Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

VirtualPC 2004 Versus VMWare 4.5?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the killer-attack-robots dept.

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."

2 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. VMWare + Xinerama by Television+Set · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really like VMWare. I have a dual monitor setup with Gnome on X.Org with Xinerama, and VMWare works quite well in that setup for running a virtual Windows XP box. I do alot of my Dreamweaver stuff on that. What it ends up looking like, with VMWare/XP running in full screen mode, is two computers, with Gnome on one and XP on the other. All I gotta do is ctl-alt and move the mouse over to deal with stuff on the host machine.

    --
    EOF
  2. Wait a second.... by Zetta+Matrix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this an apples and oranges comparison? (Not that anyone cares, necessarily...)

    IIRC, VirtualPC is essentially an emulator. VMWare is actually a virtualization layer that only emulates the hardware interfaces, but the non-privileged application code can run directly on the CPU like it would "natively".

    This by itself should explain the speed differences, as well as why VMWare requires x86 hardware to run Windows, while VirtualPC can run on a Mac (which would be impossible given VMWare's design).

    I'm surprised that no one is mentioning this.