| 1 |
On 11/11/06, Hans de Hartog <dehartog@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I guess that vmware can do the job. In windows |
| 3 |
> I need internet access with IE and I must be |
| 4 |
> able to print some webpages to a printserver |
| 5 |
> (gentoo+cups). |
| 6 |
> What to use? Vmware server, workstation or |
| 7 |
> player? The descriptions are not clear about |
| 8 |
> the differences. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I would suggest to try vmware server first. I have run all three, and |
| 11 |
the biggest differences between them are: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
player: can only use existing virtual machine configurations, it |
| 14 |
cannot edit or create them. Equivalent performance to workstation. |
| 15 |
Also has a very nice full-screen mode. Free (beer). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
workstation: best all-around performance for desktop tasks. Can |
| 18 |
create or edit existing configurations, has excellent (2D only) |
| 19 |
graphics performance. Costs some $'s. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
server: Can create or edit existing configurations. Can leave a |
| 22 |
virtual machine running "in the background" if you close the console |
| 23 |
window or even logoff. The console can also access virtual machines |
| 24 |
across the network. The downside to all of this goodness is that |
| 25 |
graphics performance suffers...something like accessing a remote |
| 26 |
system with VNC. Free (beer). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
All have equivalent capabilities for accessing the network, and the |
| 29 |
guest OS never really knows that it is running in a virtual machine. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Note that it is entirely possible to use server to create virtual |
| 32 |
machines, and then use player to run them, if the graphics performance |
| 33 |
bothers you too much. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-Richard |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives