[BozemanLUG] Question..

[Scott Dowdle]

Mike,

----- "Mike Stone" <mstone0802 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do Linux, Windows (my copy of Windows 7 beta just finished downloading),
> Solaris (or I would if I could get it to run in a VM), FreeBSD, etc.

Ok, you need something that can do fully virtualized but since you said you don't have VT in your CPU yes... that knocks out KVM and Xen.

> VirtualBox is the same thing (and is what I'm currently using).

VirtualBox is actually pretty good.  VMware Server/Workstation is very similar to it... that is to say you have a full client OS installed... and you have to compile modules for the kernel you are running (If the client OS is Linux) and update them every time you change kernels.

> VMWare Server is my next choice, but I don't like the way that the guest OSs 
> are accessed.

I haven't tried the newest version (which is about 5 times bigger than the previous release) but as far as I understand it operates just like VirtualBox.  What is it you don't like about how guest OSes are accessed?  Assuming your host OS is setup for the same resolution(s) your VM is, the VM in full-screen mode isn't too bad.  Of course I don't recommend multimedia or games... but for everything else it is fine.

> I'm probably going to be moving to VMWare Server, or ESXi, or both (on 
> seperate systems), but I was hoping that there might be something else out 
> there.
> 
> I'm not sure what I want even exists, but what I'm looking for is
> something that is as low level as ESXi, but with no real interface
> software. The vision in my head is just a key combination to switch
> seemlessly between multiple guest OSs.

Nothing like that exists that I'm aware of... even if you had VT.

TYL,
-- 
Scott Dowdle
704 Church Street
Belgrade, MT 59714
(406)388-0827 [home]
(406)994-3931 [work]