Best Virtualisation Software?

[doodab]

I use VMWare workstation, have done since v5. I haven't tried the alternatives because it hasn't given me any reason to.

I've had no problem hosting 64 bit guests on 32 bit XP in the past, and on my current (win7 x64, 8GB RAM, dual core) laptop I run windows 7, windows server 2003 & 2008, several flavours of linux and solaris x86, and the performance is on a par with a standard physical computer when running from an eSATA external drive. Over USB it can be a bit more sluggish but still usable. At the moment I have an Ubuntu 10.04 VM on the SSD in my laptop that I use as a development environment and it's great, especially in unity mode where it merges the apps in the VM into the start menu and the windows appear on your host desktop.

As regards moving and archiving VMs, just shut them down and copy the files. If you have mulitple machines built from a template they need to be able to find the template but that is all there is to it.

The only downside is that it costs money and a lot of the alternatives are free. Personally, that doesn't bother me, I think it's one of the best value bits of software I've ever bought.

[2BIT]

As far as could divine, you can't get hold of VirtualPC any more unless you have Windows 7 Professional or above. The download procedure takes you through a validation process to make sure you have a legit copy of Win7 Pro or above.

If you do download VirtualPC, then you can also download a virtual disk containing XP (which runs under Win7 VirtualPC) and it's covered by your Windows 7 license.

I tried VirtualPC and pretty quickly decided I preferred VirtualBox. The Personal User Evaluation License (PUEL) version comes with Guest Additions, which allow you to share folders with the host, move your mouse freely in and out of clients, and copy/paste between host and clients.

i will have a look at virtual box but it sounds a bit unstable, being able to move effortlessly in and out of the vm would be a definite plus though

[2BIT]

As for Windows 7 clients, I have a feeling VMWare had cracked the problem of getting Aero to work, but I don't think Virtual Box has.

Also you'll want to check that you can run 64-bit guests on a 32-bit host (assuming you have XP 32).

I have a build VM, and use it to test installs against a clean OS, but nothing really heavyweight. I find the performance for things like builds is virtually as good as on the host, but anything graphical is very clunky. I couldn't imagine wanting to use a web browser on a VM for example.

it is primarily for installing a number of different configurations of a number of apps into various operating systems so I wont be too bothered by performance but will definitely need the vmware to be easy to use and stable, installing and configuring apps isn't much fun at the best of times

[2BIT]

I use VMWare workstation, have done since v5. I haven't tried the alternatives because it hasn't given me any reason to.

I've had no problem hosting 64 bit guests on 32 bit XP in the past, and on my current (win7 x64, 8GB RAM, dual core) laptop I run windows 7, windows server 2003 & 2008, several flavours of linux and solaris x86, and the performance is on a par with a standard physical computer when running from an eSATA external drive. Over USB it can be a bit more sluggish but still usable. At the moment I have an Ubuntu 10.04 VM on the SSD in my laptop that I use as a development environment and it's great, especially in unity mode where it merges the apps in the VM into the start menu and the windows appear on your host desktop.

As regards moving and archiving VMs, just shut them down and copy the files. If you have mulitple machines built from a template they need to be able to find the template but that is all there is to it.

The only downside is that it costs money and a lot of the alternatives are free. Personally, that doesn't bother me, I think it's one of the best value bits of software I've ever bought.

does the unity mode work for windows wms? if so this ticks all the boxes for me. ill check this out and virtualbox as I'd be happy paying what I think works out to £116 - it's that kind of application you don't mind paying for

one thing that occurs to me is that I've only got a 500GB hard drive in my new laptop as it didn't occur to me to go any larger so it may be that I have to run the snapshots from that whilst storing them on my external usb drive, what's the speed over usb 3.0 like?

[doodab]

does the unity mode work for windows wms? if so this ticks all the boxes for me. ill check this out and virtualbox as I'd be happy paying what I think works out to £116 - it's that kind of application you don't mind paying for

one thing that occurs to me is that I've only got a 500GB hard drive in my new laptop as it didn't occur to me to go any larger so it may be that I have to run the snapshots from that whilst storing them on my external usb drive, what's the speed over usb 3.0 like?

Yes, it works for windows and linux VMs, although you need to install vmware tools in the VM.

Can't comment on USB 3 as I don't have it.

[2BIT]

Yes, it works for windows and linux VMs, although you need to install vmware tools in the VM.

Can't comment on USB 3 as I don't have it.

cool, thanks for you advice on this - am definitely leaning towards workstation now.

cheers

[Netraider]

What Doodab said.

I've been using VmWare since 2004ish.

[Sysman]

As for Windows 7 clients, I have a feeling VMWare had cracked the problem of getting Aero to work, but I don't think Virtual Box has.

Also you'll want to check that you can run 64-bit guests on a 32-bit host (assuming you have XP 32).

I have a build VM, and use it to test installs against a clean OS, but nothing really heavyweight. I find the performance for things like builds is virtually as good as on the host, but anything graphical is very clunky. I couldn't imagine wanting to use a web browser on a VM for example.

I wouldn't call the graphics clunky except for things like Freecell, which warns you on starting that it can't see any hardware acceleration. For doing installs it's faster than a physical machine because I can point it at an ISO on disk and there isn't all that mucking around the BIOS does on startup.

Web browsing is fine here, and I can watch most Youtube stuff comfortably from within a W7 client. Not full screen though.

And graphics is better with a Windows host because with a Linux host I am using generic drivers rather than the manufacturer supplied ones. If I were a games buff I'd get a better video card anyway, and choose one which is better supported on Linux.

[Platypus]

What Doodab said.

I've been using VmWare since 2004ish.

Another vote for VMWARE Workstation. I'm not an "intensive" user but I don't mind paying for decent software that's rock solid.

[Spacecadet]

Another vote for VMWARE Workstation. I'm not an "intensive" user but I don't mind paying for decent software that's rock solid.

at $189.00 it almost is free.

I have been using the free version of VMWare (VMWare Player) so far.
Is there much of a difference between that and work station?