I was introduced to it by a client and found it to be really good, especially for a free product. I did actually go ahead with the Workstation version because of the multiple snapshot ability and for making linked clone images that was not available in the free server product. In the end, I didn't really make usage of the multiple snapshot capability that much, but I have made large use of the linked clone ability.
With it, I made a fresh WinXP image (nothing else loaded), and from that, I can generate new "copies" of the winxp image for different usages, within in seconds. If a friend comes over and wants a computer to access, I simply create for them a new virtual pc from my parent image as a clone. This can then become their own pc for good. The great part is, the disk image size only goes up from what he does. So if the parent image is 2GB ( i think that's the size of a minimal XP install), the linked clone does not copy the 2GB data, but reads from it. Thus, if he installs say an 800K application, his virtual pc image is 800K, not 2GB+800K. This allows you to generate an insane # of linked clones with almost no loss of disk space, other than what is 'added to' that virtual pc's harddrive. The parent image is never modified by the linked clone, so it remains stable. I have not tried to see what happens if I add applications to the parent, after the fact, to see if the linked clones 'inhereit' them also. I've tested a variety of different linux builds, as well as Win98, Win XP, Win Media Center, and haven't run into many problems. I think it's a terrific way to test and even develop on linux, without needing to have a dedicated new box to do it. I would have otherwise not had an opportunity to get my hands dirty with linux if not for the vmware products. I will say that having a dual core or at least a cpu with hyperthreading is a big plus for performance when running the emulated machine, as well as having lots of RAM, otherwise, the real pc's OS becomes sluggish. There is a slight performance hit running the virtual os, ie, while you are in it, but you get used to it pretty quick, and can almost forget your not directly on a real pc. My biggest complaint is that none of virtual products I've had access to work with DirectX based applications so you can't test out 'fancy screen savers' for viruses, for example. or other multimedia applications that often screw up pc's and would be ideal to run in a safe virtual pc environment. I can't think of one good reason not to use the vmware server, and once you get comfortable, you'll be able to see if you want to spend the $ to go with workstation. -Steve At 10:12 PM 12/29/2006, you wrote: >Anyone have any experience with the free version of VMware Server? > >Background: >http://www.vmware.com/products/server_comp.html >http://www.vmware.com/products/server/overview.html >http://www.vmware.com/products/server/faqs.html > >I'm curious how you're using this, any gotchas or warnings, and why you >decided to or not to purchase the Workstation Edition of VMware. > >Thanks, > >Malcolm > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
