June 17, 200917 yr 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.
June 20, 200917 yr 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: 78mbvmware-authd.exe : 2.064kbvmnat.exe : 1.176kbvmnetdhcp.exe : 1.560kbVMware Workstation v6.5.2.0.156735:Install-folder: 676mbvmware-authd.exe : 7.932kbvmnat.exe : 3.328kbvmnetdhcp.exe : 9.948kb
June 20, 200917 yr 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
June 20, 200917 yr VMware Workstation v6.5.2.0.156735:vmware-authd.exe : 7.932kbvmnat.exe : 3.328kbvmnetdhcp.exe : 9.948kbThose 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.
June 21, 200917 yr 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: 78,4mbvmware.exe: 10.708kbvmware-authd.ex: 1.260kbvmnat.exe: 936kbvmnetdhcp.exe: 512kbVMware Workstation v6.5.2-156735:Install-folder: 676,0mbvmware.exe: 23.868kbvmware-authd.exe: 3.936kbvmnat.exe: 1.000kbvmnetdhcp.exe: 548kb
June 21, 200917 yr 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 extravmware.exe about a dozen MB extraSo 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.
June 22, 200917 yr 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.
June 22, 200917 yr 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 .
June 23, 200917 yr 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
July 3, 200917 yr VMware Workstation v6.5.2-156735:Install-folder: 676,0mbVMware 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...
July 4, 200917 yr 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
July 23, 200917 yr 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.
July 24, 200917 yr 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.
July 25, 200917 yr I prefer VMWare Workstation but Virtual Windows PC also a good option free of cost.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now