VMware Workstation Reviews

We use VMware Workstation for cybersecurity features while testing virtual machines in our environment.

The platform’s most valuable feature is snapshot.

They could include official support for macOS virtualization within VMware Workstation.

I rate the platform’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I have worked with multiple virtual machine technologies. In terms of performance, VMware Workstation can be resource-intensive, particularly when compared to alternatives like Hyper-V or VirtualBox.

The initial setup is easy. However, it could be a learning curve for new users and require training. I rate the process a ten out of ten.

The platform saves much time as it snapshots the testing process for reuse across different environments. It proves crucial in a development workflow by allowing the creation of a base image. It takes snapshots at different development stages or scenarios, and teams can effortlessly switch back to specific points for testing. The snapshot functionality can isolate and manipulate guests independently, impacting only the host system.

It has sped up the project management process. We don’t have to go back and reinstall it from the beginning.

The cloning feature in VMware Workstation benefits operations such as penetration testing and ethical hacking. We can clone a box and ship it to the customer for easy deployment.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We use VMware Workstation for testing and deploying applications in our production environment.

We use Hyper-V and VMware Workstation for our testing environment. We use it to deploy and test developer applications within our company. 

We run our internal applications on virtual machines to ensure compatibility with the Windows platform.

We deploy the tested applications to our production environment.

We use VMware products to support our IT infrastructure and application deployment processes.

I appreciate the ease of backup and snapshot creation. The ability to revert to previous versions without losing data is very useful for our team.

Since we've been using VMware Workstation for a while, I haven't had the opportunity to test other virtualization platforms. However, we have received some proposals for alternative solutions, such as SCI.

So, maybe VMware can consider introducing this in future releases. 

Moreover, I would like to see more detailed reporting capabilities, particularly around snapshot activity. It would be helpful to have a summary of changes made prior to deploying an application, allowing us to provide comprehensive reports to our management on a regular basis.

 We have been using this solution for three years now. We started using it in 2020. 

We haven't encountered any technical difficulties with VMware Workstation so far.

VMware Workstation is primarily used by the IT department. We haven't yet rolled it out to all employees.

We have around five end users using this solution in our company. 

We haven't had the need to contact VMware's support team directly.

I've always found the online community to be a valuable resource for addressing any concerns or questions.

We were using VirtualBox, an open-source virtualization software. The decision to use VMware Workstation was made by our technical team. They evaluated various virtualization solutions and determined that VMware Workstation was the best fit for our company's needs.

From a user perspective, the installation and deployment process was easy to understand and easy to deploy. Even for someone like me, who is not a fully technical person, it was manageable.

Our IT department handles all procurement and cost negotiations. They are responsible for evaluating proposals from vendors and selecting the most cost-effective solution.

I would recommend VMware Workstation for critical situations, such as deploying crucial applications within the company. It provides compatibility with a wide range of applications and ensures seamless testing and deployment.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I'm satisfied with its features and performance, and I haven't encountered any major issues.

We are using VMware Workstation for development purposes.

The most valuable feature of the VMware Workstation is the ease to create a development environment. When you have different ongoing developments, you often need to create a lot of different development environments. With this workstation solution, you can have a development environment for all the things you develop.

VMware Workstation could improve the export and import of virtual machines.

I have been using VMware Workstation for approximately 20 years.

VMware Workstation is stable.

VMware Workstation can be rolled out in any workstation. However, you don't scale it, you only install it on the workstations where you need it.

We have four or five people using this solution. We are a small company and when we first purchased the solution we had ten people using it at that time.

The support from VMware Workstation is reasonable.

I rate the support of VMware Workstation a three out of five.

Neutral

The setup of the VMware Workstation was simple.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house.

We have received a high ROI from using this solution.

The price of the solution per workstation is approximately 200 Francs annually. We pay a total of 800 francs. Everything is included in the price such as the support.

Back when we choose this solution 20 years ago there were not many virtualization tools available. There were Parallels and a few others.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate VMware Workstation a ten out of ten.

We use VMware Workstation for testing and development.

It is very basic. There are not many features, but it meets our use cases. It is adequate for the use case. 

We don't need a lot of features because it's development; I don't think we need anything else for development testing. There isn't a huge technical requirement. It does the basics and that is fine.

There are only a few issues with compatibility between various virtualization tools. Moving virtual machines, for example, between VMware and Parallel is a challenge. As a result of the compatibility issues, it's difficult. Aside from that, both tools are fine. They are very basic, but they do the job.

They could add more integration between them, and compatibility with the standard virtualization format.

I have been using VMware Workstation for two years.

I am not sure what version we're using, but it's the most recent.

There are three of us who are currently using this solution.

We have no plans to increase our usage at this time, but we may add two more users next year. It is not a significant increase.

The technical support is good. The community is also helpful.

I am no longer using the Proxmox VE solution for a variety of reasons, not because it's bad, but because I have a different requirement.

I am also currently working with Parallels Workstation. Their technical support is also good.

We don't use the on-premise version often; instead, we use a cloud-based solution for the service and the production environment.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment is ongoing, and we use it on a regular basis.

It is not a production environment that has been migrated to the cloud. It is ongoing and does not have a beginning and an end.

Licensing fees are paid on an annual basis.

There are no additional fees; it is standard licensing.

I would rate VMware Workstation an eight out of ten.

VMware Workstation allows me to have virtualized environments. I can run the virtual environment in my home lab.

The most valuable features of VMware Workstation are the DirectX support, you can run Microsoft Hyper-V in virtual environments which is good for me to test different installations. Additionally, you can set up different VLANs, and overall it is a complete solution.

VMware Workstation has some network limitations which could improve, it is not as flexible as VMware NSX. Additionally, it could support operating systems better. I only run some Linux versions and Windows at the moment but it would be nice to be able to take whatever operating system you want and run it.

I have been using VMware Workstation for approximately 15 years.

VMware Workstation is highly stable. I have been running a VM for a year and a half and nothing has happened with it. It is running very well.

I rate the stability of VMware Workstation a ten out of ten,

VMware Workstation cannot scale. It's one installation on one system, you can't scale it. It uses the resources of my computer only.

I have used the support from VMware Workstation. The quality of the support can depend on who you speak to but they have always solved my problem. Sometimes it takes a few extra days for the solution because they have to find the right individual inside that can handle the support question.

I rate the support from VMware Workstation a five out of five.

Positive

I have previously used a Microsoft Virtual Desktop but VMware Workstation is much better with more features. You have a wider range of devices you can use, such as a smart card reader.

The initial setup of the VMware Workstation is simple. You only need to click install and hit the next button over and over on the mouse.

With a VDI solution, there is always extra cost running a VDI solution but it's not for cost purposes anymore. In the beginning, it was to save money on hardware but at the moment it's other aspects that are more important why you should use a VDI solution.

If you run Microsoft on top of your laptop it's going to be cheaper than running a whole environment of VDIs. However, you get so much more from the VDI solution. You have security aspects and you have one place you store your data. It's closer to the data center so everything should run faster. For example, if you have an AutoCAD installation and you want to pick up a drawing that is approximately one gigabyte, it's going to take about 10 minutes over the landline but when you do it inside a VDI you can receive it in up to 45 seconds or so. These aspects are more important than pricing.

VMware Workstation keeps working and it makes my day every time I have to use it because it starts, it runs, and it makes my life easier. I recommend it for developers.

I rate VMware Workstation a nine out of ten.

We use VMware Workstation to deploy multiple machines, and every machine has its own configuration and software installed according to our configurations. The company has between 25 to 50 employees on virtual machines, and the usage is high. 

It will not harm any of the computer settings to run a specific program. For example, if a program needs a specific security policy, we don't have to use the shared configuration. We have an individual copy of Windows installed on the virtual machine, so anybody can access that. It helps us a lot.

I have been using VMware for the last 10 years.

VMware Workstation's performance is excellent.

VMware's scalability is high. It's usually not an issue.

We've contact support for other VMware solutions besides Workstation. We needed support due to the complexity of the database. I rate VMware support eight out of 10. 

Installing VMware Workstation isn't so easy. It's highly complex compared to Windows. I rate it four out of 10 for ease of installation. Setting up a remote desktop only takes a minute or so, but the Workstation itself takes some time. 

You need to install a tool on the host machine, and then all the features can be managed via VMware Workstation. Once it's deployed, I can maintain issues on the machines remotely. We don't often go to the sites.

I rate VMware Workstation six out of ten.

I am a system integrator and have experience with many different IT products. I regularly work with a lot of different technologies. Recently, I have been working on configuring VMware and virtualization. For example, I am considering upgrading the ESXi.

We run VMware Workstation locally. You can run it on AWS but that's not necessary for what we're doing. There are use cases where it will be applicable but I'm dealing with a construction company, as opposed to a heavily vested IT company. The use cases are quite a bit more laid back.

We primarily use it for virtualization. We image older systems, so we have a backup copy that's immediately accessible. Those are the major use cases.

Virtualization is awesome when you're running particular applications and you need to cookie-cutter them, which is what I'm doing. I've got the mining rig pre-built, and I just clone it, set the number of CPUs, and let it run. It can't get easier than that.

I would prefer running off of virtualization for everybody's computer. I would just load the images in them if I could, but that would be asking too much of the consumers, so I don't do stuff like that.

Having a user-friendly interface is important for me. I'm not a coder, even though I do a little bit of programming. Also, I don't use the command-line interface when I can avoid it. When I do have to use it, I look up what I'm supposed to type and then type it.

Virtualization in and of itself is the use case feature. We are able to simultaneously run multiple operating systems in a single machine and have virtually no performance hit. I've got 16 cores and 32 threads, so nobody cares if I use 24 of them for mining and use the rest of them for my desktop. It's basically like having a free computer. With all of the resources already paid for and running, why wouldn't you virtualize when you have that many cores? It doesn't make sense not to.

If you've only got four cores, then I would understand if you don't want to virtualize for that purpose. But if you do, why wouldn't you virtualize and have an unRAID server and a video-optimized system, and another one for something else? It just depends on what suit you want to wear that day.

Technical support is an area that needs improvement.

The interface is a little wonky and needs to be improved. Honestly, the biggest problem with VMware is not with their interface, as much as their support for the interface.

In order for a virtual machine to run on your system, you have to set the hardware up correctly. If it's an AMD, you need to have virtualization enabled on the CPU. That means going into the BIOS and making sure that your VX is set if it's Intel, or an AMDV is enabled. But, you don't actually find that on an AMD. Rather, you have to go to the SPV and check the box that's there. It would behoove VMware as a company to have better documentation that shows people how to do all of this setup.

It wasn't too big of a deal for me to figure it out because I've been working with it, but I could imagine that someone who's not familiar with the BIOS and not familiar with SPV could get into a lot of trouble just to set it up for virtualization. That's unfortunate. I'm not saying they should make the interface overly simple to use. I'm just saying that they should make their documentation easy to access for the stuff that you need. Specifically, if you're in an area of the application, it should have an information link that goes into detail and sub-detail at that point. That would be good.

I understand the segmentation of different markets that they're trying to achieve in terms of sales, but it would be really nice if they just enabled you to scale. You're limited to a certain number of threads as it is now. It might be 32 threads or 32 CPUs max on VMware Workstation. ESXi can go to 128 or even 700-and-something if you scale it up to vSphere. However, it would be nice if someone purchased VMware and then was able to add those feature sets onto it. That's how their software's actually built. It's all VMware Workstation, yet depending on the configuration and how much you pay, some can allocate 738 CPUs and other ones can only do 32.

I have been working with VMware Workstation for 15 years.

They're very stable. VMware is remarkable in this regard. Given how well it works, I think that it's insane that people are doing it any other way.

I ran a miner in Windows directly, and it would occupy all of the cores and slow down the computer and cause a ton of problems. Interestingly, it wouldn't yield as much as this virtualized Linux system would in Windows, on the same machine.

I'm not sure how it makes sense that a virtualized machine inside Windows works better than something where you eliminate the middle man and you just run it in Windows, but that's exactly the case.

When you run these virtualized systems, they're running on bare iron, pretty much. They may be in Windows, and Windows might be using other stuff, but they're going to the CPU and saying, "This one, this one, this one, this one is mine," and it just runs.

This means that you get all of the performance advantages of Linux, and none of the overhead of Microsoft spying on you. This is why I think that building every computer out there as a baseline virtualized machine makes a lot more sense. You just press a button on your keyboard, and there's your Windows. Press another one, there's your Mac. Press another one, there's your Linux. Have them all be able to swap files back and forth, and everybody could be having the best of all possible worlds for whatever kind of system they want. Ultimately, Linux would grow and win out.

However, as it is, you give them a bunch of money and they tend to develop theirs a little faster. Linux may be the best system in terms of efficiencies because it's monetized to do so. All of those companies with all Linux servers know that by cutting away the fat, they make the thing work better and they earn more money with the hardware they've spent so much money on. That's the financial incentive.

The technical support is good, although it could be better.

I would rate them a three out of five.

I have experience with some similar products. For example, Cisco has one that you can use for free. VMware is what I've been primarily using for the past five years.

I choose to work with VMware because I like the interface and its support for development. I also keep up to date with the most recent versions. For example, there was an update that happened this morning.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The installation is really easy, aside from little issues that it doesn't necessarily tell you when you're cloning something. For example, it may not point out which thing to click on but you can reasonably guess because it's at the top of the list, and it works.

I'm still in the process of tweaking the miners, so optimizing the system is an ongoing process. With this particular software, things change depending on the situation with the mining because you're working on a large network.

It takes about 15 to 20 minutes to clone the system once you've got the image done. The image that I made yesterday, I probably spent an hour or so setting up, and then I can cookie cutter. However, I'm continuing to look into how to optimize it for the number of CPUs, whether two processors with six cores are better than one processor with 12 cores, etc.

The licensing costs are cheap. I pay approximately $100 per year.

That said, I'm not doing anything major. If I had vSphere and multiple servers, and I was loading up 700 processes, then it would be a different story. However, I'm not at that level.

The reason that I chose and continue to like VMware is that it's a commercial product and it's funded and it develops and they're improving it. I love open-source, but I understand that some levels of development are more easily attained when there's a monetary incentive behind it.

Overall, this is a good product and I recommend it. My advice for anybody who is considering VMware Workstation is to go ahead and implement it. That said, there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use it in my Windows and Linux systems. I create VMs.

I also use vSphere Client. 

The dashboard can be improved. 

I have been using it for three years and two months.  

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. There are around 350 end users using this in our organization. 

We use it on an everyday basis. 

We used vSphere. In our case, we have 23 servers saved on vSphere with the hostname AD2012.

The initial setup is easy. The deployment took a few days. 

I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, with ten being expensive. It is expensive. 

It's the best solution. I would rate it a ten out of ten.