W8 CP with Hyper-V or Vmware workstation (W7 or W8)

Hi all
Hyper-V is also built into the STANDARD W8 CP edition so you don't have to use the server edition to create VM's.

Since this is Free I am going to test it out -- just wondering what advantages now VMware WORKSTATION (180 USD) has over HYPER-V on a desktop OS (note NOT A SERVER). I want to have a W2k3 and TWO W7 VM's.

The HYPER-V does what I mainly want with VM's -- can start and stop them at logon / shutdown of the Host without requiring anyone to be logged on to the HOST (as per VMware workstation rel 8.02) so remote access to VM's is possible without anybody having to be logged on to the host - note I only need 2 or 3 VM's not a full blown server, and I can Clone these.

I'm not too worried about the other facilities either in VMware workstation OR Hyper-V except the virtual / network switching capability looks good in Hyper-V.


Anybody tried both -- seems if MS has a FREE product that is comparable to VMware's 200 USD one well it's worth testing.

Note this is the HYPER-V that runs on the W8 CP -- NOT THE SERVER EDITION !!!!!.


Any info - appreciated a lot.
cheers
jimbo

I've used Hyper-V on W8CP for a few weeks, with W8CP as a bare-metal install on my HP ProBook 4430s (80GB SSD, 320GB WD Scorpio Blue, 16GB RAM). Overall, I have to say that Hyper-V 3.0 as implimented on the client OS easily works as well, if not better than Hyper-V 2.0 on W2K8R2. Some of the changes are primarily suited toward laptops, such as the ability to bind wireless adapters to the virtual switch and the ability to sleep and hibernate. As usual with Hyper-V, you aren't going to get true full-screen with decent video unless you enable remote connections on the child OS and connect via RDP. Needless to say, you want to set the connection speed within RDP on the parent to the highest possible option. Once you get used the hot corners, switching between fullscreen RSP sessions is quick and painless. The benefit to Hyper-V when running multiple child OSes is that it's the layer on which everything runs. On the downside, even on the client OS, Hyper-V throws fits when you don't have the proper admin rights.

I'm currently using VMWare Workstation 8 on a fresh W7HP install on my laptop. I'm doing this mainly to learn the basics of working with VMWare during an MCITP course that is being followed by a VCP course. In many ways, I am starting to see that VMWare Workstation makes it easier to make changes on the fly to a guest. It also does a much better job of displaying guests, since it will fit to window size - something I wish Hyper-V did. Also, VMWare Workstation still does better at supporting non-MS OSes. One thing that Hyper-V lacks still is good Linux integration.

I think a good summary would be to say that Hyper-V on Windows 8 is good for a MS-centric environment. If you need to test patches or something you're developing, or if you need an older version of Windows to support vendor hardware, having Hyper-V on the client is great. If you want to have the newest Windows OS running on a convertible laptop or a touch-screen PC, but also want access to games that may require Windows 7, again, Hyper-V is great. If you need to virtualize Windows for a class or a lab, again, it's great. Conversely, VMWare Worksation is still carries the industry banner. If you want to test out different OSes, it will certainly beat out Hyper-V. Also, if your company already has invested in VMWare, I don't see Hyper-V neccessarily taking over. On the other hand, if you don't currently have a virtualization solution in place, Hyper-V will leverage your existing infrastructure better, since it's an "already there" feature.

Hi there
Thanks for the info
I certainly want to try the Hyper-V on W8 CP.

I've used and like VMware for years but I'm itching to try the Hyper-V out.

I thought that the XP Mode on W7 was a total abomination (apart from the fact I suppose that a "Free copy" of XP was thrown in) -- Hyper-V looks like the product they SHOULD have added to W7 - killing off Virtual PC and XP mode in the process.

IMO anybody who needed XP as a VM (me included) would already have had a licensed copy of XP which they could have re-installed as a VM -- I didn't get any problems re-activating the XP OS by phone (moved from Real to Virtual machine).

I want to run W2K3 server and two W7 as guests -- my host is easily powerful enough for this with 16 GB RAM too.

Cheers
jimbo