Sorin, Real world, you will no doubt have more RAM for your VMs and since the host isn't running a GUI the overhead is less. What that amounts to in real world performance gains may be slight, but if you don't require Windows, why pay for the license when all you are getting is more overhead? If you are running other things on the Windows host, I wouldn't bother taking the time to reverse them. Short term, it wouldn't be worth the effort. - Bob _____ From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sorin Srbu Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:57 AM To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines I run VMWare on a windows host and have several linux-VMs installed and running in there for testing. You mean it should be better the other way around for best performance with the VMs? _____ From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Coffman - Info From Data Corp. Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:09 PM To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines Ray, Get the 64bit - at some point you may change your mind on being all 32bit. If I were to design your _VM appliance_ to balance cost/performance, I would get a single dual-core CPU and as much RAM as you would need to run the OSs you want + extra for overhead and future growth. And if you are going to run VMWare Server, use a pared down Linux (Centos is a good choice) as the host OS (ie no GUI).