Slashdot Mirror
The Next Round in the Virtualization Wars
GvG writes "After making Virtual Server available for free some time ago, Microsoft announced today it is offering Virtual PC as a free (as in beer) download. They also announced a change to the Vista license related to virtualization: Customers who deploy Windows Vista Enterprise have the ability to install up to four (4) copies of the operating system in a virtual machine for a single user on a single device. Even better, nothing in the license requires that Microsoft Virtualization technologies be used - if you want to use a competing product as your Virtualization solution, you still get the four extra licenses for use with VMs."
I guess its fine for Vista, but frankly if I'm running an OS in virtualization, I'd prefer one that uses fewer resources than Vista. XP is a hog, but a thin one by Vista's standard.
... does it run... aw, fuckitall.
*head asplode*
Haven't people been doing this stuff wiht "wine" for years?
the version of VPC that is freely available only runs on Windows.
Blarg!
ooohhh woooow I am impressed considering I am running what, 12 instances on one of my xen servers and thousands of users.
Got Code?
Check out this link as to what will work on VPC and what won't. http://vpc.visualwin.com/
I scoured their pages, and it looks like VPC 2004 is the only "free" one made available.
VPC 7 for Mac does not appear to be free.
Any one know otherwise?
What a bargain!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Sounds like your copy was free as in Kool-Aid.
'Sup troll, how's it going?
....
Care of offer any evidence, anecdotal or legitimate, to back up your claims that:
1. Intel Macs suck. Its the same OS. What difference does the hardware make? And if you've actually USED an Intel mac, you know how much amazingly faster they are than the PPC machines they replaced.
2. "Connext" sold out. Funny, that company was called Connectix. If you're going to make wild accusations, at least get the name right.
3. Bungie sold out. While this may be true on the surface, it was a great business decision, and you can't fault a company for wanting to grow their business. Would Halo have been nearly as successful for the company if it had come out for Mac first, and not at all for XBox? Doubtful.
Oh, yeah, BTW
pnwed!
How much do houses cost on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Microsoft is scared, this is the first time I can ever recall them becoming MORE lax on licensing schemes for a new OS. They're not just scared, they're terrified! This huge industry push to OSS and virtualization could be the end of Microsoft and the tech economy as we know it. Or, they could pull another halfway-decent suite out of their backsides and surprise us. Even if this is the climax of the market share crescendo... at least at the end of the day the poor IT guys stuck in Microsoft solutions will thank us all for it.
Yes, but a better question would be:
Does it run MacOS X_86? (or can be 'patched' to do so instead of buying MacBook-clone hardware)
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
The only reason MS is doing this, is because they are desperately trying to save a business that's in more trouble than Ronald McDonald cartwheeling through Baghdad.
---southpaw
Do all the people who paid for a copy get a refund?
Nah. VPC has advantages. It's the only one that can run OS/2 4 Warp easily. It's got support from the software maker to emulate, so really the software should work 100% (I've never had a problem).
VMware can run Mac OS X x86 with very little done (10.4.3 with hacks works great). However, I find Parallels the best in performance for Windows & Linux. So far, it's the only one I found that can play XviD and DVD movies at full-speed or near, even at full-screen (not that its useful). The rest can do audio and such, but the audio emulated in VPC is an old Sound Blaster to run old MS-DOS games. The audio in VMware is another Creative. The most modern audio device emulated is with Parallels, an AC97-based card. Also, Parallels emulates a 6MB video card as opposed to 4MB in VPC and VMWare.
operating system in a virtual machine for a single user on a single device. Even better, nothing in the license requires that Microsoft Virtualization technologies be used - if you want to use a competing product as your Virtualization solution, you still get the four extra licenses for use with VMs
is this a loophole they're going to be closing later? seeing's how vmware is their primary competitor there's no need for them to make their lives easier.
on the other hand, maybe this is a tactic to forestall linux. the harder it is to run vista legally, the more likely linux adoption increases.
Up to now, one could run as many copies of the OS in virtual machines as one wanted, hardware permitting. Now the limit has been increased from infinity to four, not unlike the chocolate rations in "1984". And the author of the summary does not realize that any more than Winston can avoid his fate...
Well, some people are a little touchy about endianness among other things. It can be a little frustrating when you extoll the virtues of the PPC in the mac compared to intels 'crap', then Apple switches and you're left with your foot in your mouth.
For some reason I'm reminded of this...
Tyrell: But all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Roy: But not to last.
Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very very brightly, Roy. Look at you. You're the prodigal son. You're quite a prize!
Roy: I've done questionable things.
Tyrell: Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time!
Roy: Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you in heaven for.
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
just wanted to add to this, the intel macs are fast, but they are buggy with applications like photoshop, i guess this could be that it isn't a binary for intel yet but when it buggs it takes a whole rebuild to get it back stable again, the updates easlier this month fixed alot of this but its still wiggin. oh and the migration tool from ppc to intel brings with it some drawbacks... finder locked up hard with access errors for that user, seems the uid wasn't updated in the migration and a few incompatibilitys so it took the original machine and the new machine to bring over the information without using the 'migration' tool.
that said, i'm getting me a black macbook this year not the pro and building me a 4 proc workstation since working on a laptop isn't the same as a desktop, before i get flamed for that comment, i've used a sony vaio grt30p since when they first came out, its a great machine for power but its heavy the battery only lasts around an hour and i can't upgrade any part other than the ram, hdd, broken dvd+/-rw and battery, oh! best yet, i have a perminant tan on my left thigh from the heat, a patch 6x4 inches
I plan to buy Ultimate and would like to play with virtualization - sounds like home users who buy the flagship OS will not get the 4 instances.
As of right now, the Mac version of Virtual PC is still retail. Any thoughts if they might give out the Mac version too? My intuition says no. Although it's a big name in their isolated Mac division, Virtual PC is the entire product category on the Mac platform. They have no VMWare with which to compete in this arena.
The irony of the whole thing is that M$ bought VPC off Connectix just so they could finish porting it to x86 and use their branding/marketing/FUD to make big bucks. Now they're giving it away, too. Sounds very much like Microsoft's category-conquest tactics: acquire, rip off, and undersell the competition.
So, M$ made Virtual PC for the PC free, but those of us with older (G3/G4/G5) macs are not in luck with this announcement. I wonder if we'll ever see VPC Mac as a freebee offering. I don't use it very often, but I have a few Windows programs that are invaluable, such as greeting card creations software and a few development packages that I used in my computer science coursework.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The P4 designs SUCKED, and PPC was better. The Core designs from Intel are worlds better and wipe the mat with PPC.
Stupidly clinging to one position no matter what variables change is something that politicians do that makes me absolutely sick. For some reason, geeks have adopted this kind of cult like mentality too. Ignore changing circumstances and stick with your original position at all costs.
In every race, opponents change positions. Sometimes one opponent has the lead, sometimes another has the lead. In the case of tech, however, the race just keeps on going, and there will never be a 'winner' per se, just back and forth trade-offs in leadership.
If I buy a five user licence for Vista I can have up to 20 virtual machines on a single system and still be legal?
On Windows XP host machines, which virtual client software is better? Are there any reviews that compare both products in terms of performance, compatbility, features, etc.? Can VPC do OpenGL unlike VMware to play old 3D games?
:)
It is good to see a war between these two products.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Is a box with four VMs running Windows four times more vulnerable to attacks than one running a single Windows instance?
How fast at sending spam would such a machine be after (about a minute after it's plugged to the internet) being infected by a worm?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Which Virtual Server will require more patches? When you have to patch the host virtual server (VM Server or MS Virtual Server) and reboot that will be production down time for all of those virtual servers running on that host. Which do you think is going to have more patches required? VM Server or MS Virtual Server?
"Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
The problem is that you are doing the same thing. The only thing that has changed is the processor in your scenario. The problem here is that a Pentium 4 is much closer in design to a Core than the PPC. The Core is not some new product, but rather an enhanced version of the Pentium III. It is still CISC based, although it does have a number of RISC based implementations, but so does every other Pentium since the Pentium II.
Apple has not been a performance leader since the G3 was on the market. The G3 was barely faster than a similarly configured Pentium II. With the advent of the Pentium III, Intel left the PowerPC in the dust (for most things).
Summary of Story: You are using a CISC based chip, which is okay because it is faster than the PPC. You, however, employee a strange form of cognitive dissonance in order to not believe you had been taken as a sucker over the last six or so odd years.
You mean the same VMware that have also today released one of their VM systems for free, too?
Kewl. I'm going to head on over to the vmware website and download the source code right now!
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
...will they run dupes?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
By the looks of things, it does, in fact, support quite a wide range of *ix-based OS's...
Have a look for yourself: http://vpc.visualwin.com/
Missing some of SCO unix server OS's, and some misc client/server distro's that I've only ever heard of in passing, but overall... kinda impressive, for M$. Well done to them. I've not used VPC myself, and I haven't used VMWare since my college days (v4.0, where it ran like a dog on RedHat(choice of OS wasn't up to the students), but even if it only runs half as well as they say does, it'l be more than usable.
they're a transparent glassy blue in Vista. :D
I agree with the sentiment, but it doesn't go far enough. From Microsoft's own website: Save time and money as Virtual PC allows you to maintain the compatibility of legacy and custom applications during migration to new operating systems and increases the efficiency of support, development, and training staffs. So they come out and say that this can be used to maintain conpatability with legacy programs. But how do I do that if I have a Vista system and want to install a copy of XP? Or even if I want to install a copy of Win98 or Win95 or Win3.1, no longer sold. The same question exists if I have an XP system and I want to install an XP virtual machine on it. In theory I've already paid to run XP on that system, but all of the phone-home technology, WGA and the rest, it would seem that there will be serious problems trying to run the OS's that we actually want to run and the OS's that would indeed let us maintain the compatibility of legacy and custom applications as claimed.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
There's nothing illegal about giving something away. What on earth would make you think it would be?
Advanced users are users too!
When they've got a Beowulf cluster... oh shit is it 2006 already? Damn I told the concierge to wake me up in 10 hours... 10 years and this is all we get? Thanks Micro$oft ;-p
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Interesting. I would have assumed that I could install any number of Vista virtual machines for my use on my single computer -- especially since only one (or two on a dual core) could be considered to be running at the same time. Now Microsoft is telling me only 4. Sure sounds like I'm losing, not gaining, here -- those bastards!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm a fan of the PowerPC (and still am to this day; I still dream of a G5 laptop), but even a hardcore PowerPC fan must admit that the Intel Core Duo is quite a wonderful chip. Even the non-dual core Pentium M knocks the socks off the old G4s that the PowerBook and iBook used, and Apple really needed to upgrade those G4s, which were really getting old. The Core Duo chips builds on the same technology as the Pentium M, which were designed for heat efficiency. And they are very great performers, too. x86 assembly may suck, but Intel knows how to build a processor.
My only worry about the Intel switch is the future of OS X. But that's something I'll save for another post.
Wow, Microsoft is offering 4 licenses of Windows to run in virtualization. Apparently in Ballmer's world, people need to pay more than once to run as many instances of a program on their computer as they want.
I guess, by that logic, running multiple instances of MS Word, Internet Explorer or any other program on my computer is copyright infringement.
What a load of crap.
http://outcampaign.org/
VMware has not supported FreeBSD as a host O/S for some time now.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Virtual PC 2004 has 100% CPU utilization when just one virtual machine is loaded. There's option to reduce utilization when virtual machine window is not active, and still significant portion of CPU processing power is used in that case. Now, it is obvious that such wasting of CPU time cannot be good, either from wasted CPU resources that could be used for something useful, power consumption, heat generation. It is like CPU is running an infinite blank loop whenever you turn on virtual machine.
My point is, the old Windows interfaces (Win3.1 is not an OS) were doing some really non-standard things behind the scenes, there's no guarantee they'd work even in emulation.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Microsoft VM didn't let you run anything older than Win2K, seeing as support for Win98 just ended...
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
The problem is VMWare opened the door. They released free products (player and server). It's actually their move to try and drive MS out. MS doesn't have a product that competes with their high end server products. So they are hoping they can become ubiquitous as the VM technology in the low end market, so whenever anyone thinks VM, they think VMWare and buy the high end stuff (MS will have a high end virtualization solution at some point). MS now can claim, with 100% justification, that they are eimply pricing competitive with the market. A monopoly can't use preditory practises but they aren't reuired to screw you. There's no "If you are a monopoly you have to charge more than your compeition."
In any competition, you have to be careful what you do because it could invite reprisals. The same si true when it's a bigger player. If you decide something should be free, they have every right, regardless of position, to answer that with a similar free product.
Now they could get in trouble if they leveraged Windows to try and force their product. IF the virtual license applied to VPC only, that could get them in trouble as they are using their OS monopoly (which I find a funny term, given the Apple and Linux competition) to help their VM division. However since the license applies to their competitiors equally, it's not anti-competitive in the slightest.
You mean the same VMware that have also today released one of their VM systems for free, too?
For one, they didn't release their "VM systems", you should check all their products. Second, they didn't release vmware server and player for free today, they did it some time back now. Third, going back to the netscape/real issue, if you are a company which is based on one product, then yes it's hell bad when another company releases a competing product for free which product is not what that company is dependent on, just wants more share and kill the other one. In this case I don't really think Vmware should be that afraid though, since Vmware's products are still way superior than anything MS can show up in virtualization.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
First the VMWARE free; now VirtualPC free; one day later.
;)
One might wish their security department would roll as fast as their customer relations department do
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I've scanned through the number of replies regarding this and I just find a number of fanboys saying this is the triumph of Open Source over the gigantic evil corporation. The fact is, this is a smart move to promote Microsoft technology (VPC) that has had a bad reputation, but has seen steady improvement. VPC isn't so much competition for Xen as much as it for VmWare Workstation. Both VPC and VmWare allow the installation of unmodified operating systems (not so much VPC), whereas Xen requires them to be ported or "enlighted". Tack on the fact that Xen only runs on Linux, and the ported version of XP is unavailable due to copyright issues, and Xen doesn't look like a very realistic solution for the primary uses of virtualization technology, developers testing their software on a different OS, or sysadmins running virtual servers (production, or testing of Windows platforms). Yes, some people do prefer Windows Server 2003 over BSD. VPC on the other had, works well enough for testing on a variety of Windows platforms, will now be free, and is in most cases good enough. The primary reason I can think of why someone would virtualize instances of Vista is to provide RDP access to a sandboxed environment, not to use Vista as a server. VPC and this Vista deal shouldn't be seen as a competitor to Xen. If you're planning on virtualizing instances of a server, especially a Windows Server, VmWare GSX or ESX server would be the only real options. Regarding licensing issues, a virtual machine is exactly that, a virtual representation of a completely different machine. It will show up the the OS as different hardware. Have any of you tried activating an XP installation within VPC or VmWare? It still asks for a new, unique key (unless of course, its a volume license). People question the financial costs of this, that Microsoft will now forgo the revenue on four vista licenses. First of all, many estimate that Vista will retail at as low as $100. There will actually be tighter license restrictions, as there are plans to have an active licensing server for volume licenses, instead of the honor system currently in place (which is often abused). The motivation of this deal isn't to make money, its to promote certain technologies, and to encourage people to convert and stay with the Windows platform. Why does Microsoft give away millions of dollars of software in the form of the MSDN Academic Alliance every year to schools and students? Why does it have an entire "software evangelist" program? It's not to make money in the immediate short term, but to make people convert to Microsoft products, many of which are quite well made. (Anyone play with Visual Studio Team Foundation Server?) Sure, there are open source alternatives but sometimes its easier to click a few buttons on a GUI instead of customizing a .conf file. And, if people convert to the Microsoft way of doing things, they're more likely to purchase the money makers, like Office, or use certain software solutions when making purchasing decisions for their IT department.
PFFFFHHHH
I'd like to see a PC with Vista installed on it running 4 Vista virtual machines (via Virtual Anything)...
It's like making Congress tell the truth. It can't be done.
You'll notice that only the Windows version of VPC is free. Mac users still have to shell out. True, VPC for Mac isn't exactly virtualization (it's straight up emulation), but it's all pretty much buzz words (Yes, I know what the difference is), when you consider that the two products accomplish the same task, and have the same name.
Rawr
We can use a whole 4 copies. For a single user on a single PC. WTH is that all about? Maybe there's no PC on earth that could run more than 4 (or rather 5 if you count the RM copy). I wonder how screwy it'll get if you install 4 VM's and then delete one and install another...
Not that I plan to find out.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
ESX does - maybe that will change in v3, but it's still supported in 2.5.
I would really like to be able to run Linux virtualized along with my Windows XP.
Would either this or the free VirtualPC in the other story do the trick?
I mostly use Windows, but it would be very handy if I could have instant access to my Ubuntu install without the shutdown/reboot cycle to make sure my code still works on the Linux side. I don't even care if the Linux runs dog-slow, as long as it runs.
I looked at the virtual pc page but my eyes just glazed over with all the marketing speak. Why do they keep saying "server"? That word has way too many meanings.
Oh, and finally, I hope I don't have to reinstall Ubuntu to get this working...
Thanks!
I was able to install Tiger_x86 (10.4) under VMWare. Got networking with one of Maxxuss' pathes. Still can't get sound to work though. Other than that, it runs fine in VMWare.
If you download enough free beer you will eventually upload.
©God
"to install up to four (4) copies of the operating system in a virtual machine for a single user on a single device."
Whow there, BFD!
But to quote The Matrix:
"Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one. How about I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call."
With other operating systems, the customer has the "ability" (and license) to do *anything* he wants (except redistribution, which might be limited under the GPL).
You are an idiot.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
And as you yourself said, they have more than one product. VirtualPC in no way competes with ESX.
As it happens, I run VMware Workstation 5.5 on my laptop and love it.
Does anyone know what this means for gamers? Can we "flawlessly" run our old MS DOS or MS Windows games? My dad has a bunch of old Windows 98 pinball games that don't work anymore since he upgraded to Windows XP, and I'd love to download this for him and get those old games to work. :)
I'm sure many Mac fanatics would still be saying PPC is superior to Core if Apple hadn't switched to Intel. For years Mac users have been in denial about Pentium M, and even Celeron M, being superior to G4 processors in notebook PCs. Now most of them accept the fact that Intel makes better notebook CPUs. Only a few stubborn PPC freaks still believe Freescale would have provided a better notebook solution than Intel.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
As I understand it; Owners of vista will be allowed to run a virtual XP (with the same license).
despite the fact that microsoft will get into the virtualisation market, could this also be a preparation for the vista transition (for applications which will not or be late migrated to vista) ?
I personally think it's great that Vista Beta 2 won't even install on Virtual PC 2004 yet it runs great in VMWare's Server Beta 1.
their OS monopoly (which I find a funny term, given the Apple and Linux competition)
...until the day you try to switch and you realise:
Yeah, it's absolutely hilarious that people would claim that Windows a monopoly...
* 95% of your software no longer works (yes there are free alternatives to most things, but you already paid for a lot of expensive software so why can't you use it?)
* You can no longer play your favorite multiplayer game with your friends from university.
* Several pieces of your expensive hardware only has Windows drivers and now you can't use it.
* A few of your favourite websites (including your net banking) no longer work because of ActiveX, Flash 8 or severe rendering bugs.
* You can no longer watch the games/videos/greetings your family emails you as executable files (although this is arguably an advantage).
* If you are using a free operating system, you may have trouble installing software covered by patent laws (mp3 players for example).
* You can't access the files on your hard disk from another oprating system because Windows encrypted it (OK, this one hasn't happened yet, but I'm looking forward to it happening soon...)
Still laughing?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
eh? ESX doesn't have a host OS - it's on the bare metal.
Up to now, one could run as many copies of the OS in virtual machines as one wanted, hardware permitting. Now the limit has been increased from infinity to four,
Actually no, before you needed one license per virtual machine.
But now the question I am wondering is:
Does the new licensing for Vista Enterprise only apply when using Virtual PC, or can you also install up to 4 extra copies when using VMWare's solution?
If it's only the former, it looks like another case of them abusing their monopoly. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are playing it fair this time, but does anyone know for sure?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
5! after all VM's chrash you still have a MS host to chrash.
Tell this to the EU who just fined MS $380M for giving away Windows media player.
Hi, I'm new to the virtual crap and want to run some old games under a virtual windows 95. just for fun and see how well it compares to Dosbox version that I'm running. What's a good link that gives a step by step guide in installing OS's? Drivers are like the first thing that comes to mind. Like how does that work? Does it need it?
With one fifth the memory and five times the viruses! Huh! What fun? Think of it this way, five times closer to retirement... (that OS or me, not sure which yet).
And the best part is that absolutely none of those reasons are why Microsoft is considered to have a monopoly.
You do not need to be a lawyer to undrestand why Windows is so popular and manages to get such a huge share of the market. Microsoft has a monopoly because for many people, like it or not, Windows is the only choice, for reasons I listed in my earlier post. It is that simple. I am not judging whether this is good or bad, legal or illegal, I am just stating a fact.
I am not considering if they are abusing their monopoly, which is what I think you are talking about. This is a totally different, valid but more complicated question, and that is when the lawyers start getting involved.
you've gotta go buy an off-the-shelf PC that has a copy of Windows XP preinstalled
This isn't true, at least not in Denmark where I live. I can't remember the last time I bought a PC with an OS pre-installed.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Well, I don't know why, but everyone seems to forget that Xen will be a huge factor in virtualization soon. As far as I can remember, Xen, will be providing support for running unmodified kernels pretyy soon (actually somewhere around the middle of summer (northern hemisphere)) after intel provides a new set of cpus with some kind of support for it (sorry, forgot the details.)
Is there something wrong with this info? I thought that it would be one of the greates issues ever, but no one seems to care, or worse there is a serios amount of vaporware in this.
For me, running xp in linux, with a performance loss of say, 5-10% is a dream come true. Won't it happen? When it happens, would not it create a huge impact in virtualization market?
You're quite right, it's Micro$oft's responsibility to make all your games run on at least one other OS -- otherwise they have an EVIL EVIL WICKED MONOPOLY! It's also MS's responsibility to make your applications run on other OSes, and to prevent people from making websites that only work with Windows! Microsoft should also guarantee that all your hardware will work on the non-MS operating system of your choice! Also, Microsoft should buy you a pony and fix you a big bowl of ice cream with sprinkles on! But not the blue sprinkles, just the other colors. Only THEN will Microsoft not be a monopoly.
Of course, MS is guilty of various monopolistic practises, but that doesn't move you into the non-idiot category
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
what do you think?
http://www.googlebay.org http://www.seychellois.sc/photo
Isn't Vista already virtual
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Windows 3.1 won't work in dosemu (which uses the old V86 virtualization that's been in the Intel 80386 onwards), nor will it run in OS/2's V86 environment. But you can patch it with some DLL you used to be able to download from IBM that makes it use DPMI for protected mode, and then it runs in both.
Just out of honest curiosity, who still uses Windows 3.1 these days? The only thing I can think of is that some vending machines, ticket selling automats and ATMs run on antiquated pretty antiquated operating systems. I've also visited a Software and Computer museum in Berlin where they had a box running Windows 3.1 along with alot of other strange software I had almost forgotten ever existed. The most backward computer user I know still uses Windows 95.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
May Peace Prevail On Earth
It is yet another attempt to leverage their platform to dominate and monopolize yet another market. Sooner or later the govt is going to bring them down, probably at the direction of the next democratic president which is very likely due to GWB's popularity.
Got Code?
I'm using VMware Server on Gentoo. I don't care about this.
But, assuming some people do, I'm not surprised about this. Everyone seems to be giving away a low-end virtualization or emulation program, because it's a great way to drum up business for the higher-end products, and it adds value to a platform.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
the download page at microsoft indicates that, while the license type is "free", it as a limitation of 45 days!
Miscellaneous
Number of Downloads 89,052
Uninstaller Included? Yes
License Type Free
Limitations 45-day trial
it's Micro$oft's responsibility to make all your games run on at least one other OS
I never said it was Microsoft's responsibility to do anything. It is the Government's responsibility to keep an eye on monopolies.
otherwise they have an EVIL EVIL WICKED MONOPOLY!
I never said having a monopoly in general is evil (it is not), nor did I say that Microsoft's monopoly in particular was evil.
All I did was state a fact: "Microsoft has a monopoly" (because the GGP seemed to be in doubt of this fact) and explain what I believe the reasons for the situation. Any opinion you have of whether the monopoly is good or bad is your own opinion and nothing to do with my post.
I hope that people will read the post and understand that it is not intended to bash Microsoft / Linux / Mac. I'm just trying to combat the 'Microsoft isn't a monopoly because 2006 is the year of Linux on the desktop!!11one!!eleven!!' attitude that is so commonly spouted out on here.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
So, it's free how? The Mac version still has a $249 price-tag. The update is free though.
I wanted to get a Media Center 2005 (yes, I got that because of all the UIs I investigated, this one had the best, IMO) but I also wanted to get a new server that was a bit faster than my Duron 1.3 Ghz peice of junk with 128K of L2 cache. However, trying to convince the wife to let me get two whole new computers proved a futile effort. So, to do some testing, I *borrowed* a copy of media center for testing purposes and then installed my server on a VM. I put it through its paces on an AMD64 3500+ processor, with 1GB RAM. It ran very well, and was able to justify getting 1 slightly better machine with a AMD 3800+ X2 (dual core) processor and 1GB RAM. Thanks to VMWare I was able to get 2 computers for the price of one--and more importantly a happy wife.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
They must be running in on VirtualPC.
Just in case you're interested, you can pop open the .vmx file for your virtual machine and add the following line:
svga.vramSize = "67108864"
That'll give you a 64 Meg card. Just enter any number in bytes to get whatever amount of video RAM you want.
For the curious, you can also add
mks.enabled3d = "TRUE"
and enable (very) basic 3D support. I mean basic though. I think the spinning cube in dxdiag works, but that's about it. Anyway, VMWare is a bit more video-capable than it seems, but you do have to change a couple configuration items.
Sorry, not mks.enabled3d, just mks.enable3d.
Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column
/Applications folder, none of them pledge allegiance to a corporate master churning out horrifying simulacra of Mac users' innovations. On top of that, given that they are run by Windows users, how easy would it be for one of them to allow a "friend" to dummy up a Trojan, have another "friend" port it to the Mac, and then allow another "friend" to unleash a remote controlled hell on our private Bonjour-configured LANs? After all, they are "blood", right?
This is a perfect example of why I think the Mac community has been compromised by using Office X, and other products from Microsoft's Mac Business Unit. As I have mentioned here before, I do not trust PC-type people. They do not think like us. They are not like us. They are as close to "alien life forms" as we can get without having to leave this planet.
Seriously, they do not share our values. They hate that we have good taste. They like to keep their windows maximized and their ligatures uncombined. They think gray is a color. Hell, most of them are perfect little squares in perfectly square holes and if you go to PC strongholds like Staten Island you'll see most of the media they consume is produced by Mac users, as the Windows demographic is incapable of creativity in music, the arts, interior design, etc.
They are backwards. They live in the 1980s. They've contributed nothing meaningful to humanity for decades and decades. While we different thinkers are out writing AppleScripts, making HyperCard stacks, mixing in Logic Pro, editing collaboratively in SubEthaEdit, proofing rainbow banners in Illustrator, creating wealth through a variety of postmodern/postindustrial models and winning Nobels and Pulitzers and Grammys and Tonys and Oscars and Pritzkers along the way, the PC users are sitting on their asses downloading the fruits of our labor (how else do you explain so many being able to reference Futurama, bash the New Yorker, etc.?) The only thing they have in their favor is old, fat, white-bread bankrolls accumulated on slavery and imperialism and, personally, I wish their inherited wealth would run dry. Sure, we'd have a hell of a headache funding our next indie production, but so would the whole world, and when faced with adversity the ingenuity of Mac users truly comes to the fore.
Anyway, back on point. Why don't I trust the Mac Business Unit?
Because to have PC-type people writing software to help us finance our projects, communicate with our studios, write our manifestoes and organize our political protests, is a disaster waiting to happen.
Whereas we may allow products from other dull, dogma-bound companies into our
Which leads me to how some in our own community are encouraging PC-type people to switch to the Mac.
If you go back and do some checking of stories, you will see that in most cases where lifelong Windows users suddenly buy Macs, or people who are Linux to the core suddenly pirate Intel OS X from the internet, it is almost all done in cahoots with another recent switcher (read: poseur) on the "inside" or one that "knows" someone on the inside.
So if we have these so-called "switchers" from Linux and Windows in the Mac community, facilitating crass, classless ass-pickery on our platform by encouraging more PC-type people to switch, just how far a stretch is it to say the PC users in charge of the MBU won't do the same when it comes to our applications? HMMMMM?!?!?!
Could someone explain to me why are VMWare and Microsoft rushing to give some of their virtualization products away free?
Tell this to the EU who just fined MS $380M for giving away Windows media player.
Wow, so much is wrong with the above statement. I suppose the most obvious is the the fine was for not supplying API documentation having nothing to do with the media player.
Damn, I just bought a copy of MS Virtual PC off newegg.com about 4 or 5 months ago for something like $30 or 40. Go figure, I resist the urge to pirate and buy it legit and then a few months later MS gives it away free. Maybe they're release the source code in a few more months? (It's a good product, though. Espicially if you're just trying to run another MS OS like Windows Server 2003.)
It looks to me like only the x86 (windows) version is free. I see no mention of the OSX/ppc version, or a linux version(IIRC they don't have one anyways)...
AFAIK you can still have more than 4 VMs on the server (if you've got the available memmory), but you _must_ buy extra licenses for anything over 4 VMs - AND the host OS must be Windows 2003/Vista Enterprise.
Now the real rub is the cost of Windows-* Enterprise. When I last worked it out it was buying Win-* Entrperprise was comparable to buying 5 copies of Win-* Server. Everything in my shop is happy runnnign on Win-2k3 Server. So, where's the benefit to me?
Stupidly clinging to one position no matter what variables change is something that politicians do that makes me absolutely sick.
Sadly, they have no alternative. If you dare to approach an issue with an open mind and to revise your opinion based on changing information, you get slammed for "flip-flopping" and lose the election to a closed-minded simian imbecile with a proven track-record of failure and bad decisions.
you can't run a hacked OSX86 under virtual PC. the installer kernel panics on boot.
-b.
VMWare server has been available for free for quite some time (as has Microsoft's virtual server). I've been rnning VMWare server for 2 months now.
What about Mac VPC, would be nice to have that for free.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
AFAIK, no standard virtualization solution, be it VmWare or Virtual PC, has accelerated (if any at all) Direct3D or OpenGL support. So, Vista's Aero GUI won't be available inside them no matter what.
I don't know much about this kind of technology, but why is decent 3D support so difficult to implement in virtualization that no one seems to be even trying to do it?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
This also solves the backward compatibility problem for Vista. I think it is a great idea on MS's part to break from this burdon.
Thanks.
LOL. You are incorrect.
It uses linux as a host OS, it's just bundled with ESX.
Oh wait it's bundled. MONOPOLY DAMN THEM.
Perhaps the most exciting news of all (besides saving over $100) is that Virtual PC 2004 runs BeOS beautifully!
And over here in Austria we have not developed anything and our banks just send letters with one-time-passwords to every customer and let them enter it into a standard web page that even works in firefox on any operating system. :-)
Although this will probably change with the introduction of the digital signatures, but up until now... nothing happened because there is not really a driver for people to switch to digital signatures where you suddenly need a smart card reader.
Actually, they might have found out about the free VMWare by the fact that it has actually been freely available for quite some time now. The only news that happened yesterday was that it got out of beta.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
DosEMU may be tricky, but that's because DOSEMU is just a dos window (a dos box). Only let DOS program to run and implement a very little compatibility. So software needs to play nice and standart. As you said : DLL may become handy to make it run.
On the other hand DOSBOX is a full emulator, that emulates everything from CPU, thru DOS to hardware. Even nonstandart stuff like VoodooMode (flat linear memory without protected mode CPU) is being worked on.
And there are effort to get Win3x and Win9x working in it.
But as GP said, it's very likely that Microsoft will find a way to b0rk the virtualisation environnement so that :
- Older windows don't work well in a Microsoft(c) Virtual(tm) environment, forcing users to pay for the more expensive recent OS.
- Windows Vista itself will be dependant on some undocumentend feature not available to non-licensed VM maker : Windows User will be free to virtualise everything. Mac user may probably be able to virtualise Windows inside a Intel based Mac OS X host as I, cringely tried to predict (if Apple is ready to pay microsoft for that).
- But I'm sure Microsoft will try whatever they can to impede users to virtualise Windows in an open-source solution like Xen. People running Windows from the safety of an environnement virtualised inside the stability of a linux host is the last thing that Microsoft needs to keep its monopoly.
What I mean is that most of the linux users usually keep somewhere a Win partition for dual booting for the few application (games) that aren't ported or don't have open-source equivalent. A virtualisable Vista will get rid of this dual booting hassle.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yeah, I know its a stupid question, but what is the main use of this? Running old MS-DOS programs within XP, that might not run otherwise? A sandbox?
A couple years back, before VMWare player was free and I had an MSDN subscription anyways, I used VirtualPC 2004 quite a bit to screw around with Linux without commiting.
As I recall, most of the live distros I tried worked out fine, and never really ran into a problem until I tried actually installing Gentoo. But back then I was linux-retarded, so I have no idea if the inability to get a full install of that was an actually flaw/limitation with VPC, or if I was just too stupid to do it right.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
Mac computers run Photoshop. Even if not, in what way does GIMP fail, other than prepress color handling?
Can't. EMC owns it, lock, stock and barrel.