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."
..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?
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!
"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.
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
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,
or OSX.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The "obvious gain" for Microsoft is they can have people keep Windows and try Linux products (albeit in a less than ideal situation) and give people a reason to stick with Microsoft. This quote:
"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.
Kind of says it all.
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
Next page: Microsoft puts focus on security.
Does THAT sound like something Microsoft would do? heh
personally, I find this announcement somewhat foreboding, as it hints that MS may threaten to displace VMWare as the machine virtualization software of choice -- if VMWare goes under... well, VirtualPC may be able to *run* Linux, but it will be a cold day in Redmond before VirtualPC runs *on* Linux.
Now, can you run multiple Vitual PC Linuxes in a Beo... Oh. Crap. Nevermind.
::In case you don't remember, Connectix makes the ::VMWare series of products
No, they never did.
Connectix made the VirtualPC series of products, and VmWare made the VMWare series of products.
Connectix was bought by Microsoft, but VMWare is independant.
iTunes for Windows...
popup blocking in XP
Linux on MS VPC!
yep.. it's a cold day in hell
Thank you...
VirtualPC is a PC emulators... if it doesn't run Linux, then it doesn't run shit...
how long until
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?
MS's 'bug fixes' are like feeding an food poisoning victim more tainted meat.
deploy an installation image to multiple 'machines'... install from ISO images on HD... bridged, NAT'ed, even local-only networking... hell, it emulates sound hardware! I know a guy that even got a Longhorn beta running on VMWare ;-)
...and while MS's VPC Server product isn't yet available, VMWare's GSX Server product is available right now. VMWare's stuff is *well* worth the price of entry.
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.
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 believe what it says is this: If you have a problem with your linux app under virtualpc, then you go to your linux vendor for support. And if your linux vendor in turn finds that the problem is due to some bug with virtualpc, that is, the same thing does not occur when running linux natively on a pc and so is due to a problem with virtualpc only, then the vendor can submit a bug report to MS about virtualpc and MS with work with the linux vendor to fix the problem. In other words, you are out of luck unless you get support from your linux vendor and in turn your linux vendor is entitled to virtualpc support from MS.
A nice little piece of revisionist history there. The Connectix price was $129 for the last several months. In the two weeks before they completely removed the ability to buy the product, it dropped to $119. The day before I made up my mind to buy it, Microsoft took it off the market.
Why didn't I pick VMWare? Choice #1 was upgrading my Win98 machine to XP, and buying VPC ($90+$119). Choice #2 was upgrading my Win98 to Linux and buying VMWare ($24+$300). In the end a friend who is a Microsoft employee gave me a copy of XP Pro from their corporate store which cost them $20, making choice #1 even cheaper!
IMHO VMWare is just too expensive for home users like me. Their price is comparable to buying a whole new machine. (They used to have a $99 home edition which they dumped).
I also detest the VMWare support. I have a bootdisk (Bart's BootDisk) that has booted on every real machine I have as well as several friends' machines, and VPC. It just crashes under VMWare. VMWare also doesn't understand dual monitors (try making a window go full screen).
I duly entered support issues for these at the VMWare support site and never got any form of response. I should also mention that I tried VMWare on another machine and it just refused to run claiming my license key was invalid. I think it is due to some anti-piracy broadcast on the network scheme they have going. Of course they never answered my support requests, nor could I try it on another machine.
So VPC it is for me when Microsoft will finally agree to take my money.
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.
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.
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
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
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
In other words, you are out of luck unless you get support from your linux vendor and in turn your linux vendor is entitled to virtualpc support from MS.
Does that mean that Microsoft has unwittingly credited Free Software as having a business model based on support services? If so, then it's a pretty significant milestone to have accomplished.
Like what I said? You might like my music
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
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.
VirtualPC only, sorry.
The problem is that the driver "intgrates" into the VM - it basically uses non-stnadard methods to directly forward commands to the VirtualPC part that then handles it. THis can work as good as emulating DirectX / OpenGL without any significant speed impact, although the emulated graphics card (s3 Trio) is just garbage in the 3d sense.
No, this is part of the VM. Not sure someone could NOT pull it off, but this is internal API only.
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!!!
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?
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.
a couple of the labs here on campus run it on top of RH7 for MS Access (cringe)
There seems to be a glaring lack of an Access-like product for linux. Even FileMaker-like would suffice. Has anybody seen one? I mean a real one, not pg-access (a nice effort, but not an Access replacement). Are there any projects with traction, even if it's like gnumeric was several years ago?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
I agree. It would seem to me though, that Microsoft being the legally recognized monopoly that they are, that the government is obligated to make sure that they do not also become the sole provider of emulation software. Of course, it'll be a cold day in Redmond before they do that.
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.