Linked by snydeq on Wed 16th Dec 2009 20:13 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy takes an in-depth look at VMware Workstation 7, VirtualBox 3.1, and Parallels Desktop 4, three technologies at the heart of 'the biggest shake-up for desktop virtualization in years.' The shake-up, which sees Microsoft's once promising Virtual PC off in the Windows 7 XP Mode weeds, has put VirtualBox -- among the best free open source software available for Windows -- out front as a general-purpose VM, filling the void left by VMware's move to make Workstation more appealing to developers and admins. Meanwhile, Parallels finally offers a Desktop for Windows on par with its Mac product, as well as Workstation 4 Extreme, which delivers near native performance for graphics, disk, and network I/O.
Thread beginning with comment 400086
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I don't think....
by kloot on Thu 17th Dec 2009 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't think...."
kloot
Member since:
2009-12-17

When the 2.0 series first came out, you couldn't even setup a vm on 386 hardware with Windows XP (it kept crashing although the software was released as final).
After asking a technical presales guy from Sun about this issue, his remark was: "don't take the first releases, they need to stabilize over time". So it is a bit like FreeBSD and KDE, where you need to wait 3 releases before it really gets where you want it to be, only with FreeBSD and KDE they don't hide that tip from you...

For me, a filesystem and a vm are such basic building blocks that I don't want to use the experimental versions as the base of my solutions. If the creators hide the real status of their product, then I lose all confidence and stop using it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I don't think....
by Slambert666 on Thu 17th Dec 2009 13:00 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think...."
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

...then I lose all confidence and stop using it.


Exactly the same happened to me...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I don't think....
by ctl_alt_del on Thu 17th Dec 2009 19:00 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think...."
ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

When the 2.0 series first came out, you couldn't even setup a vm on 386 hardware with Windows XP (it kept crashing although the software was released as final).


"386 hardware", really?!? That's so 1980s and to top it off, WinXP requires a Pentium (586) anyway.

After asking a technical presales guy from Sun about this issue, his remark was: "don't take the first releases, they need to stabilize over time". So it is a bit like FreeBSD and KDE, where you need to wait 3 releases before it really gets where you want it to be, only with FreeBSD and KDE they don't hide that tip from you...


Insert YMMV here . . . Pretty much the same could be said for the initial release of any new software version (or cars for that matter ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 2