virtual machines

[spacesurfer]

if you can sacrifice features and want something free, virtual pc is great - very stable, small, hassle-free, supports networking without any manual configuration. great for home users who just want to test out unattended installs and stuff.

[Martin H]

I don't mind using newer versions of apps which uses more resources/size if they bring anything usefull to me, but since the newer VMware's don't, then i prefer to stick with latest version of v5.0.

Granted, i admit to being a simple VMware user, and only uses it to test new unattended ISOs i make, and for ppl using VMware intensively, then i fully understand that the newer versions is better for them...

I just installed the latest version of VMware Workstation, just to make a quick comparison of the install-folder sizes and commit of the 3 startup-processes:

VMware Workstation v5.0.1324:

Install-folder: 78mb

vmware-authd.exe : 2.064kb

vmnat.exe : 1.176kb

vmnetdhcp.exe : 1.560kb

VMware Workstation v6.5.2.0.156735:

Install-folder: 676mb

vmware-authd.exe : 7.932kb

vmnat.exe : 3.328kb

vmnetdhcp.exe : 9.948kb

[uid0]

I use vmware server - probably a bit more bloaty than workstation 5, but you can't beat the price

I run netware 3 on it

[CoffeeFiend]

VMware Workstation v6.5.2.0.156735:

vmware-authd.exe : 7.932kb

vmnat.exe : 3.328kb

vmnetdhcp.exe : 9.948kb

Those numbers are totally innacurate (which also makes me doubt about the other previous numbers you got). Sounds like you're going by the memory column in task manager or such. That's definitely not private bytes.

For example, vmnetdhcp.exe actually uses about 1MB, not nearly 10MB like you stated.

[Martin H]

Those numbers are totally innacurate (which also makes me doubt about the other previous numbers you got).

I apologise! I've previously always just thought that the taskmanager results where just a little less accurate than the 'private bytes' column of Process Explorer i.e. maybe 5%, and hence, i've never bothered with using anything other than just the taskmanager, but now i've finally read-up on this whole memory-issue, and realize that you of course is absolutely correct, so sorry about that...

Anyway, here's the revised comparison-table with actual private bytes this time...

VMware Workstation v5.0.1324:

Install-folder: 78,4mb

vmware.exe: 10.708kb

vmware-authd.ex: 1.260kb

vmnat.exe: 936kb

vmnetdhcp.exe: 512kb

VMware Workstation v6.5.2-156735:

Install-folder: 676,0mb

vmware.exe: 23.868kb

vmware-authd.exe: 3.936kb

vmnat.exe: 1.000kb

vmnetdhcp.exe: 548kb

[CoffeeFiend]

No need to apologize. The vast majority of people think that column in task manager is what processes use. I don't blame people for not reading Windows Internals (which I didn't manage to read cover to cover myself; BTW 5th ed is just out, I gotta order it ASAP). There's also some other good resources on the subject, like the Sysinternals Video Library ($400 though...)

As for vmnat.exe and vmnetdhcp.exe, there's basically no difference.

vmware-authd.exe takes a couple MB extra

vmware.exe about a dozen MB extra

So in total, it's like perhaps 15MB extra for a lot of new features (four years' worth). Not that bad really. More disk space too (about 5 cents worth), but then again, if you removed the tools ISOs you don't need (like the 200MB Linux ISO by itself) the difference quickly narrows down there too (and those ISOs are invaluable if you need to use those client OS'es -- especially in Linux's case where an ISO that's 6 months old is often obsolete/useless with the current Ubuntu release)

Either ways, I'm definitely moving to Hyper-V soon.

[Zxian]

I've got Server 2008 Standard running on my server at home, and I've got to say that Hyper-V is one of the cleanest, simplest VM interfaces I've ever used. I've tried VMware Server/Workstation and VirtualBox, and none of them have been as easy to use as Hyper-V.

Soon enough I'll start playing with all the fancy features.

[cluberti]

So in total, it's like perhaps 15MB extra for a lot of new features (four years' worth). Not that bad really. More disk space too (about 5 cents worth), but then again, if you removed the tools ISOs you don't need (like the 200MB Linux ISO by itself) the difference quickly narrows down there too (and those ISOs are invaluable if you need to use those client OS'es -- especially in Linux's case where an ISO that's 6 months old is often obsolete/useless with the current Ubuntu release)

Either ways, I'm definitely moving to Hyper-V soon.

And it's not that hard to get Hyper-V IC's compiled and running on Ubuntu 9.04 either, just fyi. It's not as automagic as it would be on SLES, but the benefit is not having to run SLES .

[CoffeeFiend]

And it's not that hard to get Hyper-V IC's compiled and running on Ubuntu 9.04 either, just fyi.

Another clear win for Hyper-V. Can't wait

[beats]

VMware Workstation v6.5.2-156735:

Install-folder: 676,0mb

VMware v6.5 has a much larger installation footprint due to the fact that it comes with much more support tools ISO's. The Linux support tools ISO alone is well over 200MB IIRC...

[g-force]

I`m used to VM Ware 5, really stable, easy to configure, not too bloated - but still expensive.

I think some people DO mind about the costs, so here`s another solution.

It`s called PortableVirtualBox, bases on VirtualBox. It`s free, Download and (also english) Support:

German-Winlite: http://german-winlite.de/wbb/index.php?pag...amp;boardID=153

[Snarfles]

I've always found Virtual Box to be fantastic. Do you have the Guest additions installed? Without the mouse integration it can be a bit annoying but with it, it is quite seemless.

[JustinStacey.x]

I quite like Virtual PC. It's stable enough to rely on and reasonably fast. It has good networking and the additions can allow drag and drop and higher performance.

[neo]

I prefer VMWare Workstation but Virtual Windows PC also a good option free of cost.