From: Robert Comer 

And never mind about the 32-bit or 64-bit version problem, they have
support for 64-bit, they're terminology in their docs just sucks.

--
Bob Comer


On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:14:45 -0400, Robert Comer
 wrote:

>It's certainly an interesting concept, more along the lines of
>Application Virtualization rather than traditional machine
>virtualiztion.
>
>I have to really wonder about the isolation between the VE's, and with
>no hardware virtualization it pretty much makes it useless for
>supporting legacy OS's, not to mention you only have one OS period, so
>no multiple versions like I do in VPC or Virtual Server.  I can see
>how it *might* work in your situation but I really don't know what's
>under the covers of virtuosso.  The cost looks a bit daunting, but
>that may be offset by the possible less OS licenses you'd need, but
>again, I have no idea how Microsoft might treat a VE.
>
>I'm a little surprised they don't have a Windows 64-bit version, but
>for your tasks, I don't see that as a problem except you might push
>your memory usage. (actually that might end up being a big problem,
>32-windows OS's large memory usage isn't exactly what I'd call speedy)
>
>It looks like you can download a version (maybe it's a time bombed
>version), so maybe I'll request a copy and try it on my home machine
>to see how things work.  I'm just upgrading my home machine to 4G with
>a faster video card today, but the only server OS I run right now is
>longhorn 64-bit, so I'd have to install another OS. (not a biggie)
>
>fwiw, the next version of Microsoft's Virtualization products, called
>Windows Virtualization, looks *really* interesting, definitely on par
>with VMWare ESX server (ESX is pretty costly, but it's the best of
>breed right now).  Windows Virtualization will run under Longhorn
>Server 64-bit...

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5