| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Virtual machines performance comparison | |
|
||
| Time: 02:00 EST/07:00 GMT | News Source: Windows Virtualization | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Michal Strehovsky has posted the answer to the question everybody asks. Which is faster VMware Server or Virtual PC? This is one of those posts I’ve always wanted to do, but never cleaned up my data nice enough to present. So hats off to Michal, and check out his post "Virtual machines performance comparison" | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 394 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:05:48 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 47155 (68.225.122.138) at 11/1/2007 10:34:29 AM |
|
Those numbers are not quite ready for prime time. I would love to see the results when plausible tests have been run, but at the moment, this post shouldn't be here.
|
| #2 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 11/1/2007 1:57:20 PM |
|
The "VirtualBox" numbers are particularly suspect (as the original blog post notes, actually). I don't doubt that VMware x is faster than Virtual x, but I'm really curious why they compared VMware Server to Virtual PC. From everything I've read and heard, Virtual Server is faster than Virtual PC, but also that both are slower than VMware Server except when it comes to disk performance. I wish ESX had been included, as well as Viridian (I've had a heck of a time finding performance comparisons with Viridian, but it certainly seems much, much faster than Virtual Server).
I'm surprised the post didn't include the Super PI test results from later in the original blog post, though--they are all within 1.5% of each other. |
| #3 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 11/1/2007 2:27:49 PM |
| A comparison that would be useful is that of Virtual Server 2005 against VMware 3.01 Enterprise Edition. VMware 3.01 Enterprise Edition is the competition, not VMware Server. And, frankly, Microsoft, even with W2K8 and Viridian, isn't ready for the enterprise in this area. |
| #4 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 11/1/2007 3:20:05 PM |
|
#3--true, Viridian certainly isn't a true match for ESX's broad support and ecosystem yet... well, heck, it's currently not a competitor at all since it isn't even in beta form, but even when released, it will still be behind in many aspects. Nonetheless, the performance is looking fantastic, and it will put huge price pressure on VMware. From a hypervisor standpoint, there's isn't much to complain about--I don't think many people are clamoring for more than 8 cores in a single VM or other capabilities that Viridian won't support. VMotion won't be there, but the failover capabilities are still very strong, and not everyone really needs VMotion. ESX 3i looks really cool, though.
All in all, I'm really excited. Viridian may not be a better ESX just yet, but Microsoft will have price on their side, I think. (BTW... what's this about Datacenter Edition for only $3k? Is that per-processor or something? If not... man, that's a steal, if only for the unlimited VM licensing....) |
| #5 By 607992 (69.176.143.167) at 9/23/2011 1:31:54 PM |
| <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo308b.htm>onkyo 308b</a> <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo308review.htm>onkyo 308 review</a> <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo3300review.htm>onkyo 3300 review</a> <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo508review.htm>onkyo 508 review</a> <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo608price.htm>onkyo 608 price</a> |
| #6 By 613121 (62.157.186.18) at 9/30/2011 8:20:34 AM |
| <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo308b.htm>onkyo 308b</a> <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo308review.htm>onkyo 308 review</a> <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo3300review.htm>onkyo 3300 review</a> <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo508review.htm>onkyo 508 review</a> <a href=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo608price.htm>onkyo 608 price</a> |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 394 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:05:48 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
