The first release candidate shows strong virtual machine management—from Windows 2003 servers.
Microsoft Powers Up Virtual Server 2005
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
from the article …
Before we installed Virtual Server 2005, we had to configure the test Windows Server 2003 host system as an application server, install IIS (Internet Information Services) 6.0 and enable ASP.Net extensions. Once that was done, it was easy to install Virtual Server 2005 and launch the Virtual Server Administration Web site using our Web browser.
So it’s dependent on a host OS in addition to needing services and apps for the web panel. VMware (server not workstation) does not require a host per se. So that’s a potential RAM saving depending on how it works. probably a non issue in these days of gibibyte plus.
I’d be interested in seeing the price. I priced VMware and it’s in the $1000 plus range. I believe the top VMware (esx?) is almost $10 k.
I hope they offer a beta or trial so I can tinker with it. this technology really is the future. i bought a linux server and it’s functionally dedicated while physically shared (they used UML).
You can download the RC from:
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/default….
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/default….
Sorry about that…
So it’s dependent on a host OS in addition to needing services and apps for the web panel. VMware (server not workstation) does not require a host per se. So that’s a potential RAM saving depending on how it works. probably a non issue in these days of gibibyte plus.
VMWare GSX Server requires a host OS. That is the comparative product.
VMWare ESX runs directly on the hardware, but I don’t think it has a particularly wide range of supported hardware, thus making its cost-effectiveness more limited.