Virtualization save me from building a new machine?

[John Masterson]

I heard folks here talking about virtualization and singing its praises a while back, but I didn't have a need and didn't pay detailed attention.

Now I am needing to install some upgraded tools that want Windows 7. And in the past a new OS meant a whole new computer upgrade, since I always want the old one available until the new one is stable.

So, can I just install Windows 7 and all the new stuff on a virtual machine and keep the same hardware? Is there much of a performance hit?

This would be development in ASP.net, remote database work and internet applications, not much number crunching.

I *would* be needing to reach outside to the internet to connect to external instances of SQL Server, and they'd need my IP address for their security whitelist.

 And what happens with the hardware signature for the windows OS if I ever do decide to build a new machine. They give you at least another install don't they?

[Slinky]

So, can I just install Windows 7 and all the new stuff on a virtual machine and keep the same hardware? Is there much of a performance hit?

You need LOTS of RAM. I have 12 gigs of RAM, and it seems to be just enough to not peg the host OS. I usually run my VMs at around 2 gig RAM.

This would be development in ASP.net, remote database work and internet applications, not much number crunching.

What was the virtualization tool that you all liked? And what happens with the hardware signature for the windows OS if I ever do decide to build a new machine. They give you at least another install don't they?

I just upgraded VMWare Workstation to version 8. I needed it to run Windows 8. There's also VirtualBox. It's free, so the price is right. I don't use it, because I feel more comfortable with VMWare Workstation. There's also Virtual PC. I think Windows 7 has a separate download that is supposed to replace the stand alone version of Virtual PC. One of the things that VMWare has is the ability to set the amount of CPUs and CPU cores. I don't remember seeing this in other products. I could be wrong, since there's new features added all the time.

[benali72]

Performance -- any box that can run Win 7 natively will be able to do it with decent performance when virtualizing -- IF the box has sufficient ram.

RAM -- as the previous poster said, this is the main resource you need lots of. Win 7 takes a lot natively.... add to that amount what your host OS requires. 

Virtualizer -- I use Oracle's VirtualBox (freeware). Works fine, easy to use. I use it under Linux (usu.Ubuntu). I haven't used competitors to VBox so I can't help out on that one.

Licensing -- always a problem with MS software, I believe they've changed their policies in regards to virtualizing several times. Of course they insist you use their virtualizing product to gain favorable treatment. My only advice is to check this out carefully on the MS sites before proceeding or you could get stung.

How many VMs -- one big issue is how many VMs do you want to run concurrently? Obviously you've got to have sufficient resources for all you run at once. I only run one VM at a time under my host OS.

[John Masterson]

Well, I have 4 GB of RAM on the ASUS PQ5 motherboard at the moment because that's all that XP can handle.

Seems like I should be able to install 4GB modules that Windows 7 could take advantage of, even if XP would not use it, am I right?

[The Gorn]

The 4 GB system you have running Windows XP will be on its knees running Windows 7, just because of memory constraints.

7 itself needs 4 GB or so just by itself. Also, Windows 7 performance and hardware "drain" wise is similar to Windows Vista. So, a machine that performs well with Windows XP will be unpleasantly sluggish in Vista or Windows 7. It's similar to the jump in hardware performance baseline from Windows 3.x to Windows 95 or from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 or Win XP.

Also, you will probably be restricted to 32 bit mode Windows 7 within 32 bit Windows XP. (Whereas my Windows 7 64 bit machine handily virtualizes Windows XP 32 bit and *may* have 64 bit capability in the VMs, but I am not certain about that.)

Having said all that - I messed around with running Vista inside a VM in Windows XP (32 bit) on a 2 GB machine so this is in the same range of system capability that you appear to be working with. It was barely tolerable, and would be OK for smaller applications. If you want to run IDEs or servers like SQL Server in the Windows 7 VM you will be gritting your teeth with the disk churn.

[benali72]

JM, if you're running 32-bit XP, 4 GB of ram is all it can use (even if you were to install more it could not use it).

To see if you're running 32 or 64 bit XP, just check the System properties in the Control Panel.

If you are using 32 bit XP there is no way to run Win 7 in a virtual machine because you can't install and use over 4 GB ram. The only hope to run Win 7 with its huge ram requirement under XP is if that XP is 64 bit.

[The Gorn]

Windows 7 *requires* 4 GB at a minimum? I was able to run Vista in a 1 GB virtual machine a few years ago. Performance sucked, but, "hey."

[PhilFromNY]

Most of my experience has been with using VM's for Linux as a server with no GUI. For that it's great. When I've installed Linux with a GUI on a VM I've had issues. Specifically when I would run a Java VM for NetBeans or Eclipse the performance would be poor.

I've used VM installs of XP for testing applications. For that and for web browsing it's worked fine.

I've had issues running a SQL Server install on a XP VM. If I ran a query that read a lot from disk the performance was terrible. If you could be certain the VM had enough RAM to hold all the pages read from the database then I guess this would work okay

I would hesitate to run Visual Studio with a local IIS on a VM copy of XP or Windows 7. I would not run Visual Studio 2010 on a VM due to it's use of WPF.

Generally I've found that Windows 7 can run equally well as XP on any machine that has 2 gigs or more of RAM.

[John Masterson]

Thanks guys.  You have helped me out.

It sounds like it's time for a trip to the "geek store" near the university campus to spend the typical $800 to build a current, beefy desktop.

And I guess I'll have to have two machines for a bit.  The old ones are piling up in the basement!

[The Gorn]

Thanks guys.  You have helped me out.

It sounds like it's time for a trip to the "geek store" near the university campus to spend the typical $800 to build a current, beefy desktop.

And I guess I'll have to have two machines for a bit.  The old ones are piling up in the basement!

Just the cost of being an independent in this field. You should see how many old machines and parts I have... Nameless 500 MHZ Athlons and 1.3 GHZ Celerons, all too wheezy to use any more.

[PhilFromNY]

I finally broke down and took my old stuff to a local recycling event. For the first time in a long time I don't have anything I'm not using on a regular basis.

[DG9]

I'm down to an old Compaq portable (think sewing machine), two older pentiums (one with XP, one with Ubuntu) and three laptops (2 Windows 7 & 1 XP).  The rest of my junkers got recycled as of late.  The pentium are on their way out too at some point.   I don't know why I hang on to all of this old stuff!

[Walter Mitty]

The decision for me to junk an old machine is real simple, possibly too simple.

It's when I want the desk space more than I want the machine.