Windows 10: Best Virtual machine software to try W10 TP on Windows 8.1

If you download the W10TP ISO from official site (Windows Insider Program | Get the latest Windows features) signing in to an MS Account, Windows 10 asks no product key when installed.

The same ISO can be used to as many installations on various physical and virtual machines as you'd like to. I have used the same ISO to install on three physical and at the moment about 10 virtual machines (various software setups for testing).

 

Yep, have just installed it under VMWare and got full screen, something I couldn't do in VB. Really pleased *Smile

 

Many thanks, worked a treat!

 

I find it interesting that I have 7 machines in the room I'm currently in. All 7 are capable of running VMWare Player yet only 1 of them can run Hyper-V.

 

Is it somehow Hyper-V's fault that only one of your seven machines capable to run virtual machines has an x64 Windows 8 (or later) Pro or a Windows Server version? Are you seriously telling that because you run Windows 7 and / or x86 versions of Windows 8 or later it automatically means that VMware is better virtualization platform than Hyper-V? Can I use the same argument to prove that Hyper-V is better because all my machines have Hyper-V running?

Funny. Or rather it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Seems I have to reconsider the situation here, your plus points in my books have to be reconsidered; I have thought you are a true geek and when you have something to say you keep yourself in valid facts. Apparently I was wrong.

 

All I'm saying is that of the VM software I have used, Hyper-V is the MOST restrictive, and has the heaviest software/hardware demand. Just because you have all high end hardware/software so that all of your machines can run Hyper-V is irrelevant.

I actually like Hyper-V, just wish I could actually put it to use but because it only runs on an extremely small subset of hardware/software, it is not very useful to me.

The OP asked about the least heaviest, IMO, Hyper-V doesn't qualify in that regard because of it's requirements. You got confused somewhere along the line and started arguing which VM platform was better. I've never said VMWare was better or worse, just that it didn't have the heavy requirements that Hyper-V has.

(Attacking my geekness? Really Kari?)

 

Hi there
@Kari

Is HYPER-V reasonably capable of running LINUX VM's --I know it was designed primarily for WINDOWS GUESTS but it should in theory be capable of running almost any OS as a Guest.

Cheers
jimbo

 

I run CentOS, SUSE, Mint and the obligatory toy Ubuntu. Especially CentOS and SUSE have none whatsoever issues, Red Hat Linux and CentOS are even officially supported, latest versions of both have Hyper-V integration tools integrated.

I remember posting a screenshot about CentOS Hyper-V vm accessing Windows hos shares in one of your network issue threads, can't find it now.

 

This is virtualization 101. Regardless which form of virtualiztion you use, RAM is the determening factor.

For a Windows 7 host running 1 virtual Linux partition, you can get away with 3 GB of RAM because Linux is OK with 1 GB.

For a Windows host running 1 virtual other Windows OS, 4GB is the minimum - 2GB for the host and 2GB for the virtual partition.

I sometimes run several virtualk partitions in paralell. For that you should have 8GB of RAM.

[youtube]X1a7x-_uhnc[/youtube]

 

Agree.

You can of course use Windows on vm with just 512 MB but it will be sluggish. One thing in Hyper-V I like is the possibility to use dynamic RAM, vm takes only what it needs. The below is a 50 second animated GIF following the use of RAM during the Update & Reboot cycle on a W10 Build 9860 x64 vm with has dynamic RAM enabled, starting and minimum RAM 512 MB and max RAM 6 GB. It shows in real time how much Windows vm demands RAM from host during this desktop > update > reboot > back to desktop cycle. Click the image if animation is not shown:



The vm gets only the set minimum during the whole process because the demand stays low. Only when back to desktop Hyper-V assigns first 20 MB more to 532 MB then another 20 MB to 552 MB and stays there if I don't launch any apps (for example starting Word 2013 ups the RAM demand to about 600 MB and Hyper-V gives the vm 200 MB more, up to 768 MB).

 

Hi there

Thanks -- found the relevant info.

@Kari - have you tried the minimal HYPER-V server (stripped down off W2012 Server I think). I'd like to try and make a really LEAN - almost bare metal OS as a HYPERVISOR and then try running VM's on it.

I did a while ago try messing around with ESXI which is probably great for Businesses - but getting a "White box" to work with it is a bit tricky and there's no LOCAL console (at least not a free one) so you have to access VM's via another machine. The other thing is that it's (or I've found it impossible) to get SOUND to work with ESXI VM's - that's not a normal issue in work computers -- or not until recently -- A lot of businesses now use Instant messaging so Video and sound will become more important on Virtual desktops in the future.

XEN might also be an interesting idea.

Cheers
jimbo

 

@jimbo45

Try the Hyper-V Server 2012 R2:

You can download it from TechNet Evaluation Center, it's free and has no trial time limitations:
Try Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 | TechNet Evaluation Center

 

Hi there

Thanks

I've actually Got that one -- I downloaded it before my TechNet sub expired (last sunday !!!).

I'll try it first as a VM (I know VM on a VM won't be the best) but I've got a couple of spare SSD's so it shouldn't run like a One legged dog on a smooth icepond.

I've got plenty of time this week to play with all sorts of stuff -- real (????) work comes in mega fits and starts - huge amounts of work in a short time and then a decent quiet period !!!.

Cheers
jimbo

 

No, I did not attack your geekness. I posted my honest opinion based on my own criteria. For me the “geekness” is a keen and wide interest in computing with some knowledge based in factual information, capability to differ “I think so therefore it must be a fact” from real factual information and willingness to admit that my opinion is subjective.

The thread title is “Best Virtual machine software to try W10 TP on Windows 8.1”. My change of heart regarding your “geekness” was based on following discussion around this subject. My comments in between the post quotes:

In that post I gave the OP a valid opinion, also clearly presented as an opinion (I prefer…).

You tell the OP that Hyper-V is excluded, the word “automatically” even emphasizes that you are not telling just your opinion but a clear automatic fact.

With the above post I am explaining why I think your previous reply was not true and valid, explaining (clearly an opinion) that serious virtualization needs in any case an amount of RAM which can benefit of x64; as we know using x86 or x64 is never an economical issue because you use the same product key to install an x86 Windows or x64 Windows.

I also give a fact: Hyper-V uses less host resources, especially when vm is set up to use dynamical RAM.

This post in context to what you had said earlier was for me the straw that broke the camel’s back. It is very clearly meant to support your earlier “automatically excluding Hyper-V” pseudo fact, based on the real fact that you have chosen to install an x64 version of Windows 8 / 8.1 / 10 only on one of your virtualization capable machines, making it sound as if even if you had installed an x64 version of Windows 8 / 8.1 / 10 on other of your virtualization capable machines it would not run.

That, of course, is not the case: if a machine running an x64 Windows is capable to run VMware, it is capable to run Hyper-V. Ironically, your statement could also be read as clear support for Hyper-V, reading what you wrote can also be understood that Hyper-V runs on 100% (1 of 1 is 100%) of those virtualization capable machines you have an x64 Windows 8 / 8.a / 10 installed *Smile.

I repeat: I did not attack your “geekness”. I am used to say what I think and in this case the pseudo facts of yours really reduced your point count in my “book of geeks I follow”.

 

Why are you taking the facts I have stated and considering them as opinion?

I agree that Hyper-V is a very capable VM system, not arguing that. I'm simply stating the fact that to even install Hyper-V, the cost of admission is high. Forget the 7 machines I mentioned earlier, let's only consider 2 of my machines. A desktop running an i7 processor, 64-bit Windows and 16G of RAM and a laptop running an i7 processor, 64-bit Windows and 12G of RAM. With VMWare, on either of these machines, I can run 64-bit Win 10 TP VMs effortlessly. However, I cannot run Hyper-V on either because the desktop has Win 7 Ultimate and the laptop has Win 8.1 Standard. In order to run Win 10 TP with Hyper-V I would need to upgrade these machines to Win 8.1 Pro. Therefore, Hyper-V has heavier requirements than VMWare.