>We're looking at replacing several of our old, out-of-warranty, servers with
>a new server that can run virtual pc. These servers are currently
>configured with XP and run a home built app that is targeted to run on XP.
>We'd like to replace several of our old servers with 1 new workhorse server
>that can run multiple virtual pc clients.
>
>I was thinking the optimal solution will be to purchase a new HyperV server
>with a lot of ram and run Virtual PC. I have a couple of questions about
>that and appreciate any advice I can get.
>
>- VPC 2007 runs on Windows 2003 as a host system, but VPC only runs on a
>host system of Windows 7. Will I have any problems installing Windows 7 on
>a server - say a HP Proliant DL 360 G6, 2-quad core's and 16 GB ram. Will
>that server be on Windows 7's HAL?
>- Assuming I do go forward with the HP server mentioned above, how can I
>determine how many virtual pc's I can install on that box?
>- Wouldn't I want to install Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 as the host OS
>on this server? If I do, then I'm assuming I can't install VPC, and I
>instead need to install VPC 2007, correct?
>- One of the items that has been raised is whether each virtual pc will get
>the same performance, or could they potentially bottleneck each other. Is
>there any information available on this?
>
>Any other help available to a relative vpc newby is appreciated.
>
>Thanks, Andre

>Yes, we currently Remote Desktop into the servers/xp boxes at the colo. We
>all have our main physical workstation at home. From there we vpn to the
>colo and rd to any of the servers or xp workstations. Currently we know
>that user1 can rd to pc 1-3 and user2 can rd to pc 4,5. In the new scenario
>I would imagine that 2 users will rd to the server, and each will pull up
>virtual pc and launch the vm's that belong to them. Do you see any issues
>with this? Would this be a server running Win 2008 and virtual pc 2007 or
>some other scenario? Thanks again, this is all kind of new to me so I
>appreciate the insight.
>
>Andre

>"Andre" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>news:(email address - cut out)...
>> That's why I came here asking for help - I'm not really sure what the best
>> solution is. :)
>> We would like to replace several servers in our rack, that run XP, with 1
>> new one, and be able to run virtual XP clients on them. What do you
>> recommend as the best solution for this?
>
>Well, XP machines in a rack are not actually "servers". But whatever.
>
>I just recently evaluated Server 2008 R2 and Hyper V as a replacement for
>Windows 7 (and Vista before that) and VPC 2007 running XP/Vista VMs and a
>Server 2003/SQL Server 2005 VM.
>
>I work from home, doing software development work for a large company.
>Windows 7 has overall better performance than Vista on my main machine, so I
>see slightly better performance of my VPC 2007VMs. I am running a Core 2
>Quad system with 8 GB RAM.
>
>After I got Server 2008 installed and configued, the first thing I wanted to
>try was Hyper V. It does give better performance than VPC 2007, but it
>comes with its own problems. There is no sound in the VMs, and the video
>modes are even more restricted than VPC 2007. The Hyper V emulated video
>card is only 4 megs of video RAM (VPC 2007 is 16 meg), so there are no
>widescreen modes. This is probably fine for "server apps", which is what
>Hyper V is designed for. If you want to run client type apps that benefit
>from more screen space (like my use of Visual Studio for dev work, etc.)
>then this is a real problem.
>
>My plan was to use Server 2008 as the base OS, and install SQL Server 2008
>on that. Currently I am using a Server 2003 VM with SQL Server 2005 as my
>DB server. Going with Server 2008 would eliminate one VM, since I wouldn't
>need the Server 2003 VM any longer. I would be running XP/Vista/7 VMs for
>development and testing, and not need a server VM.
>
>I may still do this, if I can get used to the small video modes that Hyper V
>gives your VMs. I would have better performance but smaller screens, PLUS
>no sound. The sound is nice because I currently get an audible alert when
>I get an email or an instant message from someone on the company network
>that I am always VPNed into on one of the VMs.
>
>Everything is always a trade off. God I wish MS would release a VPC 2010
>(or whatever they want to call it) with better performance than VPC 2007 but
>still have the "client stuff" like sound and USB and good video modes! The
>Windows 7 VPC for XP thing is not a good solution.
>If you want the best performance then go with Server 2008 R2 and Hyper V.
>If you need better video modes then I would go with 64 bit Windows 7 (for
>the CPU and RAM support) and install 64 bit VPC 2007, and leave Hyper V
>disabled (which is the default). I am assuming, of course, that VPC 2007
>will install on Server 2008 R2. I see no reason why it would not. It may
>be "unsupported" but still work just fine.
>

>That's why I came here asking for help - I'm not really sure what the best
>solution is. :)
>We would like to replace several servers in our rack, that run XP, with 1
>new one, and be able to run virtual XP clients on them. What do you
>recommend as the best solution for this?
>
>Andre

> That's why I came here asking for help - I'm not really sure what the best
> solution is. :)
> We would like to replace several servers in our rack, that run XP, with 1
> new one, and be able to run virtual XP clients on them. What do you
> recommend as the best solution for this?

>Thanks for all the replies. Let me see if I can explain the server/xp in a
>rack question. A few years ago we replaced some of our Dell 1U servers.
>Rather than tossing the old 1U servers, 1850's I think, we had an idea of
>installing XP on them and using them as spare pc's. Since they're in the
>same rack as all of our data, this made sense - especially since we're all
>working remotely. So even though XP was not designed to be installed on a
>Dell 1850, we tried it, and it worked.
>
>Now as we've purchased other servers our rack is filling up, so we had a
>thought of pulling out around 5 of these old 1U servers. We figured we
>could replace them with one new 1U server and just run virtual pc's on it.
>So that's where the research and questions began, such as what host OS do we
>install on the server and what virtual software do we install.
>
>I'm currently using MS VPC 2007 on my Vista box and it works great. So I
>immediately thought about the new Microsoft Virtual PC, but according to the
>specs it's not designed to be installed on a server OS, such as Windows
>2008. I don't really care about not having sound as all we want to do is RD
>to this new server, and launch 1-n Virtual PC sessions, running XP. Those
>Virtual PCs will serve as workstations to fire off our in-house application.
>The reason we'd like to have multiple Virtual PC's is the app doesn't really
>work very well when running multiple instances on the same box, so having
>multiple Virtual PC's is a more desireable option.
>
>I appreciate all the feedback as this has given me some good information.
>
>Thanks, Andre

> If you connect to your servers on Hyper-V via RDP you get wide-screen
> modes, sound, etc. The only thing you don't is 32bit color, which for
> servers isn't a bit need.

>Thanks for the reply.
>
>Our main reason for wanting to do this is for consolidation in our rack. We
>effectively have a virtual office, and all of our servers are at a colo. As
>I mentioned, we have several older servers running XP that serve as
>workstations. We'd essentially like to replace them with a new server that
>can run multiple vm's. Since we want XP as the OS on the vm's, are we
>better off looking at one of the other vm softwares out there? If we do go
>with Windows server, it will be 2008. Thanks again.
>

> Now as we've purchased other servers our rack is filling up, so we had a
> thought of pulling out around 5 of these old 1U servers. We figured we
> could replace them with one new 1U server and just run virtual pc's on it.
> So that's where the research and questions began, such as what host OS do
> we install on the server and what virtual software do we install.

> "Steve Jain [MVP]" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>
>> If you connect to your servers on Hyper-V via RDP you get wide-screen
>> modes, sound, etc. The only thing you don't is 32bit color, which for
>> servers isn't a bit need.
>
> The problem with that is then trying to connect to a real remote machine
> via RDP from a VM. There are control keys that don't get passed to the
> real remote desktop, because the local VM intercepts them. This is the
> problem I have with Windows 7 VPC, and why I can't use it.
>
> I RDP to several machines every day from the VM that is VPNed into the
> company network. This is a show stopper for me, and is why I am using
> VPC 2007 in Windows 7 and not the new Win 7 VPC.

> solution. It gives great performance and scales up to more CPUs and RAM
> and your needs increase.

>> It sounds to me like Server 2008 R2 running Hyper V would be your best
>> solution. It gives great performance and scales up to more CPUs and RAM
>> and your needs increase.
>
>Thanks. With this solution, I guess I'm limited to VPC 2007 since VPC isn't
>supported on a server OS, right?

>I think he's suggesting using the Hyper-V that's included in Server
> 2008 R2 instead of VPC (any version).