Talk:Microsoft Virtual Server
|WikiProject Software / Computing|
Does anyone know if Virtual Server is compatible with Windows XP Home systems? Mga 23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think its installer requires that it be installed on Windows Server 2003 or Windows 2000 Server only (no Pro or Home editions). -- Bovineone 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- It can be installed on XP Pro, but Microsoft emphasizes that this is not recommended for production installs and should only be done for development or evaluation purposes. -- Bovineone 07:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This article must be outdated as it makes two incorrect statements: in R2 SP1 you may now have x64 guests as well as multiple cores for multithreading/SMP. Please reference http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/2/2/32212eab-a431-4cd4-8567-cf951b1322de/Virtualization.doc. DCC 10:50, 8 March 2009 (CDT).
How about Virtual PC? What are differences between Virtual PC and Virtual Server? What Virtual PC still charge money?
- Virtual Server is multi-threaded, each VM runs on a thread where as Virtual PC is not. Virtual PC supports Shared Folders where as Virtual Server does not. Virtual PC is also free (for Windows).
Crippled Performance Citation
Looking for a citation on the assertation that Virtual Server cripples Linux installs. I had heard rumors, but nothing "authoritative" until I read this page. This very well could be true, but it could also be that it's poorly written and does a lousy job virtualizing Linux, OR it might just be a rumor... Can anybody find a good citation for this? Thx1200 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
"Virtual server" redirect
- The following comment was originally posted on the article page. I moved it to the Talk page. — EagleOne\Talk 18:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems inappropriate that "virtual server" redirects to a definition of one particular example of a commercial product... Why doesn't this redirect to "virtual private server"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 16:08, August 24, 2007
The redirect from Virtual Server is inappropriate
This should redirect to "Virtual Machine", not here. Redirecting "Virtual Server" (as I was) to "Microsoft Virtual Server" rather than "Virtual Machine" seems inappropriate. I noticed that I'm not the only one voicing this concern.
How does this get changed?
- I have made Virtual Server and Virtual server lead to a disambiguation page to allow the reader to select the intended destination. -- Bovineone 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 compatible with Windows Vista? -- 184.108.40.206 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)