🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Hodgson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:23:27 -0000, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tony Firshman" <ngabuse@firshman.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:45fc62e8$0$764$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:36:57 +0000, Clint Sharp
>>>> <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <7hhmv2l0h4ap03obi9lld6ik79dkm3664k@4ax.com>, Anthony
>>>>> R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> My application does not need a web or FTP server so I'd like to
>>>>>> run the machine on XP Pro rather than Server 2003 just for cost
>>>>>> reasons.
>>
>> If cost is a factor (see below)
>>
>>>>> Make sure it has XP on its list of supported operating systems,
>>>>> you can and do find 'odd' problems with lots of real servers when
>>>>> you run desktop OSs on them.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks - a point I had never considered and indeed only these are
>>>> supported:
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
>>>> Microsoft Windows Server 2003
>>>> Novell NetWare
>>>> Linux (Red Hat, SuSE, UnitedLinux)
>>>> Solaris
>>>> VMware Virtualization Software
>>>>
>>> Then you *know* what you have to do - run XP Pro under VMware!
>>
>> VMworkstation 5.5  (beta 6) (for example)  is iirc �155 plus vat.
>> Though there was at least one free version when last I looked: Vmware
>> server.
>
> Though in this case HP may be refering to the comercial ESX server,
> which actually is a RH distribution and the VM stuff runs on that.  Is

Which is �����!

> VMWorkstation not something that just sits on the Windows box?  I
> would be interested if it isn't.

Two versions one sits on a windows box, the other on Linux..