› Forums › Operating Systems › Windows Server 2008 R2 › Miscellaneous › Hyper-V vs Vmware Workstation
- This topic has 8 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
Anonymous.
- AuthorPosts
-
- 5th November 2009 at 16:35 #43906
Im tryin to set a lab for studies, it will include 2 windows2003 servers and 2 xp . I have 2008 r2 installed.. so..
Hyper-V vs Vmware Workstation ???
- 6th November 2009 at 11:58 #49981
any one?
- 6th November 2009 at 11:58 #59800
Anonymous
any one?
- 6th November 2009 at 15:12 #49982
install hyper-v role in server and activate it in your bios
- 6th November 2009 at 15:12 #59801
Anonymous
install hyper-v role in server and activate it in your bios
- 13th November 2009 at 02:03 #49983
- 13th November 2009 at 02:03 #59802
Anonymous
- 10th January 2010 at 23:45 #49984
Why would VMWare be better for Windows apps than running a Hyper-V installation of a Windows OS?
I’m still doing my research on this topic, but from what I’ve gathered so far:
1) Hyper-V is awesome for running servers-inside-of-servers, especially for people who are learning rather than pros. I can test out new server roles inside of a Hyper-V VM, without having to worry about corrupting my precious main installation.
2) Hyper-V is worthless for Linux, unless you are using it for SLES or something. In the latter case, Hyper-V is a godsend, as it allows me to use Linux services for server roles that I’m not as comfortable with the Windows equivalent (I’ve got lots of experience with Apache, less with IIS).
That said, Hyper-V royally screwed my networking, to the point where it was unusable and I had to disable the role. A bit of poking around on the web has turned up a plethora of similar complaints, with ‘idunnomustbedoingsomethingwrong’ being MS’s only response. Very annoying.
Bottom line so far:
– Know your needs before you choose any solution.
– VMWare is best for guest OS’s like Linux, when you want to run certain apps that don’t have any equivalent on Windows (I just wish I could do OS/X, so that I could use Papers 🙁 )
– For games… don’t use either, and run as admin on your native box.
– Hyper-V WILL blow VMware out of the water, performance-wise, as the technology matures. MS is investing heavily in virtualization, and you can bet that they’ll apply the same business strategy in this department as they have everywhere else: HVVM’s will be able to exploit Windows internals, while MS will make it increasingly difficult for other companies to do the same, creating a performance chasm between the different options.** Edit: this was intended for the other HV vs VMWare thread. Sorry guys.
- 10th January 2010 at 23:45 #59803
Anonymous
Why would VMWare be better for Windows apps than running a Hyper-V installation of a Windows OS?
I’m still doing my research on this topic, but from what I’ve gathered so far:
1) Hyper-V is awesome for running servers-inside-of-servers, especially for people who are learning rather than pros. I can test out new server roles inside of a Hyper-V VM, without having to worry about corrupting my precious main installation.
2) Hyper-V is worthless for Linux, unless you are using it for SLES or something. In the latter case, Hyper-V is a godsend, as it allows me to use Linux services for server roles that I’m not as comfortable with the Windows equivalent (I’ve got lots of experience with Apache, less with IIS).
That said, Hyper-V royally screwed my networking, to the point where it was unusable and I had to disable the role. A bit of poking around on the web has turned up a plethora of similar complaints, with ‘idunnomustbedoingsomethingwrong’ being MS’s only response. Very annoying.
Bottom line so far:
– Know your needs before you choose any solution.
– VMWare is best for guest OS’s like Linux, when you want to run certain apps that don’t have any equivalent on Windows (I just wish I could do OS/X, so that I could use Papers 🙁 )
– For games… don’t use either, and run as admin on your native box.
– Hyper-V WILL blow VMware out of the water, performance-wise, as the technology matures. MS is investing heavily in virtualization, and you can bet that they’ll apply the same business strategy in this department as they have everywhere else: HVVM’s will be able to exploit Windows internals, while MS will make it increasingly difficult for other companies to do the same, creating a performance chasm between the different options.** Edit: this was intended for the other HV vs VMWare thread. Sorry guys.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.