Wrong choice

[11Al]

This time there is a wrong choice of VMware WS compatible only with Windows x64 and latest instruciton set intel. It isn't enough upgrade to 64-bit OS for run workstation 11, but also need upgrade the hardware with at least 8GB of ram and the rest componet, better buy new PC. Otherwise there is all useless, no improvement in performance of the VMs, on the contrary there will be a decrease in performance of the VMs.

I tested the same VMs in VWware WS 10.0.4, on Windows 32-bit and 64-bit with the same HW and same 4GB ram and I noted that VMs run much better on 32-bit systems, because the 64-bit OS spend its a lot more resources than 32 bit OS.

For now I'll stay with VMware 10.0.4 and Windows 7 32-bit. Good luck and good upgrade!

[11Al]

You would have to release a 32-bit version too. And I'm not okay with all this.

[wila]

Hi,

I'm not sure if you are just informing everybody else on the forum or if this was a question.

In any case I wrote a blog post about this that might help on highlighting the reasoning behind VMware's decision to not release Workstation 11 for 32 bit host operating systems.

See here: VMware Workstation 11, things you might want to know | PlanetVM

--

Wil

[11Al]

Clearly it is not a question, but a outburst. This VMware WS 11 is an exclusive version for new PCs and specially for latest Intel CPU with AVX2 instruction set. Old PCs are practically cut off. They would have to release a 32-bit version too. And I'm not okay with all this.

I don't understand this choice of VMware, which I consider wrong and unfair to the wide consumers of VMware WS. It doesn't seem me fair that for the best usage of this latest Workstation, many users have to buy a new PC. I repeat, it's a technical and policy wrong choice.

[dariusd]

Hi 11AI,

We support the latest Intel processors, but we do not require one of the latest Intel processors.  I am happily running Workstation 11 on a six year old Core 2 Duo laptop and Core 2 Quad desktop, for example (both on 64-bit operating systems).  Workstation 11 added support for the newest processors, but as far as I know we did not remove any support for older processors.

We did however remove support for 32-bit host operating systems, so Workstation now requires that you have a 64 bit host operating system.  It is extremely difficult to write a large, complicated and system-level piece of software to suit the severe constraints of 32 bit operating systems.  As the capabilities of VMware Workstation expand, the 32-bit limitations become ever more problematic for us.  And it seems that very few Workstation users are still running it on 32 bit operating systems... nowhere near enough demand to justify the significant development and test burden of maintaining 32 bit OS compatibility.

If you can't upgrade your host OS on your existing PC at this time, you can continue using Workstation 10 until you have an OS upgrade path available.

Cheers,

--

Darius

[11Al]

Hi dariusd,

It isn't so simple. As I have written before, if you do an upgrade to 64-bit, with all the hassle subsequent upgrade, to run decently the new Workstation and VMs, should also make an upgrade to at least 2GB of ram. And with me many others users. Not to mention those who have older machines and wanted to use VMware WS 11, will be forced to change PC. It's not fair. In my opinion you could also release an enhanced version for 32-bit OS.

Regards

Al

[dxiv]

@11Al, I don't necessarily like (or understand, even with Wil's link posted above) the decision to limit WS 11 to 64b hosts, but it doesn't help your cause if you hyperbolize.

It isn't enough upgrade to 64-bit OS for run workstation 11, but also need upgrade the hardware with at least 8GB of ram and the rest componet, better buy new PC.

WS 11 runs OK on a 7-year old 4 GB laptop of mine.

[11Al]

I do not hyeprbolize anything, it's the concrete personally tested as I have described above. For instance, for run really ok VM like W8.1 on host W7 x64 need 6/8 GB, otherwise it run better on host W7 x86 with 4GB ram. Tested.

Then if I need Win 32 bit for some programs, I don't understand why I should reinstall all over again, just to be able to use Workstation 11. I don't undestand this choice, for me it don't make sense.

[NoelC1]

I don't have AVX and Workstation 11 seems to run my VMs as well as 10 did.  Just an observation.

I have to ask...  If WS 11 doesn't meet your needs, why do you want it?  What can't you do with the older version?

-Noel

[11Al]

That's not the main problem. How much RAM have you installed?

[NoelC1]

Well, you specifically mentioned AVX.  I guess that was an over exaggeration to make a point, then?

I have plenty of RAM - more than enough to run all the VMs I need to run.  I've had powerful workstation class systems since 2005 with more than 4 GB of RAM, because I knew I needed them to do the kind of development work I do - which includes running VMs.

I get it - your complaint is that VMware is raising the minimum hardware you must have to use the product.  But how/why is that a surprise?  It is the expected way of all software actively in development in this day and age of ever more powerful hardware.  Darius above gave very good business reasons for doing so. It's simply no longer reasonable to run a 32 bit host system - frankly it hasn't been for quite a while already.  If you need software that runs only in a small 32 bit OS, run it inside a 32 bit VM on a big 64 bit host.

Is the problem with just getting big enough hardware to use VMware comfortably simply that you don't want to spend the money?  If that's the case, why do you want to spend the money on a new version of VMware?  It's not a subscription you have to keep paying for (thankfully, unlike some other big software companies).  Just keep using old software on your old hardware.

-Noel

[11Al]

I totally disagree with you. This is not matter of small or large HW/OS, but only of a wrong choice on your part. As I repeat for the umpteenth time, with my hardware (4GB ram (full used), dual core intel 3Ghz, GeForce GT218) and Windows 7x86, I'm able to run very smoothly the VMs, much better than on Windows x64. But your choice of only release a version of Workstation x64 excludes many machines from its use. I don't think it would have been a scandal release a 32-bit version too. Surely I'll not install OSx64 a purpose to the Workstation and never I'll update to version 11. As usual, business choice=wrong choice.

Regards

Al

[0WayneH0]

I find the claim that VMs run faster on a 32-bit host OS interesting. I am not disputing it or arguing it, as I have not tested it. I have not run a 32-bit host OS in many years. Surely though as far as memory constraints go a 32-bit host has gone the way of the dodo.

I find 8GB restrictive enough (I have a laptop with 8GB and a desktop with 32GB), let alone if my host was tied down to 4GB (probably, in reality only 3.5GB). Of course if running legacy guests (like XP for example) that would be ample, but then why the need to get WS11 in that case?

I would think the reduced QA burden alone is justification enough for VMware to drop the 32-bit host OS support.

[11Al]

I have tested it several times; on equal terms HW, the VMs run better on host 32-bit OS, because these 32-bit host consume significantly fewer resources than OS x64. Clearly my speech does not apply to the latest generation machines, but we know that around there are still many machines do not last generation, although pretty efficient. Here, my speech refers to the latter, specifically with Win 32-bit OS, which can run very smoothly VMs too.