To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"I still don't know why people pick VMware player over server, they're both free and you seem to get so much more with server."
I'll give one very good reason that I have run into:
VMWare Player (and workstation) seems to have better video/input performance than VMWare Server. I have tested both side-by-side with various guest OSes, and I've found that Player (and Workstation) seem much smoother to use.
VMWare Server seems to use a slower protocol to transfer video/input information back and forth with the client.
Maybe this is better now in the newer versions - but when Server was first offered freely available, my observations were such.
"I've never tried it, but you should be able to run VMWare server on a machine that does not even have X-Windows installed (using remote monitor login over port 902, for example)."
This work really excellent on my very minimal CentOS 4.2 server without X for a Windows Server 2003 and a Debian Etch Guest.




Member since:
2007-01-12
"I still don't know why people pick VMware player over server, they're both free and you seem to get so much more with server."
The server product was developed long after the player product and they it is a much more powerful product. Many large customers want free licensing per seat, but still want a paid support contract option, which server offers and player does not.
Accidentally closing the server monitor leaves all the guest VM's running. The server can also be configured to shut down the guest gracefully when the host is shut down.
I've never tried it, but you should be able to run VMWare server on a machine that does not even have X-Windows installed (using remote monitor login over port 902, for example). This is definitely not possible with workstation or player.