Talk:VMware Server

message: :Image:FC4underXP.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:FC4underXP.JPG

message: There's more info in this article about what VMware server can't do, as opposed to what it actually does..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.44.23 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there should be a summary of the differences between virtualised OS's and hardward based OS, possibly seperated into advantages and disadvantages. I don't mean dot points, but more of a quick overview of each major point relating to VMware Server. In fact, seing as this article is stricly about a specific virtualisation product (ableit one of the leading ones), maybe this section should be removed altogether or severly shortened. Perhaps a quick overview of the differences between other VMware products (such as workstation, player ESX), and possibly other competing products. Thoughts?Whippen (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of limitations? 

message: "Network Time Protocol (NTP) servers should not run under VMware."  Microsoft Domain controllers are NTP servers, and to the best of my knowledge, fully supported by Microsoft under VMware. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct, NTP services and daemons should not be run under a VMware guest. It has nothing to do with Windows, nor Domain Controllers though, as the same applies to every OS - the issue is with hardware clocking emulation. I'm not exactly sure what you are pointing out with the above - it is already mentioned in the article. Yes, it could do with an expansion, but I don't think your paragraph cuts it. For a start, being or not being a Domain Controller has nothing to do with NTP, it is just that a large majority of domain controllers are setup as NTP servers, but this does not have to be the case. Whippen (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Every* domain controller is a time source in a Windows domain, and domain controllers are supported by Ms under VMware.  Don't you agree there's a contradiction there? Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect in stating that every DC is also an NTP server - thats where the issue issue. The Windows NTP is simply a service which can be installed and uninstalled from add/remove programs, completely independing of the fact the box is a DC, member server, workgroup server, workstation, or anything else you might configure it as. If you are running a an NTP server on VMware, or infact ANY virtualisation software, then you need to disable and possibly uninstall the NTP service. Whippen (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Windows Time Service Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote is about the Windows Time Service, not NTP. Providing a time from an upstream source via this service, and running a NTP service, are two different things. I'm still not 100% sure what your point is, even after seeing your recent edits to the main article. Whippen (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets keep discussing here, instead of starting an edit war. 
1. PDC's do not exist in the post NT days. It is all about FSMO roles now.
2. The drift is significant enough to affect Kerberos. http://www.hswn.dk/hobbiton/2006/08/msg00385.html shows 20 minutes per hour. Whippen (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 
*1. If you know it is incorrect, why use it?
*2. In that case, can you please remove the disputed tag?
*3. I completely disagree with your assertion about the PDC, but that is beside the point. VMware Server can be configured to sync the guest OS with the host OS. It is not a function of a DC, PDC, BDC, FSMO roles, or any other configuration - what the OS does with the sync'ed time is just totally irrelevant. Whippen (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 
*1. Paraphrasing VMWare - let it be.
*2. Done
*3. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Do you disagree with PDC's, or with the inclusion of it in this article? I don't even think it needs to be mentioned at all in this artcle. Whippen (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with the current version - so if you are too, then let's leave it at that. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm happy. Whippen (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NTP servers

message: Having read over this article and looked at the sources cited and also the VMWare site, I cannot find anywhere but this page that mentions a problem with VMWare Server on Windows x64 hosts.  The link cited is a general reference to the fact that unsigned drivers are frowned upon in x64, but does not mention anything about whether this affects VMWare Server. VMWare's extensive... alright, virtually nonexistent technical documentation certainly makes no mention of such a thing.  Is there a source for such a claim, other that Original Research? 71.163.26.43 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really haven't looked into it much, but  seems to show that 64 bit Windows OS's have been supported for 4 years. I found a few other similar results from Google too.Whippen (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The kernel driving signing requirement was introduced by Microsoft for 64-bit editions of Vista and Server 2008.  So while VMware has previously supported 64-bit editions of Windows XP and Server 2003, the last time I looked, these drivers were still unsigned and therefore can't be installed on Vista or Server 2008. In response to customers' protests on its site, VMware has cited cost as the prohibiting factor ($6000 if I remember correctly - should we pass the hat around?), however I suspect that the true reason is that they do not want VMware Server to compete with the ESX product. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, forgot to mention that VMware have been deleting some of the discussion threads about this topic from their communities website, as many have become quite inflamed with angry customers.  This censorship may account partly for the lack of info/visibility on the VMware site. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text:   You are wrong.  See below. Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: x64 Windows Host Compatibility

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on VMware Server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070302190729/http://www.vmware.com:80/download/eula/server.html to http://www.vmware.com/download/eula/server.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified