Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Virtual PC 2004 Removes Linux Support
Psykechan writes "MSFN has got themselves a beta of the new MS Virtual PC 2004 which should be out at the end of this year. Most notable in their 'fixes' is the removal of Linux, BSD, Netware, and Solaris from the supported OS list. They may still work, they just aren't supported. We all thought that this would happen after MS bought Connectix but this just makes it official."
Why worry... I'm quite happy with VMWare's Linux performance
Why bother buying it at all then? if you really can only really test Microsoft OSes with it now then I can't see that being of much use to anyone.
We're all going to keep using VMware like we always have?
Gotcha.
... your joke was stupid.
if they remove support for all those operating systems what the hell good is it?
Who wants to emulate Linux when one could run it natively on PPC also?
Well their not a monopoly. I am glad the DOJ put the smack down on them.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
is still in there, you select "Other" in the hard drive image set up, and just have to format the image yourself, rather than VPC doing it for you. End of discussion.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
I'm sure if they do still work, it won't last, they'll soon end up on the "doesn't work, so don't try" list. And any attempts to fix it on the linux end, will result in many changes to the vpc to make them all annoying futile.
but I am in a captain obvious moment right now.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
Emulation or virtualization is useful to kernel developers. It lets them test changes to a kernel without having to send it to a second machine all the time.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Maybe someone could inform Kollar-Kotelly or whats-her-name? To me this is a clear case of a monopolist buying a company and killing support for alternate products.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
They need it to support older versions of Windows. Easier to create an emulation layer than to maintain backwards compatibility.
Or maybe they just wanted to kill a nice migration tool. Why would they do that?
Microsoft's concept of "choice" is like the "managed democracy" of Putin's Russia.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Just like Sony with the Virtual Game Station & Bleem! Cast. Sony sued the bejesus out of Bleem and Connectix. Connectix won and the Bleem ran out of funds. M$ decided to cut straight to the chase. Lets not forget what happened to Bungi after it's acquisition by M$, the games already in production got behind, especial on the ports, and nothing big has happened since then.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
From the MSFT web site:
Microsoft Virtual PC is a powerful software virtualization solution that allows you to run multiple PC-based operating systems simultaneously on one workstation, providing a safety net to maintain compatibility with legacy applications while you migrate to a new operating system.
After saying that, it would be kinda embarrassing to mention that it supports Linux.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
The only way to test on multiple versions of IE is with multiple Windows installations. You need a seperate install to test IE4, IE5, IE5.5 and IE6. Gotta love OS integration.
"Someone's trying to make money again."
"Do they market, manufacture or use a product for computers?"
"Yes."
"Stop them. I don't care what it costs."
The only advantage I could see MS bringing to this would be some sort of licensing advantage.
If I could install XP on a machine, and then install an unlimited number of XP virtual machines without having to pay for the licenses, it would be pretty cool.
Do they do this?
Since VMware runs on Linux, is it possible it might run on Mac OS X too?
Just a thought.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Since im pretty sure most people run VPC because they they need to run a windows-specific piece of software, i dont really see the problem here (and its not because i LIKE ms). In Denmark the big thing is online banking - some of the major players on the banking scene only accepts win-users, which is a real pain. And the only reason i run VPC...
BSD? Erhm, thats what we have under the hood
Linux? Theres several native PPC versions out there
That leaves us with a lack of solaris support. I think we can survive that.
Isn't this anticompetitive behaviour? Helloo...justice department!?
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Are the guys at MS indirectly saying that Windows is not stable? Seems they could be finally saying it!
Also, if Virtual PC supports Mac OSX, couldn't it also support some of the BSDs since OSX has at least some BSD components underneath?
I think a lot of /.ers are collectively saying, "I told you so."
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Having failed to compete on merit, they have decided not to compete at all. Buy 'em up; kill 'em off!
Intellectually incompetent, morally bankrupt and more money than God; ya gottta love Microsft. Why? Because they said so, damnit!
Microsoft stops development of Virtual PC for Macintosh.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Yeah, that's the impression I got as well. VPC lets them say Hey you can migrate your old NT 4 stuff onto WS03 + NT4 on VPC. And if the Longhorn wave breaks backward compatibility I can see a stripped down VPC being built into the OS kind of like Classic in OSX.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
I don't mean this as a flame, but while MS has the market share, they're just irrelevant any more.
Let's think about this for a moment.
It's obvious the MS has started treating Linux as a serious competitor. For most people, Linux doesn't offer everything you need... there's a great deal of commercial content-creation software that only exists for windows or mac, that Linux cannot now, and probably will not for a long time, be able to touch.
So here's a product, that allows your customers to go ahead and run the competitor's software too, and all without you losing a cent in OS or Software revenue... Why not let it continue to work?
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
Microsoft is all about choice, innovation and user experience. I think it's clear that these changes are all in line with company Propaganda. See, having 'linux' as a choice is confusing to the customer, and by innovatingly remove it Microsoft is able to increase user experience.
And oh, I'm sure it makes this program more secure also.
So why the hell would Microsoft actively REMOVE Linux support when it was already a feature / part of the program?
Are they thinking that if they leave Linux support in, people who perhaps don't want to risk deleting partitions or something might 'try' Linux out and maybe even like it? Sheesh.
Isn't it just cutting your nose off to spite your face?
Oh.. and what will happen when you try and boot a Linux CD on this now anyway? As it is just supposed to be a Virtual PC ala VMWare, will it just crash the kernel or something?
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
On a more serious note, I bet this'll get rid of the few people who still think MS is holding up its fair share of the interoperability departments.
I wonder if anyone will bother to bring this to the attention of the Supreme Court. They, apparently, don't care about monopoly practices unless someone with money tells them that its happening.
I wonder how this might affect their current stock issue?
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
MS removes features in beta, release it and gauge reaction. If highly negative, say "That was only a beta" and add the support back. If no reaction, then go ahead with plan.
The prophet has spoken.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I've only ever used VPC to try out various things with various other *nixs. What I'd really want to do is run multiple instances of OSX or other PPC based *nix. No matter though I'm sure VPC 7 will continue to work just fine.
What I fear from microsoft's purchase of VPC is that future versions of microsoft products for mac will use windows code run through a built in emulator. One can only help that Open Office gets an interface to rival the (hard to admit that it is) excellent interface of Office v.X. The last Office to have a largely windows codebase (98) was a complete dog to use.
No, they're saying Mac OS classic was instable.
And for your second question, I doubt it. VPC for the Mac is probably a ported Carbon app. BSD doesn't have that.
Keep dreaming.
xen
Are the guys at MS indirectly saying that Windows is not stable?
No, like the guys at Apple, they're saying OS X is more stable than Mac OS (9 and lower).
Q. Why is there a delay between the end of sales for Connectix Virtual PC for Windows and the start of sales for the Microsoft version of Virtual PC?
A. Development work takes time, and we want to ensure a quality product for customers. Much of our development focus is on improving the security of the product so that it meets stringent Microsoft standards.
They will say anything in order to increase sales.
But yeah, I didn't expect them to say that either.
Also, if Virtual PC supports Mac OSX, couldn't it also support some of the BSDs since OSX has at least some BSD components underneath?
Like another commenter said... it could be a Carbon app which BSD doesn't have.
BSD ALSO doesn't have a Quartz windowing environment. The app is not X11 so you maybe could run it but not see anything displayed. It also probably requires many Apple runtime libraries.
The biggest question--I'm assuming that VPC still sells better to Mac users than Win users, anybody know?--is whether VPC 2004 will run on G5s. These screenshots are apparently of a VPC for Win build.
I'm guessing no--VPC for the G5 is apparently going to be a huge undertaking. It remains to be seen if MSFT is willing to do it at all.
Do people really buy this for Win? Why on earth? If you have XP would you want to install a virtual 2000 or 98? Maybe for development reasons? Maybe for Linux--but now even that is deprecated. What's MSFT's strategy for VPC? Could it be that they just wanted to make it that much harder for Mac users to interoperate, or is that simply tin-foil hat reasoning?
--
$tar -xvf
Ok, so they removed Linux support from the Virtual PC software. Well why on earth should I care? - For one thing, as other comments have pointed out, there are other products in this field anyway, and for another, on just about any PC that I could run Linux through a virtualisation layer such as this, I could run Linux natively, surely? I mean, dual booting is possible on Wintel boxes, and I've never had that much to do with Macs but I've always been under the impression you could do the same with anything from the Power Mac onwards.
Plus On almost any hardware I have ever tried it on, running Linux through any kind of virtualisation layer has sucked anyway. So enlighten me. Do I have the wrong idea as to what Virtual PC does, or is there just some compelling reason to run Linux through it that I was not aware of?
--Soluzar
Sign the FSF's Anti-DMCA petit
MS tried to buy VMware and did not succeed. They intended to halt support for Vmware on linux. Instead they bought Connectix and plan to bundle "virtual PC" capability into Windows server in order to kill off the VMware market. Flat out, too many folks are consolodating wintel servers into VMware sessions running on top of Linux and MS does not like it.
you get to drive around a little.
with the whoreabully infactdead payper liesense softwar gangster stock markup FraUD BugWear(tm), that's all you get, no matter how much you pay&pay. or is it plug&pay, or patch&pay, now?
vmware's ESX supports Linux.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
This calls for a lawsuit. They should not be able to do this.
The only way to fix the deficit is to tax sunlight.
If you want it so badly why don't you write a "contender"? I hate it when people complain about open source / free software but they don't do jack to help out the movement...
Hardly. Platform stability isn't exactly a zero-sum game.
Say a 3rd party refrigerator distributor was bought out by Coke, would anyone be shocked when Coke distributed it under their license the prohibits products from other companies being sold from it?
clifgriffin > blog
I've been boycotting Microsoft for some time due to their dishonest, FRAUDULENT and unseemly activities.
But this pisses me off. Not that I use VPC much, but I do have a licensed copy.
No more.
I am now going to Pirate VPC and do my best to make sure pirated copies of VPC show up on as many forums and distribution points as I can find.
I've had it with Microsoft extorting money from schools for Windows licenses for every Mac they have. I've had it with Microsoft spreading lies about its competitors. I've had it with the Justice department going after MS for stupid anti-trust when straight Fraud and Theft charges are just as appropriate. And I've had it with the low moral, arrogant, incompetant Microsoft employees that are responsible for the Seattle half of the dotcom bust with their poorly run (and no longer running) companies.
I'm a Mac user, and I just became a Microsoft enemy. I believed that this was a free market and Micrisoft was allowed to compete, and anyone who bougth their stuff was just a fool. But this is it. This isn't a criminal activity-- they can make their software fail to run Linux and suck a little more... but buying the only x86 Emulator on the market and then hobbling it just pisses me off. ITs not enough that they have %90 market share-- no, they have to piss all over us.
Well. That's it. This means war.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Is there anything for Mac OS X that lets you run virtual machines on it like VMWare does? I'm not talking about emulating x86 stuff, but just letting me boot - say - a PPC Linux distribution in a window under Mac OS X, running on the native processor and capturing interrupts.
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
Did anybody RTFA?
This is about VPC for Windows, not VPC for Mac.
It most definitely not good that it doesn't support Linux on Intel hardware.
Couple that with MS control of the BIOS soon and what'll you have.
It does not matter what MSFT does anymore, i have not spent money on their products since 1999 when Win98se was released, i still keep win98se installed for DOS games, and that is about it, i use Linux for most all my computing needs, MSFT resembles a cheezy used car salesman that nobody trusts doing business with to me, anyone with just a little bit of smarts knows the ONLY thing MSFT is interested in is milking as much money as possible off his products and the computing industry, so i avoid buying anymore of MSFT's products like the plague, my Linux install is secure and stable and runs quite well, i seen my brother's XP do a BSOD and/or lockup/freeze just about every time i visit his house and i say to myself thank god for Linux :)
so those of you that use these tools like Wine VMware and the like go for it if that whats floats your boat, i rather use native Linux applications in Linux, and to me Windows is the strange and unused OS, which is really becoming true for me since i never use Windows anymore Win has become a stranger to me and Linux is the OS with that old familiar feel...
VMWare gets its speed over Bochs by emulating as little as possible. Mac On Linux uses the same technique to run Mac OS 9 or X on my iBook inside of Linux.
Boch runs in OS X, but it's rather slow without the plex86 extensions that are X86-specific.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
From MS's Q&A... Q. Why is there a delay between the end of sales for Connectix Virtual PC for Windows and the start of sales for the Microsoft version of Virtual PC? A. Development work takes time, and we want to ensure a quality product for customers. Much of our development focus is on improving the security of the product so that it meets stringent Microsoft standards. And we all know about Microsoft's "stringent" security standards...
I personally have always used the Virtual Machine the other way around, running it on Linux, as a way to migrate from Windows. And as a way to have a Windows environment that doesn't crash the entire machine.
When I was working at a newspaper, my laptop running Windows though slower than the Mac on Quark and PS, was overall faster because it crashed less than the OS 9 Macs used on the Photo Desk.
Along time ago, when OS X was known as Rhapsody, there were various emulation layers that were going to be provided. For example, the Blue Box was going to give MacOS compatibility and became "Classic". There was also mentioned the Red Box, which would allow win32 compatibility, and it was to be based on emulation work started at NeXT (which is now of course part of Apple's IP).
Did it ever exist, and do you think Apple is polishing it up to be in OS X 10.???
Then let me know how it works..
It doesnt of course..
For those with a Mac it *is* a big deal. Unless all you want to run is VMwindows.
But this is not suprising nor unacceptable, what is in it for Microsoft to support the competition? Nothing.....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Max OSX is built on BSD and the software doesn't offically support BSD. Isn't that just a bit weird?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
PC == PC running Windows
It's kinda like the old "Mac vs. IBM" mindset, I guess. There are still Mac people who refer to it as IBM, which I find very cute.
Just use VMWare. It's better than VirtualPC anyway.
And it seems everyone will be able to get it for a small fee. MSDN free of charge.t icleID/40618/4 0618.html
s px
See
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Ar
There is longhornblogs.com site where some guys from MS are doing some weird stuff: they are actually acting nice, asking everyone to be as hard on them as possible, so they can make a better product.
See blog titled "How to hate Microsoft" written by one of their employees.
http://longhornblogs.com/scobleizer/posts/345.a
Giving pre-beta1 out for all to see, 2 or 3 years before release is very unusual for MS. Part of it is probably to show that they are working on something, to slow Apple and Linux advances. But, it seems that Longhorn brings so many news, and they want to make sure hordes of their loyal developers will follow. Of course, there is a huge amount of new API's (Avalon, XAML, Indigo), and they will probably try to rocket the adoption of new OS by having developers write for new, Longhorn only API's. And there is a lot "security, managed" talk too.
On topic, I suspect they will use Virtual PC like a layer to easily run untrusted apps, and still have a "trustworthy" machine.
It is all getting very serious; flashy look (3D+new rendering engine+scripting of those through XML API called XAML, just to keep their developers busy, and Miguel will have some work to do too) and "security" features will be there to blind their developers and customers, while sneaking a really new meaning of proprietary: DRM.
MS is for some reason frightened like hell; building this kind of communities, with showing alpha software is, well, kind of OSS-ish. Nice to see recognition of one metodology. They are trying to improve their public picture like mad. MS guys there are so nice it is sickening. Of course they wont fix really important things, like opening to standards, but they will sure try to prove that the care about customers. It seems Longhorn is "make it or break it" for them. So, let's break the damn thing, or we will be sorry for the rest of out lives.
Since all you are doing is x86 -> x86 just use VMWare. In my experience it runs better than VPC on a Windows box.
The people that have the most cause for concern are the ones using VPC on the Mac to test web development on the Windows platform. Sure it's about as fast as molasses in winter, but it doesn't need to be fast as most of what you are looking for is layout issues.
If MS decides to scrap or cripple VPC for the Mac I will have to use my x86 machione for more than games I guess.
Why emulate an x86 machine on a mac and then run linux? why not run a native ppc version of linux? the only disadvantage of this would be the inability to run x86 binaries, seeing as some programs are only available as x86 binaries.. Which makes me wonder why there isnt a PPC version of em86 (em86 allows the Alpha to emulate an x86 processor and run x86 binaries alongside native alpha binaries)
Windows however, cannot run natively on a mac, NT3/4 used to have a ppc version available, but i dont think that ever ran on macs...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
They can add or remove whatever support they want from it. They don't exist to please linux zealots.
If you can find a way around the activation check, or just use XP Pro Corp edition which doesn't do activation checks.
Not really sure what use it would be to have multiple XP virtual machines anyway. It would make more sense to have 95, 98, ME, 2000, and NT 4.0 virtual machines for testing out how your Windows software works on various platforms without buying extra computers.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
you have got to be kidding me
If it was integrated in, there's some interesting security stuff they could do -- you could 'sandbox' Win32 apps without breaking the API. That would minimize embarssing mail worms, spyware and so on. Sorta like 'jails' in the Unix world.
I think they also need an x86 emulator for Itanium systems, but I'm not sure if they are going to use Virtual PC or something else.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Virtual PC doesn't "support" Mac OS X in the same sense that it supports BSD, Linux, et al.
Virtual PC runs on Mac OS X. The only operating systems Virtual PC itself will run are x86 operating systems.
You can buy another virtual PC product that will allow you to test many operating systems other than Windows, so for once Microsoft have produced a rather feature-less rubbish product, all in the name of monopoly protection.
I'd really hate to have to develop for a windows system. Competing with the same people who make the os is a real unfair advantage.
Might as well drop the VirtualPC moniker and call it VirtualWindows/Mac.
VMware is a horrible hack to get around a few problems in the IA-32 architecture that make clean virtualization (like IBM's mainframew VM) impossible. Does the Opteron make things any better? Can you run a 32-bit OS under a 64-bit OS on the Opteron?
Damn you for selling out.
Did you think they wanted your product to make it better and do great things with it? No, they just wanted it to become yet another tool in their anti-competition arsenal.
Where are the companies who refuse to partner with or sell out to Microsoft? They are the ones deserving of my money.
Seems like a bad decision, even for Microsoft. Virtual PC was a good tool from migrating from Linux to Windows, not the other way around.
in reponse to rumoured escalations in aggression buy phonIE georgewellian fuddite southern baptist freemason corepirate nazi execrable hired goons.
just kidding. the newclear power plan is already way ahead of the walking dead.
the pateNTdead eyecon0meter kode is also still working just fine, despite having filtered/debunked terabytes of phonIE felons' ?pr? ?firm? misinformation/duhbullspeak.
get ready to see the light.
With Windows legendary vulnerability, instability and mysterious performance anomalies, I wouldn't want to run Linux on top of that house of sand for anything but a trivial application.
Perhaps in the long run, Microsoft is doing Linux a favour.
I told you so.
I can't afford a sig!
My office uses VM Ware right now as a testing environment so we can try multiple versions of windows with our software. Still, there's obvious demand for a product that runs Linux and windows side by side, so it is clear here that Linux support is being removed because it's Microsoft.
Expect MS to bundle this into their dev studio to try to lock out VMWare and further reduce the ways to run Linux.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Why do the editors keep posting redundant excrement like this? When Microslut acquired Connectix, it was obvious that they were gonna remove Linux support.
What I'm wondering is, why did they remove it from the Mac version of Virtual PC? Do they think they're going to really keep the OSS out of that platform? I think they're in for a big disappointment, because if the OSS authors can't run Linux on their Macs using Virtual PC, they'll simply make their software run on Fink, and have it that way. And GTK and QT have already been ported to Windblows. And gcc can still cross-compile (afaik) so we can run OSS NATIVELY on Windblows, so why the fsck are we worried about VPC not runnign Linux?
This is not the sig you're looking for.
A pro microsoft site using .png images, i've long since given up on IE, are .png's even supported?
Ummm.. Because it allows Mac OS users to run Windows applications? What other application does that (reliably)?
Fine point of distinction - the link in the article points to Virtual PC for Windows... which will run OS's written for X86 chips - it's for OS/2, Netware, Windows, ect on a windows machine. For running Windows on a Mac, you would need Virtual PC for the Mac. Which conviniently comes with a Windows license.
I have blog like everyone else
it allows Mac OS users to run Windows applications? What other application does that (reliably)?
When Windows applications are themselves reliable, we can fault the maker of emulators and hardware for problems. When the hardware maker is bought by M$, it will soon be junk.
I'm sure the previous poster considered the dearth of x86 hardware for Mac. He seems to think that x86 hardware for Mac is more useful for running Linux, BSD and other free software than it is for running M$ junk.
What this means is that Microsoft is moving to put in barbs to mess with anything but Windoze. That these barbs will mess windoze too is not their concern because Microsoft cares even less about Mac users than they care about their own users. They have always done this kind of thing and they always will. The next challenge is the Next Generation Security BIOS which will lock everything but M$ out of commodity hardware. If it's not under M$ control, it won't make money for M$ and M$ can't tollerate that. Wierd, screwed up, agressive and paranoid but true, M$ has and continues to repeate their desire to run everyone's computer.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Its hard to configure, doesnt support 'real' graphic modes.. is slow...
Its a great project and its a lot of work, but isnt 'quite there', yet...
So i still use VMware personally..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
rock steady little eddie
And this is almost on topic, but I got a chuckle at the time, so I figured I'd pass it on.
One day, in a fit of boredom, I decided to install the PC version of Connectix Virtual GameStation INSIDE a Virtual PC session on my Mac. Nevermind the fact that I had the Mac version of VGS installed, I was just curious to see what happened when I installed an emulator inside an emulator.
The installer launched and I laughed and was impressed at the same time. A dialog box popped up and more or less asked me if I was serious in a very humorous way. As Connectix had written both products, they took the time to write a line into the Windows VGS installer that, should it detect that it is being installed inside a Virtual PC to tell the operator to basically put down their crackpipe.
Now, with Microsoft making both the emulator and the "supported" operating systems within, I doubt we'll see any of this sense of humor (or logic checking).
[UID-HeinzIntel]
If you look here linux and os/2 are still listed as being supported.
"The road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think." - Picard
-- Jfef K
i read the microsoft page. not one mention of linux or bsd, but a couple for mac and - get this - OS2!
microsoft really are such wankers.
judge kotelly must have the hairs on the back of her neck standing right up on end.
There is always Bochs IA-32 Emulator.
http://bochs.sourceforge.net/
Snippet from their web site says:
"Bochs is a highly portable open source IA-32 (x86) PC emulator written in C++, that runs on most popular platforms. It includes emulation of the Intel x86 CPU, common I/O devices, and a custom BIOS. Currently, bochs can be compiled to emulate a 386, 486 or Pentium CPU. Bochs is capable of running most Operating Systems inside the emulation including Linux, Windows(R) 95, DOS, and recently Windows(R) NT 4. Bochs was written by Kevin Lawton and is currently maintained by this project."
Just to add, it works on the Pentium 4 with Windows XP Professional too. I use it to run Linux on while I'm running Windows.
I think both of you are talking about extremes, honestly.
The truth is, there's no way MS bothered to do enough re-writing of the VPC code in this short a time that they've stopped it from safely running a Linux or BSD distro that it ran fine as VPC 6.0 from Connectix.
If you were handed a bunch of emulation code of this magnitude, how long do you think it would take just to sit down and analyze how it does what it does? Now, how much more time would it take you to make the small changes that identify it as your current company's product (look and feel changes to menus, new splash and "about" type screens, updated help screens, etc.)? You really think that the new VPC 2004 (scheduled for release in November of '03 originally) had all sorts of low-level revisions in it that would damage Linux support?
I agree that I could see MS purposely trying to add code to block installation of Linux on future versions of VPC, but even that is a risky move for them. (In the quest to rid the world of a competing OS, is it really worth losing potential sales of your emulation product, and reducing functionality it had previously?) VirtualPC itself seems like it's a conflict of interest for Microsoft - unless they accept that it's better to let people use alternate OS's inside their OS than have the alternate OS loaded in place of their OS.
Most likely, they're just trying to avoid having to deal with phone calls asking for support on a Unix type OS - which they hope you'll find difficult to use and frustrating.
Microsoft Virtual PC is a powerful software virtualization solution that allows you to run multiple PC-based operating systems simultaneously on one workstation.
All it supports is Windows and few minor OS's.
maintain compatibility with legacy applications while you migrate to a new operating system
It will be such a help when I'll be switching from WindowsXP Home to WindowsXP Pro.
CHEERS
--RoadkillBunny
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
They merely removed it from the "Guest OS Wizard," or at least that's all the article accuses them of doing.
As if any one of you knee-jerk Linux zealots would use a wizard to partition and configure your OS. As if any of you would continue to use an MS product, even though it does exactly what you need to.
Just say, "I hate MS and I don't want to use their products no matter what." At least that would be honest.
It is Microsoft for gawd sakes. What would you expect?
Maybe it's time to start a list....I expect Microsoft to start purchasing Linux companies to kill them off. Just like they did to fight Java and Netscape.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Go for it:a sp
http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/ComplaintForm.
MS bought VPC is so they can stop developing native Mac applications.
Want the latest version of Office for the Mac? Get the VPC/XP/Office bundle.
I seriously doubt there will be another native version of Office for OSX. MS has aready showed they want to tie Office to Server 2003 and it will rely on too many technologies that are Windows only.
Also, I'm pretty sure that beta is of VPC for Windows not VPC for the Mac.
VPC for Windows, I never really did get that.
What fool modded this offtopic?
Redundant maybe, but offtopic? nah.
Well this stinks. My preference would have been to run Linux UNDER XP inside a virtual machine on my laptop since there are still some things like games which run "better" (read, "only") under Windows. I guess I'll have to wipe the drive now and install Linux directly. Good move Micro$oft! You have, in fact, forced me to abandon one of my two preferred OS's.
calm down people!
You can download the trial from microsoft, and it still has options for running all the fun stuff (AKA linux, solaris, BSD). So they pulled the support. Big deal! The whole net is our support!
Look, any simulated X86 architecture that runs windows will by default run linux.
It's what we've been doing all along, right?
-- No Sig is a Good Sig
wow you guys are incredibly lame, i can't believe all the uproar over some stupid beuaocratic nonsense.
It's all in good faith, though, as i believe when the time is right that microsoft will eventually come through in this crisis, and show their true colors.
In closing, i'd like to state that microsoft is not an inherently evil company as SCO could be considered, but more or less a proxy for all of the working class of the united states and that you should all be ASHAMED
GOATSE 4 LYFE
This isn't news. I believe Slashdot even reported this long ago. Microsoft wanted to purchase Connectix to better emulate support for older NT applications in their future server versions of Windows.
They also grabbed Virtual PC while they were at it.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I used to be a strong MS supporter, but they seem hell bent on driving me away. I just bought a 160GB HDD and guess what? Windows 2000 does not support more than 137GB out of the box. So I could have installed it on 137GB of the drive, upgraded to SP3 and installed again. What I did was install RedHat 9, and SAMBA and I now have a 100% Microsoft free domain controler. Oh, yes, logins with roming profiles take half the time than they used to. And I only load X-Windows when I want to use it. Why have a GUI on a file server when you're not using it.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, VPC5 is a pretty solid app. I can't really see upgrading for any reason. One of the things I love about VPC is it's simplicity, and I can't imagine that MS's new version of the app would improve this.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
The last beta of virtual PC would not even install on Windows 2000! http://www.vmware.com on the other hand, runs fast, is well supported, and talk about easy to use! They don't make it clear from their advertising, but I remember for VMware 3.0 (when I purchased it for our organization) came with not 1 license but 50! The windows version came up with 150 licenses! Bottom line: $800 50 Linux licenses and 150 Windows licenses Enough for the entire lab, plus some of our neighboring labs. Version 4.0 is even better.
Their Win4Lin product lets you run Windows on top of Linux at near-native speed, and supports pretty much everything out of the box except for DirectX games (which itself is a major reason to run Microsoft OSs).
If Microsoft would buy them, then there'd be one less company that lets Linux and Windows coexist, thereby enlarging the OS chasm, which is what I guess they're after, besides the meta-issue of world domination of course.
(... and now to go get me some o' that Netraverse stock ...)
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
So what? /. story like "OpenBSD not supported by Connectix!" or "FreeDOS not supported by Connectix!"? Why does every sentence containing the words "Linux" and "Microsoft" get a /. story?
IIRC NetBSD, OpenBSD and many others were never on that list. Why was there never a
So who really cares? That drop-dows menu is just a cosmetic thing and I never liked it anyway (the defaults of some values were IMHO somewhat strange).
Whyever bring Putin into this? If you want to make snide remarks about democracy, just look into Bush+Florida+Election+Fraud.
And yes, someone should write the judge.
IAAL.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
have different rules.
Removing support for different OS's is anti-competitive. You'll recall that MS is under order to allow for different browser installs?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Ummm... I thought their whole upgrade-marketing strategy of late was that they don't support older versions of Windows?
Breakfast served all day!
The news reports today of the head of Yukos (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) being arrested after making offers of support for opposition parties met with an article about the Microsoft sponsored initiative for software "choice" and something clunked.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Microsoft has released a gratingly repetitive support document on this issue.
It's not like VMWare suddenly doesn't exist or anything.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
This is such a non-issue.
Are you going to try and tell me that every piece of hardware you use is officially supported on linux by the manufacturer?
Linux will work on Virtual PC. Microsoft doesn't want to spend money answering your support calls when you configure X-Windows incorrectly.
Linux will work with your digital camera. But Canon doesn't want to spend money answering your support calls either.
There is a difference between "you can't use linux" and "we don't support linux".
A LOT of non-Microsoft companies do not support linux. When the linux user base becomes large enough that non-support effects a company's bottom line, this may change.
I love to strip audio out of tv shows, movies, commercials, etc. I have hundreds now. I saw your sig and it was coincidental - I just grabbed clips from "Dusk 'til Dawn" the other day. I was going to spontaneously email you that particular clip, but you don't have an email listed. If you'd like me to send it (if you haven't grabbed it yourself already :), send me mail at mmrtnt55@netscape.com
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
They already said it. Don't you remember the billboards when XP came out? Now that was adbusting waiting to happen!
That's exactly how they got WIN16 support on NT. They licensed an emulator an integrated it with the OS. I don't remember which one it was, but it might have even been Virtual PC.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
--Mahatma Ghandi
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
If it get's to the point that VMware knows it's dead in the market, maybe people could buy out the software and turn it into open source like they did with Blender.
I wonder how much support for this would exist within the OSS community?
Shh.
Now while losing connectix is not that much of a problem since there are better products out there it appears there is a new trend with MicroSoft.
Apparently they're buying up Linux supporting companies like RAV and Connectix and discontinuing support for it's Rival OS.
I'm sure if I had the money and I bought up every gas station in the US and sold hydrogen fuel only so you'd have to buy my hydrogen burning cars the govt would get involved quickly. Funny how the govt is ignoring what MS is doing now. Guess they wont say anything until MS buys up something they've been using and they're told you cant use it unless you dump Linux and use a MS based OS.
Seems like you all miss the point here (well, almost all). So, when Longhorn is coming, lots of stuff is gonna break. So MS is going to need some kind of backward compatibility layer, like Classic in OSX. As you know, Microsoft does not innovate. They don't write this stuff themselves, they BUY it (remember Spyglass?) and have themselves a more or less instant compatibility layer. If some competition (ugh! virtual machines!) is killed in the process, so much the better.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
I think it was actually Insignia SoftWindows, which wasn't just a pure emulator, it also knew how to 'thunk' API calls. And this was only on NT for RISC platforms.
You mean WOW (Windows on Windows)? Yeah, sounds about right.
Y'know what would be nice? Using Mac OS X on PC hardware. Why aren't there emulators that do this? There was a rumour last year that Apple was working on a program that could do this, but here we are, a year later, and no beans. I'd rather pay for cheap hardware and use a nice OS than pay for expensive hardware and use Win XP. If Mac OS X *can* be emulated on PC, please respond!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Why is Microsoft evil for not specifically coding support for other OSes in VPC? I can understand the outrage if Microsoft specifically coded routines in VPC that would specifically target non-MS OSes and prevent them from running. But from what we know, this is not happening (yet). All they did was cut back on some features while improving others. As long as Microsoft is not actively and purposefully putting road blocks in VPC to prevent execution of non-Microsoft OSes, then what have they done that is illegal?
Microsoft should not be allowed to purposefully interfere with competitor's products, but they should not be forced to purposefully support said products.
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
Considering since the beginning Linux has been designed to run on machines that are "Designed for Microsoft Windows(tm)" So what is there to worry about?
Don't waste your time with this crap. I've got FreeBSD 5.1, RHL 9 and am about to put on Suse 9, when it ships. So far, it all works just great (be sure to get more RAM, tho).
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
MS is constantly saying that Windows is not stable. They call every current-minus-one release the worst POS on the planet when they come out with the current release.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Friends don't help friends install MS junk.
To help you demonstrate your intelligence and originality more effectively in the future, you forgot a $.
"The box said 'This program requires Windows 98 or better' so I installed Linux"
How could they refute that in court? Now that would make an exciting trial!
The post makes it sound as if the author is surprised by the whole thing. I would have posted if Microsoft hadn't removed support for all third-pary OSes. This is the predictable result of Microsoft continuing to be a monopoly. File it under "duh, not shit".
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I've evaluated both, and I can testify that Virtual PC just works. It'll run everything that I threw at it so far.
VMware is different story. I keep on getting problems with it. Examples:
You have to install Vmware tools, otherwise the Guest OS won't run at decent speed. And its installation is not always trouble-free.
VirtualPC on the other hand simulates S3 Trio 64 for the Guest OS, which is probably the most supported VGA card on the planet. So you get decent VGA performance from any OS straightaway.
VMware has bombed out several times on me, bringing down multiple Guest OS with it - and I'm running it on Linux.
VirtualPC never done that, even on my unstable Windows workstation (loaded with various apps and overdue for its OS reinstall).
Various Linux distro has various small (annoying) problems installing on VMware - most notably Lycoris.
On the other hand, all Linux distro install flawlessly on Virtual PC.
With VMware, I consistently got error message saying that I need to hack it so to enable it to share the high resolution timer properly among the Guest OSes.
Virtual PC just runs.
Yesterday several new RH9 installations on VMware were unable to connect to the network. After much looking around, turned out somehow RH9 failed to detect the VMware's virtual NIC IRQ - although previous installations never had this problem!
This never happened with VirtualPC.
And the list goes on.
Imagine my shock when I visited the website to actually buy it, only to found out that Microsoft has bought it.
And of course, several years later, Microsoft will claim that Virtual PC is one of their "innovation".
And now I found out that Microsoft has crippled this excellent piece of software.
I really hope VMware will be able to fix their current shortcomings.
bochs, plex86, xen.
All need developers
VMWare is NOT compatible with everything except OS/2. Any OS which requires VESA 2 support (Darwin, for instance, or SkyOS), will not work in VMWare.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Well, duh! Why would Microsoft provide a product customes want, if it does not promote lock-in to Microsoft products.
Just type this into the command prompt on an NT/2K/XP box to see the real name of the 16-bit emulator:
/i "softpc"
type %SystemRoot%\System32\ntvdm.exe | find
I did a 'strings' on that EXE and saw this:
NtVdm : Using Yoda on an x86 may be hazardous to your systems' health
Why are there no more "OrangePC" options for the Mac? Remember when you could buy a processor on a PCI card, ram it in the box, and have a complete Intel-based installation right there in the same box? Why has nobody come out with a product like that in years? No matter how good VPC gets, there is no comparison between running hardware emulation in another OS and running it on real hardware.
Well I for one am Shocked! Shocked! I tell you, at this behavior on the part of dear Microsoft.
I just dont undertsand why a kind, gentle, benevolent and very large monopoly would buy a complimentary company and then do the unthinkable: stifle the competition.
They couldnt have done this before and gotten away with it... could they?
Wait... they did? INCONCEIVABLE!!
Quick! Call the United States Department of Justice! Oh wait....
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
They're already using it for the WinCE.NET emulators. The earlier WinCE "emulators" just thunked system calls rather than running WinCE in a VM, so they were quite different in some ways.
A Google search for "IE6 Bogtrotter" turns up nothing, and several variants of that don't seem to produce anything related to what you're talking about. Have any helpful links?
Since this has come up and I haven't found any info elsewhere, are there any good resources online for installing Linux on VirtualPC (which versions work best, etc)? I'd also like to install MS DOS but I wouldn't have a clue how to get them off floppy disks and onto VirtualPC (I'm in OS X). If I buy a floppy reader, can VirtualPC recognize this as the A: drive? I currently run Windows 98 in VirtualPC and WindowsMe on a desktop computer. I don't want use a PowerPC version of Linux because I don't want to dualboot either computer. Any advice would be appreciated.
Alex.
The VPC being released "before the end of the year" is the PC version. If you go to the website for the Mac version, they still aren't saying anything about when it will be released. No love for G5 yet.
besides to run Windows software under Linux? I know there are some other virtualization options, but what of those options really drive purchases?
So if Microsoft has removed the One True Reason for buying VPC, how is it going to undermine VMWare's business and drive them under?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
More likely they want to support 32 bit apps on 64 bit hardware that does not have binary compatabillity.
I use VPC to run Win2K Pro, Solaris 5.8,
...
and GNU/Linux on my Mac G4. When Microsoft
bought Connectix, I first felt shell-shocked.
After getting my first VPC upgrade from the
MS-owned Connectix, I have learned to embrace
the devil. Whatever Steve Ballmer and Bill
Gates have in store for me on the Mac platform
is A-OKAY, 'cause they do know what's best for
me. If they don't want me to use anything
on my Mac except OSX and WinXP (with VPC 2004),
I am sure that they are right. How can anyone
NOT TRUST our very best (and richest) Microsoft
to do the right thing?
OTOH, the term "not supported" (by MS) is not
in itself any big deal. I would not expect
Microsoft to exert any effort in supporting
a non-Microsoft OS on their (now) Connectix.
Any more than I would expect Sun to support
my problems with MS Update. IMHO, Connectix
VPC is the very best thing to happen to MS
in a very long time. MS acquisition of this
company, and it's plan to incorporate this
VM in their server product is a tacit acknow-
ledgement that their OS product is neither
secure nor stable. VPC can put MS OSes in
a "sandbox", just like Java apps can, where
they belong
Actually, the other "killer app" on my windows box right now is PalmPilot synchronization with a calendar app that won't sync on Linux. Has anyone gotten Palm Desktop and HotSync to work under VMWare?
When M$ purchased the rights to VPC from Connectix the writing was already on the wall for non-M$ op sys's. An outspoken and well-known OS/2 advocate immediately predicted that within 6 months M$ would pull the OS/2 version of VPC and others would follow. Right on schedule they did. Not only did they stop support for OS/2 they outright banned the sale of it as of 8/26/03 ( check this out for a message).
Of course I don't remember seeing anything posted at /. when that happened. But seeing the treatment that OS/2 has had from M$ for 12 years why should it surprise anyone when they do the same with *nix? I have to chuckle when I see such outrage and surprise among *nix geeks at M$ SOP when us OS/2 freaks have lived with this BS since 1991.
Oh, in case you don't know, the reports of the death of OS/2 have been greatly exaggerated...this eCS 1.1 system uptime is 0 days 16 hrs 43 mins and 47 secs.
I remain a cynical WarpDavey posting from Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.4b; MultiZilla v1.4.0.4A) Gecko/20030421
All surface appearances are that this is the first step in killing of VMware. Looking a little deeper, we see that cancelling products and services are what's really happening. A little creative book keeping to hide horrendous losses by buying up a small company and then cannibalizing it.
...complain to Kollar-Kotelly, and/or Massachusetts. Both are actively rattling Microsoft's cage and this looks like a fairly straightforward antitrustworthy action.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Does anyone know how/if Windows Server 2003 performs on the current release of Virtual PC?
Seriously, before we start talking magic bullet and other conspiracies, how many free software loving people are going to fork over some dough to run their arch enemy's programs on their favorite operating system?
Is the demand really there?
If MS was making 100M a year off of this thing, they probably would continue to sell it and bounce a windows license charge into the price. Then you would still be supporting the evil empire...
This is my sig.
You could also consider the lack of dog shit in a pumpkin pie to be a shortcoming, too... But that would just be stupid. Your troll message is a delightful bit of astro-turf...But this line proves out that you're just making it up as you go...
If Apple was really so "behind the times", their resale prices would be crap. If Apple equipment was really so obsolete, resale values would follow the trend you see other obsolete items take--they'd be worthless. Want to test the theory?
Put an ad in the paper for a rusted out non-fuel injected 1971 Chevy. See how many calls you get, and what price you are offered. My advice? Somebody offers $50, take it.
Unfair...how? For pointing out that while you were suckered in by the low, up-front cost, then will end up getting dinged for endless upgrades to get your PC to do what my Mac did out of the box?
I have a 1.3ghz p3 too (use it as a linux based server) and was curious about WinXP. Windows 2000 ran great on it when I tested it, but I ultimately went with Mandrake because the price was unbeatable. (I've never infringed on copyrights before, and I wasn't going to start just because it was a home server and probably nobody would ever know...) I thought that since it ran Win2k so well, XP would be no problem. I popped in the extra hard drive I keep laying around and installed WinXP Pro expecting similar results to my Windows 2000 test. Hardly!
It was chugging (and hit the swap file!) trying to bring up a start menu! That Toshiba Protege runs a 1.3 ghz P3 chip too. Lets hope that XP Tablet Edition runs better than XP Professional did on my (exactly the same) hardware!
Who did what now?
You just forgot to mention that if someone mentions that they're having problems with the current release, they say that this next release, which is already beta by the way, is going to fix that.
Of course, the advertising reflects both of these things too. Windows 98 advertisements had tubes of painkillers labelled "Windows 98" (which would imply there's something seriously frustrating in Windows 95).
(Though, I still fail to see what the tractor that got stuck in the mud when trying to bulldoze a rotten shed was supposed to symbolize in Windows 2000 TV commercials. Maybe they were trying to be honest or something.)
Ok, forgive the histrionics. I probably will not really remove XP. I actually don't really use Virtual PC anyway, I do use VMWare. The point was that Microsoft would not be helping a competitor by including support for Linux. They, in fact, are helping a competitor (VMWare) by excluding it. And are even risking losing me as a customer for XP in the process. Bad business decsion by MS no matter how you look at it.
Trust the Computer.
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Anyone having thoughts on Microsoft being interested in emulation/virtualization of their OS and their current moves toward digital rights management?
Coincidence?
Yet another one of Balmer's tricks to "outsmart" the open source competition?
--
Good marketing beats good engineering!
I thought Itanium itself had x86 emulation of some sort?
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
The current ones have hardware emulation, yes. But I believe that Intel has announced that feature is going away because you'll get better performance with software.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.