XP Mode or VMWARE

[wwoods]

OK, just got my XP Mode working. I looks nice and all, been putting it off a bit, anyway, I have a VMWARE license for 6.5.3, and am wondering what XP Mode would bring me over VMWARE. And yes, I have a separate licensed copy of XP here I could toss in vmware.

So in the end, what benefits over vmware workstation would I see with XPmode ? I just don't see a good reason to have 2 visualization products on here.

 

[pparks1]

VMWare will give you support to run non-Microsoft based OS's if you want to. And VMWare and Sun Virtual Box are significantly faster than XP Mode. XP Mode gives you seemless apps...so if you would rather have that over a full virtual desktop...that would be a reason for choosing XP Mode.

 

[johngalt]

Agreed. If you want the seamless app integration, go with XP Mode. If you want stability, performance, and versatility, go with VMWare / VirtualBox

 

[Night Hawk]

The larger advantage then simply seeing a boost performance wise with an alternate VM ware is being able to run a 64bit OS whereas the XP mode is the 32bit Pro as well as the Virtual PC itself limited to the 32bit Windows there. Custom installing Windows on a vhd to run on the VPC is also rather limited in other ways where the XP mode is preferred there.

The XP mode is seemless as mentioned for things like access to all internal physical drives as well as now supporting usb pen/flash drives making those available. A custom install of Windows on a vhd for the VPC sadly lacks there. The other 3rd party VM wares may see floppy/dvd access only while offering a better performance value to make up the difference.

 

[swarfega]

Trouble with vmware is that its commercial. You could consider giving virtualbox a go which is free.

 

[Night Hawk]

That's where most the intent is focused is towards the commercial not private home orientation. The XP mode itself is mainly intended for business application in order to provide a means for business to upgrade into 7 and even Server 2008 while not losing time in the process trying to update all the softwares and other things they use.

The other VM wares have been out there much longer to start with having already gone through their betas and tweaking stages. As far as OS performance that sees a gain there while you still find things will lack at times.

 

[pparks1]

Trouble with vmware is that its commercial. You could consider giving virtualbox a go which is free.

VMWare Server 2.0 (runs just fine on Vista or Windows 7) is completely free as is VMWare ESXi 4.0 (hypervisor and intended for servers only)

 

[bjrichus]

So in the end, what benefits over vmware workstation would I see with XPmode ? I just don't see a good reason to have 2 visualization products on here.

I use VMWare Server on several Windows/7 installs now. No doubt in my mind that the VMWare stuff is much faster than the VPC set up.

I have VMWare Server Vsn 2 on my Windows/7 64bit set up running 2 VM's at the same time and it works really well (a good use for all that RAM). One VM is Sun Solaris (for maintaining an app) and the XP VM it runs is an old PC I used to have with my 32bit Cisco VPN in it.

The need for the Cisco 32bit stuff is that it installs device drivers - 32bit only - as at work we are NOT going to upgrade to the 64bit Cisco VPN yet, so have to suffer the 32bit versions for a while yet.

I really like the tight integration that others have talked about with VPC and if MS get the performance thing resolved for general release it will replace my VMWare/XP VM for sure. If they don't, then I guess I'll keep the VMWare for a while yet!

It has already been said: If you want that integration (and it works well), then go VPC, but if you want performance, go Virtual Box or VMWare.

As of now, this is all free (apart from client VM licenses but even those can be "free" in the right situations), all of which is great news.

Nice to have options...

 

[Night Hawk]

Integration or flexibility would seem a better analogy in some ways when comparing the XP mode and 32bit RC install on the VPC to the multiboot of 3 distros with the 64bit RC on the Portable version of Virtual Box there.

The XP mode offers the full integration as far as access to internal drives/usb flash drives over uploading files by way of the WLM SkyDrive where file sizes as well as volume is a concern for the slower transfers there. The same can't be said for the 32bit RC on vhd there however where you still need something live SkyDrive.

The one that seems to be slow with the VPC is the startup time there over what is seen with the Portable VBox which loads any of the OSs right away. But you are cut off and again need something like the SkyDrive bringing you back to square #1 despite the speed boost gain seen when loading things.

Gaming is out for the most on either or all of them since you run into no OpenGL support being limited to the virtual video card there. Some initial problem with sound on the VBox were resolved later while no sound heard on the few games that will start up is typical while multimedia playback(audio mainly) in stereo not surround has worked for the most part without problems.

 

[wwoods]

Trouble with vmware is that its commercial. You could consider giving virtualbox a go which is free.

I dont see that as a problem, it being commercial, as I already own it, even if I dident, I would buy it if it was the superior solution.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi all
to those using vmware server or vmware esxi -- yes these are free but the downside that you actually need an EXTRA machine on your network in order to congigure and manage the vm's - even if the virtual machines physically reside on the hardware running the vmware server / esxi server. (Doesn't apply of course to vmware workstation as this runs under control of a host OS.

If you have a home desktop and a laptop then this is fine but if you only have one machine then you can't really use this software.

However once you get the vm's installed and powered on you gain a HUGE amount in not having an underlying HOST system consuming vast amounts of resources that yu can give to the vm's.

So if you've got a spare machine this is definitely the way to run vm's IMO.


Cheers
jimbo

 

[pparks1]

Hi all
to those using vmware server or vmware esxi -- yes these are free but the downside that you actually need an EXTRA machine on your network in order to configure and manage the vm's

This is not a true statement.

VMware Server 2.0 runs on top of a host OS..so either a Windows Server or a Linux server. You manage it via a webpage...which runs on the host server. So, you don't need a second box in order to manage or run your VM's from vmware server 2.0. I run VMWare Server 2.0 on my work laptop and run about a dozen VM's off an external 2.5" Western Digital USB drive all from one machine, running Vista Enterprise.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
for vmware esxi you STILL need another machine to manage the vm's - it's called vmware Vsphere client.

The whole idea is really great as the point of the vmware exsi system is to have just a tiny kernel and NOT a host OS - so the whole machine (or at least 90% of it) can be dedicated to the vm's.

vmware esxi doesn't have a gui in any case so configuring and starting vm's is impossible without a piece of "Client" software on another machine.

If you are running vmware server on a HOST OS you are really losing the whole point of using a "server" to run the vm's apart from the fact that the software might be free.

The vmware Vsphere client DOES indeed run from a separate Windows machine as shown by the attached screenshot.

Works really great but you DO need an extra machine to define and start the vm's -- once it's up and running then you don't need the extra machine any more.

vmware exsi is really a tiny tiny linux kernel which has just enough resources allocated so VM's can be launched.

Even a fairly primitive laptop can run maybe 8 or 9 vm's using vmware esxi when under the same conditions running say even 3 vm's under vmware workstation on a host OS would cause the entire system to grind to a halt.

Note also that under these "server" conditions the guest vm will not be able to play DVD's or be of much use for gaming although audio apps and streaming should work fine.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[bjrichus]

Jimbo45,

The VMWare product line is aimed at corporates who need to consolidate servers (of various O/S types) onto fewer hardware platforms or to just get more value out of those hardware platforms.

You are right in that it does not run games very well at all, and if anyone at work tried to run games on the servers that host/guest the VM's I use, I'd want them fired!

Why did you attach a picture of the log in screen? I don't see what it shows as being important to anything? Seems that those of us who are posting in this thread are all familiar with VMWare ANYWAY and know how it works, what it does and does not do etc...

 

[pparks1]

Hi there
for vmware esxi you STILL need another machine to manage the vm's - it's called vmware Vsphere client.

The whole idea is really great as the point of the vmware exsi system is to have just a tiny kernel and NOT a host OS - so the whole machine (or at least 90% of it) can be dedicated to the vm's.

vmware esxi doesn't have a gui in any case so configuring and starting vm's is impossible without a piece of "Client" software on another machine.

If you are running vmware server on a HOST OS you are really losing the whole point of using a "server" to run the vm's apart from the fact that the software might be free.

The vmware Vsphere client DOES indeed run from a separate Windows machine as shown by the attached screenshot.

Works really great but you DO need an extra machine to define and start the vm's -- once it's up and running then you don't need the extra machine any more.

vmware exsi is really a tiny tiny linux kernel which has just enough resources allocated so VM's can be launched.

Even a fairly primitive laptop can run maybe 8 or 9 vm's using vmware esxi when under the same conditions running say even 3 vm's under vmware workstation on a host OS would cause the entire system to grind to a halt.

Note also that under these "server" conditions the guest vm will not be able to play DVD's or be of much use for gaming although audio apps and streaming should work fine.

Cheers
jimbo

Jimbo,

I'm extremely familiar with ESX and ESXi as I use them extensively at work. I've got 5 ESXi servers running in one of our development data centers and I have a whitebox ESXi box at my desk connected via iSCSI to an OpenFiler box to offload the disk subsystem and take advantage of some of the fancier tools that are possible with SANS.

As far as using ESXi on a laptop...best of luck. ESXi is very particular about the type of hardware that it can install upon. Only certain NIC's and storage controllers are going to work. Check out this site for information on motherboards and such which are "known" to work or notes on how to make them work. ESX / ESXi 4.0 Whitebox HCL

Using VMWare Server 2.0 on a host based OS is not a bad idea at all.....depending upon the environment and what you are trying to accomplish. It's exactly what I do on my work laptop. I don't think the majority of people on this forum site are trying to run multiple concurrent VM's and thus really need the benefits associated with running a bare metal hypervisor product like ESX or ESXi. On my laptop, i just like being able to bring a few of my test boxes around with me for screwing around with at opportune times.

 

[Paco Nessa]

vmware exsi is really a tiny tiny linux kernel which has just enough resources allocated so VM's can be launched.

Hello

VMware ESX and ESXi ARE NOT A LINUX tiny or not! :shock:

VMware has a kernel that boots the server and that kernel is not a Linux kernel. What ESX have is a console that is a RH distro very customized, that console has direct hooks into VMware and makes feal the uninformed that he administiring a Linux server.

Just my 10 cents.

PAMF

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there

RH = Red Hat. Is this Linux or not. Ok if its a hook into vmware kernel so be it. Conceptually it can be considered as a Linux type of kernel --I'm sure it's likely to have some "Unix" type of structure to it.

In anycase the point was to say that the entire system is very small indeed leaving most of the hardware resources available for the Virtual machines.

Actually vmware server is fine - I should have mentioned that it's the ESX i type of servers that need a remote machine for vm administration. I made an error with vmware server since the browser interface can run from the local machine if you give the port number in the url address.

Note than vmware server V2 MUST use a WEB / Browser interface which some people might not like -- I suppose the advantage of this is that it doesn't need the vmware server to have its own GUI.

I still preferred a console interface but never mind.

Getting back to the point of the thread -- if you want performance forget XP mode -- if you want simplicity and integration for possibly only one or 2 legacy apps then go for XP mode.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[pparks1]

Note than vmware server V2 MUST use a WEB / Browser interface which some people might not like -- I suppose the advantage of this is that it doesn't need the vmware server to have its own GUI.

I still preferred a console interface but never mind.

I completely agree with you there. That's the #1 aggravation for VMWare Server 2.0 for me. I hate not having an executable console application.