Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Any reason not to use Windows' built in vm stuff over VMWare? I want to run 64-bit RedHat as the guest.

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Chris S Jul 20 '12 at 23:47

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Yes, lots of reasons. The question is:

  • Are they valid for you and
  • Are they worth the ridiculous high VmWare price for you? (because mostly the really nice features are in the highly paid version)

VmWare has more features (dynamic memory, real time backup of a running VM to another running one, so if one host crashes, the other takes over immediately), but they all are in the really high cost version - and in absolutely most cases make little sense (as in: nice to have, but in no way something I want to pay for).

Take that out, and you are left with eiher:

  • A harder to maintain hyper-visor. Vmware is monolithic, windows "open" - for drivers. The supported hardware is a lot smaller for VmWare thanks to special drivers needed.
  • A similar effective feature set.

Take hat you want. As a Unix dude you will possibly prefer vmware, as a windows person I prefer hyper-v... also because I know the administrative side better, including scripting.

share|improve this answer
    
In my experience with the VMWare hypervisor it seems much more intuitive and easy to use. I don't really understand how you can say the amount of supported platforms is less, given that VMWare supports nearly every major OS in multiple version whereas Hyper-V supports almost nothing but the Windows OS (meaning with full Virtual tools, etc.) –  Charles Jun 18 '10 at 13:44
    
I meant PLATFORM - not "supported client". Hyper-V you can install basically everywhere you can install windows - every hardware manufacturer has drivers for windows. VMWare has SERIOUS problems limitations on the hardware side. Finding you like VmWare better, but no, it does not install on your laptop / your whatever motherboard is not exactly "wide platform support". –  TomTom Jun 18 '10 at 14:55
    
For more intuitive to use - you obviously are not a windows guy. Windows people will be used to PowerShell and like the fact that no, they do nt have to learn another OS just to run a hypervisor. –  TomTom Jun 18 '10 at 14:56

Generically:

  1. Use what your familiar with.
  2. If #1 doesn't apply, each have different licensing costs. Find the cheaper for your situation.

If you have Windows on the server already, and just want to run one guest VM, I'd just pop Hyper-V on the machine. It'll be quick, simple, and easy.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.