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."
... does it run... aw, fuckitall.
*head asplode*
the version of VPC that is freely available only runs on Windows.
Blarg!
Check out this link as to what will work on VPC and what won't. http://vpc.visualwin.com/
What a bargain!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Um, NO.
WINE uses reverse engineered Windows APIs to run Windows apps w/out running a copy of Windows and isn't compatible with a metric shit-ton of software.
Virtual PC runs a full copy of Windows in a sandboxed environment, great for servers to compartmentalize their various services or for Mac users to run a Windows-only app and is exactly like running Windows on an actual PC.
Don't you people know how to use Google?
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.
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
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.
The snapshot and clone features in VMware v5 beat VPC 2004. VMware v5 is a recent product VPC 2004 is not. In general VPC 2004 ran windows guests faster then VMware v4 (four). The difference was marginal. I have not tested the speed of VPC 2004 against VMware v5. VMware runs all non-windows guests faster then VPC v4. (In some cases infinitely faster as VPC had trouble with certain versions of Linux and FreeBSD.) You can run a kernel level debugger such as SoftICE under VPC. SoftICE and Vmware have/had issues. IIRC VPC has no opengl/directx guest support. I doubt that you will ever see that feature in either product. The new virtualization instructions in Intel and AMD processors may change that, but I would not count on it.
I use VMware daily. VMware support other guest operating systems better then VPC. But the big winner is VMware's management features. The snapshot managment, cloneing and templating are wonderfull.
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."
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.
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.
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...