What Virtual machine to use?
 

What Virtual machine to use?

Hi:

I need to virtualize Fedora 10 on XP. Thus I can learn how to use alternative software to replace most of the windows software, and eventually have the setup the other way around; Windows virtualized within Linux

There is a host of virtualizing software available now days (not like in 1995 when I used Caldera Linux :-) and I would like to know what are the better and more stable ones since I cant play around with unnecessary hacking to make things work.


XEN, VIRTUAL BOX, Qemu, and SUN Virtual machine:
Are they un-messy?

VMWARE Workstation. Is it that rock solid and straighforward compared to the Open Source Ones to pay the price?

VMPlayer: Looking at their site I could not tell for sure what I was getting. DIf I download VMPlayer and Fedora 10 Appliance; it means that I can have Fedora virtualized for free on XP?


Any help on this matter will be nuch apreciated

Adolfo

If you want to run other OSs under a Windows environment, I'd recommend VMWare Server.

Xen won't run under windows and Virtual Box is a pain when it comes to networking... it has been for me at least.

The VMWare Server is free and runs well although a bit bloated but it will do the job.

I'm sure there are a lot more available, I just wanted to comment on the ones I tried. ;)

Please post your thread (or post) in only one forum. Posting a single thread in the most relevant forum will make it easier for members to help you and will keep the discussion in one place.

Let's keep this one open---I will report the other one for deletion.

VirtualBox is the way to go. They just came out with version 2.2.2 which rocks. I'm running it with one of the latest kernels 2.6.29.2. VMWare does not run with all kernel versions and the install sucks real bad. I hate the new web version of VMWare 2.0 - it does not refresh and it takes a very long time to load the virtual machines. My second favorite would be Qemu.

More recent versions of VirtualBox seem to have finally gotten the networking issue fixed.

Well if Virtual Box fixed the networking probs it is the best choice under windows. I'll have to give it another go! :)
I agree with ramram29, the new web interface is a pain in the new VMWare.

Another great feature of VirtualBox (WHICH I LOOOOVVVVEEEE) is seamless. You can run a Gnome taskbar and a Windows taskbar on the same desktop. Hence, you can run IE, Explorer, and anything you run on Windows, directly on your Gnome desktop - VMWare can kiss VirtualBox'es Arzz...

I'll have to give my support to VBox as well. I was a long time VMware user but the 2.0 felt like I was trying to type with boxing gloves on. I first stated using VBox about 6 mos ago and I don't think I will go back any time soon.

Forrest

I agree with Forrestt and the others. VMware dropped the ball with Server2. I absolutely hate its web browser based interface both in its use and in its concept. To be fair to it, it's interface is not intended for the desktop user and maybe Workstation is much better, but $200 is a lot to drop on a product when there's a free/open-source alternative.

The only other VM I've tried is VirtualBox, which is much nicer to use. The only worry I have about it is that last time I tried to run a OpenBSD guest all the programs were seg faulting all over the place, which suggests it's emulation isn't 100% yet. From what little research I did on the subject I believe I might have had more success if my processor included the VT instructions. Unfortunately, intel doesn't see fit to include them on all the processors in their lineup at the moment, and mine doesn't have them.

Folks another great vm host and the grandfather of them all is QEMU. You should give it a try. The only complain I have about it is that extra steps need to be taken to do network bridging.

Yep, Qemu's cool-only portable VM too that I know of...

Haven't tried VMWare 2, but VMWare 1.0.9 is still available for free. It is slightly faster than VirtualBox 2.1.4, which was the version I tested it against when I was deciding.

If vbox's networking is working better in version 2.2.2, that'd be nice, it wasn't as capable as VMware in the previous versions. I agree seamless mode is nice, as well as some other features it offers, but not at the speed expense.

Haven't tested QEMU in a recent version - it is not nearly as "polished" as Vbox and VMware and then there's the whole kqemu-accelerator hassle too. Don't know about it's USB support either.

what are the problems with vbox-networking?
greetings

Well, when I was using it (though supposedly it is better now), you couldn't setup a virtual private net with your host machine, for one thing. You could use (1) a virtual private net with other VMs or use (2) Shared Folders (or whatever they call it) to connect to your host machine, or (3) bridged networking or (4) NAT. I also understand that NAT support was incomplete. VMware could do all that plus setup a virtual private network including your host. Of course, you could connect to VMware's virtual net with VBox, but then you'd be using both...

Could've been my error, I'm not a networking or a vm guru. For me, it mostly came down to a matter of speed, and VMware seemed faster than VirtualBox. I've got relatively old hardware, so that makes a difference for me; for all of you out there with muliple core, hardware virtualization hardware, VBox is probably a great choice. If and when I have to replace VMware server 1.0.9, I'll probably run my vmdks with Vbox.

Oh, one other thing: VirtualBox has no guest tools for Win98, VMware does. Kind of fun to play with the old OS sometimes...

ok, mostlyharmless, thanks a lot
(the shared folder thingy works fine now, the rest i ain`t got no interest- at the moment :-)).
greetings