Condividi tramite

Why Virtual PC Guy?

  • Articolo

The other day I wrote up the story of how I became Virtual PC Guy.  One question that I left unanswered in that post was why I chose Connectix Virtual PC over VMware Workstation.  Today I would like to elucidate on this question.

Before I get going – I want to be crystal clear on some things here: I am discussing why I made a decision to use Connectix Virtual PC 4.0 over VMware Workstation 2.0. I will be talking about how these products were back in 2001. I am not trying to say that these are reasons for other people to use one product over the other today.

When I started using Connectix Virtual PC, I had already spent a lot of time using VMware Workstation.  I had ruled out VMware Workstation before Connectix Virtual PC for Windows was released.  As I spent more time using Virtual PC I became happier and happier with my choice.

Thinking back – there were three main reasons why I went with Connectix Virtual PC over VMware Workstation:

  1. Operating system compatibility

    This was the critical issue for me.  Remember that I was multi-booting my primary computer with 5 operating systems and was wanting to use virtualization to stop multi-booting.  Of the 5 operating systems that I was running, VMware workstation 2.0 could only run on two of them (Windows NT 4.0 and RedHat 7.2) and it could only run these two operating systems well as guests (it could run Windows 98 – but not any of my old DOS / 98 games – so this was not an option for me).  This meant that VMware Workstation 2.0 could get me down from 5 operating systems on the hardware to 4. 

    Compared to this, Connectix Virtual PC could run all of my operating systems, and the majority of my programs.  I went with Connectix Virtual PC and ended up with Windows 2000 on my physical computer and all my other operating systems inside virtual machines.

    I was digging through my personal archives the other day and came across these screenshots from early 2002 that highlight this issue:

      Virtual PC VMware
    OS/2 os2-VPC os2-VMWare
    Slackware 8.0 slackware-VPC slackware-VMWare
    QNX 6.0 qnx-VPC qnx-VMWare
    CPM cpm-VPC cpm-VMWare 

    This issue alone was a show stopper for me.

  2. Usability

    I have always enjoyed the Virtual PC user interface.  I personally found it to be simple and intuitive.  I appreciate that it only exposes what I need to know, and is easy to navigate.  Compared to this I found the VMware interface to be cluttered and confusing.

    It sounds like a strange thing to discuss when talking about virtualization software, but you might be surprised if I told you about the number of users that I have talked to where the usability of the software was a major influencing point in their decision as to which software they would use.

    At the end of the day – you have to deal with the user interface every day – so it had better be a pleasant experience, or it will really get on your nerves.

  3. Community / employee attitude

    This was another big one for me.  During this period, I spent a lot of time on the newsgroups / web forums for both companies.  The prevailing attitude that I encountered on the VMware newsgroups was an elitist one that looked down on people who could not get things to work.  And if you were trying something that was unsupported, very little help was provided.

    Compared to this, the Connectix forums were a friendly place, were developers would often participate and help users to troubleshoot problems on any guest operating system – regardless of whether it was supported or not.

Now, the obvious question that I am sure some of you are thinking about is – if I had to decide today, would I make the same decision?

To be honest – I do not think I can give a good answer there.  VMware have certainly raised their game on operating system compatibility and community engagement (I still hate their user interface :-), but we have improved in these areas too.  Also, in my time working on the Virtual PC / Virtual Server / Hyper-V, I have gained deep insights into both our and VMware’s architecture – and there are many areas where I prefer our approaches over VMware’s.

But – I have to accept that I am now hopelessly biased.  Biased beyond repair.

A question that I wonder from time to time is: “If I stopped working at Microsoft, would I continue to use Windows as my primary operating system?  And if not – which operating system would I use?”

This is a really hard question for me to answer.  Most of the time I conclude that I probably would continue to use Windows as it best serves my needs, but I also have to accept that I am making that conclusion through such a heavy bias from years of working at Microsoft that I do not know how valid it is.

So with all that said – what about you?  What were the key factors that influenced you when you were trying to decide what virtualization solution to use?

Cheers,
Ben

Comments

  • Anonymous
    September 01, 2009
    I started off with VMware, then recently moved to Virtual PC and now I’ve finally settled with VirtualBox. I moved from VMware because it was getting big, and sluggish. Virtual PC was alot faster for me, and the interface really rocks. But it wasn't as fully featured as VMware lets say. Then I thought I would give VirtualBox as spin, and the interface is somewhere between VMware (bad) and VPC (good). But it has the same sort of featues as VMware with the speed of VPC.

  • Anonymous
    September 01, 2009
    Nice series of posts. I use VMware Workstation because Virtual PC doesn't support 64 bit (will that ever get fixed??) But on the server side, I'm looking at Hyper-V R2 over VMware mainly because I'm more familiar with Windows than Linux. Plus the local (NZ) Microsoft support is better than VMware.

  • Anonymous
    September 01, 2009
    Used to be a big Connectix Virtual PC fan up until it went to MS. It blew away Vmware Workstation at the time and for quite awhile. I think that competition is what spurned Vmware into gear for it's Workstation product and they haven't stopped since. There are so many things Vmware Workstation does that VPC doesn't nowadays that there's no point or time even listing them here. People complain that it's bloated but it's the same complaints people use about Windows being "bloated", I personally don't see it. I do try VirtualBox every now and then but there's always something that throws me for a loop and I go back to Vmware Workstation. When Vmware Workstation 7 comes out I'll do another comparison with VirtualBox. I've given up on VPC for quite awhile, especially the new one for Windows 7.

  • Anonymous
    September 01, 2009
    DosFreak stated it well and I mostly agree. I am talking about workstation side, not server virtualization. Sorry, but MS really ruined VirtualPC development. Before Connectix was bought by MS Workstation and VirtualPC were competing at the same level. After that Workstation evolved while VirtualPC didn't evolved much and that's a huge shame because no competition isn't good for anybody. Just for fun, let me list three of my Workstation's favorite features:

  1. Snapshots
  2. USB support
  3. Visual Studio add-in. And there is a ton of other interesting features as well. That said I understand Ben's motivation to pick VPC over Workstation at that time. Those times are long gone though.

  • Anonymous
    September 01, 2009
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    September 01, 2009
    For me, reason to use Virtual PC over VmWare Workstation is the price. VPC is free, VmWare costs some bucks (I'm student, I can't afford it). I just hope that VPC will soon support x64, now I can't run WS2008 R2 on top of it.

  • Anonymous
    September 02, 2009
    Intersting info.  A valuable perspective to be able to look back into why you started down a particular path.  but times have certainly changed. I've used VirtualBox, VmWare workstation and Virtual PC, and without question, VmWare workstation provides broader OS support, tight integration/compatibility with their senor suite of products and superior performance, especially with 64bit OS vms. As a matter of fact, I've supported developers that used VPC.  Once they got accustomed to VmWares different interface, the performance was enought to compell them to switch. VirtualBox is my favorite for simplified quick, lightweight use, but very limited on features. In my experience VirtualPC is good for limited testing and demonstration.  Outside of that, I can't find a single reason to choose it over another workstation VM platform. but it does work.

  • Anonymous
    September 02, 2009
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    September 02, 2009
    Thanks for all the comments / information!  Please keep them coming. DosFreak - Yes, I remember you well from the Connectix days. Miha Markic - I do not entirely agree with you here.  Two responses that come to mind - the first one is that I beleive that when Microsoft Virtual PC 2004 was released - that was actually the time when VMware Workstation and Virtual PC were closest to each other feature wise.  Since then Microsoft and VMware have taken their products in different directions. VMware has focused on developers, Microsoft has focused on application compatibility. Certainly if I was looking at using virtual machines solely for application compatibility - I would choose Virtual PC today with no hesitation Michal Altair Valášek - Aside from 64-bit guest support - what were the other issues that you had with Windows Virtual PC? Cheers, Ben

  • Anonymous
    September 02, 2009
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    September 02, 2009
    I agree with these comments.  For me it's 64 bit support, I install windows server SBS 2008 (which is 64bit only now) and I have 3 PC's with 8GB dual core and Windows Virtual PC not supporting 64 kit stops me using a workstation for trouble shooting and trying things out.... Seems MS is doing this on purpose to try and get people using hyper-v.....

  • Anonymous
    September 06, 2009
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    September 08, 2009
    I use VPC primarily for training and software testing.  With server 2008R2 being 64bit only and VPC 32bit only I'm going to have to look elsewhere.  Last year I user hyper-v for training but the lack of desktop integration made it just to painful.

  • Anonymous
    September 15, 2009
    Ben, thanks for telling us about your own background.  It is obvious that you are passionate about what you do. For me as a developer, I used to use just Virtual PC as it can run my own VMs as well as ready-made VPCs from Microsoft. I had hoped that Windows Virtual PC would support 64-bit, given that Win2008 R2 and SharePoint 2010 are 64-bit only.  Unfortunately this is not the case and I have to use Virtual Server in order to run 64-bit guests.  Though I do plan on using Windows Virtual PC as well for Window XP mode. (Due to company policy, I cannot run Windows Server as my desktop O/S.)

  • Anonymous
    September 16, 2009
    Hi, Do Microsoft have any plans at all for a desktop virtualisation product which supports 64-bit guest operating systems ? I'm more than happy with Virtual PC but I now need to be able to run 64-bit VM's to continue development work. I don't want to switch to VirtualBox but Microsoft are presenting me with no choice. I was speaking to a Microsoft DSE yesterday and he said that many people inside Microsoft feel the same way - he even said that people at MS are running VirtualBox on their laptops !

  • Anonymous
    September 20, 2009
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 03, 2009
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 05, 2009
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 09, 2009
    Agreed that 64-bit guest support is a deal breaker.  I'd been a long time VMWare user until Microsoft bought Connectix, now find myself forced to go back just for 64-bit guess support.

  • Anonymous
    October 16, 2009
    I am using VPC at the work and VMware workstation at home. At work, you just want to do your job rather then worrying about tiny little settings. There are too many things to worry about in VMWare, in constrast, VPC has simple to use UI. The very same reason is also the reason why I prefer VMware at home because I have more time to spend on tweaking VPC to run faster and make it exactly fit to my need. If I were a normal guy out there who does work for IT industry, I would definatly use VPC because all I care is really something that will just work within a minute. Even for a IT person, VPC can be a good starting point, but as you advance, you will want a little more control over everything.

  • Anonymous
    October 22, 2010
    I started on Virtual PC on the Mac to run Windows when needed and eventually Virtual PC on PC as well. At the time I was interested in alternate operating systems and found that Virtual PC worked great for OS/2 (still does better than vmware). However, I have switched to vmware workstation and forked out the cash. Why? On my Mac I run vmware fusion, on PC I run vmware workstation and I meet customers who I can deliver a machine to run on ESX. vmware lets me run pretty much any linux or unix in addition to windows with really good performance, 64bit or 32 bit, drag drop between host and guest, Teams is absolutely awesome for doing controlled demo enviroments of AD implementations with sites with its ability to simulate low bandwidth and recording. Drag-drop between desktops and even Aero/Glass within the VM (not stellar performance, but enough to show people what its about). We run servers in Hyper-V. I work for an MS based shop, so for production servers, that works out great and I love it there. But I have fiddled with ESXi as well. Linux and UNIX based OSs is a bit of a PITA to get to run in Hyper-V, works fine in vmware. Also, from a course giving standpoint, Hyper-V is rather fragile about the whole export config thing. I know Hyper-V is for server use, but with no 64bit virtualisation product from Ms on the desktop, I had to go vmware workstation/fusion for my needs. I haven't regretted it.