[sadicq]

Hm... I just wanted to know what you guys are using atm.
I definately go for Vmware, since I believe Virtual PC is crap (although I have to use it sometimes)
If your option is not listed (maybe a new program or one I never heard about), post here and I will be happy to try it too.

[Sponsor]

[yoz7120]

VMware for me

[wizardofwindows]

i use them both i find virtual pc is better for audio and vmware for networking but id have 2 give the edge to vmware myself.

[sadicq]

yeah, the audio is better in vpc, but it has such a lack of options ....
I mean I want a snapshot option in vpc ! and of course vmware is easier to use. at least that is what is think.

This post has been edited by sadicq: 14 September 2005 - 09:01 AM

[Zxian]

VMware... I don't really care about the audio in my virtual machine... not to mention the fact that VMWare gives far better speed than VPC.

Linux support for VPC is pretty bad as well...

[At0mic]

I'm supprised no one so far is using QEMU + QGui seeing as its free. I dont know how good it is. I would give it a try but I already have Virtual PC.

sadicq, on Sep 14 2005, 03:00 PM, said:

I want a snapshot option in vpc

Personally, I just make a copy of the VHD and VMC files. Then I have a copy of the OS in its current state.

This post has been edited by At0mic: 14 September 2005 - 12:12 PM

[sadicq]

Thanks for the hint about the "snapshot". Never thought about that 'cause I use VPC just once in a while. But there are many more things that MS should fix at VPC (hmm.. my processor at 100%, that doesn't happen with Vmware).

[ringfinger]

My vote is for VMware as well. I'm with Zxian, don't really need audio within VMware myself. I think it has many great options and is good for networking.

[AF Delta]

Virtual Server 2005 for me.

[Gouki]

VMware ... Way faster than VPC

[oldwolf]

I just use my comp. If I dont want to damage anything I just slot in another drive.
I got 2x80gb 1x160gb 1x60gb all in removable racks. If I stuff something up I just reinstall the OS and do it differently. I just couldnt be bothered with virtual machines, prefer having everything run at full speed.
Also this way I can run Linux, (whatever flavour I like), win98, winxp, or anything else that I decide I want to try this week.

[Jeremy]

VMWare

[Ninho]

VMware is more potent, esp. for the networking options, USB support, and installing Linux in VMs;
I've run VMware both in windows and Linux hosts and fully satisfied.

Recently though, I started using also VPC in order to run their windows XP-SP2-with-IE7 free from MSDN (time bombed demo, but for me a way to explore Windows XP). I'm not displeased with it, but it's not on par with VMware.

FWIW, cheers

--
Ninho


edit: now seing this poll is very old. Sorry, or rather, not, for resurrecting it. If others want to take the poll we'll see how VPC is doing vs. VMware in these days...

This post has been edited by Ninho: 11 June 2008 - 02:27 PM

[Kindovic]

anyone tried virtualbox??

[Idontwantspam]

I use MS Virtual PC because that's what I used first, so all my disk images are in that format, it's free, and MS sometimes has disk images available for download, which are always Virtual PC format.

I've used VirtualBox and in some ways it's better than VPC, but I avoid it generally due to some bad experiences in the past that have since been fixed, I've just never felt like I needed to use it. When I need linux VM's I use it since VPC fails at linux.

[Buster67]

VMware for me

[CoffeeFiend]

Another long running poll I see.

VMware for me, because:

• It's reliable and time-tested (mature), and still fast & easy
  
• You have a full-featured desktop app for those with more complex needs, and it just keeps getting better and better: ACE, VDI, record/replay debugging, etc
  
• You have the freeware player
  
• You have a free version for servers (also works fine for "standard" needs on a workstation)
  
• You have an upgrade path to a high-end server product (ESX/ESXi)
  
• Lots of extremely powerful & useful features on the server products, such as VMotion
  
• Large set of different management tools for different needs -- they're good too
  
• It runs on different platforms and also accepts mostly anything as a guest OS
  
• There's loads of pre-built appliances for it
  
• Advanced networking: multiple virtual NICs per guest, multiple virtual switches, VLANs, etc, using one or more physical NICs/ports
  
• All the other and extremely useful apps that one uses with it, like P2V and the Converter
  
• The powerful scripting APIs: VmPerl (using perl) and VmCOM (using any language that supports COM objects -- VBScript, JScript, C++, C#, VB.NET, Java, etc) & VIX
  
• The incredibly cool Visual Studio addon (debug your processes running inside a VM!) and so many other perks for programmers
  
• The new and amazing VI toolkit, that lets you use PowerShell to do anything with your VMs
  
• The various SDKs supplementing the scripting APIs
  
• Support for a good range of hardware, like USB devices and smardcard readers in guest OS'es, plus 3D acceleration and such
  
• Solid drivers for the guest OS'es (and not just for windows either)
  
• Great documentation
  
• Support forums, blogs, sites, books written about it, support contracts if you need it, etc.
  
• Doesn't require you to rush out to buy Win2008 licenses + CALs and all that expensive stuff to use (unlike Hyper V) -- it'll even run on a free OS!

And that's just off the top of my head...

Nothing comes even close. It's light-years ahead of the rest.

This post has been edited by crahak: 11 July 2008 - 11:16 AM

[spacesurfer]

Virtual PC on my desktop - it's free. I don't need USB supports, although it would be nice; and yes, just create a copy of the VHD and you got yourself a snapshot. also, you can open vhd with winimage or a similar program in case you need to access files offline. networking is simple in my opinion on vpc. to minimize vhd size, you could use ghost it, restore it, then make copy before running the machine so that it doesn't create a huge pagefile.

i use vbox on my laptop. it's allright. supports usb. networking was hard to setup as i use wireless. only thing is i can't access the hard drive files offline like vpc hard drives files.

[jftuga]

crahak,

Very nice list!

We use VMWare Server (on top of 2003) to host 5 guest Win2003/2000 server OSs. We will be migrating to ESX 3.5 very soon.

-John

[CoffeeFiend]

jftuga, on Jul 11 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

crahak,

Very nice list!

Thanks! One could probably add LOTS more stuff to it.

spacesurfer, on Jul 11 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

Virtual PC on my desktop - it's free.

VMware Server is free too (and a FAR better product IMO). You don't have to make use of the server features (like starting VMs as a service) to use it.

spacesurfer, on Jul 11 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

just create a copy of the VHD and you got yourself a snapshot

That's not what snapshots are at all! This is extremely wasteful at best. When you use snapshots, it only stores the differences from that point (in a different file). You can even make snapshots from an existing snapshot (stores only the differences since that one). It's extremely useful for many purposes (repackaging apps, testing apps/patches, etc). I sure wouldn't want to be using various snapshots on different VMs this way (copying the whole multi-GB virtual disk) when testing something, I'd quickly be wasting hundreds of GBs (and wasting time copying huge files too).

spacesurfer, on Jul 11 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

you can open vhd with winimage or a similar program in case you need to access files offline

Hardly a new/special/exclusive feature. You can mount vdmk images using DiskMount (vmware-mount.exe) for free, no need to buy things like winimage or such. And it's not windows-only either! Comes with full documentation too. And there's even several front ends for it (in case "vmware-mount x: somefile.vdmk" is too scary) and loads of other such utilities.

Again, nothing comes even close to VMware in terms of features.

This post has been edited by crahak: 11 July 2008 - 05:13 PM