| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
 Posted - 09 August 2004 : 21:50:25
|
| Has anyone here ever used VMWare or anything similar to create virtual machines on which you can install multiple OS'es at a time and run that at the same time? I have known about VMWare for a couple of years now but just recently started messing around with it. It is a huge time saver if I want to install an OS just to mess around with for a while, and then delete. It works very well. Download the 30 day trial and give it a whirl. I know Microsoft has a similar product, some "Virtual PC" or something like that. I hear it works to but doesn't have all the bells and whistles. |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
|
|
RichardKinser
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
16655 Posts |
Posted - 09 August 2004 : 21:56:12
|
| I use both VMWare and Virtual PC 2004. I actually prefer Virtual PC 2004 because it doesn't install the extra network connections that VMWare does. But, VMWare supports USB devices and Booting from a Network (RIS). VMWare seems to run a bit quicker also. I haven't tried Virtual Server 2005 yet, hoping to get it this fall sometime. |
 |
|
|
Jeepaholic
Average Member
USA
697 Posts |
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
Posted - 10 August 2004 : 02:23:58
|
VMWare is 'da bomb', to use some popular terms.
I've ditched all my test-machines since I got to know VMWare! The only thing I need is some internal memory ; no problem running Mandrake 9 + Windows 2003 Server with IIS and SQL Server + Windows XP (Locally) at once!
We're using it at work, running 8 Windows XP machines on 1 machine, for testing purposes (employees can remote-control these machines from their normal workplace, and fiddle around). |
portfolio - linkshrinker - oxle - twitter |
|
|
|
pdrg
Support Moderator
United Kingdom
2897 Posts |
Posted - 10 August 2004 : 06:49:47
|
Virtual PC and Virtual Server products are a new acquisition (sp?) from connectix, so have only really had a quick wipe-down to remove all connectix branding. As with all gen-1 products/acquisitions, it is great, but not yet a competition slayer...gen 2 however, I would imagine will address many problems and rock (hopefully) (see Excel, Access, placeware, etc).
We use VS to keep legacy systems on - ones that were poorly designed enough to require their own box/SQL install, but totally deprecated. We keep them on virtual servers (dozens to a box) and just dehydrate and rehydrate them as required. Also awesome for follow-the-sun companies to timeshare physical hardware between 3 regional apps (getting 8 hrs each, say), only rehydrating the required server instance as required |
|
|
|
laser
Advanced Member
Australia
3859 Posts |
Posted - 10 August 2004 : 07:18:13
|
| Yep, VMWare is a nice 'bash & crash' environment, but I found it hard to get the networking operational on some machines. |
|
|
|
Gremlin
General Help Moderator
New Zealand
7528 Posts |
Posted - 10 August 2004 : 18:53:04
|
VMWare handles non MS OS's much better than Virtual does imo, always have a heck of a time getting Redhat to run properly under VirtualPC 2004.
MS Have had the connectix stuff for probably over a year now they've actually spent a reasonable amount of time on it based on the initial Beta's I was involved in and what they released. Virtual Server is pretty nice I must say though too, great for running multiple platforms on a single PC in a more "server like" environment (you only get a web interface to your virtual machine so it's no good really for running a desktop OS and trying to make it usefull). |
Kiwihosting.Net - The Forum Hosting Specialists
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
