Talk:VMware/Archive 1

message: In some place of internet, I read that vmware is derived from bochs, this information is true? --Dverzolla  (UTC),  --
:No, it is not. Some people claim that vmware was based on plex86, which was in fact based on bochs. The original name for plex86 was FreeMWare, because it was intended as a free replacement for VMWare. Therefore VMWare is not based on plex86 or bochs.Ab8uu 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, this really wasn't a clear explanation of virtualizing vs emulation and the tradeoffs of the two approaches. I've attempted to make it more accurate and comprehensive. Metamatic 19:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VMware and bochs 

message: At least for me linux 2.4.x fails to boot on vmware 2.x and linux 2.6.x fails to boot on vmware 3.x. IMO this shows that vmwares emulation is FAR from perfect but does anyone have any idea how to present this in a neutral way? Plugwash 12:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true that older versions of VMware Workstation do not work very well with the newer Linux kernels (actually, it's the other way around...).  However, the newer versions - it's been several years since VMware Workstation was at version 2.x/3.x - like 4.x and 5.x support the latest Linux kernels, which is surprising considering the short intervals for kernel modifications in the bleeding edge distros... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.244.152.170 (talk • contribs) 20:53, August 8, 2005  (UTC)
right iirc with linux 2.4.x on vmware 2.x it was linux that panicked but with 2.6.x on 3.x it was vmware that gave the error. still a pita though. Plugwash 23:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: older vmware plus newer linux

message: I have heard attempts have been made to use to use VMware to run Win XP on an Intel Mac. If anyone knows whether there has been any success in doing this or whether their are at least attempts to develop a version of VMware for Darwin that would allow this then I think it should be included in the article.  --Cab88 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, VMware don't produce any products for Macintosh, as far as I know. However, I believe you can get OSX running in VMware on a PC, and with the recent addition of Boot Camp to OSX by Apple, you can now install Windows XP on an Intel Mac without virtualisation. — Jeremy | Talk 01:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: VMware Fusion can run Windows inside OS X, as can Parallels Desktop; those two products are currently competing in virtualizing Windows inside OS X.  87.202.100.189 09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Using VMware to run Win XP on an Intel Mac

message: Though there is useful information here, the bulk of this page could have (and maybe did) come from their public relations department. Is that appropriate in Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.220.229 (talk • contribs) 17:29, April 29, 2006  (UTC)
: "Just read a PR stunt about Xen 3.0 and I don't agree that this article is PR from VMware or else you'd have to change the Xen article significantly more. VMware was able to boot Windows and other OSes long before Xen could (Xen needs Intel VT or AMD stuff to actually boot something other than a *Nix derivate, like Linux) Xen does mostly compare to ESX, but loses on key grounds like hardware mobility, and ESX definitly comes handy out of the box. Xen does not compete on the ESX turf directly, Xen is for the masses who don't want to shell out tons of cash for VIN for their 32 8way boxes. IMO Xen is very well suited for the selfish Linux folks, those who dare to compile from sources or hope emerge, apt-get, rpm will do "the-right-thing(tm)" for most people I know, they are in between - fixing free software to run my stuff (xen) or paying someone to make it happen out of the box (vmware) the VMware folks all grew accustomed to growable diskfiles, transparent works as you move virtual boxes. Virtualisation is not only about a hypervisor, its about the package." (answer from VMWARE PR DEPARTMENT)  --62.2.200.154 13:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Now the advertisement isn't restricted to the article; we have it on the talk page too now. Nice job. 87.202.100.189 09:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this just an advertisement? 

message: The article claims that ESX runs on a proprietary kernel, yet when I log into one of our ESX servers and type uname -a I get: Linux ext-b1 2.4.9-vmnix2 #1 Fri Mar 31 17:10:07 PST 2006 i686 unknown. Linux is GPLd, this is based on Linux it CAN NOT BE PROPRIETARY. It is Linux with a few modifications. I am tending to agree with the above post, this is PR and not appropriate for wiki, I am editing this paragraph. Loverevolutionary 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESX Runs on Linux 

message: Is it necessarily to include more features of VMware? Certainly we won't write an AD. - Alexander the Mans 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More to be included? 

message: Can someone check the notability of ? An IP address is trying to add the link to the article under two different names so far, but I believe the site is not worthy of inclusion. I have also added a message in the external links section warning people of adding any links. The link trying to be added has a short mention of VMware, but nothing useful. — JeremyTalk 00:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability check 

message: Can anyone explain why it says that VMware now officially supports running this on 2000 & XP Professional?  Cos the link provided doesn't mention this AT ALL and the official PDF from their latest version page  only mentions 2000 & 2003 Server (XP Professional is only for the CONSOLE).  If no one objects, I'll remove this. Smoothy 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. the windows host system requirements are on page 7 of that pdf. Plugwash 22:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Requirements of VMware Server 

message: I added the link Vmware Search Engine which has been helpful to me as a Vmware Search Resource.  It appears that it has been deleted . I was wondering whether the rest of the Wikipedia community thought this a useful or notable external link.
I've found it useful because with it I can find "how to" guides and download links related to Vmware----
Gurock 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my eye, that site seems to be someone trying to grub some Google affiliate fees from ads.  I don't see how it's different from just going to google.com and searching directly. --Che Fox 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No offense intended, but I'm not too keen on that site. They don't bother to capitalize VMware correctly or use the correct company name (it's not "the Vmware Company"), and all it appears to be is a site-specific search against www.vmware.com. --Michael Geary 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Check Vmware Search 

message: Hello there,
Just wondering if any of these pages might be helpful to the Wiki community.  I am submitting them for consideration here because the "External links" page clearly said to do so! :)
-VMware on Windows fast guide An eight-part tip series that walks people through running VMware on Windows
-VMware topic page News, tips and research on VMware
-Leveraging the VI3 SDK with .NET A three part advanced series
-VMware guest OS performance tips
Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.
--VirtualizationDork 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think about VMware how-to pages? 

message: Some paragraphs in this article are either in the wrong context or under the wrong subject.
For example, this paragraph (currently paragraph 2 of the article):
Virtualization has grown in popularity due to the large number of servers proliferating in the corporate market. Transferring workstations and servers to virtual-machine environments allows for easier systems management, a reduction in physical footprint and reduced need for hardware.
This really belongs under "virtualization" not "VMware" or even more specifically, "VMware Workstation".
The paragraph *did* originally contain the words "VMware Workstation" in place of the word "Virtualization", but then it also contained one of those 'citation needed' superscripts.  I'd been reading up on the subject a few days ago, and recalled seeing what appeared to me to be a suitably authoritative document on IBM's "developerWorks" site that supported the statement, so I stuck the citation in.  Then re-reading the sentence in the context of the (my) citation, I realised it wasn't really talking about VMware Workstation, but virtualization in general.  So I minor edited it yet again into it's now current form.
Now reading it a bit more carefully, I note a good few cases where some statements don't really belong under VMware, but rather under the more general title 'Virtualization'.  If you're a conspiracy theorist, you'd probably successfully convince yourself that some VMware enthusiast/disciple/evangelist/salesman put it precisely and deliberately that way to elevate 'VMware Workstation' above it's proper station in the overall scheme of things :-)
eg, look at this link Virtualization#Virtualization_examples which says the same thing in different words.
So, what do ya'll think?  Major surgery required here?  Cause if you read the article again with those thoughts in mind you may agree with my thinking that a lot of content needs to be moved to the 'virtualization' (or other appropriate) article, or simply deleted from this article if it's already in it's proper place.
I'm also about to edit the article again, and stick Virtualization at the top of the 'see also' list, where it belongs...
--Ian Macintosh 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The quoted section above talks about the virtualization market in general, not about VMware or Workstation.  I've removed it from the article.  I haven't yet looked through the rest of the article for other similar staements. — EagleOne\Talk 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtualization vs VMware 

message: Someone recently added a quote from one Christopher Hellwig which stated that ESX server uses a "badly hacked 2.4 kernel" that "may not be legally distributable".  These are heavy, slanderous charges to lay against a software product.  Yes, I know the editor added a link to Hellwig's original post in October 2006, but where is the research to back up his claims?  The forum post provides no link s for further reading, just Mr. Hellwig's opinion of the kernel.  I commented out the quote until we get a solid, verifiable reference for Hellwig's claim.  Without proof, this just looks like a case of VMware-bashing. — EagleOne\Talk 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed for Hellwig's "badly hacked kernel" quote 

message: Anyone know if it's possible to run VMware from a LiveCD please? If so, I think it would be useful to add this information to the article. --Rebroad 10:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running VMware from a LiveCD