Stick with VMWare WS or migrate to Hyper-V

Hello,
Been using VMWare WS Pro for a number of years, have multiple VMs running simultaneously. Do use snapshot on one VM consistently.
With latest Win-11 Pro, it seems that one has to install WHP to run VMWare WS Pro.
Running VMware with WHP enabled means one is essentially running a Type 2 hypervisor (Workstation) on top of a Type 1 hypervisor (Hyper-V). This nested virtualization adds a performance hit that is completely eliminated when using Hyper-V directly, as it runs closer to the hardware.

From - VMware Workstation 15.5 Now Supports Host Hyper-V Mode
"VMware Workstation traditionally has used a Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM) which operates in privileged mode requiring direct access to the CPU as well as access to the CPU’s built in virtualization support (Intel’s VT-x and AMD’s AMD-V). When a Windows host enables Virtualization Based Security (“VBS“) features, Windows adds a hypervisor layer based on Hyper-V between the hardware and Windows. Any attempt to run VMware’s traditional VMM fails because being inside Hyper-V the VMM no longer has access to the hardware’s virtualization support."

So unless one is bound by whatever reason/need to run VMWare WS, there is no need to do that. My case is the latter. I can certainly move to Hyper-V instead of all the gymnastics that are needed to disable CredentialGuard etc or run type-2 over type-1.

Curios what would be the reason to stick with VMWare WS. I guess the above is the reason why Broadcom made it free

nkaufman111 said:

Hello,

Click to expand...

I use VM workstation & experience no performance degradation in either Linux or Windows.
I currently have 2 Win VMs & 1 Debian 14 running on the host.
I must admit that perhaps it's because the entry below added to the .vmx file helps (win only):


I have used Oracle, VMware & Hyper-V and settled on VMware.
It is also much easier to get audio in a linux VM on VMware.

HyperV has pluses and minuses.

If your guests are Windows (except Home), then for most cases, HyperV is more efficient (using enhanced mode).

Unless non Windows guests (or Windows 10/11 Home) cannot act as an RDP server, any guests would not have any sound.

For non windows guests - many Linux systems now using Wayland aren't compatible with Windows RDP - so even in enhanced mode you are unlikely to get sound or usb dynamic re-direction even on W11 PRO and Enterprise hosts -- however within those limitations HYPER-V is the best system by far on Windows -- especially if you just want your Linux VM to act as a file server / backup storage for client machines / media server etc and don't run a GUI.
Older releases such as Debian still work OK --

Vmware used to be good but IMHO it's a dogsbody of a system since broadcomm took it over -- no wonder it's a free product. You might have better luck with Oracle's VBOX as there's a load more development on it.

For Windows Guests on Windows Hosts though HYPER-V beats the rest hands down.

Cheers
jimbo

I am using VM Ware. I don't know much about Hyper-V.
Could someone explain to me the difference between the two?
Thanks.

Hyper-V is a type 1 hypervisor and interfaces more closely with the hardware and the vm sits in parallel with Windows. The vm effectively runs independendent of windows.

VMware is a type 2 hypervisor which sits on top of windows so the vm is effectively being run like any other app/program.

Overall, by and large Hyper-V is more efficient and the vms run faster (there are exceptions).

However Hyper-V has limitations depending on guest OS. It has two modes of operation basic and enhanced mode.

If the guest OS cannot act as an RDP server (most non windows OSs and Windows Home versions), Hyper-V can only run in basic mode and main disadvantage is the vm cannot have sound.

For windows Pro+ plus a few Linux distros, Hyper-V will run in enhanced mode giving amongst other features sound.

So essentially if your guests are Windows Pro, Education, Enterprise etc., Hyper-V us definitely superior.

In the end, VMWare will run anything including sound but generally is slower. So it really depends on what you are doing with the vm.

Many use Hyper-V to run Insider versions to test features and it is slicker than VMware (albeit the gui is not as intuitive).

If sound is not an issue, I would say use Hyper-V by and large. If sound is an issue, the choice depends on type of guest OS.

You can have both Hyper-V and VMware functional at the same time but they do not play that well together and VMware can have a significant performance loss if Hyper-V is active.

One important factor is that Hyper-V is a native windows tool and is very robust but VMware sometimes falls over after a major windows update, requiring a VMware update.

There are many excellent Hyper-V tutorials in this forum and tenforums.

I would advise you experiment with Hyper-V. There is no right or wrong answer. In the end, it is "horses for courses".