VM or MS Virtual PC?

[MoInSTL]

I've used VMware and it was okay. Don't need XP mode in Microsoft Virtual PC. I just need a reliable sandbox.

On my laptop I am running Windows 7 Professional x64.

Thanks in advance!

 

[pparks1]

Microsoft's virtualization product is fine, if you are going to run only Microsoft based operating systems. If you are going to dabble with anything else like Linux, use something like vmware or virtualbox instead. Far better support and results on these applications.

 

[MoInSTL]

Microsoft's virtualization product is fine, if you are going to run only Microsoft based operating systems. If you are going to dabble with anything else like Linux, use something like vmware or virtualbox instead. Far better support and results on these applications.

Thanks for your feedback. Just need it for MS so I'll give it a try.

 

[fafhrd]

Virtual PC is limited to a single processor or core, which hobbles the host, in that it can only use the other processor fully. You can get to a silly situation where the Virtual PC is running passably well, on it's ration of processor and memory, but the host is on the verge of crashing through lack of resources on one core, because some programs it is running expect to be using both processors equally.

I think VPC is half a program, cosmetic, rather than a serious virtual machine platform.

 

[jimbo45]

Microsoft's virtualization product is fine, if you are going to run only Microsoft based operating systems. If you are going to dabble with anything else like Linux, use something like vmware or virtualbox instead. Far better support and results on these applications.

Thanks for your feedback. Just need it for MS so I'll give it a try.

Hi there
IMO VMWARE is STREETS ahead of MS in Virtualisation -- they've been at it much longer.

I'd start with vmware player -- its free and performs well enough for you to switch to something else if your needs grow.

Virtual PC is a bit of a dog and the restriction of limiting it only to MS OS'es - even if you are only using these rather makes me suspect that Virtual PC will be too restrictive when you need better resource allocation or performance out of a VM.

Virtual Box has improved a lot also of late but I'd really start with vmware player if you are just beginning with this --it works and is easy to set up Guest OS'es.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[MoInSTL]

I was running Microsoft Server 2003 on VMware Player for a class I was taking. I had to turn off some things but it worked well enough. I have MS Server, XP and another Windows 7 license I am not using. Mostly I just wanted to set up a sandbox for trying out various software downloads and not having registry keys & left over junk when they are removed. I am running a new clean install and don't want to re-image it every time I know it's getting too much gunk.

 

[fafhrd]

Wioski - Home - Wioski - may be what you want. There is a video and a CD iso or USB download - you need to supply a Windows 7 installation DVD.

Basically it sets up a Windows installation on a Virtual Hard drive, which you can set up and maintain the way you require, then it becomes a sandbox until rebooted as a clean original system.

Otherwise there was Windows Steady State for XP and Vista, but Microsoft discontinued that last December.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
in some cases you can set the vm so disks are NOT PERSISTENT.

In other words no changes are made to the disks at the end of the session.

You need something like that -- start each class with a CLEAN VM and changes will be "simulated" but not saved to actual hard disk.

Although an old reference the idea here I think is what you want.

The Virtues of Virtualization: The magic of nonpersistent drives in VMware

I think you can also take snapshots along the way so although the disks aren't changed you can still capture changes and use thee if you want to build "Intermediate" VM's. (I.E keep changes but leave ORIGINAL VM intact).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[MoInSTL]

Thanks for the suggestions. I have to make some time to explore each one and will report back.