Screw Microsoft Virtual PC.... that is as slow as old people F*ck

its painfull

Screw Microsoft Virtual PC.... that is as slow as old people F*ck

its painfull

Actually, VMWare is nowhere near as fast a VirtualPC. I wish that wasn't the case, but it's true. VMWare "emulates" more core processor functionality than VirtualPC does (perhaps for greater portablility), and therefore is slower.
I like VMWare, it has more features and is more flexible than VirtualPC, but the tradeoff is speed.

For most people VMware tends to be faster. In 30 side by side tests with identical hardware and identical tasks, VMware Workstation 4.0 was faster then Virtual PC 2004 in every case.

I would tend to accept your claim as a valid example of you personal experience, however, if you hadn't mixed in provably bogus claims as well.

You say "VMWare "emulates" more core processor functionality than VirtualPC does (perhaps for greater portablility), and therefore is slower."

It is quite easy to verify the fact that VMware emulates *NO* "core processor functionality" at all. So please tell us how NONE is "more than" Virtual PC's amount?

You are incorrect about the knowledge behind VMWare. VMWare doesn't rely on emulation. It is a direct access layer to the actual hardware you own; thus it is superior than VPC is.

VPC has always been reknown as the truly emulator because it emulates the video card, sound card and pretty much every piece of hardware is emulated.

Even Linux guru confirms that in term of Linux installation, VPC wins the contest against VMWare. But when you actually boot up a Linux and operate inside the guest OS, VPC is slow as hell, whereas VMWare is like cruising ahead.

Microsoft makes its own decision to purchase VPC, not exactly because they think it is "fast", but because of the fact that it emulates hardware. It is very crucial to their development of Windows Longhorn. They can emulate DRM straight from VPC, and even emulate the NGSCB (http://www.microsoft.com.../ngscb/productinfo.mspx).

You can't emulate DRM with VMWare because it soly relies on the current hardware you have. As far as I know, Phoenix or Award BIOS is the first one to jump straight into Microsoft Nexus feature, and is there any known hardware out there that support DRM? To my knowledge there is none. That's the main reason why MS has to buy VPC.

The secondary reason for that purchase is because VMWare runs so much smooth and faster in Linux. If MS buys VMWare, you think they would care much about Linux ? Nope. Of course, Linux runs on VPC 2004, but never as good as it used to be.

"VMWare doesn't rely on emulation. It is a direct access layer to the actual hardware you own; thus it is superior than VPC is."

Wrong. VMware virtualizes MANY devices, just not the CPU. Video card, sound card, NIC are all virtualized devices for example.

"VPC has always been reknown as the truly emulator because it emulates the video card, sound card and pretty much every piece of hardware is emulated."

VPC emulates about the same amount that VMware does. VPC does a little extra virtualization in the processor area, but the majority of CPU calls are sent directly to the hardware. (VirtualPC for Macintosh emulated ALL of the hardware, but it is a completely different product than the VPC described in the article and under discussion here)

"Even Linux guru confirms that in term of Linux installation, VPC wins the contest against VMWare."

Actually, the only significant difference between the two for Linux installation used to be that Linux distributions didn't come with the video driver needed for VMware guests, so it had to be installed separately. That hasn't been true anymore for quite some time now. For any Linux distribution supported as a VMware guest, installation is as simple as installation on native hardware. (of course, VPC doesn't support ANY Linux distributions as guests anymore)

"...VMWare runs so much smooth and faster in Linux."

VMware is the only one of the two that runs on Linux. VPC has never had a Linux version.

"Of course, Linux runs on VPC 2004, but never as good as it used to be."

For now at least. When MS bought VPC from Connectix they stopped supporting non-MS operating systems as guests. They have since stated that it is entirely possible that future versions may not even run non-MS guest operating systems.

"Wrong. VMware virtualizes MANY devices, just not the CPU. Video card, sound card, NIC are all virtualized devices for example."

It is direct access to many devices, but I didn't say for all devices. However, for VPC, it emulates both Video Card and sound Card.

"Actually, the only significant difference between the two for Linux installation used to be that Linux distributions didn't come with the video driver needed for VMware guests, so it had to be installed separately. That hasn't been true anymore for quite some time now. For any Linux distribution supported as a VMware guest, installation is as simple as installation on native hardware. (of course, VPC doesn't support ANY Linux distributions as guests anymore)"

You are only focused on "Driver" feature, not the whole installation process. If you time the amount it takes to install Linux on VPC and VMWare, VPC used to take less time to install. However, after installation, it runs slower than VMWare when you run X.

"For now at least. When MS bought VPC from Connectix they stopped supporting non-MS operating systems as guests. They have since stated that it is entirely possible that future versions may not even run non-MS guest operating systems."

I am only concerned about VPC2004. Even if future versions don't support Linux anymore, there are always people trying to get it to work. You shall see.

"For now at least. When MS bought VPC from Connectix they stopped supporting non-MS operating systems as guests. They have since stated that it is entirely possible that future versions may not even run non-MS guest operating systems."

There are no anti-trust issues with that. (LOL!)

"It is direct access to many devices, but I didn't say for all devices."

Actually you said "VMWare doesn't rely on emulation."
That is an incorrect statement. VMware "relies on emulation" for video, sound, network, serial ports, parallel ports, floppy, IDE, and SCSI controller.

"However, for VPC, it emulates both Video Card and sound Card."

And VMware emulates both Video Card and Sound Card. So what's your point? How does VPC emulating those two areas make any difference when VMware emulates both of those as well?

"If you time the amount it takes to install Linux on VPC and VMWare, VPC used to take less time to install."

Sorry if that has been your personal experience. I can personally vouch for the fact that your experience is not universal (and not necessarily even common).

"And VMware emulates both Video Card and Sound Card. So what's your point?"

He's referring to the fact that VPC emulates an S3 video card, whereas VMware uses a proprietary driver that doesn't have to go through a hardware emulation layer.

VPC: Guest OS -> S3 video driver -> virtual S3 video card -> VPC
VMware: Guest OS -> VMware video driver -> VMware

The VMware way certainly has potential to be faster, because they can optimize it any way they please without having to stay compatible with a particular video card.

Someone got owned.