Best Virtual Development Platform for .NET 3.5 Development

Question

I have basically succumbed to the fact that if you are a hardcore computer user, you will have to reimage your computer every few months because something bad happened. Because of this, I bought imaging software and then really got into imaging. I am now ready to move my development environment completely into a virtual machine so that I can test sites on IIS as though I am on a dev network (and backup these images easily).

The question is, what is the best virtual development platform for a 4 gb laptop? A virtual Vista Business with 3 gb of ram, windows XP sp3 with 3 gb of ram, or Windows Server 2003 with 3 gb of usable ram.

Tools I will need to install:

*sql server 2005 dev edition
*vs 2008 sp1
*tools for silverlight
*and multiple other smaller testing tools

Answer 1

I think the biggest question (from my standpoint) is whether or not you'll be doing development (like SharePoint) that requires a server platform. If you anticipate a lot of SharePoint development (or perhaps Exchange, or BizTalk, or another product that requires development be done on a server platform), then go with Windows Server 2003. If not, then I'd probably choose XP, though Vista isn't a bad development platform.

Answer 2

I have tried the following combinations:

• Windows XP SP3 on Virtual Server 2005 R2
• Windows Vista Business x64 on Virtual Server 2005 R2
• Windows XP on Virtual PC 2007
• Windows 2003 on Virtual Server 2005 R2
• Windows XP on VMWare Fusion

and the Virtual Server installations where either local or hosted on a server and they all ran fine and about the same speed.

The VMWare Fusion Virtual Machine running under OS X is (seat of the pants) significantly faster than the others. I haven't tested VMWare on Windows to see if it is VMWare or the Hardware making the difference, but it's something worth looking into.

Answer 3

I personally prefer developing on a server platform - however, that opinion might shift if I was developing any sort of WinForms applications, since it would more correctly represent the OS family for the target audience.

I did notice a slight performance decrease going from Server 2003 to Server 2008 that I was not expecting, but that might be more from doing an in-place upgrade instead of starting clean.

From the options you gave, I would personally go with W2k3. You can really trim a server OS down to run lightning-fast, especially when you don't have or get rid of the MS "eye candy".

Answer 4

Server 2008, converted to a workstation. Nothing compares IMO, I've loaded 3 Different OS's in the last 3 months, and I'm set on Server 2008.