Web Site Marketing Videos

matthewisthebest (August 2nd, 2008 @ 11:16 pm)

no!!!!!!!!!!!!! that was virtual pc in the power pc era of macs.

switchway (July 19th, 2008 @ 9:55 am)

no one cares

Quizerzink (July 7th, 2008 @ 6:30 am)

what a nerd...

7h3ki113r666 (April 1st, 2008 @ 11:46 pm)

uploaded on my birthday that must be why i love this program

malcr001 (March 26th, 2008 @ 11:40 am)

He doesn't really emphasise what it can do. I mean common its literally breaking down the walls of operating systems we've all been familiar with. It's amazing! I especially like the Unity feature.

bgertzfield (December 27th, 2007 @ 4:01 pm)

It's likely that the development team that created the Java-based software you used went to great pains to make it work across multiple versions of the JRE. Because the IA-32 and IA-64 ISAs make backwards-compatibility a priority, software developers don't have to think about whether their product will run on the latest Intel Core Duo or AMD processor. This has made x86 succeed as an application layer, both virtual and physical.

koshua (December 27th, 2007 @ 3:07 pm)

@bgetzfield: your complications don't rate a mention when it comes to the impact of Java in the data center. Example: I've just managed a project implementing a Java-based OSS for a multinational service provider. Listed as working with "any compliant J2EE container" and of the four trialled, they were right, with 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and even JRockit. The platform choice is now one of JVM+AppServer; before it was of server+OS. That's the commercial reality today, whatever your portability issues.

bgertzfield (December 27th, 2007 @ 2:04 pm)

I totally disagree that Java's succeeded at virtualizing the application layer. Sun has shown repeatedly that they have no interest in maintaining backwards-compatibility between Java versions, and this is crucial to making any virtualization engine succeed. I simply can't take a Java program I wrote for Java 1.3 and have it work reliably under a later JRE. Sun makes too many changes under the hood, and does too little regression testing, for this to work correctly.

karrarhm (December 25th, 2007 @ 4:55 pm)

Doesn't that make the MAC slower than usual ????????

cstubing (December 24th, 2007 @ 7:14 am)

Yeah, ESX Server sounds great -- I'm a huge fan!

HolidayInGuantanamo (December 21st, 2007 @ 2:50 pm)

VMWare ESX Server also does not need a host OS. It's used in production situations, and obviously improves performance as it means one less layer to deal with before getting to the machine. It does the job of memory management, etc that the real OS does. I've been told it's actually making use of a modified version of Linux.

cstubing (December 21st, 2007 @ 11:50 am)

VMWare also has a hardware VM container that will start shipping in servers... This means no more need for a host OS at all -- the real machine boots into the VM container (stfw for "hardware hypervisor"). If that becomes ubiquitous, expect more light OS's to come for application developers to offer an entire working VM instead of just the app.