Help choose VM software, host and guest OS

[chakraps]

MB conked out recently and has given me a chance to do a fresh install. I had been using dual boot setup earlier and now like to explore virtualization. The idea is to have 3 different OS - 64bit Vista, 32bit XP and 64bit Linux Mint.

I need advice on picking a good Virtualization software preferably free for home use. It shouldn't be too complicated to get it up and running. I have a msdnaa account if that helps.

Also, which of the above 3 listed OS would make a better host OS for the setup, in terms of minimizing incompatibility or h/w issues.

H/W: e2160, 2x1GB DDR2-800, Radeon HD 4850, WD 500GB, MB unknown.

Please do let know any preps or pitfalls to be aware of before going the VM route.

Thanks

 

[Chiefcrowe]

If it works with your system, i think ESXi is a good bet. I don't think many others will support all 3 of your OS.

 

[Nothinman]

If you want to actually use the host OS for something in addition to virtualization then that sets the requirement. I would personally use Linux as the host and VMware Workstation.

 

[yinan]

you need more RAM. 2 GB is not really enough.

 

[chakraps]

In the dual boot setup, I spent majority time in Windows XP (browsing, e-mail, movies, games etc) and switched to Linux whenever I needed particular utilities or free software. Now that I have access to a licensed copy of 64bit Vista, I want to make that the primary Windows environment with Linux as secondary OS and XP for using legacy software.

One of my concerns having Linux as host is driver issues and h/w-s/w issues. I know all my h/w including the ati radeon hd 4850 got Vista drivers but may not have good enough drivers under Linux. If certain features get restricted at the host level, wouldn't that carry over to the guest level?

EDIT: I understand 2GB RAM is low, will bump it up later if system starts suffocating for memory.

 

[yinan]

The host's harware has minimal impact on what the guest OS sees. The guest OS gets presented with a very basic set of hardware that does not reflect what the host is running.

 

[chakraps]

What happens in case we want to run games or other h/w intensive apps on the guest. Do we get a facility to dedicate selective h/w resources to a particular guest.

I mean sometimes we would want the host OS to be resource rich and other times we may want one of the guest OS to be resource rich. Isn't it?

 

[Nothinman]

What happens in case we want to run games or other h/w intensive apps on the guest. Do we get a facility to dedicate selective h/w resources to a particular guest.

I mean sometimes we would want the host OS to be resource rich and other times we may want one of the guest OS to be resource rich. Isn't it?

No, you get the virtual hardware and that's it. VMware Workstation and VirtualBox have limited support for 3D acceleration in some guests, I have Aero enabled in my Win7 work VM and it works ok, but it's probably not good enough for any recent games.

 

[chakraps]

Well, in that case it makes sense to have the OS with the best driver support as the host OS. Is that correct?

 

[Nothinman]

Well, in that case it makes sense to have the OS with the best driver support as the host OS. Is that correct?

Probably, but best is subjective. I heavily prefer Linux and consider almost all of its drivers to be light years ahead of their Windows equivalents with exception to display in some cases. And Linux is a lot easier to transplant between machines, I can take a Linux install from 1 PC and boot it on a totally different machine and have everything working in probably 15min or so because 95% of it will just work out of the box.

Since you have an ATI card I can't speak from personal experience, virtually all of my video cards have been nVidia because I know their drivers are reliable. I'm typing this on a Dell notebook with an nVidia card and 3D acceleration, sleep, etc all work perfectly.

But regardless of OS, you really want more memory if you want to seriously run VMs. Especially if you choose Windows as your host because its I/O has always felt slower to me, so running 1 VM on Windows feels like it has the affect of running 2 on Linux, for example. Obviously hardware, guests, etc all have an affect on that so you'll have to try it and see. But that's been my experience over the years.

 

[chakraps]

Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts. Looks like I might also have to consider triple boot as an option coz of the existing memory shortfall.

 

[Nothinman]

Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts. Looks like I might also have to consider triple boot as an option coz of the existing memory shortfall.

I couldn't even imagine going back to booting multiple OSes on my machine these days...

 

[yinan]

I couldn't even imagine going back to booting multiple OSes on my machine these days...

Yup, cheaper and easier to just add RAM.

 

[chakraps]

I was planning on getting a combo board (with both DDR2 & DDR3 slots) so I could continue using the DDR2 sticks for now and upgrade to DDR3 when they stop working. That's why I was limitng myself to 2GB. Maybe I should just go with DDR3 right away, increase RAM capacity and retire the (perfectly good) DDR2 sticks.

 

[chakraps]

I read up a little bit on the VM solutions listed in this thread so far.

ESXi - free and good but seems to be targeted for large servers. Apparently it's a type 1 hypervisor that needs a dedicated box. I dunno how suitable it will be for a single desktop setup like mine. Also being server grade I wonder if it would play nice with varied desktop hardware.

Workstation - excellent but not free.

Player - free but is it better than virtualbox for desktop.

Virtualbox - free open source specially for desktop virtualization.

Any worthy contenders from Microsoft?

I'm drifting towards Virtualbox for now.

 

[classy]

you need more RAM. 2 GB is not really enough.

Agreed, especially for running virtual machines on top of the OS, type 2 hypervisors.

VMWare Server and Microsoft Virtual Server are also two good ones that are free. Microsoft Virtual PC has better support though. But your hardware would have to be addressed for even adding one VM let one 2-3.

 

[classy]

Virtual Box is ok but I think a person new to virtualization needs an easier gui to work with, so I suggest VMware Server or one of Microsoft's free solutions.

 

[chakraps]

Point taken. I'll pay more attention to ease of use by a novice for each of these VM solutions.

 

[Fallen Kell]

At home, I personally use VirtualBox, but that is because it is free and it works with MS, Linux, and Solaris without problems....

 

[yinan]

VMWare server sucks ass. If you are going to do anything get VMWare workstation. It is an awesome desktop product and you can get a free eval of it to try it out. It is definitely worth the money.

I dont pay for much software, but I actually pay for that.

 

[hooflung]

I use Virtual Box here. I've tried most of the rest, even ESXi and Hyper-V, and I am confident that Vbox is the better choice if you want any sort of multimedia out of your host OS.

I use Vbox on my laptop, i5 2.6ghz, and host multiple VMs for work including a complete XP dev environment with Eclipse simultaneously with debian and ubuntu server based Vms. My 6 core Phenom II at home runs Vbox on top of a Raid 10 and I am happy with it. Both rigs have 8g of ram though. I would never even think to have less than 4 (I used to do 2gb back in 2008 at work and it was hell - vmware server 2.0 beta iirc)

I have a retail edition of VMworkstation 6 and wouldn't touch it again with a 10 foot pole. 7 is barely better and really only is good for Windows vms and people who must have older games running in a VM.

VmWare Player is trash if you have any serious notion of using a VM for what a VM is good for: OS State recovery. Virtual Box and VmWare WS are way better options for that and ... VBox is free

If you want more server-like solution you can go Windows 2008 R2 and Hyper-V. Hyper-V is solid but you gotta pay through the nose. Also, your 'official' driver software from windows 7 will have to run out of spec to work. At any rate drivers 'should' work from vista/7 but they aren't guaranteed.

 

[yinan]

I use Virtual Box here. I've tried most of the rest, even ESXi and Hyper-V, and I am confident that Vbox is the better choice if you want any sort of multimedia out of your host OS.

I use Vbox on my laptop, i5 2.6ghz, and host multiple VMs for work including a complete XP dev environment with Eclipse simultaneously with debian and ubuntu server based Vms. My 6 core Phenom II at home runs Vbox on top of a Raid 10 and I am happy with it. Both rigs have 8g of ram though. I would never even think to have less than 4 (I used to do 2gb back in 2008 at work and it was hell - vmware server 2.0 beta iirc)

I have a retail edition of VMworkstation 6 and wouldn't touch it again with a 10 foot pole. 7 is barely better and really only is good for Windows vms and people who must have older games running in a VM.

VmWare Player is trash if you have any serious notion of using a VM for what a VM is good for: OS State recovery. Virtual Box and VmWare WS are way better options for that and ... VBox is free

If you want more server-like solution you can go Windows 2008 R2 and Hyper-V. Hyper-V is solid but you gotta pay through the nose. Also, your 'official' driver software from windows 7 will have to run out of spec to work. At any rate drivers 'should' work from vista/7 but they aren't guaranteed.

You do not have a clue what you are talking about. The multiple snapshot support and very good driver support for all OS's from VMware is very good in workstation. It allows for hardware oversubscription, hyper-v really doesn't. You can have linked clone VMs to save a tremendous amount of disk space.

Please explain what didn't work for you.

 

[hooflung]

I never said snapshot support wasn't good in Workstation. In fact I said it WAS good. I was refereing to VMWare Player. Re-read what I wrote. And I am sorry if you think driver support is good in VMWare Workstation. I own a copy of version 6 and installing the latest Ubuntu was just a pain compared to Virtual Box.

For Windows 7, as I said before, VMWare Workstation 7 is ok. And it can play games to boot. If that is what you are after VMWare WS is for you. If you are going to use your host for modern gaming and multimedia then Virtual Box is the best version. ( read that as it is as good as VMWare WS for WORK and it is free which you can hardly argue).

I am sorry if you have a hard time reading English but it is the only language I can communicate in.

 

[Exodist]

I read up a little bit on the VM solutions listed in this thread so far.

ESXi - free and good but seems to be targeted for large servers. Apparently it's a type 1 hypervisor that needs a dedicated box. I dunno how suitable it will be for a single desktop setup like mine. Also being server grade I wonder if it would play nice with varied desktop hardware.

Workstation - excellent but not free.

Player - free but is it better than virtualbox for desktop.

Virtualbox - free open source specially for desktop virtualization.

Any worthy contenders from Microsoft?

I'm drifting towards Virtualbox for now.

I use Oracle VirtualBox religiously. You really cant any better unless you want to shell out cash for a high end version of VM Ware.

 

[Paperlantern]

I never said snapshot support wasn't good in Workstation. In fact I said it WAS good. I was refereing to VMWare Player. Re-read what I wrote. And I am sorry if you think driver support is good in VMWare Workstation. I own a copy of version 6 and installing the latest Ubuntu was just a pain compared to Virtual Box.

For Windows 7, as I said before, VMWare Workstation 7 is ok. And it can play games to boot. If that is what you are after VMWare WS is for you. If you are going to use your host for modern gaming and multimedia then Virtual Box is the best version. ( read that as it is as good as VMWare WS for WORK and it is free which you can hardly argue).

I am sorry if you have a hard time reading English but it is the only language I can communicate in.

Ive used player too, I didn't think too highly of it either. So I agree there, however Workstation 6 is outdated a bit (are you running the latest revision? 6.5.5 i think it is?), 7 works fine with Ubuntu and Ubuntu spinoffs like Mint, I have a VM of Mint 11 at the office thats been up for nearly 3 months, very stable and fast. No driver issues whatsoever.

At home on my MacBook Pro I use VirtualBox to run a Win XP machine, absolutely flies.

OP COULD cram all three on one machine with only 2GB, Vista could run with 1GB so he could allot 512MB to each Win XP and Mint and it will not overextend the system as long as he doesn't do TOO much with each machine. However, I would highly recommend at least 4GB to be comfortable, or more if you have the room to add it, memory is NOT expensive these days, and it will allow you to do a lot more with those VMs and the host system.

If you can spend the money I would go with Workstation, I use it at home and at work on a Windows 7 host and never have any issues, my home box only has 3GB.

I also run ESXi on a DL320 G5, however it is for a Minecraft server (two actually) and a web server, and soon to be Exchange server. I don't think it is a good fit for the OP at all, he is right, it is for dedicated server hardware.