VMWare v Microsoft Virtual PC

[Jaws]

Another thing VMWare has over the Microsoft offering is multi screen support. I have had hassles using VirtualPC on dual screen (with vpc on fullscreen) and switching between the host and the virtual. Wouldn't even need to do that if it had dual screen support.

[d000hg]

VMWare vs MS - would use vmware. I installed the MS product on a new PC - then renamed the PC. Couldnt get it to work, had to uninstall eventually, then find docs on how to REALLY uninstall it and reinstall. VMWare coped with no major issues, with the PC rename. Windows 2008 server hiccups a bit in a vmware session, but runs ok, the odd error that vista drivers arent supported properly. As soon as I got proper product cds - rather than having to use pre-prepared m$ virtual machines, I stopped using the ms product and have only used the vmware server.

You know, saying M$ makes people respect you more and also makes you more sexually attractive.

[Jason]

The more advanced options in VMWare make it to me just awsome in comparison to almost anything else

VMWare ESX running on a bladecentre will with no intervention switch a running host system over to another blade without manual intervention (if a hardware problem comes up).

Server side VMWare rocks!

The VMWare client when running under windows does suffer from well I can only call them Windows Issues.

[dangly]

Just managed to persuade my client to go down the VMWare Server route after being asked exactly the same question.

I believe the VMWare product is better than Virtual PC for one reason - memory management. When a VM running in Virtual PC starts it takes all of the allocated memory from the host immediately (e.g. a VM allocated 2Gb of memory will take the full 2Gb from the host on start-up); VMWare Server and Player however use this value as a maximum and only takes memory from the host as required, ensuring the host remains responsive at all times. Even when I've had a full Visual Studio environment running in a VM for a full day, never had a problem with the host (have had lots of problems when running VPC).

A couple of issues with VMware, but no show-stoppers - neither player or server like Vista (what does) and server is the only one that allows you to create new machines. Player only allows you to, err.... play them.

Best of all, both Server and Player are FREE!!

[MarillionFan]

"Oracle also do a VM product, but I'd stick with VMware as it's tried and tested. "

They do the b@stards. Made me look really stupid, We had just got signoff on a million dollar oracle installation and the bastards launched Oracle VM. Knocked 50 bucks off the VMWare share price.

[TheFaQQer]

Not tried the MS one, but I've got two VMWare XP installations running on my machine at home. Means that I can install things in different environments without them conflicting, so I have Oracle R12 in one machine, and Oracle 11.5.10 in another.

No problems so far, touch wood.

Oracle also do a VM product, but I'd stick with VMware as it's tried and tested.

[dmini]

VMWare vs MS - would use vmware. I installed the MS product on a new PC - then renamed the PC. Couldnt get it to work, had to uninstall eventually, then find docs on how to REALLY uninstall it and reinstall. VMWare coped with no major issues, with the PC rename. Windows 2008 server hiccups a bit in a vmware session, but runs ok, the odd error that vista drivers arent supported properly. As soon as I got proper product cds - rather than having to use pre-prepared m$ virtual machines, I stopped using the ms product and have only used the vmware server.

[birdy-numnum]

Is anyone using VMWare Server or Microsoft Virtual Server? Which is best in your opinion?

And what is the difference between VMWare Server and VMWare Workstation?

All are free downloads apart from VMWare Workstation.