Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Next Virtual PC Will Run Linux
Fallen Kell writes "Contrary to previous reports, eWeek is reporting that Microsoft's new version of Virtual PC will support Linux as a virtual OS. I for one am very glad that MS did not strip out all the capability from this great product."
After all -- you still need windows on your machine to run VirtualPC...
..for just $699 :)
Two things...
First, I've been using Virtual PC now for many years under both Mac and Windows and I have yet to come across an example of where Connectix went out of their way to support Linux. That Linux runs under Virtual PC is a testiment to the quality of Linux as an operating system and Virtual PC as a x386 emulator, but as far as I can tell, no special effort has been made to support Linux under VPC.
Second, in my view it is likely that Redmond explored the possibility of hobbling Linux under VPC, but found that to do so would either a) entail a rewrite of significant portions of the code, or b) damage compatibility with Windows applications that currently run under VPC, so they decided that c) it just wasn't worth it. Why else wait this long to make this announcement?
When my current copy of Virtual PC on Windows becomes antiquated for whatever reason, I will replace it with VMWare. Hopefully, this will happen at the same time I go AMD64, and I will switch from running Windows as my host OS to running Linux.
Virtual PC on Macintosh has already become antiquated for my purposes, and I have solved that by ceasing to use the Macintosh for everything save development.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Will Microsoft play fair, or will they dampen down the capability to make linux look like it doesnt run well?
So, if MS are happy to let one of their high-priority risks/competitors onto their new product, what's the reason. I somehow doubt it's good-nature :-)
They don't want to antagonise any judicial review of their current "settlement" ?
They simply don't care, figuring that the cost of preventing "those damned hackers" from (ab)using it is higher than simply selling it ?
They've accepted that Linux will not go away, and are making plans to adapt the 'embrace and extend' policy as best they can ?
Hmmm....
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Microsoft's next Virtual PC could run Linux only in Soviet Russia.
less is more
am i just stupid or did VMware already do this for ages... guess this is just another "microsoft is late with its features, so bash them to hell" article.
though this doesn't sound like something Microsoft would do!
i mean, from a business oriented point of view, i don't see any obvious gain for microsoft.
and knowing Microsoft, they don't usually do anything for free!
From the article: ...for an estimated retail price of $129, $100 less than the Connectix price of $229
In case you don't remember, Connectix makes the VMWare series of products. Now suddenly, it's much cheaper (it used to be a bit more expensive). Is this another NetScape?
Also, Linux is not officially supported: "We don't support Linux, and we also don't support third-party applications.
And it goes on to explain that "...if they have an issue running Linux on Virtual PC, and if that Linux provider triages that issue as a Virtual PC bug and submits a bug report, we'll work with them to fix the problem
Is this only something companies like RedHat and SuSe can do? If so, why?
With great numbers come great responsibility!
"Virtual PC will support Linux" as in you can load a supported linux distribution on Virtual PC....for now.
You still have to be running Windows or MacOS to use Virtual PC.
~dlb
The technology will run almost any x86 operating system in a Virtual PC environment, Huffman stressed. "So Linux can be installed on a virtual machine on Virtual PC. There has been some misunderstanding about this: You absolutely can run Linux in Virtual PC," she said.
The Virtual PC software can run Linux as it can run any other OS that works under the x86 systems. This does not mean Microsoft supports people running Linux. They even state this later on in the article
"We don't support Linux, and we also don't support third-party applications. We direct customers to their Linux providers if they have an issue running Linux on Virtual PC, and if that Linux provider triages that issue as a Virtual PC bug and submits a bug report, we'll work with them to fix the problem. We're treating them like we treat third-party applications," she said.
As it says... they do NOT support Linux but are not going to do anything to block Linux from running under it. Allowing it to run is not the same as supporting it.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
...expecially the ones from eweek.
MS has dropped SUPPORT for Linux. VirtualPc could always run linux, but until now (from conectix) ths was official. Means: you could call connectix and ask for help when your linux started to misbehave.
MS is now dropping SUPPORT for Linux. Means: you CAN run Linux, as this basically is a i386 emulator, but if you run into trouble, don't call Microsoft. Also, dont expect MS to provide the nice (and necessary) accelerated graphics drivers that emulators normally come with. Ms will only support Windows.
THis is all MS ever said - actually they pretty directly said Linux will run all the time.
But then, you really had to read to understand this. And eweek seems to have lost this ability.
I'm glad someone finally pointed out this fact to the rest of the masses. There was never a question on whether or not Virtual PC would continue to support Linux, after all, Microsoft would have to add to the code to not support an OS designed to work on any x86 hardware. No, they don't support Linux (which could be looked upon as a reduction in quality since I believe Connectix did support it) but why should they. Furthermore, the Linux support was just a predefined configuration which very few used anyway.
VirtualPC can run Linux as it stands.
MicroSoft would have to damage the credibility of VPC itself in order to block Linux... that is to say they'd have to break things, which would not only stop Linux from running, but also potentially a wide variety of Windows based apps. No one could possibly predict which apps would be broken by such a move, but it's guaranteed that it would include something major.
For once in MicroSoft's life they've decided it's not worth burning the village to save it from the Penguins.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Windows XP supports Java
Explorer supports style sheets
Windows 3.11 supported DR-DOS
Office supports XML
Windows Media Player supports MP3
Now Virtual PC will support Linux. That just means Microsoft hates Linux as much as they hate Java, style sheets, DR-DOS, XML and MP3, thinks Linux a danger for their business model (which it is!) and will try to destroy it. (Which of course we knew already).
my other sig is a 500 page novel
But will it run Executor?
(obviously a rhetorical question, as Executor is a Windows and Linux application)
Still cool to contemplate, though.
A Good Intro to NetBS
SlashDot claimed that the next VirtualPC has removed Linux and *BSDs from the list of "supported OS" and this spokesman quoted on eWeek claims that you can still run Linux and *BSDs on Virtual PC though it is treated as another application (read: it's still unsupported).
Doesn't look like anything has changed to me. As long as the reference hardware that VirtualPC emulates is relatively sane, I'd think that you can that VirtualPC will still run Linux and the *BSDs. However it begs the question if VPC will still sell as a standalone, for instance. And if so, will it in the future?
Also this leaves open the possibility of Windows specific optimizations, features, etc. Heck, those things are done already long before MS bought them out. Note: I'm not claiming this is a bad thing.
With everything history has told us (DrDos etc...),
who can really believe it will run any non Windows Operating System without any personalized Glitches.,
introduced by "pure hasard"...
Regards,
... next up: extend.
yes, we have no bananas
Of course it will run Linux. A VM does not give a hoot what OS is running - it just emulates the hardware instructions.
they decided it was not worth to modify the VPC code to explicitly break compatibility with linux, but just declare that linux is "not supported". Sounds more reasonable...and less desperate :P
Are we going to be missing a great deal?
What do you know about the hardware that VPC emulates and how good a job it does of it? For a start the PCI controller in VPC is buggy. Any idea what it is or how to detect VirtualPC to work around it?
Didn't think so. This bug has never been fixed and I'd be amazed if it was fixed in VPC 2004. Most operating systems have to specifically test for VirtualPC in order for PCI to work properly. So the OS does have something to do with it when it comes to VPC. Not as much as the fanboy above you seems to think, but more than you seem to believe.
Now, can you run multiple Vitual PC Linuxes in a Beo... Oh. Crap. Nevermind.
Strange how although they explicity mention that Linux will run, we still don't have any solid confirmation coming from the mouth of the overseer that BSD, Netware or Solaris will work.
I don't think -
"will run almost any x86 operating system in a Virtual PC environment"
Makes the cut. I was more hoping for a -
"You absolutely can run [{Linux, Solaris, BSD, Netware}] in Virtual PC"
Statement.
The only reason why this would almost be newsworthy is the fact that IMHO a much superior product, vmware doesnt offer a consumer level version. i cant say i would mind that much if i were limited to 1 guest OS or what have you, but the pricetag is WAY to steep compared to virtual pc :(. until then, i may be forced to pay for an MS product.
[Small FYI, last time i installed linux under vmware, i wasnt able to get X to run in the session until the guest colordepth was set to the same as the host OS, and although they say its safe to run 24 bit color in the guest while the host is running 32 bit, i was never able to get this to work.]
Hmm LinuxWorld doesn't seem quite as convinced, carrying the MSFT spokesperson's words but questioning their creative use of English by titling the item: Microsoft "Clarifies" Virtual PC & Linux "Misunderstanding"
This sounds oddly familiar to the "Windows Media Player on MacOS X" move that Microsoft did.
:-P
The way I see it, either Microsoft plans on using the fact that Linux will "work" with their product will reduce the view of a monopoly while showing Microsoft-fearing users (you know who you are, you still exclusively run Windows) that Linux just isn't worth it. How could it be if it's incredibly inconvinient to use with M$'s VPC? Good thing you didn't bother installing Linux the real way, eh?
iTunes for Windows...
popup blocking in XP
Linux on MS VPC!
yep.. it's a cold day in hell
So there's a new Linux Virus?
I'd guess that in the fine Microsoft tradition, they've figured out how to make their software crash Linux while making it (technically) Linux's fault. I mean, they are the masters of exploitaion.
See: Lotus 1-2-3 and DOS, WordPerfect and Windows, and (more recently) Netscape and Windows.
Who is going to be the chicken?
Who is going to be the egg?
Obviously Microsoft is happy to have linux running if it can impose its digital right management through a virtualized file system.
Likewise linux developers are very happy to have the flexibility to run windows application under linux when all the OS calls will be stable under WINE.
I wonder who will win...
connectix did not run Linux in the first place.... it was mainly designed for windows VM's. That makes me wonder will Linux perform well considerably on this VM or not, putting in my that it was first designed to run Windows.
The lunatic is in my head
Where the hell did you get that idea?
There's a version of Virtual PC that's an emulator (Virtual PC for Mac OS X), and there's a version of Virtual PC that's a VMware clone (Virtual PC for Windows).
The real thing to be worried about is if they stop selling the standalone Vrtual PC, and only sell it bundled with Windows
Not at the price point at which Microsoft is aiming according to the article: "the software will be available by the end of the year, through Microsoft's existing retail and volume licensing channels, for an estimated retail price of $129." If Microsoft were to bundle Windows into Virtual PC for that price, we'd just get really cheap Windows, and by Adobe v. Softman (EULA cannot tie bundled products together), we might be able to resell really cheap Windows separate from VPC.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Why on earth would you want to run x86-linux on a Macintosh, when there are perfectly good PowerPC-Linux distributions? Both the good distributions, Debian and Gentoo, supports PPC!
MS's 'bug fixes' are like feeding an food poisoning victim more tainted meat.
Microsoft isn't doing anyone any favors here, or tossing us a carrot.
:-)
The job of Virtual PC is to emulate a x86 environment. The job of the most common version of Linux is to run on a x86 environment. Doing anything that would willfully prevent Linux from running would most likely also break a hell of a lot of other applications that Microsoft loves.
About the only way Microsoft could stop Virtual PC from running Linux (or any other OS for that matter) without breaking other apps would be to put code in that explicity looks to see if its Linux you're installing, and if so Blue Screen. Even Microsoft isn't going to be that openly blatant.
For me personally, this doesn't really matter. I'm sticking with VMware, and I don't much give a damn what Microsoft does with Virtual PC. VMware ain't broke, so I ain't fixing it
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Maybe Microsoft actually made an obvious decision. My guess was that it was a no brainer as it would cost more to _not_ support linux. But of course slashdotters always see the worst in anything, and they are always so incredibly arrogant that they assume that Microsoft would never make even an obvious simple decision correctly. Honestly this site gets pretty tiresome after a while. Bitch Bitch Bitch. Well let me be the first to say its a great idea and its great to see that the idea of virtual operating systems is really taking off.
These things are really starting to grate on me, especially when it pushes away information I might want access to. Keep them up the top.
Also, dont expect MS to provide the nice (and necessary) accelerated graphics drivers that emulators normally come with.
You figure we can come up with an open-source solution to this problem, or is it only something that the VirtualPC programmers can really pull off?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
2 weeks ago: "we do not support the Linux platform but you can try and run it"
This was defined as: "MICROSOFT IS RIPPING LINUX OUT OF VIRTUAL PC!"
Today: "we do not support the Linux platform but you can try and run it" which is now being defined as "YOU CAN STILL RUN LINUX!"
Can someone explain this to me because I am totally confused.
I still can't believe M$ was allowed to buy Connectix
i bet they are gonna add some bugs so linux won't run good on it. :P
on the other hand, M$ products have alot of bugs and dont run good anyway
Check it out http://www.overclocked.org/OCspare.htm
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
F***ing idiotism.
VPS is and always was a hardware emulator.
It supports almost any OS you can find, with TWO official exclusions - BeOS and dont-remember-what-else.
If it'll be an OS emulator, its name will be more like "RealPC" or dont-remember-what- from Insignia.
I think it was primarily for XBOX2. As everyone knows XBOX 2 will not use an intel chip. One generation backward compatability is quite important. Buying Virtual PC gave them the opertortunity to go with a non intel chip and the purchased a company least venders uped the price for a licence once MS was commited.
Secondly it gives them some technology to integrate into windows to gaurantee backward compatability yet allow them to change or remove certain things. They can stop adding support for Win9x and instead just use a virtual session. I wouldn't be surprised if some future version of windows took the technology to it's core such that windows is by default virtual. It would also allow them to support windows on all sorts of other platforms without needing to redesign it's kernel. They might even design a virtual hardware platform specificly expecting emulation and compile windows for it.
I would expect them to play with all these things in lab but who knows if they get released.
tall environments? could be a thing?
another semi-automated self-correction by the pateNTdead eyecon0meter kode base.
I'd like to see more work done on QEMU and BOCHS two x86 emulators. QEMU needs more porting work (Alas, it does not work on my beloved OS X yet...), and BOCHS is fairly slow.
QEMU BOCHSHowever, I think QEMU could compete head on with Virtual PC within a year if it gets additional porting effort.
that is to say they'd have to break things, which would not only stop Linux from running, but also potentially a wide variety of Windows based apps.
Microsoft could make Virtual PC for Windows into some sort of "user mode Windows" analogous to User Mode Linux or the new Plex86.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Microsoft is doing this in what many know of MSs act of embrase and extend.
.net patents is most certainly consistant with this.
Sure MS cannot own Linux, but it can add its functionality to their own and persent a combination that Linux alone cannot present.
What MS is doing with longhorn and pursuing
Consider SCO as an associate with MS, where SCO is exploring the possibilities for MS to use, no matter how insane a possibility might seem doing such is looking for teh boundries of the GPL....in MSs effort to own or control everything.
Now we can have access to that multitude of Linux applications for not more than the price of VirtualPC and MSWindows, and get the legendary stability and resilience of MSWindows, to boot. And boot, and boot, and boot.
"whether the emulator is good enough to convince whatever is running on it that it is a PC"
At least he wasn't anthropomorphizing a peice of software.
the last line wasn't 5 syllables
of people generalizing americans. Just because the editors at eWeek are incompetent, doesn't mean I don't read. This is like saying that your poor grammar ("american's"?), is a good indication that Brits don't brush their teeth.
Burn karma, burn.
Running Linux on top of windows...
isn't that like wearing a raincoat so you don't get wet while riding in a boat with a hole in the bottom
of it...hehe
whats so bad about that? First of all, you will still have the capability to run linux if you install it "manually", so they don't actually drop the OS support, but they drop the "preset" configuration. so, even if you can't choose linux as an installable system, you can still install it while using a "generic" (or custom or whatever) setting. On the other hand VPC isn't the only pc emulator, i personally use VMWare that emulates a windows2000 when i acutally have a linux box.
".Sig Stealer" was here
If we all just stoped complaining about useless stuff, we could stop spreading FUD and these guys at eWeek could actually write about real problems.
/. would really understand that an x86 emulatur can run anything that a normal x86 machine can run.
You do all realize that even if Linux didn't show up in the menu it is still supported. You just choose Other and set your memory allocation. I don't understand what the big deal is and why everybody can't really understand that those OS's listed are just templates not supported OS's. You would think a technical bunch like
The virtual machine is a virtual hardware architecture and will not be exactly the same as real hardware. There are likely to be architecture enhancements unique to the virtual architecture that allow more efficiency than would otherwise occur in an emulated machine. In the mainframe world they used to be called virtual machine assists. Guess who is more likely to know about these enhancements and who is not?
this is not news. it always could run linux. the story is implying in some way the product has been prevously crippled not to. this is not the case
Q.
What's new in Microsoft Virtual PC 2004?
A.
Microsoft does not have details on features to announce at this time. However, much of our Virtual PC development focus is on improving the security of the product so that it meets stringent Microsoft standards.
Bwahahahaha!
why not just install Linux in a native ext3 disk partition and boot up Linux, elimating the middleman, i am sure Linux will run much better in its native environment than any virtual environment can do...
Hey, even people that plans/performs "upgrades" from Linux to MS needs a testing enviroment. :) And what better is there than virtual PC to run that Linux server and the 4 MS servers that will replace it.
The connectix price included a license of Windows for the $200+ price. You could buy the $99 one with a DOS license (at least, for the mac), but it was still the same product and allowed you to install (any number of) your own OSs.
Unless you do get a license of Windows thrown in (which I doubt), then it isn't an undercut but a price hike.
Anthony
"It supports all X86 operating systems, including Linux -- but not on Mac machines, said Microsoft product manager Carla Huffman."
No we have an unstable, resource hogging os to host a fairly good working, fairly stable os.
Why?
I realize there are a few applications that run on x86 Linux and not Linux for PPC for whatever complicated compilations reasons, but can anyone list me some of those applications? I've never heard anyone complain about Yellow Dog Linux (what you'd probably run on PPC hardware). The US Navy didn't seem to have any qualms about YDL.
;^)
/. story about something that people are only worried about doing for the geek value, as far as I can tell. Which I didn't say was a bad reason, mind you. Just not a practical one.
While you're listing apps, make sure you tell me why you'd rather run them on PPC hardware inside of a $100+ x86 emulator instead of on $300 of true x86 hardware with performance (forgive me, Stevie) TO BURN!!
This is a front page
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
... Scanners where that guy's head is about to explode? Garth: Murmurmurmurmurmur *heads shaking* Microsoft is supporting linux. Murmurmurmurmurmur.
Jonathanjk.com
From the earlier article:
andBeta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Let's hope M$ won't let VPC die a silent death.
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
When it was theorised that MS wouldn't let you install Linux on VirtualPC, everyone shouted that it's a conspiracy and MS are evil.
;)
Now that they're supporting it... guess what, it's a conspiracy and they're evil!
Some people are hard to please
But don't hold your breath expecting to ever see it run on Linux.
The bigger story here is the vaunted price cuts for this software. I'm sure they're not trying to drive VMWare out of business or anything. No indeed.
Get a room, boyz!
"We have not heard negative feedback from those testers that the product wasn't sufficient for their needs,"
That is one of Microsofts biggest problems is with their beta testers. Most of the time they require people to pay for the privilege to become Beta Testers. Next all the Microsoft Beta testers I have seen just do it so they have all the "1337" Technology in their hands first. But when there is a bug they don't bother reporting it and the figure that someone else will. Microsoft should find better ways to encourage the Beta Tester to find bugs and security holes before hand and report them. Not just keep personal notes for them selfs so when it is released they can Hack the other systems. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy but if people are going to Beta Test software they should do a good job on it no matter how crappy the company is.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Now it's time to give Lindows 3.0 a test.
Don't gloss over this part of the article:
"Asked whether Microsoft is considering integrating the virtual technology into the core Windows kernel, Huffman skirted the issue, saying Microsoft is committed to developing virtualization solutions for the Windows platform. "It's too early to say how we will deliver these solutions going forward," Huffman said."
Consider two different "embrace and extend" compatible strategies: A) add a virtualized sandbox for Linux/BSD/etc. or B) add a Linux compatibility layer to the Windows XP/2000 kernel.
Strategy A also provides them with some added benefits - it solves a whole bunch of security embarassments in one fell swoop and re-opens some markets that are currently starting to close down on them. They could also argue that the virtualization is generic, and therefore they are not directly competing in the Unix market ("we treat Linux as any other third-party app.")
Strategy B boils down to a pissing-match over kernels - I still lock up XP on a several-times-a-week basis, but if they _could_ get a stable and secure kernel (yeah, I know, not holding my breath either), they could effectively co-opt everything in the OSS world for their own benefit without having to worry about "viral" licenses, while still providing a platform for their own proprietary software product line. Of course, they would have to get out of (if they haven't already - did SCO really inherit the Xenix contract?) that pesky committment not to compete in the Unix market.
The best attack for Windows to embrace and extend Linux is to first confuse the two and assimilate what people think of as "Linux" into Windows (or...shudder...vice-versa.)
Projects like WINE have us thinking in one direction - what if Microsoft were to pull the same trick going the other direction? If they can't sell a Microsoft-branded web server, at least they can sell the operating system that you run Apache on top of.
Strategy C scares me the most: Microsoft would have to decide how important their kernel is to their OS sales - THEY could just as easily create a 100% working WINE and sell the Windows "Look & Feel" running on top of Linux or BSD kernel just as MacOS did (except under x86), and re-brand it as a security-solution with cross-platform compatibility benefits (that will cost just about the same price as their own-kerneled OS's, methinks.) You can see how they are pissed-off at the GPL - that's how they get around it and get the open-source volunteers working for them.
I have to hurry and finish this because the Microsoft Death-Beam satellite is due over my home in just a few moments, and I'm running low on tin-foil and........gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Virtual PC used to come in different flavors.
The virtual PC program was the same, but you could buy it with PCDOS (IBMs DOS), Windows or Linux. I had a copy with PC DOS and installed Suse linux on it. Worked great. Obviously the windows version cost more
Im betting no more PCDOS and Linux virtual PC. You'll have to buy the emulator with windows (Much like you can't buy a naked PC).
Sigh
Although with OSX there is less need for running emulated linux, and there are Linux distributions for mac hardware now.
Microsoft updates report saying Linux will run under Virtual PC. Support will integrate Microsoft's patented BSOD Generator, causing Linux to blue-screen for no apparent reason, suffer memory errors at random, and include Clippy in all Linux *Office applications.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Huh?
I've never run the Mac version, as I hate Macs, the last Apple I touched was a Lisa...
But the Win version is fantastic; no PCI problems, runs Slackware, Mandrake, BSD no problems what so ever.
And better yet, OS/2, All versions of Dos, I've yet to come across anything it won't run that I'd be interested in running.
VMware is great on Linux, but the Win version I've never had anything but problems out of.
I've never tried running Mandrake on Vpc in Win2k, then VMware in Vpc Mandrake.. I'll try that the next time I get dragged into the office.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
What they're not saying is that it's the new "Microsoft L++", which doesn't run any applications except The Gimp. Especially not Apache, no sir.
We'll apparently Microsoft decided they could sell the product for a lot cheaper. $129 is a steal for that product. It'll be interesting to see what happens with VMWare's pricing. I'll assume that their server versions will stay at similar pricing.
Subject raises the question: What Would Jesus Boot? /. ;)
There is plenty of hardware/software evangelism/ranting to be found on
Knew you the Christ, you'd not toss his name about like an expletive.
Request you not touch the meaning of life in such a crass, meaningless manner.
BTW, He loves you.
Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code and historical behavior shows that the motivation and goal of Microsoft is to move consumers from other choices to theirs. Having the "keys to the kingdom" and that motivation results in the historical behavior mentioned.
When Netscape was big, there was IE.
When Java was big, there was J++.
When JavaScript was big, there was VBScript.
Remember how MS played 'nice' with these competing technologies, just to get close enough to muddy the waters for the marketplace? Then all the security and performance issues became a big deal so MS effectively discredited these other technologies.
I wonder if MS is trying to get Linux in bed with Windows, just to be able to sabotage the security and performance, like it did with those other technologies?
Just a thought....
Suncoast Linux - Sarasota, FL
There are pros and cons with each. I find VMware's machine more responsive and takes advantage of CPU cycles better. That's because VMware fully allocates the virtual machine's memory. It uses the snapshot mechanism for saving and reverting to previous state. Virtual PC has a slightly slower performance. Memory is conserved and only allocated on demand. It has the option to withold commits to the virtual drive instead of using snapshots.
Now thats funny!
It will combine all this in a single server:
- the speed of an emulated 386
- the uptime and reliability of the Windows host OS
- the security model common to all Microsoft products
How can they lose?
Contrary to previous reports, eWeek is reporting that Microsoft's new version of Virtual PC will support Linux as a virtual OS.
Is the OS of a virtual machine really virtual? If so, how far does the virtuality extend? Do I virtually type on my virtual machine running a virtual copy of Linux? Am I virtually coding virtual thoughts when I virtually type on my virtual Linux while it runs on the virtual machine?
Jesus, save us from your followers.
...welcome to ./
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
make that /. :D
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Au contraire, Connectix sold (for Mac OS 8, IIRC) a version of VPC with Red Hat. It wasn't particularly fast, but it supported most of RH features well.
Since I migrated my Mac to Debian a while ago, that red box joined my oldies collection, next to some BeOS T-Shirts.
./configure --enable-shared --disable-static && make world clean
one of the biggest reasons for using Linux is much better scalability. By running linux in virtual mode in windows would limit the scalability. Who in the world is going to do that? financial institutions are moving to linux not because it's cheaper. It's because it scales much much better and is better for clusters. That is just stupid in my book.
Since X-BOX-2 runs on the new Power CPU from IBM (juiced up version of the one in the new MAC) they needed the ablilty to run older XBOX and PC software in emulation. That's why they bought VirtualPC. They don't care about the linux aspect at this point in time.
So, it does not surprise me that VMWare is performs better. I would be surprised if it didn't. But VMWare is also much more limited, it can't run on non-x86 platforms.
Personally, this is why I think MS bought Connectix and not VMWare. The rumor mill has it that the next generation of the XBox will use a PowerPC processor from IBM. If so, the inclusion of Virtual PC would allow for backwards compatibility with the games of the previous generation.
I also suspect that portions of Virtual PC will end up integrated into 64 bit Windows for Itanium so that Microsoft can run 32 bit x86 code on Itanium without the performance penalty of using Itanium's 32 bit compatibility mode.
'nuff said.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It's a conflict of interest for Microsoft to offer both an operating system product and a product for running competing operating systems virtually.
Anyone that buys Virtual PC to run anything other than Windows is asking for grief. In fact, with the end-of-life dates for most older versions of Windows, expecting any support from Microsoft for anything other than XP on Virtual PC is a stretch.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
The man is going to put us in a Virtual PC ghetto? And y'all are happy? Stand up and fight, brothers and sisters! We will not be contained, restrained, or detained! 400 years of Bill Gates oppression must be answered with lots of fiery rhetoric!
Now, can you run multiple Vitual PC Linuxes in a Beo... Oh. Crap. Nevermind.
-----
Remember kids! It's not really a karma whore if you don't complete the sentence! Especially if you stop before saying something like "beowulf cluster!"
I dont think microsoft is going to cut their throats to make a corporate statement, they're already standing on unstable grounds, last thing they want to do is take a good product that has a good user base (aka, money) and strip functionality out of it just so "the innocent windows users dont get poisoned by the evils of linux"
1. keep the current source of money for this product by not altering it.
2. dont officially say you support it to keep the newbies to this product from using the "unsupported" software.
3. ???
4. profit!
MS Supports a lot of things. But often things that are compatible with compeditors tend to be slow and buggy... as if to entice you to not use them.
there was a great deal of concern that VirtualPC would not be able to run Linux, thus the story.
No, there was a great deal of need for Slashdot to have another Microsoft-bashing article. "M$ IS REMOVING LINUX FROM VIRTUAL PC!!1"
Meanwhile, if people had read the article or researched other sites, they would have known that Microsoft was indeed dropping support for Linux from Virtual PC 2004--official technical support, that is.
Paul Thurrot at Wininformant already reported on this. But heaven forbid Slashdot attempt to get facts straight when it comes to having a corporate agenda and bashing Microsoft (meanwhile, Slashdotters freak out if anyone else does that to Linux). Instead, Slashdot just need to fill its quota of 4-to-1 Microsoft to Linux articles, even though it's claimed that this is a pro-Linux site.
"Sufferin' succotash."
About as believable as MSLinux
Wow! You said "^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h" to denote a deletion, which is funny, insightful, and clever. I've never seen that before, especially so pointlessly.
Look, Slashdot is corporate-owned and has an agenda. This is just a simple fact. Look at the proportion of Microsoft to Linux articles that appear on the front page these days (particularly in the last few months...it's a constant barrage).
Slashdot needs these "M$" bashing articles to generate page hits and comments. It doesn't matter if Microsoft never said they were dropping emulation support but simply technical support. Slashdotters don't care, and won't read the article to figure that out. They'll just post "M$" comments, BSOD and Clippy "jokes," and troll posts. Facts are thrown out of the discussion when it comes to Microsoft, because a lot of people here are really just Linux kiddies who finally got Mandrake installed and so think they're the greatest thing ever. Microsoft is then referred to as "M$," which just makes the Linux community look like retards.
I wish Slashdot were just a level-headed tech site, but instead of reading about cool technology and software, I have to wade through the latest bash-Microsoft flamebait rubbish. There are more Microsoft articles posted to the frontpage than Linux ones.
Is Slashdot pro-Linux or just anti-Microsoft? The answer is obvious, when you consider that Slashdot is corporate-owned.
"Sufferin' succotash."
For someone bashing others for not reading, your post is a good indication that you can't write. Have you "lost this ability?"
Or, it just means they didn't feel like stripping things out of their i386 emulator for no reason.
Your post doesn't even make sense. Office supports XML--is that supposed to mean Microsoft hates XML? Is that why Office 2003 (and Longhorn) is centered around it?
Why would Microsoft even hate MP3s?
But, I guess logic and calm rationality wouldn't jive with the "M$ conspiracy" themes in your head, would it?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Knew you the Christ,
LOL. Wacky, wacky stuff. What is this guy, a Quaker? I love how these guys talk like they swallowed an 1800's primer.
VMware really have better capability. Even the guest OS is not offical supported, you still have great chance to run it under VMware. For example, I had tried OpenBSD on both Virtual PC and VMware. In VMware work fine, while the installation is not success with Virtual PC.
except capability, if you run Windows 2000/XP as guest OS, VMware have better performance.
moreover, there's only Windows version of Virtual PC. I really won't feel anything loss even Virtual PC doesn't support Linux as guest OS. (trust me, you will regret if you pay for Virtual PC without try the VMware first, our company is a good example.)
NEVER run microsoft products on microsoft operating
systems.
Do you REALLY think it would be wise to run linux
for anything you depend on IN a MICROSOFT VM?
Um, the SCO tax is now $1399. Wake up. It is November. SCO must be properly compensated for their unspecified Intellectual Property which is present in Linux.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
I've never run the Mac version, as I hate Macs, the last Apple I touched was a Lisa...
Wow... at least you admit that you hate something you've never used. Most people would be too embarrassed.
You can share and distribute hardware on VMWare, so you could take a part of everyone's setup and make a Beowolf cluster of odds and ends. If everyone contributes a little RAM, disk, and bandwidth you could get a fair cluster.
Hmmm how about a SETI-at-home type screen saver that joins a cluster instead of asking for stuff to process? A fluctuating cluster of all unused systems, limited during the day, but powerful at night.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
We don't want to lose you as windows customers, so boot Linux and play all you want. We know that Linux is difficult to do simple tasks for the Average Joe.
... or.
Now, try and install Virtual PC on a Mac to run windows. Different story. Or Linux on 10.x or
They won't hurt the ability to play with operating systems from the safety of the windows environment. It was a safe haven for Mac users to run some windows apps though.
TiPB with VPC6 purchased the day microsoft announced the buy out.
This space intentionally left blank.
VirtualPC emulates everything, even a 3d accelerated video card.
So if you have an old game that only runs in Win98, you can install VirtualPC with win98 and install the game there and play. I tested it with Descent Freespace and some other things.
You can't do that in VMWare as it uses a special only-2d-driver. Some applications crash or don't work under VMWare (directX related).
On the other hand, VMWare is faster and has much better networking.
Both of them can do sound just fine.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Virtual PC 6.1 is over, under and away the most buggy and unstable application I have ever run under any Apple OS. It's practically useless for anything other than simple web browsing, if and when it stays up long enough to do so.
And just forget about applying the endless stream of MS security updates. It takes at least 3 tries to get any single patch to hold if you're lucky, and many never take hold at all.
a mac user really need to run Linux on their native unix box? I switched from Linux to OS X because I had the same development ablities as on linux and had commerical software support.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Actually there is also a Mac version!...just thought I would point that out.
--Thei Antispamist A useless endevor that will cer
I'm offering $500,000 to the first person who can hack a virtual PC to run 007 Nightfire without actually opening it.
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
For a minute there, I thought Microsoft was an evil monopolist that was trying to stomp out all non-Windows operating systems but now they have let Linux live in Virtual PC. THANK YOU MICROSOFT for letting it live! (for a little while longer, anyway). We love you.
err VPC. Now why would i use that junk on my mac. ::loathes having to run windows:: theres not need to add that stuff to my mac no more ^_^;; Personally why does everyone care what MS does to VPC. Sure it was a good tool when you had no choice to emulate a win os, for a while before MS bought it (should have saw it coming) but man. If i want linux on my computer its getting a partition of its own lol. That goes for both x86 and ppc computers. So to me i really dont see what the beef is.
I am a mac user running Mandrake 9.1 only on it.
The problem is, it's somewhat complex, so not many use it without a dire need to do so. Windows security model is light years ahead of UNIX security model.
Why be embarrased? I hate Adolf Hitler, though I never met him. I hate minivans, but I've never driven one. And many people on /. who hate Windows claim to have never have used it either. Since when do you need personal experience to have an opinion about something?
MICROSOFT windows is a GREAT big steaming pile of monkey crap...
http://www.maconlinux.org/sshots.html
How does that saying go? Embrace - Extend - Abandon? I'm sure Bill doesn't mind putting financial pressure on other VMs, nor would he shed tears if he put them out of business and was himself selling and controlling the only VM.
A guy on an airplane told me once how MS started making CP/M compatibility cards for the TRaSh-80 until they had 80%+ of that market. Then one day they just stopped making the cards. And CP/M just stopped working. It was a set back if not the first death of CP/M. (I haven't verified this story. I had an Apple 2.)
You know, the platform has advanced a bit since that time. You might want to give it another look.
sulli
RTFJ.
You obviously know very little about the UNIX security model then.
:)
Anyway, it was supposed to be funny. Sorry you didn't get it. I'll type slower next time
Heh...you can tell the Slashdot crowd has been visiting the site that the article is linked to. How can you tell?
Take a look at the poll on the right hand side of EWeek's site.
"If Longhorn really doesn't debut until 2006, you will:"
Oddly enough, the biggest vote is cast for "Switching to the Linux desktop"
Now, really... Is this a new development? Virtual PC has been running linux since before it was a MS product. Little has changed in the year or so that MS has owned the source. The demo's expiration policy is even still the same. If I had just a little more motivation, I might RTFA, but then again, this is /..
You can use UML (http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/)
You can also try a different kind of tool, like Bochs (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/) which will let you run not only GNU/Linux, but also m$ shit, but i think no one wants that : ).
There is another tool, but it's propietary, so i wan't mention it, you all know what i'm talking about, and in the case of running Linux on Linux it doesn't make any sense, existing UML.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Microsoft's new version of Virtual PC will support Linux as a virtual OS
A good! For a while there I though Microsoft's new version of Virtual PC will might support Linux as a refreshing fruit flavored sports drink!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
And no, I do know UNIX security model very well.
The things Hitler is known to have done are truly heinous. Even if he was the greatest guy in the world to hang out with, his actions would still be evil. That is why meeting him is irrelevant and obviously not neccessary for casting judgment on him.
I don't know what you hate so much about Minivan's, but I hate SUV's for their uselessness (to their yuppy owners, I don't mean to construction guys and others of that sort who may actually use them), their gas inefficiency, and their danger to others on the road. These reasons have nothing to do with the experience of driving an SUV so I don't see how driving them should be a necessary prerequisite for disliking them.
Mac's on the other hand, are all about the user experience. I don't know of any reasonable ethical reasons for hating Macintosh's (especially for someone who, like paganizer, has no similar aversion to Windows). It's possible that reasons exist in which case I would really love to know about them. Otherwise it just sounds like paganizer claims to hate something which he knows nothing about aside from probably outdated horror stories and second hand gripes about the OS. If this is the case then by all means, embarresment is fitting.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Microsoft is pretty smart to do this. For one thing, it takes one piece of ammo away from those trying to degrade Microsoft (which it certainly deserves for other things, just not this). Besides that, it not only encourages continued windows usage, it strongly discourages Linux usage -- when you're emulating an OS, you do it only for things you can do in that OS, rather in the one you're running. In addition, even if they don't mess with how well it works, an OS running under an emulator will never run quite as well as it would if you're booting it. The result is that people using VirtualPC to play with Linux will find it slow and redundant. Good business, nasty little ethics.
It's a big picture thing.
The Apple I & II rocked; everyone had competing hardware formats out, IBM, Timex, Commodore, even Tandy but Apple was just a cool thing started by a couple of geeks in a garage that worked better than the rest.
Then they came out with the Mac concept, and went from being a couple of cool guys to a Monopolistic Evil Empire, before Gates even had a shot at the title.
I at one time was preparing to try out apple again a few years ago when it looked like they were going to allow third parties to develop and sell parts, motherboards, etc...
But currently, I see no reason to even consider a hardware product that will not run the software I want to run, Whose users as a group over the years I have come to realize are just a bunch of extremely strange fanboys.
Truthfully, I'm at a loss why ANYONE would want one; The only reason I can think of is the anti-establishment mystique, the fanboy culture, the common knowledge that "if your VCR flashes 12:00, you should get a Mac, because you sure as hell won't be able to figure out a PC".
Not that I think there is anything wrong with the hardware technically; the PPC CPU is a great design, OSX is a good concept, and helps boost Linux, etc.
But you could have said the same thing about Amiga. or Next.
I guess I can't articulate it very clearly.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
That all sounds reasonable, though hate sure does sound extreme given the reason you list.
From my experience, Mac OS X really is a pleasure to use compared to Mac OS 9, Windows, and Linux. Unfortunatly my Mac's hardware gave out last year so I'm strictly Linux for the time being. The only thing I really can't do in Linux is program Cocoa apps, but I do miss the whole refined and integrated feel of the interface.
You may give OS X a chance some time and possibly still be at a loss as to why anyone would want one, but without using it you'll definatly never understand.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Or they could put a "virtual Fritz chip" into the virtual PC. And make it so the virtual PC will only load boot code that's been cryptographically signed by Microsoft. And call it a security feature. See the "Palladium FAQ" for details.
on the Hitler argument, I understand your reasoning. My point is simply that you don't have to use a Mac to hate one. You can hate how they try to be "artsy", you can hate how Apple insult the intelligence of the viewing audience in their ads, and you can hate them just because you don't want to be associated with their stuck-up snob users who never pass up an opportunity to attempt (poorly) to prove to you that their computer is better than yours. On the minivan topic, I've seen many more people in minivans come close to causing accidents when attending to their passengers and applying makeup than I've seen SUVs in the same situation. I'm probably what you consider a yuppy owner, but my Navigator is in no way "useless" to me - I can take my kids and all their stuff Skiing in crappy weather, never get stuck, and not have crippling back pain when I get there. Your last paragraph was great. "reasonable ethical reasons for hating" is a great phrase, as if most Hate in this world has reasonable, ethical reasons! I don't even dislike Macs, much less hate them. I just don't hold people to as high a standard as you for their opinions. You should be allowed to "think" whatever you want, regardless of what silly terratorial techno-fanboys have to say about it.