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."

10 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. VMware runs on linux by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For me, that is all that matters.

    1. Re:VMware runs on linux by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the other hand, it proves that you have never worked in the Real World.

      I develop a commercial web based application that runs on Linux. I have used VMWare daily for 3 years so that I can test on several Windows platforms without having multiple machines or a kvm at my desk. I just ctrl-tab to another desktop and there is Windows XP or 2000 or 98 or whatever else I am running at the time.

  2. Win4Lin is dead, so what are the Linux options? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I need to run a very short list of apps under Linux, namely Quickbooks Pro 2002 (don't say Wine - not even Codeweavers has gotten this particular program to work). I'd like to use a Free solution, but I'd settle for a non-Free program since it would be replacing a non-Free Windows 2000 machine that I keep around specifically for this purpose. Vmware seems to work pretty well, but at $189 it's a little too non-gratis for my purposes.

    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?
  3. compatible with Windows is all MS really cares for by Locutus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:Why not integrate it into Windows ? by riscthis · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    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.
  5. Re:Why not integrate it into Windows ? by andreyw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:What I would really like to see... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In other words, you need cygwin. Run the cygwin installer from cygwin.com and set the "X11" part to "install", go into editors and turn off all the emacs packages :) and then click install. Good luck finding a fast mirror, it is possible however. Once you have cygwin installed, run a cygwin shell to set up your environment. Now create a shortcut which runs the following:

    C:\CYGWIN\usr\X11R6\bin\run.exe XWin.exe -multiwindow -clipboard

    This runs the X server in a rootless mode that does not require a window manager (Windows is your window manager - this instructs the X server to in turn instruct windows to draw decorations around your X client windows) and which performs clipboard integration. There are some other switches you can set, see man XWin for more information. In particular people with multiple displays will want to set another switch to support that, and there is also a switch to specify that all clipboard contents should be 8 bit (no unicode support.) It's not the fastest nor the best* X server out there, but it certainly does the job. If you are going to be running X clients locally, which you probably will if you install cygwin, you will want to add "DISPLAY=localhost:0" to your environment.

    * Actually, cygwin's X server might have recently become the best X server around. It uses directdraw to draw windows, it properly handles the clipboard now which X-Win32 still can't seem to get right after an update they explicitly claimed would solve my clipboard problem, and it uses standard X tools like xhost for management.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Personal experience w.r.t games by Utopia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:GSX Server by Huh? · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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'.

  9. ESX by jmoen · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I find VMWare quite superior to VPC any day. We now run 25 virtual servers (win2k3/2k and linux) on two IBM X445 boxes with the latest VMWare ESX version connected to a IBM Fastt SAN and it works just greate. I've tried VPC several times but it just don't "scale" the way VMWare do today, also since the management OS is linux with a very rich perl API available it's easy to work with if you're into that. I don't find VMWare ESX Server to be that expensive at all, with SMP support (on the virtual client) it's like $5000 or something.


    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.