Comments on: Review: VMware Server Beta

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 09 May 2006 16:19:20 +0000

Alex, thanks for the interesting information. I didn’t test VMware server or Virtual Server on a 64 bit machine yet. Let’s see, if VMware can catch up when the final comes out.

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 07 May 2006 09:30:55 +0000

Forgot to mention that my test scenario was Cisco VPN client installation, where Microsoft only used one virtual hyper-threaded CPU or 25% of my total CPU resources to install, versus VMWare using one real CPU or 50% of my total resources, and Microsoft was neck-in-neck with VMWare the entire install.
With simple IE launch tests, Microsoft beat VMWare every time, whether i was using the remote control or RDP, with the same CPU utilization characteristics as listed above.
And before anyone comments, forgive my ‘loose’ typo above

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 07 May 2006 09:20:02 +0000

I'm currently running Windows 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition with 8GB RAM and (2) 2.8Ghz 2MB Cache Xeon Noconas w/HT enabled. I've been a long time fan of VMWare, back in its beta days prior to 1.0 workstation release. But on on my box with the Virtual Server R2 64 bit versus VMWare Server Beta 2, VMWare looses pretty badly with a regular Windows XP 32 guest OS. I haven't tested ESX or GSX Server yet, which should have 64bit support, so hope is still alive for me, but the VMWare Server product better remain in beta until they put 64 bit support in, or it won't be competitive...

By: Somewhere out there! » kontrawize: VMware Server versus VMware Workstation

Somewhere out there! » kontrawize: VMware Server versus VMware Workstation — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:05:31 +0000

[...] This guy has a good review. [...]