Any reason not to use Windows' built in vm stuff over VMWare? I want to run 64-bit RedHat as the guest.
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.
Yes, lots of reasons. The question is:
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:
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.
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.