> I see that Server 2003 is a supported Host OS for VPC, but SBS isn't
> specifically mentioned. Ordinarily that wouldn't be significant to me
> except I notice in the specs for Virtual Server that it does
> mentioned SBS specifically.
>
> Which makes more sense to install on SBS? All I want to do with it
> is run a couple client OS's (XP) on the same domain as SBS.

> Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
>> I see that Server 2003 is a supported Host OS for VPC, but SBS isn't
>> specifically mentioned. Ordinarily that wouldn't be significant to me
>> except I notice in the specs for Virtual Server that it does
>> mentioned SBS specifically.
>>
>> Which makes more sense to install on SBS? All I want to do with it
>> is run a couple client OS's (XP) on the same domain as SBS.
>
> SBS with it's 4GB max Physical memory and usual compliment of installed
> services is already 'taxed' and not really a good candidate for another on
> board memory intensive application.
>
> You would be better to have a beefy host (64bit with lots of memory)
> running Virtual Server (or Hyper-V) and SBS running as a guest OS. Still
> there would be some restrictions with Support for ISA and potentially FAX
> services.

> "kj [SBS MVP]" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
>>> I see that Server 2003 is a supported Host OS for VPC, but SBS isn't
>>> specifically mentioned. Ordinarily that wouldn't be significant to
>>> me except I notice in the specs for Virtual Server that it does
>>> mentioned SBS specifically.
>>>
>>> Which makes more sense to install on SBS? All I want to do with it
>>> is run a couple client OS's (XP) on the same domain as SBS.
>>
>> SBS with it's 4GB max Physical memory and usual compliment of
>> installed services is already 'taxed' and not really a good
>> candidate for another on board memory intensive application.
>>
>> You would be better to have a beefy host (64bit with lots of memory)
>> running Virtual Server (or Hyper-V) and SBS running as a guest OS.
>> Still there would be some restrictions with Support for ISA and
>> potentially FAX services.
>
> That would have to wait until the new SBS to take advantage of the
> performance gains in Hyper-V, and even then SBS is the main purpose
> of the server, so I'm not sure it would be best served virtualized.
>
> The XP clients I had in mind would really only be a sideline, lightly
> used, maybe even only one at a time and usually after hours, and only
> taking about 256MB each. It shouldn't affect the server much at all,
> which only has a handful of people connecting to it.
>
> I just don't know which of the two products, VS or VPC, is more
> naturally suited to be installed on Server, SBS particularly.