From: "Gary Britt" 

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