a tip for virtual machines

VMware SERVER (free) uses ALL cores of your CPU, while virtual PC 2007 uses
only a single core.
I read about this here:
http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...-vs-parallels/

Dont confuse this with "vmware desktop" that is not free... vmware server is
very similar and can be used by anyone and is also free

just thought I would give this information since lots of people want to run
XP inside a virtual machine...
Or XP users might want to use vista on a virtual machine...

get vmware server www.vmware.com

On Oct 16, 2:05 am, "Taibear ios" <Taib...@ios.com> wrote:
> VMware SERVER (free) uses ALL cores of your CPU, while virtual PC 2007 uses
> only a single core.
> I read about this here:http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...-vs-parallels/
>
> Dont confuse this with "vmware desktop" that is not free... vmware server is
> very similar and can be used by anyone and is also free
>
> just thought I would give this information since lots of people want to run
> XP inside a virtual machine...
> Or XP users might want to use vista on a virtual machine...
>
> get vmware serverwww.vmware.com

virtual

Not real. The term virtual is popular among computer scientists and is
used in a wide variety of situations. In general, it distinguishes
something that is merely conceptual from something that has physical
reality. For example, virtual memory refers to an imaginary set of
locations, or addresses, where you can store data. It is imaginary in
the sense that the memory area is not the same as the real physical
memory composed of transistors. The difference is a bit like the
difference between an architect's plans for a house and the actual
house. A computer scientist might call the plans a virtual house.
Another analogy is the difference between the brain and the mind. The
mind is a virtual brain. It exists conceptually, but the actual
physical matter is the brain.

"Taibear ios" <> wrote in message
news:...
> VMware SERVER (free) uses ALL cores of your CPU, while virtual PC 2007
> uses only a single core.
> I read about this here:
> http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...-vs-parallels/
>
> Dont confuse this with "vmware desktop" that is not free... vmware server
> is very similar and can be used by anyone and is also free
>
> just thought I would give this information since lots of people want to
> run XP inside a virtual machine...
> Or XP users might want to use vista on a virtual machine...
>
> get vmware server www.vmware.com
>
>
>


I just spent a week playing with both VMware server and VPC 2007. I was
setting up a demo for a trade fair. The host pc is running Vista x4 SP1 with
4 GB RAM. The guests are SBS 2003 R2 (1 GB), Ubuntu 7.04 (512 MB), and two
XP Pro (256 MB). With all the vm's running the performance is better with
VPC. To be fair I have more experience running and tweaking VPC. With more
time and tweaking I may have been able to get VMware working better. The
other thing I didn't like about VMware is that it has an unsigned driver.
This means with Vista x64 you need to press F8 on every boot to allow the
unsigned driver to load. With many vm's running you need lot's of RAM which
means you also need 64 bit Vista. I find the best performance for a dual
core pc running VPC is to set the affinity of the vm's to one core and let
the host OS use the other core. The vm's don't seem to suffer much and the
host seems to be more responsive. On a AMD 64x2 38800+ with 4 GB I am able
to run all four vm's and still run Office 2007 apps with reasonable speed on
the host. With VMware server the host got a little sluggish.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Taibear ios" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> VMware SERVER (free) uses ALL cores of your CPU, while virtual PC 2007
>> uses only a single core.
>> I read about this here:
>> http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...-vs-parallels/
>>
>> Dont confuse this with "vmware desktop" that is not free... vmware
>> server is very similar and can be used by anyone and is also free
>>
>> just thought I would give this information since lots of people want
>> to run XP inside a virtual machine...
>> Or XP users might want to use vista on a virtual machine...
>>
>> get vmware server www.vmware.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I just spent a week playing with both VMware server and VPC 2007. I was
> setting up a demo for a trade fair. The host pc is running Vista x4 SP1
> with 4 GB RAM. The guests are SBS 2003 R2 (1 GB), Ubuntu 7.04 (512 MB),
> and two XP Pro (256 MB). With all the vm's running the performance is
> better with VPC. To be fair I have more experience running and tweaking
> VPC. With more time and tweaking I may have been able to get VMware
> working better. The other thing I didn't like about VMware is that it
> has an unsigned driver. This means with Vista x64 you need to press F8
> on every boot to allow the unsigned driver to load. With many vm's
> running you need lot's of RAM which means you also need 64 bit Vista. I
> find the best performance for a dual core pc running VPC is to set the
> affinity of the vm's to one core and let the host OS use the other core.
> The vm's don't seem to suffer much and the host seems to be more
> responsive. On a AMD 64x2 38800+ with 4 GB I am able to run all four
> vm's and still run Office 2007 apps with reasonable speed on the host.
> With VMware server the host got a little sluggish.
>

I've also found VirtualBox to be very good. For some reason Ubuntu 7.10
RC doesn't like running under VirtualPC on my machines. It's fine under
Virtual Box. It also has USB sharing/passthru.