Talk:VMware/Archive 1

Archive 1

VMware and bochs

In some place of internet, I read that vmware is derived from bochs, this information is true? --Dverzolla 00:19 (UTC), 2024-11-16

No, it is not. Some people claim that vmware was based on plex86, which was in fact based on bochs. The original name for plex86 was FreeMWare, because it was intended as a free replacement for VMWare. Therefore VMWare is not based on plex86 or bochs.Ab8uu 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought vmware was specifically for the x86 platform, with something like bochs doing the entire machine, including hardware, emulation... -- Webhat 02:15, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, this really wasn't a clear explanation of virtualizing vs emulation and the tradeoffs of the two approaches. I've attempted to make it more accurate and comprehensive. Metamatic 19:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The guest OS must only be compatible with your CPU and eventual USB/PS2 devices that you choose to be used by the virtual machine(s). The rest of the hardware is emulated, so mainly, the guest OS must have more compability with VMWare's emulated hardware than with your real hardware. Even the mouse is emulated, ie., you can have a serial mouse working as a PS2 mouse in the guest OS. --193.136.128.7 01:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

older vmware plus newer linux

At least for me linux 2.4.x fails to boot on vmware 2.x and linux 2.6.x fails to boot on vmware 3.x. IMO this shows that vmwares emulation is FAR from perfect but does anyone have any idea how to present this in a neutral way? Plugwash 12:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This is true that older versions of VMware Workstation do not work very well with the newer Linux kernels (actually, it's the other way around...). However, the newer versions - it's been several years since VMware Workstation was at version 2.x/3.x - like 4.x and 5.x support the latest Linux kernels, which is surprising considering the short intervals for kernel modifications in the bleeding edge distros... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.244.152.170 (talk • contribs) 20:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

right iirc with linux 2.4.x on vmware 2.x it was linux that panicked but with 2.6.x on 3.x it was vmware that gave the error. still a pita though. Plugwash 23:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Using VMware to run Win XP on an Intel Mac

I have heard attempts have been made to use to use VMware to run Win XP on an Intel Mac. If anyone knows whether there has been any success in doing this or whether their are at least attempts to develop a version of VMware for Darwin that would allow this then I think it should be included in the article. --Cab88 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, VMware don't produce any products for Macintosh, as far as I know. However, I believe you can get OSX running in VMware on a PC, and with the recent addition of Boot Camp to OSX by Apple, you can now install Windows XP on an Intel Mac without virtualisation. — Jeremy | Talk 01:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

VMware Fusion can run Windows inside OS X, as can Parallels Desktop; those two products are currently competing in virtualizing Windows inside OS X. 87.202.100.189 09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vmware Server (Beta) vs GSX

In contrast to official announces Vmware Server Beta seems doesn't match up to GSX server. Compared to GSX server Vmware Server has support to dual processor for Guest OS but performance is significantly slower. The hard drive subsystem is propably from workstation and Vmware server is sadly just a pumped up Vmware WS. Miss you, GSX. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.149.48.254 (talk • contribs) 12:35, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

Performance is slower because its a beta version and has a lot of debug code turned on. Arricc

Are you from vmwares marketing department? or are you just guessing like the original poster. Plugwash 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we've been evaluating it. Plus there are quite a number of posts on the vmware forums about this. Arricc

Isn't this just an advertisement?

Though there is useful information here, the bulk of this page could have (and maybe did) come from their public relations department. Is that appropriate in Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.220.229 (talk • contribs) 17:29, April 29, 2006 (UTC)

"Just read a PR stunt about Xen 3.0 and I don't agree that this article is PR from VMware or else you'd have to change the Xen article significantly more. VMware was able to boot Windows and other OSes long before Xen could (Xen needs Intel VT or AMD stuff to actually boot something other than a *Nix derivate, like Linux) Xen does mostly compare to ESX, but loses on key grounds like hardware mobility, and ESX definitly comes handy out of the box. Xen does not compete on the ESX turf directly, Xen is for the masses who don't want to shell out tons of cash for VIN for their 32 8way boxes. IMO Xen is very well suited for the selfish Linux folks, those who dare to compile from sources or hope emerge, apt-get, rpm will do "the-right-thing(tm)" for most people I know, they are in between - fixing free software to run my stuff (xen) or paying someone to make it happen out of the box (vmware) the VMware folks all grew accustomed to growable diskfiles, transparent works as you move virtual boxes. Virtualisation is not only about a hypervisor, its about the package." (answer from VMWARE PR DEPARTMENT) --62.2.200.154 13:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Now the advertisement isn't restricted to the article; we have it on the talk page too now. Nice job. 87.202.100.189 09:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ESX Runs on Linux

The article claims that ESX runs on a proprietary kernel, yet when I log into one of our ESX servers and type uname -a I get: Linux ext-b1 2.4.9-vmnix2 #1 Fri Mar 31 17:10:07 PST 2006 i686 unknown. Linux is GPLd, this is based on Linux it CAN NOT BE PROPRIETARY. It is Linux with a few modifications. I am tending to agree with the above post, this is PR and not appropriate for wiki, I am editing this paragraph. Loverevolutionary 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

More to be included?

Is it necessarily to include more features of VMware? Certainly we won't write an AD. - Alexander the Mans 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability check

Can someone check the notability of [1]? An IP address is trying to add the link to the article under two different names so far, but I believe the site is not worthy of inclusion. I have also added a message in the external links section warning people of adding any links. The link trying to be added has a short mention of VMware, but nothing useful. — JeremyTalk 00:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Jeremy, I am truly not trying to 'Spam' the VMWare Wiki. I thought the website included useful technical information that was missing from the current VMWare Wiki (Which is more marketing type information). However, if you feel it is not adding value to people looking to learn more about VMWare, I will no longer try to add it. I do concede that it is not the most visually appealling website right now, but that will change with time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.207.118 (talk • contribs) 22:40, October 29, 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, well if that is the case, then do add it. However, I went to the site and found almost zero information at first glance, which means it is probably too tucked away. My concern is that other visitors to the article will have the same experience as me. — JeremyTalk 22:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hopefully you are right and it is just tucked away too far. Once the site gets a face lift, I will submit it again for inclusion. No harm, No foul - just trying to give back a little. Take it easy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.207.118 (talk • contribs) 22:40, October 29, 2006 (UTC)

System Requirements of VMware Server

Can anyone explain why it says that VMware now officially supports running this on 2000 & XP Professional? Cos the link provided doesn't mention this AT ALL and the official PDF from their latest version page only mentions 2000 & 2003 Server (XP Professional is only for the CONSOLE). If no one objects, I'll remove this. Smoothy 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. the windows host system requirements are on page 7 of that pdf. Plugwash 22:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability Check Vmware Search

I added the link Vmware Search Engine which has been helpful to me as a Vmware Search Resource. It appears that it has been deleted . I was wondering whether the rest of the Wikipedia community thought this a useful or notable external link. I've found it useful because with it I can find "how to" guides and download links related to Vmware---- Gurock 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To my eye, that site seems to be someone trying to grub some Google affiliate fees from ads. I don't see how it's different from just going to google.com and searching directly. --Che Fox 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Che. I think the primary difference between a direct Google search would be the lack of unrelated content. And maybe an easier access to help on Vmware topics (not to say that the same thing couldn't be found with Google which its based on-check results page. I've just found it faster searching with this engine)----- Gurock 03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I'm not too keen on that site. They don't bother to capitalize VMware correctly or use the correct company name (it's not "the Vmware Company"), and all it appears to be is a site-specific search against www.vmware.com. --Michael Geary 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about VMware how-to pages?

Hello there,

Just wondering if any of these pages might be helpful to the Wiki community. I am submitting them for consideration here because the "External links" page clearly said to do so! :)

-VMware on Windows fast guide An eight-part tip series that walks people through running VMware on Windows

-VMware topic page News, tips and research on VMware
-Leveraging the VI3 SDK with .NET A three part advanced series
-VMware guest OS performance tips

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. --VirtualizationDork 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Virtualization vs VMware

Some paragraphs in this article are either in the wrong context or under the wrong subject.

For example, this paragraph (currently paragraph 2 of the article):

Virtualization has grown in popularity due to the large number of servers proliferating in the corporate market. Transferring workstations and servers to virtual-machine environments allows for easier systems management, a reduction in physical footprint and reduced need for hardware.

This really belongs under "virtualization" not "VMware" or even more specifically, "VMware Workstation".

The paragraph *did* originally contain the words "VMware Workstation" in place of the word "Virtualization", but then it also contained one of those 'citation needed' superscripts. I'd been reading up on the subject a few days ago, and recalled seeing what appeared to me to be a suitably authoritative document on IBM's "developerWorks" site that supported the statement, so I stuck the citation in. Then re-reading the sentence in the context of the (my) citation, I realised it wasn't really talking about VMware Workstation, but virtualization in general. So I minor edited it yet again into it's now current form.

Now reading it a bit more carefully, I note a good few cases where some statements don't really belong under VMware, but rather under the more general title 'Virtualization'. If you're a conspiracy theorist, you'd probably successfully convince yourself that some VMware enthusiast/disciple/evangelist/salesman put it precisely and deliberately that way to elevate 'VMware Workstation' above it's proper station in the overall scheme of things :-)

eg, look at this link Virtualization#Virtualization_examples which says the same thing in different words.

So, what do ya'll think? Major surgery required here? Cause if you read the article again with those thoughts in mind you may agree with my thinking that a lot of content needs to be moved to the 'virtualization' (or other appropriate) article, or simply deleted from this article if it's already in it's proper place.

I'm also about to edit the article again, and stick Virtualization at the top of the 'see also' list, where it belongs...

--Ian Macintosh 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The quoted section above talks about the virtualization market in general, not about VMware or Workstation. I've removed it from the article. I haven't yet looked through the rest of the article for other similar staements. — EagleOne\^Talk 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Source needed for Hellwig's "badly hacked kernel" quote

Someone recently added a quote from one Christopher Hellwig which stated that ESX server uses a "badly hacked 2.4 kernel" that "may not be legally distributable". These are heavy, slanderous charges to lay against a software product. Yes, I know the editor added a link to Hellwig's original post in October 2006, but where is the research to back up his claims? The forum post provides no link s for further reading, just Mr. Hellwig's opinion of the kernel. I commented out the quote until we get a solid, verifiable reference for Hellwig's claim. Without proof, this just looks like a case of VMware-bashing. — EagleOne\^Talk 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Running VMware from a LiveCD

Anyone know if it's possible to run VMware from a LiveCD please? If so, I think it would be useful to add this information to the article. --Rebroad 10:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, SLAX includes both Player and Workstation. It's also possible to build a BartPE CD that includes VMware Player/Workstation. larstr

Archive 1