 inside the emulator. It's integrated into the OS so it doesn't run inside a window (except while booting), things like drag&drop between native and emulated apps works, and the Mac OS 9 Finder doesn't run. Any classic Mac OS apps that aren't Carbon-compatible, and don't try to touch the hardware too much, should work fine inside Classic, because it's really a hacked up Mac OS 9.
Owning VirtualPC would allow Microsoft to implement an emulation layer similar to Classic on Mac OS X. To make it appear seamless to the user would require quite a bit of hacking, of course.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You need to hard-code your virtual Ethernet MAC addresses and all will be well. VMware's support pages have instructions on how to do this.
You can run dreamweaverMX and flashMX on CrossOverOffice Pro 3.0 ;)