Branches
Releases
Comments
[»]
Love this product
by Jim Henderson - May 15th 2008 17:46:11
Been a user of VMware Workstation since the 2.0.x days - one minor
correction to your description, though - it doesn't run "Novell",
it runs "NetWare". Novell is a company; NetWare is one product
delivered by the company, along with SUSE Linux and several other
non-operating system products.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMware Server vs. VMware Workstation
by Moritz Barsnick - Jul 14th 2006 03:02:06
For those of you who are wondering about the differences between VMware
Server and VMware Workstation, do check out this article:
http://kontrawize.blogs.com/kontrawize/2006/03/vmware_server_v.html
(kontrawize blog)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMware Player -- limitations?
by Chaotic Thought - Oct 28th 2005 01:46:32
I visited the VMWare Player page and it sounds like a limited version of
VMWare workstation, and besides a list of "features," there is no
information on what the limitations are vs. VMWare workstation. Can anyone
comment?
If it really is a free download, I'll eventually just try it,
but I was wondering what limitations I can expect. Is the VMWare Player
going to refuse to save changes to disk images? Or maybe it runs for 30
minutes and then stops?
Or maybe it just lacks the ability to create "virtual machines." But
the last time I checked, VMWare virtual machines consisted of a simple
configuration file and a disk image. Those can be created with ed(1) and
dd(1), respectively; at least on a UNIX-like system.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: VMware Player -- limitations?
by Moritz Barsnick - Nov 8th 2005 01:15:13
> what the limitations are vs. VMWare
> workstation. Can anyone comment?
That's the problem -- freshmeat.net doesn't allow for separate
descriptions for project branches. Though the player is probably quite okay
to be described as a branch instead of a separate tool.
This must be what you're looking for:
http://www.vmware.com/products/player/comparison.html
Basically: No VM creation, no snapshot management, and some bells and
whistles missing, if I understand correctly.
Also, jtroyer writes in http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/blog/:
'There has been a lot of excitement about VMware Player on Slashdot and
other sites. I've also seen many people talk about it on IRC and some have
messaged me with questions. Namely, what's the catch? Why give away our
virtualization platform? Are the VMs DRMed? Will they expire? Do they not
work as well as in Workstation?
There's no catch. This is the same virtualization platform we use in
Workstation. The VMs are the same VMs. They won't expire. They should work
just as well in the Player as they do in Workstation.'
> If it really is a free download, I'll
It is.
> Or maybe it just lacks the ability to
> create "virtual machines." But the last
> time I checked, VMWare virtual machines
> consisted of a simple configuration file
> and a disk image. Those can be created
> with ed(1) and dd(1), respectively; at
> least on a UNIX-like system.
Indeed they can, at least that's what I read in some sources. It's pretty
much up to you to be smart enough, and the player then poses no further
restrictions on you.
HTH,
Moritz
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMWare is great
by Mightor - Apr 15th 2002 16:23:56
We use VMWare to do most of our software development. It runs very well,
but then the machines we develop on are not the slowest either. I usually
have between 2-3 vm's running simultaneously on a debian host. The guest
OSs range from Linux to win2k to OpenBSD.
The main thing is to have plenty of memory, fast disks and a fast CPU.
Mine is a P4-1.5GHz with SCSI-3 disks and 512MB ram, but it'd still be
cheaper than all the machines I'd need to do my job. Besides, hardware is
cheap, labour is expensive. If the tools get the job done, they're worth
every penny.
Good thing my project manager thinks the same way.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMWare speed may be video-card-setup dependent more than expected
by Tom Oehser - May 4th 2000 15:37:49
I think the discrepancy in speed may be due to video acceleration features,
if you have
a really fast video card and well support X and use VMWare's X
enhancements, versus
if you have a framebuffer device or no X acceleration. Of course, it
is important to have
enough memory both in the VM and for Linux, but it should be easy to
see thrashing.
-Tom
[reply]
[top]
[»]
So it is not possible yet to have an OS on a Windows machine
by Cezary Sliwa - Feb 7th 2000 14:18:14
I tried to run Linux on Windows NT (Pentium 166 MMX/64MB RAM). It works,
but screen refresh is terribly slow. No text mode support. xterm on their
Xserver seems faster, but still slow.
Doesn't work in version 1.x: multisession CD (both Linux and Windows
versions), PPP (tried in Linux on Windows; there is an option to emulate a
serial port using a disk file, so the whole thing must be broken).
It would be cool to use the emulated Linux as a server for Windows (http
proxy, dns, wins), but this makes little sense if you can't connect to the
Internet.
Probably I would use the Linux version to access my printer, but who would
want to buy the commercial version of a VIRTUAL machine?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: So it is not possible yet to have an OS on a Windows machine
by Tom - Nov 24th 2005 17:55:57
For running Linux under NT, just get User Mode Linux. You can connect to
the Linux system under NT using a VNC viewer or Cygwin's X11 server.
(If none of that makes sense to you, try Googling for the terms.)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Slackware install
by Ramzesik - Feb 1st 2000 04:09:56
I have a slackware 7.0
and I try to install VmWare, but is not installed successfully!
why?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Slackware install
by rgibons - Oct 25th 2005 08:21:51
> I have a slackware 7.0
> and I try to install VmWare, but is not
> installed successfully!
> why?
>
I'm running it on Slackware 10.2 currently, I have done so on other
versions of Slack as well. In order for the install to work, you have to
manually create in /etc/rc.d the following subdirectories: rc0.d, rc1.d,
rc2.d, rc3.d, rc4.d, rc5.d and rc6.d before you run the installer. You will
also need the full gcc complier and kernel sources.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Speed and memory...
by abo - Sep 19th 1999 21:35:30
G'day,
Just a guess, but maybe the people getting bad performance are
allocating too much memory to VMWare.
If you tell VMWare to use 64M RAM on a machine with only 64M, OS's
like windoze will use all 64M with impunity, assuming that it is real,
fast, RAM. However, your linux OS will need some of that RAM, so at least
part of the 64M used by VMWare will need to be swapped out, leading to
thrash-city (just imagine, windows caching disk into your swap
partition...yuk). You will probably get far better performance allocating
only 32M to VMware.
I suspect other tuning could be done to windoze to make it take better
advantage of the underlying linux. Things like turning off virtual memory
and disk caching, relying on linux to provide this for you, should make a
difference.
Note I have not played with VMware yet, I could have made mistakes
about how it works, and hence how it can be tuned. Best to RTFM rather than
take my word for it.
--
ABO
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMWare's Speed
by Kleuber - Sep 10th 1999 13:55:02
VMWare's speed is great in my machine: K6-2/400Mhz, 64Mb RAM, Linux RH6 and
VMWare Beta for linux 1.0.9. I run at same time and with great performance
that OS's virtual: Win3.1, Win95B, Win98, WinNT4.0 Workstation and Linux
RH6.
Each OS running various softwares. I follow correctly instructions of site
VMWare. VMWare is amazing.
--
kleuber
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMWare speed
by Tommy Eriksen - Aug 20th 1999 08:00:18
I'm not as impressed with the VMWare speed as everyone else seems to be.
Running Win95SR2 on a virtual machine on my PII-400/128MB RAM/RH6.0 gives
me about the same speed my old 486DX4-100.
I agree, the emulation works
great, but I personally don't think it's suitable for any environment where
you need to use more than Notepad.
Just my $0.02.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: VMWare speed
by cypherz - Oct 25th 2005 08:59:03
> I'm not as impressed with the VMWare
> speed as everyone else seems to be.
> Running Win95SR2 on a virtual machine on
> my PII-400/128MB RAM/RH6.0 gives me
> about the same speed my old 486DX4-100.
> I agree, the emulation works great, but
> I personally don't think it's suitable
> for any environment where you need to
> use more than Notepad.
> Just my $0.02.
WTF?? I think you guys with the 64 or 128 meg machines are just trolling.
I mean 64 megs isn't enough to run Windows 98 acceptably on a 400 mhz
machine! 128 is just barely adequate for Win98, but there won't be enough
left over after boot to run any serious guest OS! And then to complain that
vmware is slow?!! Good grief! I'm running on a 3.0 Ghz P4 with 1.5 gigs
of ram and vmware runs most OS's I've tried at full speed (in full screen
mode). In "windowed mode" screen refreshes are a little slower than an
install on the bare metal. I guess you third world types need to step up
to the plate and get some memory! RAM is cheap these days! Or maybe you
silly gits are just trolling.
The moral of this story is: "You can never have too much RAM. Always have
enough RAM to support the host OS AND the guest OS!"
--
"A Squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast 'n
bulbous, get me?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
vmware linux users mailing list
by J. Maynard Gelinas - Jul 3rd 1999 09:57:20
Hi folks,
Because I can't find a mailing list supported from the official vmware
site, nor have the staff at vmware been responsive to my questions, I've
created a mailing list for users of vmware to discuss problems and
solutions with the product.
Linux users of vmware are welcome to join the list and offer their advice
or questions. Don't expect any involvement from the vmware staff, nor
should you expect that I or any other list participant will have a solution
to your problem. But you may get lucky...
BTW: I'm a registered user and have purchased my license. This list was
not created to help facilitate illegal copying and misuse of the
vmware product. If you want that, why not do us all a favor and contribute
to BOCHS?
To subscribe to the mailing list point your browser at:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/vmware-linux-users
To post to the mailinst list send a message to:
vmware-linux-users@onelist.com
Cheers,
maynard@jmg.com (J. Maynard Gelinas)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
RE: P166/64 MB RAM
by naChoZ - May 13th 1999 03:37:47
I had tried running it on my p200/64 and it was pretty excruciating. I
don't recommend it if you have <= 64MB. I have it on my PII-366/128MB
laptop now, though, and it speeds right along, no sweat. Just installed
the recent build 152 without a hitch, too.
--
Andy Harrison
ICQ: 123472 AIM/Y!: AHinMaine
[reply]
[top]
[»]
P166/64 MB RAM
by cej - May 10th 1999 14:54:28
Tried build 132 on a Pentium 166 with 64 megs RAM...and tried installing
Windows 98 on it.
Very very exceedingly slooow. Took three hours to start copying
files, then performed a General Protection Fault.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
AMD Chip
by carlton - Apr 15th 1999 07:43:23
I am running an AMD K6-2 with 64MB RAM. VMWare runs fine. 98 is a bit
slow, but Linux seems not to starve too much. In fact, 98 seems MORE
stable on my system through vmware than it does as the native OS.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Raw Disk mode
by drendite - Apr 5th 1999 14:57:09
I have my linux root and windows partitions on the same disk, /dev/hda. I
use lilo to dual boot. I wanted to use vmware to access my windows
partition.. So I ran the wizard with the -rawdisk option. It tells me
that none of the IDE drives (/dev/hda /dev/hdb /dev/hdc or /dev/hdd) exist
or that I don't have permission. I get this error even if I try to do this
as root. Could it be because my linux root is mounted off of /dev/hda2 and
It doesn't want to access /dev/hda to boot off of?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Raw Disk mode
by spaantje - Feb 20th 2004 13:09:23
> I have my linux root and windows
> partitions on the same disk, /dev/hda.
> I use lilo to dual boot. I wanted to
> use vmware to access my windows
> partition.. So I ran the wizard with
> the -rawdisk option. It tells me that
> none of the IDE drives (/dev/hda
> /dev/hdb /dev/hdc or /dev/hdd) exist or
> that I don't have permission. I get
> this error even if I try to do this as
> root. Could it be because my linux root
> is mounted off of /dev/hda2 and It
> doesn't want to access /dev/hda to boot
> off of?
make an entry in /etc/group and set the VMware user(s) in the disk entry.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Stable but unusable slow, very slow
by Bye FreshMeat - Apr 4th 1999 12:39:43
After all the positive article I have downloaded it and
tested it. It works stable, but unbelievable slow. I have
a K6-2/400 with 128 Mb RAM and the windows 98 is unusable.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMWare Build 106
by Kleuber - Mar 29th 1999 17:32:01
I've successfully tested VMWare on my plain Pentium 166, 32 Mb RAM and HD
1.2 Gb, running Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 together inside VMWare under RH
5.2.
--
kleuber
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMWare Build 106
by Kleuber - Mar 29th 1999 17:30:29
I've successfully tested VMWare on my plain Pentium 166, 32 Mb RAM and HD
1.2 Gb, running Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 together inside VMWare under RH
5.2.
--
kleuber
[reply]
[top]
[»]
A gazillion times faster than BOCHS
by Ben - Mar 17th 1999 15:38:51
I was discouraged after trying BOCHS and WINE and others. This
machine emulator runs Win95 with Office97, and Visio5, and even
games like civilization.
The virtual machine has network support, sound support, full screen
1600x1200 64K colors, floppy support, CD support.
It is amazing, so far I have had no problems.
About 50% native speed, but heh, on a 400MHz PII with 256MB RAM
who cares....
[reply]
[top]
[»]
VMWare
by Bob Smither - Mar 16th 1999 19:11:31
Tried the beta on a p-ii/233, running RH 5.2, 2.0.36 kernel, 196MB RAM. I
allocated a 1 GB disk file and 64M RAM to Win95 installed from an OEM
CDROM. Installation and operation were and have been flawless. Very
impressive product. I still must use two applications that are not
available (yet!) for Linux - FPGA design tools - under Win95. This setup
is very usable. There is a noticable performance hit on the Windows
performance. Linux reports 90+% CPU allocated to vmware when Windows is
actually doing something but at a very high nice level (14 - 19- seems to
vary). The load average stays below 1.0 unless I do something on Linux at
the same time.
Has anyone tried this on a K6-2? The vmware page indicates Windows has
problems (unrelated to vmware) on k6's. Any insites?
Thanks.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: VMWare
by VMGuru007 - Nov 11th 2007 06:28:14
Hi,
VMware definetly rock the free server one and the Virtual Infrastructure
version one. I have run all type of Linux guest OS in it. from Slackware,
Ubuntu, and Redhat 3, 4, 5. All of them run quite stable and fast in it. I
was always quite happy with it. I have actually implemented their VI3 to
virtualize the full infrastructure of one ISP. It work really well. That
does not mean there no other good virtualization software availables.
> Tried the beta on a p-ii/233, running RH
> 5.2, 2.0.36 kernel, 196MB RAM. I
> allocated a 1 GB disk file and 64M RAM
> to Win95 installed from an OEM CDROM.
> Installation and operation were and have
> been flawless. Very impressive product.
> I still must use two applications that
> are not available (yet!) for Linux -
> FPGA design tools - under Win95. This
> setup is very usable. There is a
> noticable performance hit on the Windows
> performance. Linux reports 90+% CPU
> allocated to vmware when Windows is
> actually doing something but at a very
> high nice level (14 - 19- seems to
> vary). The load average stays below 1.0
> unless I do something on Linux at the
> same time.
>
> Has anyone tried this on a K6-2? The
> vmware page indicates Windows has
> problems (unrelated to vmware) on k6's.
> Any insites?
>
> Thanks.
--
VMGuru007
www.ITComparison.com
We like to compare products, but be fair!!!!
Too Hard Too Difficult, but we hope we will succeed.
[reply]
[top]
|
