VMware
-
I manage a small ESXi server which has about 10 VMs on it used for build tests on our various supported operating systems. It's the free version of ESXi 5.5 which is very reasonable, you're limited to 32 GB RAM and one physical processor socket. Works great.
I was trying to get something working on a specific VM and ended up clicking "Upgrade Virtual Hardware" in the desktop vSphere Client, thinking maybe it will enable the option I'm looking for. They really should call it the "Brick This VM" button because if you upgrade you lose the ability to edit the VM using the desktop client, and get an error stating you must use the vSphere web client. However, the web client is only available on full-blown vSphere installations and requires a dedicated management system. Also, setting up the new vSphere web client management server is insanely complicated (I've done it in the past) and not well-documented.
If you use the free edition of ESXi and you're running 5.5, do NOT click "Upgrade Virtual Hardware". I'll probably have to rebuild that VM from scratch.
-
TRWTF may have been me because apparently that button gives you a warning and I clicked yes anyway. But I still hold that TRWTF is allowing that button to work this way in the first place.
-
You should have just written "VMware" and stopped. Everyone would have understood.
-
@El_Heffe said:
You should have just written "VMware" and stopped. Everyone would have understood.
If you think VMware is a WTF, you should try Xen or VirtualBox sometime! My home PC had around 10 fake network adapters showing in Network Connections thanks to VirtualBox, and it took a full system wipe/rebuild before they went away (I had to rebuild anyway, I didn't do that just to remove fake NICs).
-
@mott555 said:
If you think VMware is a WTF, you should try Xen or VirtualBox
I forgot about VirtualBox. I tried it once. Haven't used it since.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@mott555 said:
If you think VMware is a WTF, you should try Xen or VirtualBox
I forgot about VirtualBox. I tried it once. Haven't used it since.I have never successfully gotten VirtualBox to do anything useful. And not for lack of trying.
-
@boomzilla said:
@El_Heffe said:
Opposite here - used VirtualBox for years without a hitch; couldn't get along with VMWare.@mott555 said:
If you think VMware is a WTF, you should try Xen or VirtualBox
I forgot about VirtualBox. I tried it once. Haven't used it since.I have never successfully gotten VirtualBox to do anything useful. And not for lack of trying.
-
I have used both VMWare and VirtualBox for years without problems. I must be living in a different dimension...
-
@boomzilla said:
I have never successfully gotten VirtualBox to do anything useful. And not for lack of trying.
I use it at the school, to split the front-of-room computers in two. The host OS (Windows 7 Pro) runs as normal using the desktop keyboard, monitor and mouse, while a VM running Microsoft's "XP Mode" image drives the data projector and has the smart board, a wireless keyboard and a wireless mouse connected as captured USB devices. Works just fine. Far less troublesome than the "BeTwin" software we had originally bought for that job before upgrading to Win7.
-
@boomzilla said:
@El_Heffe said:
@mott555 said:
If you think VMware is a WTF, you should try Xen or VirtualBox
I forgot about VirtualBox. I tried it once. Haven't used it since.I have never successfully gotten VirtualBox to do anything useful. And not for lack of trying.
I was once able to get Windows 3.11 installed on a VirtualBox VM with networking enabled. I then got to watch Netscape Communicator choke on the Google homepage.
Now if I could get Windows 95 or NT 3.51 through MSDN.Now that would be fun as well.
-
@HuskerFan90 said:
I was once able to get Windows 3.11 installed on a VirtualBox VM with networking enabled. I then got to watch Netscape Communicator choke on the Google homepage.
You might be better off finding an old copy of NCSA Mosaic. Without javascript support, lots of pages should work once more. (Even if not quite as their creators intended.) On the plus side, I'd guess that the ad sites would also find it an impossible target.
-
Fun fact, in early 2010 I worked for a university department and I was looking at statistics on the websites we managed for the university. Fully 2% of our page hits were from Netscape Navigator 4.0.
-
@mott555 said:
Fun fact, in early 2010 I worked for a university department and I was looking at statistics on the websites we managed for the university. Fully 2% of our page hits were from Netscape Navigator 4.0.
And the other 98% were IE6 i presume
-
@mott555 said:
Fun fact, in early 2010 I worked for a university department and I was looking at statistics on the websites we managed for the university. Fully 2% of our page hits were from Netscape Navigator 4.0.
And the other 98% were IE6 i presume
-
@pbean said:
I have used both VMWare and VirtualBox for years without problems. I must be living in a different dimension...
Me too. And Vagrant works great with virtual box.
-
@mott555 said:
Fun fact, in early 2010 I worked for a university department and I was looking at statistics on the websites we managed for the university. Fully 2% of our page hits were from Netscape Navigator 4.0.
In most browsers you can change the User Agent string with the developer tools but it's also possible to do it on an entire Windows domain by using a Group Policy that people cannot override. So from a web server you can never really tell what browsers people are actually using unless you do a lot of fancy detection (plugins, installed fonts, etc).
-
@boomzilla said:
I have never successfully gotten VirtualBox to do anything useful. And not for lack of trying.
I'm another happy VirtualBox user. I used to use VMWare desktop, but with all the systems I needed it on I finally said screw you to the licensing fees and switched to VirtualBox. I still think that VMware is the superior product, but VirtualBox does what I need. At the moment I have a selection of Windows XP and 7 guest systems (and did have Win 95 at one stage) and I am currently installing a Debian guest, and I am running all of these on Windows 7, OSX Snow Lion and OSX Mountain Lion Hosts.
-
@Ronald said:
@mott555 said:
Fun fact, in early 2010 I worked for a university department and I was looking at statistics on the websites we managed for the university. Fully 2% of our page hits were from Netscape Navigator 4.0.
In most browsers you can change the User Agent string with the developer tools but it's also possible to do it on an entire Windows domain by using a Group Policy that people cannot override. So from a web server you can never really tell what browsers people are actually using unless you do a lot of fancy detection (plugins, installed fonts, etc).
Not possible with Netscape Navigator or Communicator. IE, yes in later versions. I don't know what version initially allowed this setting, so I don't know when it started.
Still, it's sad that *some people* still have computers that still have [url="http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/memory-farts.html"]memory farts[/url].
-
@The123king said:
@mott555 said:
Fun fact, in early 2010 I worked for a university department and I was looking at statistics on the websites we managed for the university. Fully 2% of our page hits were from Netscape Navigator 4.0.
And the other 98% were IE6 i presumeToo hopeful. IE 5.5 and Windows 95 sound more reasonable here.
-
@HuskerFan90 said:
@Ronald said:
@mott555 said:
Fun fact, in early 2010 I worked for a university department and I was looking at statistics on the websites we managed for the university. Fully 2% of our page hits were from Netscape Navigator 4.0.
In most browsers you can change the User Agent string with the developer tools but it's also possible to do it on an entire Windows domain by using a Group Policy that people cannot override. So from a web server you can never really tell what browsers people are actually using unless you do a lot of fancy detection (plugins, installed fonts, etc).
Not possible with Netscape Navigator or Communicator. IE, yes in later versions. I don't know what version initially allowed this setting, so I don't know when it started.
Still, it's sad that *some people* still have computers that still have memory farts.
What I mean is that people running a modern browser could very well hide behind a Netscape signature, not the other way around.
-
@mott555 said:
TRWTF may have been me because apparently that button gives you a warning and I clicked yes anyway. But I still hold that TRWTF is allowing that button to work this way in the first place.
Yup, it gives a warning. If you happen to have Workstation 10, it can be used to manage the virtual hardware.
-
@HuskerFan90 said:
I was once able to get Windows 3.11 installed on a VirtualBox VM with networking enabled. I then got to watch Netscape Communicator choke on the Google homepage.
Now if I could get Windows 95 or NT 3.51 through MSDN.Now that would be fun as well.
Last time I tried, I got Win 95 installed on a VirtualBox VM without any trouble. But I couldn't make a Win ME installation boot correctly, no mather what I tried.
So, as good as a physical server, I guess.
-
VBox tends to lag behind in supporting new OSes when they require new-fangled features, like how W8.1 required a 128-bit compare-exchange instruction that VBox didn't emulate by default but could via a hidden option, so you have to wait for a few days after release for someone to discover it and post it online. VMWare seems to always support them on day 1 (although I think only the paid versions do, not the free ones).
For my use case, VBox allows me to use a custom .vmdk file that makes my VM use a specific partition on the host drive as a guest drive whereas VMWare always bitches that the file is invalid and that I must recreate it from within VMWare (which doesn't give me the ability to only specify the partition I want to be visible to the VM; the whole disk then becomes visible to the VM even if it's only allowed to *write* to that partition). So I stick with VBox.
I'd test if Hyper-V can handle this scenario but I'm on Windows 7...
-
@The123king said:
And the other 98% were IE6 i presume
Hey, there's nothing wrong with IE6.
See, it still works!
-
@anonymous234 said:
@The123king said:
And the other 98% were IE6 i presume
Hey, there's nothing wrong with IE6.
See, it still works!
That's not IE6. Otherwise where are all the toolbars (Yahoo, Ask, etc)?
-
@Ronald said:
That's not IE6. Otherwise where are all the toolbars (Yahoo, Ask, etc)?
Better? Unfortunately Ask toolbar gave a 404 error and Bing bar is only compatible with Internet Explorer 7 or above.
-
@Mcoder said:
Last time I tried, I got Win 95 installed on a VirtualBox VM without any trouble. But I couldn't make a Win ME installation boot correctly, no mather what I tried.
Probably ME's fault.
ME is in the 9x line what Vista is in the NT desktop line, but worse. Far worse.
-
The main problem I've had with VMWare is the bizarre way it treats the mouse and keyboard (even with the integration features installed).
The window doesn't "capture" the mouse and keyboard until you click on it. So, if stuff is supposed to have mouseover events, none of those will fire if the VMWare window doesn't have focus. Also, keystrokes won't be sent to the VM, even when the mouse is hovering over it, until you've clicked it to focus the window.
However, if you move the mouse out of the VMWare window, none of your keystrokes go to the virtual machine (even though the window is still topmost and still has focus, according to Windows).
So it's initially click-to-raise when it captures focus, but after that it's got focus-follows-mouse, until you actually click on a different window, which causes it to switch back to click-to-raise again. (If the mouse leaves, the VM stops capturing keystrokes, but it doesn't really lose focus unless you click something else... it's still topmost, and if the mouse comes back, it starts capturing keystrokes again.)
-
@Arnavion said:
VBox tends to lag behind in supporting new OSes when they require new-fangled features, like how W8.1 required a 128-bit compare-exchange instruction that VBox didn't emulate by default but could via a hidden option, so you have to wait for a few days after release for someone to discover it and post it online. VMWare seems to always support them on day 1 (although I think only the paid versions do, not the free ones).
When Windows 8 previews were released, VMWare couldn't run them, but VirtualBox had no problems. You had to wait for a preview VMWare version to run Windows 8. I only tried Windows 8.1 in VirtualBox when 4.3.0 was released, and that had no problems.
@anotherusername said:So it's initially click-to-raise when it captures focus, but after that it's got focus-follows-mouse, until you actually click on a different window, which causes it to switch back to click-to-raise again. (If the mouse leaves, the VM stops capturing keystrokes, but it doesn't really lose focus unless you click something else... it's still topmost, and if the mouse comes back, it starts capturing keystrokes again.)
Check the settings under Edit > Preferences > Input, you can tweak how grab/ungrab behaves there.
-
The only things i've never got to boot in VBox are BeOS and Windows ME. Pretty much everything else will run in it. Some might not run fast, but at least they run.
-
@ender said:
Check the settings under Edit > Preferences > Input, you can tweak how grab/ungrab behaves there.
I can't find that setting in VMware Player. Maybe it only exists in the full-blown edition.
