Following a post I made earlier this month about my preference for Virtual Server over Virtual PC, I’ve received comments and e-mail asking me to elaborate.
Ever since I learned that it works on Windows XP, I’ve preferred Virtual Server 2005 R2 over Virtual PC for running virtual machines on my notebook. From: Rob Caron : Free Download: Virtual Server 2005 R2
Ever since I learned that it works on Windows XP, I’ve preferred Virtual Server 2005 R2 over Virtual PC for running virtual machines on my notebook.
From: Rob Caron : Free Download: Virtual Server 2005 R2
The original decision to use it on my notebook was driven mostly by my use of Virtual Server on a desktop machine running Windows Server 2003. Once I learned that I could run it on Windows XP (thanks to Andrew Coates), I made the switch on my notebook. Here are some of the reasons I prefer it, and I’ll add more as I think of them (this is not intended to be an authoritative feature comparison of the two products):
There are drawbacks. Currently, Virtual Server doesn’t support some Virtual PC features, such as sound and shared folders, but those aren’t high on my priority list. Perhaps the virtualization technology in Windows Vista Enterprise (Virtual PC Express) will compel me to reconsider.
Some good virtual machine blogs:
843
PingBack from http://www.mnathani.com/blog/2007/03/24/links-for-2007-03-25/