Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Providing Virtual Server Free

liliafan writes "In an effort to gain a market majority over VMware Microsoft announced it is giving Virtual Server away for free, additionally they will provide customer support for Linux. In a related move VMware have opened their partition file format to the community, aggressive and suprising moves in the virtualisation market."

23 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Really, now... by TechnoGuyRob · · Score: 5, Funny

    That does it, Slashdot. April Fools is OVER.

  2. wow, more echoes from the past by yagu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless I'm missing something here, this action on Microsoft's part is reminiscent of their "response" to Netscape when Microsoft finally recognized they had fallen way behind in an important market.

    And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition.

    And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.

    (As an aside, interestingly enough, I was surprised to find Microsoft's virtual server technology STILL does not offer hypervisor services... to give some perspective as to how far behind that puts them in "getting it", I worked on virtualized VM boxes on IBM 360 mainframes in school back in the mid-70s! These systems were implemented with hypervisor. Wow!)

    (Caveat: For those of you with home systems with XP Home Edition, this virtual server doesn't come free -- you'll need to flip for the $100 XP Professional upgrade.)

    (Caveat II: I don't always completely trust stories from the Register as I find them a little over-the-top in their anti-Microsoft rhetoric. However I was able to verify the Microsoft Virtual Server IS available for free download.)

    1. Re:wow, more echoes from the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.

      You're mistaken. That's not how anti-trust law (in the US works). The question is whether consumers are harmed, not competitors. You can make a case that killing VMWare would be bad for consumers in the long run, but that'd be difficult to show today.

    2. Re:wow, more echoes from the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


      And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition.

      And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.



      I thought so too, but it also seems that VMWare started the price war when they started giving away VMWare Player. Microsoft may be able to fairly say that they are just reacting to pricing in the market,

    3. Re:wow, more echoes from the past by jthill · · Score: 5, Interesting
      They didn't start this. VMware have $0.00'd a midrange VM server. Works real nice.

      It's the "supporting Linux" part that gives me the giggles. Believe anything out of a Microsoft mouth on the subject of Linux? The giggles are getting uncontrollable.

      They may not be in trouble, but they're definitely having to do things they'd very much rather not do.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    4. Re:wow, more echoes from the past by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not just VMWare player. VMWare server is free as well (though still in beta at the moment, it is supposed to be free when finished)

    5. Re:wow, more echoes from the past by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Unless I'm missing something here, this action on Microsoft's part is reminiscent of their "response" to Netscape when Microsoft finally recognized they had fallen way behind in an important market."

      Actually, it's more of an act out of desperation. VMWare started this was a few months back by releasing one of their server products for free. Arguably VMWare is the monopoly -- Microsoft is nowhere near the company in terms of marketing penetration or mindshare.

      "And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition."

      Microsoft's monopoly is with Windows, which is installed on 90%+ of the world's machines. What got them in trouble in the browser wars (and again with media players) wasn't the fact they were giving software away but they bundling it with Windows.

      Microsoft isn't bundling Virtual Server with Windows. In fact, it would make little sense, as very few Windows users would have a need for this software. If any when they release it with Longhorn Server (which is their plan) then it could be seen as unfair competition.

      "And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal."

      You're mistaken. Again, dumping software doesn't get these companies in trouble -- bundling it does. If you applied your logic to every company, Apple should be in trouble for iTunes, Sun for Java and Macromedia for Flash.

      "(As an aside, interestingly enough, I was surprised to find Microsoft's virtual server technology STILL does not offer hypervisor services... to give some perspective as to how far behind that puts them in "getting it", I worked on virtualized VM boxes on IBM 360 mainframes in school back in the mid-70s! These systems were implemented with hypervisor. Wow!)"

      At this point "hypervisor" is a more a marketing term than anything. You don't need a hypervisor to have a successful VM. 360 mainframes were able to do it because their CPUs were designed to. The x86 architecture hasn't lent itself very well to hypervisors, which is why most companies that do VMs (including VMWare) don't use one on the platform. Intel is finally releasing a desktop chip that will support virtualization. Don't blame the software companies for lackluster hardware support.

      "(Caveat: For those of you with home systems with XP Home Edition, this virtual server doesn't come free -- you'll need to flip for the $100 XP Professional upgrade.)"

      Considering it's called "Virtual Server", why would anyone running Home edition try to use it? It's clear that the product is intended for administrators and developers, hence the OS requirement.

      "(Caveat II: I don't always completely trust stories from the Register as I find them a little over-the-top in their anti-Microsoft rhetoric. However I was able to verify the Microsoft Virtual Server IS available for free download.)"

      Um, congrats? You're able to use Google. Very nice. Not sure why this statement should be considered a caveat.

    6. Re:wow, more echoes from the past by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
      My perspective is as a user of VMWare products under linux hosts. For me, the harm of Microsoft's "gift" is obvious! I don't want VMWare to be driven under and be forced to use Windows as the host OS.

      VMWare has recently started giving away some valuable products too (Player and Server), which perhaps clouds the issue. But the fact is, VMWare has to make money on their virtualization software, and Microsoft does not. They can use the Windows tax to subsidize virtualization for as long as need be to ensure that, eventually, Windows is the only "choice."

    7. Re:wow, more echoes from the past by ChipX86 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As one of the developers of VMware Server, I can tell you that it *will* be free when out of beta. This is a free product. We're only making money off of optional support contracts.

      I doubt that legit VMware reps would have made a claim otherwise, but if so, they either misspoke or were given incorrect information.

  3. What kind of free? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is this free as in beer or free as in screensaver?

    I'm guessing it isn't gonna be free as in Free.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  4. in related news... by clanky · · Score: 4, Funny

    microsoft has also started offering its own proprietary air for free, in an attempt to muscle out the Earth's atmosphere from its traditional strength position in the marketplace.

  5. Upgrade to Windows Vista by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny
    additionally they will provide customer support for Linux.

    And what will their standard answer be? "Upgrade to Windows Vista"?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  6. Microsoft Virtualization is the key to the future by jimmyhat3939 · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'm really glad they're doing this. Other virtualizations systems that I've seen/tried really can't offer the full set of APIs and functionalities that a real Microsoft product offers. For example, things like Wine can't offer the full __DllRegisterExpiryCacheDelayTwelveSeven() functionality.

    Same goes for CPU-based stuff, like Virtual-PC. They just don't run Windows properly. The thing is, since Microsoft has the only operating system out there that is largely, or even majority, undocumented, it makes sense for them to provide the virtualization software. That way they can make it work on their own undocumented platform, while using other platforms' APIs to permit easy access to Linux, OSX, etc.

    This is a win-win-win for everyone!

    --
    Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
  7. Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Must better coverage over at this blog. Check out VMWare President Diane Greene's blog.

    And here is direct link to the Microsoft download page that requires registration.

    Direct link to the 32bit version: here. (no reg required)

    Direct link to the 64bit version: here. (no reg required)

    Happy downloading.

  8. Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you gave away MS Internet Explorer for free, many of us fell for it. Now we know better.

  9. Fighting the last war by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft sees VMWare as their enemy because they are banking cash today. (Thou shalt have no other vendors other than Microsoft) However Xen is probably the bigger threat. And I'd say they understand that as well, otherwise they could have done the one thing that would have made an instant difference.

    Remember that when Xen was a research project at a university they had XP running in Xen because they had a source license for XP. However since said license didn't allow actually releasing anything derived from knowledge gained from that source they couldn't release the XP client drivers. Had Microsoft removed that restriction or, even better, provided Microsoft supported drivers Xen would likely crush VMWare in a few short years.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  10. Re:Aggressive and surprising? by Krach42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More like desperate. They're only doing this because Xen's eating their lunch.

    No, it's because the Virtualization market is heating up. And it's likely VMWare that's causing Microsoft to sweat, not Xen, or any F/OSS alternative.

    You used to see this back in the day when local, and ma' and pa' shops roamed the earth. For instance, one bakery would have a monopoly in the area, when a new one would pop up, and start undercutting the other's prices. Then they'd retaliate, and you'd end up with a flying storm of lowering prices, until one of them were forced out of business.

    At this point, the price would be rock bottom, and the winner, would gradually increase prices until they were making a good profit again, but generally it worked out well for the community that was shopping there.

    Of course, the whole problem comes in that to startup a bakery you don't need billions of dollars and years of development to produce your product. Microsoft is now sitting in a practically unchallengable monopoly position. When monopolies hit this point, it's my opinion that controls should be leveraged to ensure that they're not gouging their captive audience.

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  11. My submission about VMWare was rejected.... by Malor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Note that VMWare is also giving away their Server product for free. For some reason, Slashdot hasn't been willing to run this story, even though it's important.

    It's a new product, still in beta... about equivalent to the GSX Server. They just released Beta 2 either today or yesterday. It's a _really_ good product. The current keys they're giving away expire, but they say the final version will also be free-as-in-beer.

    Basically, it'll do everything Workstation will, plus it allows you to see the consoles of virtual machines that are on another computer. It also gives you a fairly rudimentary web-based control panel, wherein you can start, stop, or restart particular VMs. You can also set up user accounts, and restrict access to particular machines appropriately. It's not ISP-class, but it'd be damn useful for QA teams or suchlike.

    1. Re:My submission about VMWare was rejected.... by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      /. did cover it.

      http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/03/132 0216

      Damn I am defending /. the world must be coming to an end.

      I LIKE PICKLES!

  12. Yup ... by hotspotbloc · · Score: 4, Funny

    The first hit is always free. =)

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  13. Virtualization is the next commodity technology by bec1948 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been studying these technologies for a while now. It's only recently that processor power has reached the point that an x86 powered computer had the processor performance to overcome the inherent design limitation historically imposed by design decisions made by IBM and subsequently Microsoft and Intel that can make use of all the power available in the processors themselves. For a multitude of reasons (off topic) this power is irrelevant to most home users and business users of pcs. More importantly this power is irrelevant to the majority of server purposes. It's well known that most servers used in business are running at much less than 20% utilization levels. And that's with old boxes. This means that buying a new server with current technology results in a box running at levels as low as 5 or 10% utilization. Why bother? Enter virtualization. With virtualization a single box can replace 4, 7 16, 20 or more servers. Not that good for IntelDellIBMHP etc, but great for you and me. Less electricity needed, less cables, less everything. The only factor holding this back is licensing costs. If you can reduce those costs too, wow. Microsoft allows a single $4K Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition license to support up to four instances. If you don't have to pay extra for virtualization software, then the price starts to be very competitive with supported Linux licensing. More importantly it makes virtualization a standard way of doing things. The real question is what happens to the open source community when the development of free tools like Xen loose their support fee value when competing with a more mature platform that costs the same thing. We're not there yet, but it will happen. In a year or three.

  14. This is a good move for the consumer (hopefully) by fronell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Virtualization is the future and helps us get to that goal of utility computing. Its not too surprising that Microsoft has done this, nor was this the first drop in price for their server virtualization product.

    What is surprising is Microsoft lagging behind VMWare big time when it comes to server virtualization. When I spoke to a VMWare sales rep, he said the money comes from ESX (which costs $3750 a pop), not GSX or the workstation products. People buy ESX because they want the following (I know this because the company I work for evaluated the different VM products):

    -Faster VM performance
    -Support (anyone that works in a datacenter will tell you that support is always necessary)
    -Features (virtual center, virtual SMP, vmotion)

    No other product stands up to ESX when it comes to the datacenter environment, and thats the market Microsoft needs to go after. The midrange virtualization products like GSX or virtual server are used for developer testing or in QA, but not for running production services (at least not in the big environments). This move by Microsoft won't make much of a dent in VMWare's share (at least where the money is) so its not a huge step.

    I love ESX, and one thing that I hope will make ESX better is Microsoft putting pressure on VMWare to not get too comfy and to constantly innovate because the company's future depends on it. I just hope it doesn't have the same outcome as IE vs NS.

  15. Virtual Servers and Vista by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This may be the smartest thing Microsoft has ever done: Not because of what it means to current products, but because of what it means to future MS operating systems.

    The biggest reason for all the bugs, compatibility issues, and bloat in Microsoft's operating systems is backwards compatibility. And I have to admit that they've done a commendable job, given the tens of thousands of Windows applications out there, each with multiple versions. Not a perfect job, but I have a few ten-year-old applications running, unrecompiled, on my XP box at home.

    Microsoft wants Vista to be excellent, and to break new ground, but they are hobbled by binary compatibility issues with versions of Windows dating back to the 80386 -- and the 8086 in some cases. Instead of being excellent, Vista has been a nightmare. They can eliminate that nightmare, can dramatically reduce the size and complexity of Vista if they were just willing to jetison backwards binary compatibility. And with Virtual Server, they can do just that.

    Imagine: Your company lives or dies by an application written by a long-gone vendor, that runs great under NT 3.1 but crashes everything written since. No problem! Boot up NT under a virtual server and run it there. Got a proprietary database that only runs on Solaris x86? Same answer. Your kid's favorite game originally written for Windows 95? Hell, a computer built in 2007 won't even notice Win95's footprint.

    In fact, it probably makes sense for Microsoft to ship Vista with new versions of XP, NT, 95, Win3.1, DOS 5.0, and whatever else floats their boat, each recompiled with exactly one device driver for video, keyboard, mouse, disk, CD and network.

    So everybody's legacy system problems are solved by Virtual Server. Meanwhile, Vista itself provides a fast, stable, flexible platform for new applications to be built on, and Microsoft has a maintainable operating system, completely unencumbered by their past mistakes, that they can improve on for years to come.

    --
    This is not my sandwich.