Ars Technica logo. Serving the PC enthusiast for over 5x10-2 centuries  

Subscribe to Ars Technica!

Have news? Send it in.

 
Ars Guides.
  Buyer's Guide
  How-To's & Tweaks
  Product Reviews
  Ars Shopping Engine

Technopaedia.
  Technical Blackpapers
  CPU Theory & Praxis
  Ars OpenForum
  Search Ars

Columnar Edifice.
  Wankerdesk
  AskArs!
  Diary of a Geek
  Game.Ars Report   Mac.Ars takes on...
  Linux.Ars

Site Info.
  Subscribe to Ars
  Ars Merchandise
  Who We Ars
  Advertising
  Links



Virtual machine shootout: VMware vs. Virtual PC

   by Adam Baratz

 

VMware Workstation 4.5

If you need more control than Virtual PC offers, you should take a look at VMware.

Not only does VMware offer official support for everything from Windows 3.1 to FreeBSD, it also grants you more control over your VMs. You can manage an entire virtual network, emulate either IDE or SCSI hard disks, and take advantage of USB hardware that is connected to the host machine. A Linux version of the host software is even available.

VMware's VMs are also upgradeable. Just as you can add hardware to a real computer, you can alter the setup of your VM. You can add new disk drives, Ethernet adapters, serial ports, parallel ports, and SCSI devices. If you always need access to a CD full of important data, you can make a new virtual drive that's linked to an ISO.

You can even make up virtual NICs for your own virtual network. Virtual networking options are so rich that a separate utility is provided for managing the virtual adapters. VMware's only major fault is that it imposes a 4GB cap on the amount of memory you can allocate across all active virtual machines.

The main interface consists of a single window. Each VM takes a tab rather than an independent window. If you prefer a non-tabbed interface, that's also an option. When a VM isn't running a summary page displaying hardware information and user notes is shown. While running, a status bar displays disk and network activity.


The VMware main window


VMware running XP

If you're going to be spending most of your VM time with a non-Microsoft OS, VMware is really the only way to go. It includes optimizations for Red Hat, SUSE, Mandrake, and Turbolinux. FreeBSD and NetWare are also supported. If you want to run Windows, it has you covered; experimental support for Longhorn is even included.

SMP users will also prefer VMWare because it runs each instance of a VM in its own process, making it highly customizable in terms of CPU offloading and the like. If you're likely to run more than one VM at a time, this will prove to be a performance enhancement you'll want.

VM Tools are available for all of these OSes except DOS. Heavy DOS users (anyone still out there?) might prefer the extra features of Virtual PC. Virtual PC has another edge with its dynamic display resizing. Since VMs usually reside in windows, being able to treat them as fully repositionable and resizable views lets you work with more comfort. It's one of those subtle features like the mouse wheel, where you don't know how useful it is until you try it.

VMware Network UtilityOne of the places where VMware really shines is its documentation. When I first set up Linux, I had issues getting my network to pick up. The error I got said that it couldn't link with my card and to check the cable. Since there isn't a cable to check on a computer that doesn't really exist, I thought I was up the creek.

I checked the help on the chance my problem would be documented; lo and behold it was. Part of the help is a Guest OS Install Guide which has detailed instructions for setting up all supported OSes, along with common problems. I made the prescribed amendments to a couple config files and had everything working in under a minute.

VMware's design makes it very clear what tasks you can accomplish with the program. The layout feels complete without being overstuffed; the help system makes it easy to find answers without seeming like its missing anything.

One of the big faults of Virtual PC is its overly streamlined design. Even though the program doesn't have very many settings, it doesn't comfortably communicate how easy it is to use. With a program so powerful that it can pretend to be another computer, you'd expect that there would be options up the wazoo for geeks to tweak to perfection.

However, there aren't. Virtual PC's developers should hardly be faulted for this. Few programs "just work" without some prerequisite prodding from the user. Situations like this can cause the geek equivalent of housewife ennui to set in: "Have I done everything I could to wring every ounce of performance out of this program? Is there some clever feature hiding somewhere that's escaped my notice? Something left out of the documentation perhaps?"

Next: Benchmarking and conclusions

 


Dual 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 review

The Sims 2 review

Pipelining: an overview (Part II)

System Guide: September edition

Pipelining: an overview (Part I)

Chris Sawyer's Locomotion review

Multicore, dual-core, and the future of Intel

System Guide: gaming boxes

TrackIR3 Pro review

Doom 3: the review

PowerPC on Apple: An Architectural History, Part I

Virtual machine shootout: Virtual PC vs. VMware

The Pentium: An Architectural History � Part II

Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising game review

AirPort Express review

The Pentium: An Architectural History � Part I

The Ars guide to PCI Express

Beyond Divinity game review

The future of Prescott

Interview with Mozilla.org's Scott Collins

Thief: Deadly Shadows game review

USB 2.0 Hi-Speed Flash drive review

A closer look at Intel's processor numbers and 2004 road map

Far Cry game review

Dell Latitude D800 laptop review

HP Compaq nc6000 laptop review

Hitman: Contracts game review

Deploying a small business Windows 2003 network

Alternative AIM clients for Windows

Inside GNOME 2.6

/etc

OpenForum

Distributed Computing

Take the Poll Technica

FAQ: Celeron overclocking

 

Copyright © 1998-2004 Ars Technica, LLC