From: "Rich Gauszka" 

I can see where patches that need to be defined at the system level would
be a definite minus for some with Virtuozzo. Yet if one needs application
scalability there may be a need. If you have some time to test virtuozzo
any postings/rants on it will be appreciated

http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/expert/KnowledgebaseAnswer/0,2
89625,sid94_gci1206366,00.html
There are, however, drawbacks -- mainly, aspects such as operating system
settings, patch levels, security configuration, and device drivers are all
defined at the system level. If your application requires these types of
changes, application-level virtualization may not be the best fit. Also,
complex network and configuration requirements for multi-tier Enterprise
applications may not be easy to configure. Overall, however, this approach
can be economical and can be a great way to run multiple instances

"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:1a6l031rq560qkf12ne41go8dukom669qd{at}4ax.com...
> 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