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.
Sounds like your copy was free as in Kool-Aid.
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.
Right, because there's competition for VPC on Windows, from VMWare and others. There's not much, other than Parallels, on the Mac side right now.
Shouldn't it be illegal for Microsoft to 'dump' products for the express purpose of driving their competition out of business? I know it's not normally, but they should change the rules for someone convicted of abusing their monopoly.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
It would be nice if someone told the nitwits at Microsoft that there is a Mac Business Unit within the very same company - and that it also sells a product called Virtual PC - BEFORE announcing that "Virtual PC is now free".
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...
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.
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!"
You're probably better off using a VMWare offering on Linux with Win guests. Less reboots due to security updates of the host OS and no licensing costs.
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."
Thanks for the info. But do you know if bypassing the TMP (by removing the kext, presumably) is illegal under the DMCA? And can one get in trouble for that?
That would depend on whether you live in a country where the DMCA was applicable and enforced.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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...
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...
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...