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?
"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
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,
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
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 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.
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
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
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!!!
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.