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."

4 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Features by mstich · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. I use both... VMWare is superior by Dejohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  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. 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.