I have been using VMware Workstation since version 4.5. So far I have not used any other brand. I have Workstation 6.5 for Windows and 6.5 for Linux on two computers at work, and 6.5 for Linux at home.

The Windows version is on an XP system, and I hardly ever use it. The Linux versions are on Fedora 8 systems. I have both Windows and Linux VMs, but do them all on the Fedora 8 hosts.

I would be happy to hear about other virtualization products. Even if I keep it just VMware, perhaps there are other things than Workstation that would do a better job for me.

I know that Xen is free and has been made a part of Fedora, but as far as I know a VM created with Xen will only run on a Linux host. Most of my VMs are used on Windows hosts with the free VMware Player.

Our company is a heavy user of both VMWare Server and VirtualBox, but we are moving more towards VirtualBox these days as it seems to be better at memory management when working with multiple guests on the one machine.

Can you explain why you prefer VMWare over VirtualBox?

Since your company is tending more toward Virtualbox because of its better memory management, maybe I should take a look at it.

Once a VM is created by it and deployed, how does the VM compare as far as complexity for the user. My users have basic computer knowledge only, and operation must be as close to dirt simple as possible. Will they have to be more technically aware with a Virtualbox VM?

OralDeckard do you mean the guest OS or the VM host interface (stop/start/reinstall machines).
If you mean the host interface then it's very similar to VMWares - it is actually a little easier to use I would say for non-technical people because it looks more basic and straightforward.

If your host is windows, they are both pretty good as terms of interface.
If however your host is Linux (Ubuntu we use) then VirtualBox is by far the easier option. Installing under Linux is a breeze with Aptitude and it just works out of the box without any manual Kernel building or configuration.

VMWare on the other hand took weeks to get working properly on Linux and in the end we ended up running it under Windows - the install for VMWare was much simpler on Windows.

I am surprised to hear that. My vmware "server" (the version I used, even though it was to set up a dual OS workstation) experience goes back to about 6 months in 2006. At that time I tried running XP as a guest with an Ubuntu host and Ubuntu as a guest with an XP host. Both were pretty easy to set up, but the performance was night and day! Ubuntu as a guest under Windows sucked big time, just very very slow. On the other hand XP as a guest under Ubuntu ran fine. About 5% slower than native. I was very impressed with VMware's obvious optimaztion while running under linux, in that it was able to provide a virtual box in which to install Windows that allowed Windows to run in the vm nearly as fast as native.

I was actually referring to the installation of the VM host (the one off process to get VirtualBox or VMWare on your Linux machine), not managing guest operating systems.

I mean ease of use of the guest. I can't ask the users to become technically informed.

Well it sounds like Virtualbox is much simpler. So I decided to give it a try.

I went to the Virtuabox site and installed the repostory, then attempted to install it. I got three missing dependencies, all QT libraries.

I searched the Virtualbox site for a solution and found that I must have Qt 4.3.0 at a minimum. So I went searching for Qt. I found it at Trolltech. I downloaded the libraries and attempted to install.

I unpacked them, then told it ./configure.

I got a string of errors about 10 miles long, starting with this one:
So I browsed to that /include/QtCore and found that, yes indeed all that stuff is missing.

So I uppacked again, and checked again, and it is missing.

Do you have any idea what I am missing here ?

I am using ESXi 3.5 on a Dell 1650 (PIII Tualatin x2 procs) with 2GB of RAM. I wanted to host three virtual boxes. All running Ubuntu 9.04 server. Two just stripped with dns only as my two nameservers required for net-presence. One as a mail server that I intended to migrate away later.




OK, I know I am talking PIIIs here, but... a SERVER install of Ubuntu...? And they bogged down to the point of unusable...

FYI.




hey! the first two worked great! I'm a lowly analyst with 13 machines at my home. US $300+ monthly for electricity. trying to rein that energy bill in! not to mention the waste...!

it was working for me...

just... that third one kinda ground things to a halt.




I use VMware because they have the market cornered and my boss/work use VMware.

(I also try to use CentOS 5 for everything as well, for the same reasons - since it IS Red Hat Enterprise 5... in this instance, however, I wanted Ubuntu-simplicity for testing purposes...)

My concern with Virtual Box is what Oracle will do with it. I've not heard Oracle's plans as to whether Vbox survives, survives and stays free, stays free but has some features limited etc.

If anyone has heard any news from Oracle on this it would be a good post.