Denys Beauchemin wrote:
> I support several (many) sites and small companies with various sizes of
> Windows-based network and their attendant problems.  I have yet to see a
> need for VMWare or its ilk, though I am sure it exists, somewhere.

Supporting multiple companies on a network is an excellent application of
virtualization.

One of my clients has a push program when you login into their system.  They
do not let a machine onto the network unless the McAfee program is up to
date and has a certain patch level.  I just create a virtual machine with
all network settings ready for that client and their "push" program does not
change my personal system, only the VM.  Other clients don't have this
program and well, they get a lot more viruses.  I just connect to their
system with a different VM but I never save the system state.  (I save all
work on a network drive or I'm on the 3000.)  Every time I start the
machine, it goes back to its vanilla state and my live system does not get
infected from their network.

I also like the ability to suspend a machine's state.  It's much faster to
resume than reboot.  Also, if I have some query running (locally), I can
suspend the machine and resume it when I get home.  If you ever do training
or demonstrations, it's great to use a VM that doesn't expose your private
information or system settings.

Finally, if you need to support multiple versions of Office or Internet
Browsers if you're a web developer, then this is a great way to have it all
on one machine, especially non-Windows environments.

Seriously, once you get a taste of it, it's difficult to imagine how you
lived without it.  The only caveat is that you really need a machine that
has sufficient memory, disc and CPU to support it.

Mark W.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *