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."
For me, that is all that matters.
Personally use VMWare with the following Virtual Machines:
1. Windows 2000
2. SuSe Linux 8.0
3. Solaris 9 for x86
And my real OS is SuSE Linux 8.0. With that configuration in my laptop I can go anywhere with the major operating systems that my company has to support.
John.
I've been using VMWare for years now. Been through some rough times, but basically, it really rocks.
I run VMWare on a linux box so I can have access to the dreaded windows apps. What I would really like to see is something akin to Exceed, where X windows come up on my Windows desktop as Windows windows. In other words, free the Windows windows from the VMWare container and let them roam free on my linux desktop. Sort of like wine, but more stable.
(Heh... let's see how many times you can use "windows" in one sentence!)
Win4Lin is no longer for sale. I base this on the fact that I wrote to them two months ago to ask about an educational discount so that I could buy a copy for my kids to use to play Reader Rabbit. A week later, I got a trouble ticket notification but it said that I have to be a registered user to access it. I've since written to support@netraverse.com and Cc:'ed sales@ and education@ as recently as July 19 but have still received to reply whatsoever. In other words, Netraverse is no longer accepting solicitations to buy their product, so I'm writing them off as dead (and at this point I would refuse to buy from them anyway).
So, are there any Free or reasonably-priced emulators that can get, say, a Windows 98 image running at a speed useful for office-type applications on a gigahertz class system? If not, I may bite the bullet and buy Vmware, but my budget is really hoping for something cheaper.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
When they bought VirtualPC, that's exactly what I thought they would do. And I still think so.
They're going to wait for Longhorn, though, as being able to run other operating systems from within Windows would be a major coup for them. There'd be no reason for people to install over it...People interested in trying other operating systems will simply install inside the VM, and most probably won't get around to wiping off the host OS.
On the other hand, if Microsoft software becomes tied to the hardware tightly enough, the fact that users can run other operating systems from within Windows would be a significant defense for the next time they wind up in court on charges of antitrust or the like.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
that comment about compatibility in the lead-in kinda surprised me. After all, didn't they purchase VirtualPC because server consolidation was hurting Windows Server sales? They made tons of money when people realized they needed a seperate BOX for each server process run on Windows( they sold more OS licenses ) but now the cats out of the bag and TCO cost are killing them.
So, why would Microsoft care about anything but how this works on Windows and targetted apps? They don't. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Just curious as to why Bochs wasn't even mentioned? I understand it's Beta quality, but it CAN run a significant subset of hardware.
-theGreater.
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).
They could also the technology for sandboxing "untrusted" applications and isolate them from the main system.
Choice.
Integrating the connectix product into Windows would mean the death of VMWare, which is IMO a much more superior product.
Its about choice. Its about avoiding vendor lock-in.
The article misses the main point about Virtual PC/Server. Microsoft will support their o/s on their virtual machine. If you have an issue with Windows 2003 on VMWare they will not support that instance until you can prove that it is a Windows issue i.e. stick it on a real box and see if the same problem occurs.
Nice huh?!
I just got Virtual PC 6.2 for my Mac OS X box (1GHz G4 PowerMac, MDD, 512MB RAM) last week, and I'm disappointed. The business justification is that I need to be able to test development websites for clients in Windows, but my personal reason is that I want to run all of my old Sierra games. :) I can run Firefox and IE in Windows XP -- they're sluggish, with slow screen redraws and irritatingly long pauses for page refreshes, but it works.
My shock is in how badly that Sierra games run in DOS 6.22. I'm about a quarter of the way through KQ4 (I just got the damned golden bridle and delivered the unicorn, only to be sent off to get the golden goose from the ogre), and it's tough to even walk around. Rosella tiptoes along at one step every few seconds and then hauls ass across half the screen before slowing down again. I'm going to downgrade to DOS 5 and see if that makes any difference. Still, the fact that Virtual PC cannot properly emulate a decade-old DOS box is pretty pathetic.
I'm going to get another 256 or 512MB of RAM and see if that makes a difference.
-Waldo Jaquith
Microsoft....not compatable.... as it should be?
And you're surprised you say?
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
I have used both Virtual PC & VMWare.
Installing Operating Systems is faster on Virtual PC than in Vmware.
Surprisingly Windows XP Professional was the slowest install I had in VPC.
I have successfully installed FreeBSD, Mandrake 10.0 (KDE), Red Hat, Fedora on Virtual PC & VMWare with full networking support.
All my old LucasArts games (the primary use of emulation for me) work with Virtual PC.
I had terrible luck with VmWare w.r.t. running games.
I also wouldn't have expected it, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
I use a unique email address with every company I give my email address to. A few months ago, I started get spam sent to the address I only used with VMWare.
When I mailed the previously helpful sales rep at VMWare about it, I got no response. It seems to me that if they hadn't sold my address, the sales rep would have denied it, especially since I was in the middle of purchasing some licenses.
If you want to run Windows XP in a virtual machine, appearantly you are expected to buy two copies of it because of the product activation.
Does this seem a little unreasonable to anyone else?
You can run VM's as a service in VMWare Workstaion, it just takes a little 'extra' effort. Have a look here for a nice 'howto'.
The only thing that has been a problem so far is getting the VMWare client utils installed if the virtual OS is running the 2.6.x kernel.
And I like VPC because it is more lightweight, faster to configure, etc. I don't use the extra features in VMWare, I just need the ability to roll-back the OS.
However, I am of the opinion that Microsoft bought VPC just to kill the project. They DO NOT want this technology out in wide distribution, easy for anyone to set up in 5 minutes because it calls into question their licensing model (e.g. I have 1 processor, 1 user, 10 copies of windows 2000 running, why should I pay 10x licensing?).
Also, as the previous poster said, once you've installed the VMWare Tools, you don't need to press and release Ctrl+Alt in order to change the VMWare window focus; you can seemlessly move your mouse between the guest and host OS's (among other functionality).
Power to the Peaceful
I bought a copy of VMWare at LinuxWorld NYC ('00? '01?) back when it was 1.0, and got it at a special enthusiast pricing ($80?). While they were good enough to give 1.0 license holders a free upgrade to 2.0, after that, they abandoned this pricing scheme. It's a shame... $80 was fine. $200 isn't. Not for a home user who isn't making a living off of the product.
VMWare, bring back enthusiast pricing!
I use the Linux version of VMWare, and because of remote X, I simply run Windows under Linux displayed on my Mac. It can't run full screen, but it does allow for seamless mouse movement off of Windows to OSX. VMWare even popped up a couple of helpful messages when it detected that it was running remotely.
For this reason alone makes VMWare worth it over VirtualPC. Remote X + VMWare + Linux rocks!
"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."
Actually, once you set the priority on VPC properly it's pretty close to the same performance as VMWare. The most important differences are as follows:
1. Memory support goes to VPC. VPC supports 4GB of RAM in the host machine that can all be assigned to virtual machines (but you have to keep enough free for the host machine to run, of course). VMWare can only assign a total of 1GB of RAM to all running virtual machines, regardless how much actual RAM you have.
2. Snapshot support goes to VMWare. In VMWare, you can take a snapshot at any time, even when the virtual machine is running, and restore to that exact state within a few seconds. VPC requires you to shut down the virtual machine before you can take a snapshot.
Other than those two items, they're pretty much equal (there are minor differences in how the virtual networking works as well, but that's not as important in my opinion). They have quite different interfaces, but pretty much all the features are there in both. You just have to decide which of those two items is more important to you. For me, number two is a bigger deal, so I use VMWare.
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer