Vista - Hyper-V versus WMWare

07-29-2009

I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate
creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two 64-bit
machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the third party
applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of creating a virtual
machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the child machine. I've never
used any type of virtual software and of course never deployed a virtual
machine. Reading about and researching VMWare versus Hyper-V I'm not sure as
to which would better suit my purpose. We do have MS Virtual Server 2005 but
that isn't supported on W2K8 servers. So I'm looking for input and advise as
to which route I ahould go. Also if I do go with WMWare which version do I
need? Thanks.

07-29-2009

From a technical standpoint there is very little difference. Both are
Hypervisor based virtualization products. Essntially they are implementing
on-chip functionality.

VMWare is a more mature product so it has more bells and whistles, primarily
in the enterprise management space.

Hyper-V is a new element of the Windows Server operating family. As such,
it can and does leverage other elements such as clustering. The tools to
manage it are also familiar MMC apps.

If you are comfortable with Windows, I would give Hyper-V a shot.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:%23tV0NGHEKHA.4704@newsgroup

Quote:

>I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate
>creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two
>64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the third
>party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of creating a
>virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the child machine.
>I've never used any type of virtual software and of course never deployed a
>virtual machine. Reading about and researching VMWare versus Hyper-V I'm
>not sure as to which would better suit my purpose. We do have MS Virtual
>Server 2005 but that isn't supported on W2K8 servers. So I'm looking for
>input and advise as to which route I ahould go. Also if I do go with WMWare
>which version do I need? Thanks.
>

07-29-2009

Very comfrotable with Winodws Geoff. I was leaning towards Hyper-V seeing
how I already have W2K8 servers but just wanted feedback from others who are
familiar with both. Thanks for your valuable input.

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:O9lntTIEKHA.4316@newsgroup

Quote:

> From a technical standpoint there is very little difference. Both are
> Hypervisor based virtualization products. Essntially they are implementing
> on-chip functionality.
>
> VMWare is a more mature product so it has more bells and whistles,
> primarily in the enterprise management space.
>
> Hyper-V is a new element of the Windows Server operating family. As such,
> it can and does leverage other elements such as clustering. The tools to
> manage it are also familiar MMC apps.
>
> If you are comfortable with Windows, I would give Hyper-V a shot.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
> "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message
> news:%23tV0NGHEKHA.4704@newsgroup

Quote:

>>I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate
>>creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two
>>64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the
>>third party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of
>>creating a virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the
>>child machine. I've never used any type of virtual software and of course
>>never deployed a virtual machine. Reading about and researching VMWare
>>versus Hyper-V I'm not sure as to which would better suit my purpose. We
>>do have MS Virtual Server 2005 but that isn't supported on W2K8 servers.
>>So I'm looking for input and advise as to which route I ahould go. Also if
>>I do go with WMWare which version do I need? Thanks.
>>

>

07-29-2009

I've used both, and even like both. But ultimately I go with Hyper-V on my
SBS network. (But NOT on the SBS 2k8 main server - that's not supported and
doesn't work!) I run SBS 2k8 Premium, and use the Server 2k8 second server
as my hyper-v host/parent.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:%23$%23LrfIEKHA.3732@newsgroup

Quote:

> Very comfrotable with Winodws Geoff. I was leaning towards Hyper-V seeing
> how I already have W2K8 servers but just wanted feedback from others who
> are familiar with both. Thanks for your valuable input.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@newsgroup> wrote in message
> news:O9lntTIEKHA.4316@newsgroup

Quote:

>> From a technical standpoint there is very little difference. Both are
>> Hypervisor based virtualization products. Essntially they are
>> implementing on-chip functionality.
>>
>> VMWare is a more mature product so it has more bells and whistles,
>> primarily in the enterprise management space.
>>
>> Hyper-V is a new element of the Windows Server operating family. As
>> such, it can and does leverage other elements such as clustering. The
>> tools to manage it are also familiar MMC apps.
>>
>> If you are comfortable with Windows, I would give Hyper-V a shot.
>>
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>>
>> "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message
>> news:%23tV0NGHEKHA.4704@newsgroup

Quote:

>>>I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate
>>>creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two
>>>64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the
>>>third party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of
>>>creating a virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the
>>>child machine. I've never used any type of virtual software and of course
>>>never deployed a virtual machine. Reading about and researching VMWare
>>>versus Hyper-V I'm not sure as to which would better suit my purpose. We
>>>do have MS Virtual Server 2005 but that isn't supported on W2K8 servers.
>>>So I'm looking for input and advise as to which route I ahould go. Also
>>>if I do go with WMWare which version do I need? Thanks.
>>>

>>

>
>

07-29-2009

Thanks for the input charlie. Unfortunately I looked more into the hardware
requirements and it appears my Intel chipset generation does not support
Hyper-V. May have to go with VMWare.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:eBN$nMJEKHA.3732@newsgroup

Quote:

> I've used both, and even like both. But ultimately I go with Hyper-V on my
> SBS network. (But NOT on the SBS 2k8 main server - that's not supported
> and doesn't work!) I run SBS 2k8 Premium, and use the Server 2k8 second
> server as my hyper-v host/parent.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message
> news:%23$%23LrfIEKHA.3732@newsgroup

Quote:

>> Very comfrotable with Winodws Geoff. I was leaning towards Hyper-V seeing
>> how I already have W2K8 servers but just wanted feedback from others who
>> are familiar with both. Thanks for your valuable input.
>>
>> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@newsgroup> wrote in message
>> news:O9lntTIEKHA.4316@newsgroup

Quote:

>>> From a technical standpoint there is very little difference. Both are
>>> Hypervisor based virtualization products. Essntially they are
>>> implementing on-chip functionality.
>>>
>>> VMWare is a more mature product so it has more bells and whistles,
>>> primarily in the enterprise management space.
>>>
>>> Hyper-V is a new element of the Windows Server operating family. As
>>> such, it can and does leverage other elements such as clustering. The
>>> tools to manage it are also familiar MMC apps.
>>>
>>> If you are comfortable with Windows, I would give Hyper-V a shot.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Geoff N. Hiten
>>> Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant
>>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message
>>> news:%23tV0NGHEKHA.4704@newsgroup
>>>>I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate
>>>>creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two
>>>>64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the
>>>>third party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of
>>>>creating a virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the
>>>>child machine. I've never used any type of virtual software and of
>>>>course never deployed a virtual machine. Reading about and researching
>>>>VMWare versus Hyper-V I'm not sure as to which would better suit my
>>>>purpose. We do have MS Virtual Server 2005 but that isn't supported on
>>>>W2K8 servers. So I'm looking for input and advise as to which route I
>>>>ahould go. Also if I do go with WMWare which version do I need? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>

07-29-2009

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:37:43 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup>
wrote:

Quote:

>Thanks for the input charlie. Unfortunately I looked more into the hardware
>requirements and it appears my Intel chipset generation does not support
>Hyper-V. May have to go with VMWare.
>

Before you go to far, you need to carefully check the requirements to
run x64 VMs. Generally, you need hardwre virtualization in order to
run x64 VMs. If you can't run Hyper-V, you might not be able to run
x64 VMs at all, VMware etc.

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/

07-30-2009

Yea I also thought about that Steve and will be looking more into it. But
I'm thinking since VMWare predated Hyper-V as well as 64-bit technology that
it shouldn't be an issue. Plus I also know someone who is already using
VMWare on earlier hardware than mine. Thanks for the input.

"Steve Jain [MVP]" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message
news:7ul17555k8gdgel5aq0rghmqmtmdejn092@newsgroup

Quote:

> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:37:43 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup>
> wrote:
>

Quote:

>>Thanks for the input charlie. Unfortunately I looked more into the
>>hardware
>>requirements and it appears my Intel chipset generation does not support
>>Hyper-V. May have to go with VMWare.
>>

>
> Before you go to far, you need to carefully check the requirements to
> run x64 VMs. Generally, you need hardwre virtualization in order to
> run x64 VMs. If you can't run Hyper-V, you might not be able to run
> x64 VMs at all, VMware etc.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/

07-30-2009

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:40:53 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup>
wrote:

Quote:

>Yea I also thought about that Steve and will be looking more into it. But
>I'm thinking since VMWare predated Hyper-V as well as 64-bit technology that
>it shouldn't be an issue. Plus I also know someone who is already using
>VMWare on earlier hardware than mine. Thanks for the input.

Yes, but you said you wanted to run an x64 VM. Running a VMWare
product with 32b VMs does not have the same host hardware
requirements.
Make sure your friend is running x64 VMs.

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/

07-30-2009

Yes he is running on 64-bit hardware.

"Steve Jain [MVP]" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message
news:hhh375l84r6br46fc6nkj9g1idodtt6m37@newsgroup

Quote:

> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:40:53 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup>
> wrote:
>

Quote:

>>Yea I also thought about that Steve and will be looking more into it. But
>>I'm thinking since VMWare predated Hyper-V as well as 64-bit technology
>>that
>>it shouldn't be an issue. Plus I also know someone who is already using
>>VMWare on earlier hardware than mine. Thanks for the input.

>
> Yes, but you said you wanted to run an x64 VM. Running a VMWare
> product with 32b VMs does not have the same host hardware
> requirements.
> Make sure your friend is running x64 VMs.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/

07-30-2009

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:19:09 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup>
wrote:

Quote:

>Yes he is running on 64-bit hardware.
>

sure, but to run an x64 VM I'm pretty sure Hyper-V and VMWare have the
same hardware requirements.
(see: http://www.vmware.com/download/ws/drivers_tools.html)

Good luck!

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/

07-29-2009	#1 (permalink)
AllenM n/a posts	Hyper-V versus WMWare I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two 64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the third party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of creating a virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the child machine. I've never used any type of virtual software and of course never deployed a virtual machine. Reading about and researching VMWare versus Hyper-V I'm not sure as to which would better suit my purpose. We do have MS Virtual Server 2005 but that isn't supported on W2K8 servers. So I'm looking for input and advise as to which route I ahould go. Also if I do go with WMWare which version do I need? Thanks.
My System Specs

07-29-2009	#2 (permalink)
Geoff N. Hiten n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare From a technical standpoint there is very little difference. Both are Hypervisor based virtualization products. Essntially they are implementing on-chip functionality. VMWare is a more mature product so it has more bells and whistles, primarily in the enterprise management space. Hyper-V is a new element of the Windows Server operating family. As such, it can and does leverage other elements such as clustering. The tools to manage it are also familiar MMC apps. If you are comfortable with Windows, I would give Hyper-V a shot. -- Geoff N. Hiten Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant Microsoft SQL Server MVP "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message news:%23tV0NGHEKHA.4704@newsgroup Quote: >I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate >creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two >64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the third >party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of creating a >virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the child machine. >I've never used any type of virtual software and of course never deployed a >virtual machine. Reading about and researching VMWare versus Hyper-V I'm >not sure as to which would better suit my purpose. We do have MS Virtual >Server 2005 but that isn't supported on W2K8 servers. So I'm looking for >input and advise as to which route I ahould go. Also if I do go with WMWare >which version do I need? Thanks. >
My System Specs

07-29-2009	#3 (permalink)
AllenM n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare Very comfrotable with Winodws Geoff. I was leaning towards Hyper-V seeing how I already have W2K8 servers but just wanted feedback from others who are familiar with both. Thanks for your valuable input. "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@newsgroup> wrote in message news:O9lntTIEKHA.4316@newsgroup Quote: > From a technical standpoint there is very little difference. Both are > Hypervisor based virtualization products. Essntially they are implementing > on-chip functionality. > > VMWare is a more mature product so it has more bells and whistles, > primarily in the enterprise management space. > > Hyper-V is a new element of the Windows Server operating family. As such, > it can and does leverage other elements such as clustering. The tools to > manage it are also familiar MMC apps. > > If you are comfortable with Windows, I would give Hyper-V a shot. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message > news:%23tV0NGHEKHA.4704@newsgroup Quote: >>I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate >>creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two >>64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the >>third party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of >>creating a virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the >>child machine. I've never used any type of virtual software and of course >>never deployed a virtual machine. Reading about and researching VMWare >>versus Hyper-V I'm not sure as to which would better suit my purpose. We >>do have MS Virtual Server 2005 but that isn't supported on W2K8 servers. >>So I'm looking for input and advise as to which route I ahould go. Also if >>I do go with WMWare which version do I need? Thanks. >> >
My System Specs

07-29-2009	#4 (permalink)
Charlie Russel - MVP n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare I've used both, and even like both. But ultimately I go with Hyper-V on my SBS network. (But NOT on the SBS 2k8 main server - that's not supported and doesn't work!) I run SBS 2k8 Premium, and use the Server 2k8 second server as my hyper-v host/parent. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message news:%23$%23LrfIEKHA.3732@newsgroup Quote: > Very comfrotable with Winodws Geoff. I was leaning towards Hyper-V seeing > how I already have W2K8 servers but just wanted feedback from others who > are familiar with both. Thanks for your valuable input. > > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@newsgroup> wrote in message > news:O9lntTIEKHA.4316@newsgroup Quote: >> From a technical standpoint there is very little difference. Both are >> Hypervisor based virtualization products. Essntially they are >> implementing on-chip functionality. >> >> VMWare is a more mature product so it has more bells and whistles, >> primarily in the enterprise management space. >> >> Hyper-V is a new element of the Windows Server operating family. As >> such, it can and does leverage other elements such as clustering. The >> tools to manage it are also familiar MMC apps. >> >> If you are comfortable with Windows, I would give Hyper-V a shot. >> >> -- >> Geoff N. Hiten >> Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> >> >> >> "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message >> news:%23tV0NGHEKHA.4704@newsgroup Quote: >>>I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate >>>creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two >>>64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the >>>third party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of >>>creating a virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the >>>child machine. I've never used any type of virtual software and of course >>>never deployed a virtual machine. Reading about and researching VMWare >>>versus Hyper-V I'm not sure as to which would better suit my purpose. We >>>do have MS Virtual Server 2005 but that isn't supported on W2K8 servers. >>>So I'm looking for input and advise as to which route I ahould go. Also >>>if I do go with WMWare which version do I need? Thanks. >>> >> > >
My System Specs

07-29-2009	#5 (permalink)
AllenM n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare Thanks for the input charlie. Unfortunately I looked more into the hardware requirements and it appears my Intel chipset generation does not support Hyper-V. May have to go with VMWare. "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@newsgroup> wrote in message news:eBN$nMJEKHA.3732@newsgroup Quote: > I've used both, and even like both. But ultimately I go with Hyper-V on my > SBS network. (But NOT on the SBS 2k8 main server - that's not supported > and doesn't work!) I run SBS 2k8 Premium, and use the Server 2k8 second > server as my hyper-v host/parent. > > -- > Charlie. > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel > > > "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message > news:%23$%23LrfIEKHA.3732@newsgroup Quote: >> Very comfrotable with Winodws Geoff. I was leaning towards Hyper-V seeing >> how I already have W2K8 servers but just wanted feedback from others who >> are familiar with both. Thanks for your valuable input. >> >> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@newsgroup> wrote in message >> news:O9lntTIEKHA.4316@newsgroup Quote: >>> From a technical standpoint there is very little difference. Both are >>> Hypervisor based virtualization products. Essntially they are >>> implementing on-chip functionality. >>> >>> VMWare is a more mature product so it has more bells and whistles, >>> primarily in the enterprise management space. >>> >>> Hyper-V is a new element of the Windows Server operating family. As >>> such, it can and does leverage other elements such as clustering. The >>> tools to manage it are also familiar MMC apps. >>> >>> If you are comfortable with Windows, I would give Hyper-V a shot. >>> >>> -- >>> Geoff N. Hiten >>> Principal SQL Infrastructure Consultant >>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >>> >>> >>> >>> "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote in message >>> news:%23tV0NGHEKHA.4704@newsgroup >>>>I have a third party application that I wanted to install and validate >>>>creating sripts on a 64-bit hardware server. Unforunately my only two >>>>64-bit machines are running SBS 2008 and W2K8 Standard server and the >>>>third party applications doesn't support either. So I was thinking of >>>>creating a virtual machine and installing W2K3 Standard server on the >>>>child machine. I've never used any type of virtual software and of >>>>course never deployed a virtual machine. Reading about and researching >>>>VMWare versus Hyper-V I'm not sure as to which would better suit my >>>>purpose. We do have MS Virtual Server 2005 but that isn't supported on >>>>W2K8 servers. So I'm looking for input and advise as to which route I >>>>ahould go. Also if I do go with WMWare which version do I need? Thanks. >>>> >>> >> >> >
My System Specs

07-29-2009	#6 (permalink)
Steve Jain [MVP] n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:37:43 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote: Quote: >Thanks for the input charlie. Unfortunately I looked more into the hardware >requirements and it appears my Intel chipset generation does not support >Hyper-V. May have to go with VMWare. > Before you go to far, you need to carefully check the requirements to run x64 VMs. Generally, you need hardwre virtualization in order to run x64 VMs. If you can't run Hyper-V, you might not be able to run x64 VMs at all, VMware etc. -- Cheers, Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP http://vpc.essjae.com/
My System Specs

07-30-2009	#7 (permalink)
AllenM n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare Yea I also thought about that Steve and will be looking more into it. But I'm thinking since VMWare predated Hyper-V as well as 64-bit technology that it shouldn't be an issue. Plus I also know someone who is already using VMWare on earlier hardware than mine. Thanks for the input. "Steve Jain [MVP]" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message news:7ul17555k8gdgel5aq0rghmqmtmdejn092@newsgroup Quote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:37:43 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> > wrote: > Quote: >>Thanks for the input charlie. Unfortunately I looked more into the >>hardware >>requirements and it appears my Intel chipset generation does not support >>Hyper-V. May have to go with VMWare. >> > > Before you go to far, you need to carefully check the requirements to > run x64 VMs. Generally, you need hardwre virtualization in order to > run x64 VMs. If you can't run Hyper-V, you might not be able to run > x64 VMs at all, VMware etc. > > -- > Cheers, > Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP > http://vpc.essjae.com/
My System Specs

07-30-2009	#8 (permalink)
Steve Jain [MVP] n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:40:53 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote: Quote: >Yea I also thought about that Steve and will be looking more into it. But >I'm thinking since VMWare predated Hyper-V as well as 64-bit technology that >it shouldn't be an issue. Plus I also know someone who is already using >VMWare on earlier hardware than mine. Thanks for the input. Yes, but you said you wanted to run an x64 VM. Running a VMWare product with 32b VMs does not have the same host hardware requirements. Make sure your friend is running x64 VMs. -- Cheers, Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP http://vpc.essjae.com/
My System Specs

07-30-2009	#9 (permalink)
AllenM n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare Yes he is running on 64-bit hardware. "Steve Jain [MVP]" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message news:hhh375l84r6br46fc6nkj9g1idodtt6m37@newsgroup Quote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:40:53 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> > wrote: > Quote: >>Yea I also thought about that Steve and will be looking more into it. But >>I'm thinking since VMWare predated Hyper-V as well as 64-bit technology >>that >>it shouldn't be an issue. Plus I also know someone who is already using >>VMWare on earlier hardware than mine. Thanks for the input. > > Yes, but you said you wanted to run an x64 VM. Running a VMWare > product with 32b VMs does not have the same host hardware > requirements. > Make sure your friend is running x64 VMs. > > -- > Cheers, > Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP > http://vpc.essjae.com/
My System Specs

07-30-2009	#10 (permalink)
Steve Jain [MVP] n/a posts	Re: Hyper-V versus WMWare On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:19:09 -0700, "AllenM" <NoReply@newsgroup> wrote: Quote: >Yes he is running on 64-bit hardware. > sure, but to run an x64 VM I'm pretty sure Hyper-V and VMWare have the same hardware requirements. (see: http://www.vmware.com/download/ws/drivers_tools.html) Good luck! -- Cheers, Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP http://vpc.essjae.com/
My System Specs

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum
Hyper-V vs Full Win2008 Hyper-V	Virtual Server
Hyper-V standalone vs Hyper-V windows 2008 Core	Virtual Server
Cannot manage an Hyper-V on Core from a full installed W2K8 with Hyper-V...	Virtual Server
8.5 versus 2008 versus 9	Live Messenger
64 bit versus 32 bit	Vista General