From: "Gary Britt" 

I was thinking about using one of these products so I could continue to
work in Win2K without having to worry about tracking down drivers and
installing, etc. on new hardware.  If I had the setup I wanted created as a
virtual machine, then it would be a piece of cake to move that setup and
all its programs to any new hardware.  Just let the new hardware host a
virtual machine for win2k, all the drivers, etc stay the same inside the
virtual machine so transferring to new hardware should be as simple as just
copying the virtual machine (file/partition) to the new hardware.  No need
to hassle with the problems of moving the operating system to new hardware
for real and all the related driver issues and inaccessible boot drive
stuff.

What do you think of the practicality of the above?

Gary

"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:4381f734{at}w3.nls.net...
> VMWare is still a bit faster at changes right now, but Microsoft is
> definitely not standing still with their technology.
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/Oct05/10-10VirtualizationStrategy
PR.mspx
>
> Is pretty interesting...
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4381f0d0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Does MS continue to make regular improvements to Virtual PC?  How about
> > VMWare?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> > news:4381d863$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> > Robert which do you like better, Virtual PC or VMWare workstation?
> >>
> >> It depends on the task at hand, I have and use both, as well as Virtual
> >> Server from Microsoft, but for most of my VM work which is programming
> >> and
> >> testing in a Windows environment, I like Virtual PC the most.
> >>
> >> I tend to use VMware if I want to use Linux any, and I use Virtual
Server
> > if
> >> I want to do any long term testing in Windows.  I probably will move
some
> >> production tasks to VM's running on Virtual Server R2 in not too long a
> >> time...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bob Comer
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
> >> news:4381b6da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> > Robert which do you like better, Virtual PC or VMWare workstation?
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >> >
> >> > "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> >> > news:43814cb7{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >no way could you do 30 each of those doing 20 sites, not
> >> >> > going to happen.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you're selling it short.
> >> >>
> >> >> > The hosting business is very competitive, you
can't afford lots of
> >> >> > anything
> >> >> > unless people are willing to pay for it. Nobody
running windows is
> >> >> > doing
> >> >> > virtual servers this way. Mostly when you rent
a full server it's
a
> >> >> > physical
> >> >> > machine, you even get access to a remote power switch.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you'll see some changes soon enough that
way, even in that
> >> >> type
> >> >> of
> >> >> business, there's no physical reason a coloc machine
has to be a
real
> >> >> one,
> >> >> even down to the remote power switch. (in fact,
you'd never know it
> >> >> was
> > a
> >> >> virtual machine without some registry browsing.)
> >> >>
> >> >> > show me someone doing windows virtual servers.
All the one's I've
> > seen
> >> >> > where
> >> >> > you get admin access to the machine are really
physical machines.
> >> >>
> >> >> You talk to that world more than I, but I talk to
the corp world and
> >> > they're
> >> >> doing it virtual more and more -- some have been
doing it for a lot
of
> >> > years
> >> >> already...
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Bob Comer
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Geo"  wrote in message
news:4381448e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
> >> >> > news:4380a981{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yeah, so in your scenario about you get
rooted, it's all lost, in
> >> >> >> mine,
> >> >> > say
> >> >> >> I have 15 virtual servers, each serving 400
sites, one gets
rooted,
> > I
> >> >> >> only
> >> >> >> lose 1/15'th of my sites.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It doesn't work that way, first you won't be
hosting 100's of
sites
> > per
> >> >> > virtual server because of the load, 600 sites
on a fast dual cpu
> >> >> > machine
> >> >> > with no virtual copies of the OS running is
pushing it, with
virtual
> >> >> > servers
> >> >> > you would be isolating each customer to their
own virtual machine
so
> >> > maybe
> >> >> > you could do 30, no way could you do 30 each of
those doing 20
> >> >> > sites,
> >> > not
> >> >> > going to happen.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now to the rooted issue. I guess if one virtual
server is running
> >> >> > PHP
> >> > and
> >> >> > gets rooted then it might just affect that one
site, otoh if it's
a
> >> > patch
> >> >> > issue and it got rooted because of the OS or
something all the
> > virtual
> >> >> > servers have in common then they probably all
get rooted. It is
> >> >> > safer
> >> > but
> >> >> > only partially safer in that you could allow folks to run
executable
> >> >> > extensions of their choice without really
increasing the risk to
the
> >> > other
> >> >> > hosted sites.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yep, and that's actually a benefit, no
servers administrator has
> >> >> >> access
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> any of the other servers, total isolation,
in your scheme, and
> >> >> >> admin
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> admin, he has it all, and it's true, you
need a lot of RAM and
disk
> >> > too,
> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> the advantages outweigh they disadvantages
for a LOT of companies
> > out
> >> >> > here.
> >> >> >> I could even have the DB and mail servers
as a 16th and 17th VM,
> >> >> >> and
> >> > keep
> >> >> >> them just as secure as if they were on
separate hardware.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The hosting business is very competitive, you
can't afford lots of
> >> >> > anything
> >> >> > unless people are willing to pay for it. Nobody
running windows is
> >> >> > doing
> >> >> > virtual servers this way. Mostly when you rent
a full server it's
a
> >> >> > physical
> >> >> > machine, you even get access to a remote power switch.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You'd really be shocked at how many, the
big guys have been using
> >> >> >> it
> >> > for
> >> >> >> years, and now its filtering down into the
middle and smaller
> >> >> >> tiers.
> >> >> > (think
> >> >> >> more than just websites, but db, app
servers, printer/fileshare
> >> >> >> servers
> >> >> > too)
> >> >> >> Even the hardware companies are making it
easier with VT and
> > Pacifica.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > show me someone doing windows virtual servers.
All the one's I've
> > seen
> >> >> > where
> >> >> > you get admin access to the machine are really
physical machines.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Geo.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

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