VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch 231
feminazi writes "Jeff Boles attributes VMWare's dominance over Microsoft in the virtualization market to a combination of product depth and focus, but especially to the fact that 'VMWare is actually delivering Microsoft's product in the way that Microsoft should be delivering it.' The ease of GUI but with those enterprise-ready traits that Microsoft is still struggling with: application separation, and decent resource utilization."
VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:2, Funny)
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:5, Funny)
And MSN search vomits chairs at Google search.
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:2, Interesting)
The bottom line is, they can probably make things better the VMWare ever will be able to do. Simply because they can even change parts of the kernel if needed. VMWare won't be able to compete with something like a sort of coWindows system, right? And that is what MS can build and VMWare simply can't. (coWindows as in coLinux [colinux.org])
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:2)
And Gmail is still invite-only.
It's quite a good result, all things concerned: most people hate the idea of changing their e-mail address.
Which is incidentally exactly why I only have a Gmail address, and completely ignore the mail addresses my ISP offers me. Sooner or later, I'll switch ISPs again.
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:5, Informative)
Not completely.
https://www.google.com/accounts/SmsMailSignup1 [google.com]
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:3, Informative)
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:2)
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, that's nice. However, there is a whole world outside the borders of the few countries that are supported.
And I'm in it.
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:3, Insightful)
>>Yeah I guess that is why hotmail just shits all over gmail :)
>And MSN search vomits chairs at Google search.
I think the big difference being, neither of these things is part of the operating system. Microsoft owns the desktop and has a pretty solid portion of the server... any time they feel the need to enter and dominate a market that is based in Windows itself, they tend to be rather successful at it.
I personally wouldn't be terribly surprised to see VMWare continue to win for now, but as
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:2, Funny)
But just try to explain it to outsiders.
"See, Microsoft had this little problem with the transition of hotmail to NT...the server smelled funny so they put it back...uh, so there's this fierce rivalry between Microsoft and Google...lawsuits...uh...developers! developers! developers!"
Yet another reason why Linux weenies aren't headlining the comedy tours this summer.
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:5, Interesting)
Since we introduced VMWare in our enterprise the number of MS virtual machines has skyrocketed.
Before if someone wanted a new MS server we had to purchase HW to run it on which is expensive and time consuming, where talking weeks to order and install.
Now we can provision a new MS virtual server in about 30 mins.
Once upon a time we would have tried to consolidate apps on physical servers to conserve HW, now each app gets it own VM, no more associability probs.
MS is getting paid for all these new virtual servers that would not have existed.
I'd say that VMware is not eating MS but feeding MS
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:5, Funny)
I'd better stop pursuing that analogy, there's a bad mental image coming up.
Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a choice and I choose VMWare (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows does not require reactivation when the image is opened in VMWare Server, Player, or Workstation. VPC images of demo configurations featuring pre-activated Windows that I get from Microsoft and attempt to run under Virtual Server require reactivation.
VMWare Workstation has too many useful features.
Therefore, I create my own demo environments in VMWare Server as my first choice and run VPC images in Virtual PC 2004 by necessity. Guess which environment is significantly faster? I have no incentive to use Virual Server 2005 R2.
Running Windows in VMware (Score:2)
(Just joking... VMware is pretty much the only way to reliably test an installer for win32. Plus, anything that would force someone to reactivate Windoze every single time a new debug build of your software's installer gets run can go to hell.)
But VMWare fears Parallels (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But VMWare fears Parallels (Score:2)
Re:But VMWare fears Parallels (Score:4, Insightful)
(My opinion is my own, and not necessarily that of VMware.)
Paralles does not compare to VMware (Score:2)
Re:Paralles does not compare to VMware (Score:2)
-matthew
Re:But VMWare fears Parallels (Score:2)
All of which sort of makes me wonder why Parallels didn't seem to need to have conversations with Apple about it. (Though I assume you can't run OSX in a Parallels VM either.)
I half suspect the real issue is that VMWare is part of EMC now, and EMC flat doesn't give a shit about Apple.
Most of all (Score:2, Insightful)
And above all: security. Surely.
Solaris Support? (Score:2, Interesting)
Would be rather nice to run VMWare under Solaris 10.
Re:Solaris Support? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Solaris Support? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Solaris Support? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Solaris Support? (Score:2)
The best news for ESX owners (with Serivce and Support agreements) is that we can buy into VI3 Enterprise (all the cool automation features) for a cool $1000 per TWO CPU server. Darn, that's
Not originally an MS product? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not originally an MS product? (Score:2)
Re:Not originally an MS product? (Score:3, Insightful)
With Apple going to Intel I'm frankly waiting (with baited breath) for VMWare to come out with a version for OS X [Intel]. It is then that I'll probably get seri
Re:Not originally an MS product? (Score:4, Informative)
Have you looked at Parallels Desktop [parallels.com]? It much like VMWare Workstation, but cheaper.
Re:Not originally an MS product? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not originally an MS product? (Score:2)
Re:Not originally an MS product? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not originally an MS product? (Score:2)
Too little, too late (Score:3, Insightful)
I ask again, what were they thinking exactly?
What they're thinking (Score:2)
It started with firefox, as I remember it. They ignored it and figured it would go away, then had to shift gears j
Re:Too little, too late (Score:3, Insightful)
They understand that someday they will have to ditch the entire spaghetti code base that is Windows(TM). By the time that they will seriously consider that, the commodity hardware of the day will be able to virtualize another OS with little or no (perceived) performance penalty. So they invest in this tech now, in the hopes of providing an upgrade path to (er, revenue stream from) their customers.
Just my US$0.02.
MS isn't left-handed either (Score:2)
I'm sure that MS's competitors (including OSS) look forward to that day. On the other hand, the idea of MS's formidable programmers writing brand-new code without the legacy of the 8088 PC platform and years of legacy applications to deal with should scare the crap out of their competitors. They've been fighting with their left hand for years.
Re:MS isn't left-handed either (Score:2)
These same coders starting from scratch? I reckon Windows 2000 would still be far more reliable.
Re:MS isn't left-handed either (Score:2)
Re:MS isn't left-handed either (Score:2)
That is, unless the culture at MS changes radically. The one that gives lip service to safety and security
Re:MS isn't left-handed either (Score:2)
That's exactly the myth that my post was intended to provoke. Thanks for falling for it.
"Do you have any idea how rich, and simple, modern x86 is?"
How did we get from the 8088 to the "modern x86"? The 8088 and 8086 have far more in common with the 8 bit 8080 than they do with Intel's current processors. Here's a homework assignment: try porting the Linux kernel to an 8088 PC platform. It should be easy since you believe the 8088 to be so "rich
It's all about NT (Score:2)
Obligatory arch commment (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, I get it. So what we really want from the Microsoft OS is Ubuntu.
or, rather RHEL.
Re:Obligatory arch commment (Score:2)
Huh.
This isn't really news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately....
Since MS gives Virtual Machine away to big Co.'s I am forced to use this horrible product at work. Once again MS finds a market, makes a far inferior product, then jams it down your throat by giving it away to their big customers.
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
I agree. I've been testing VMWare programs since v1.x and ditto for MS Virtual Server. No contest between the two. If you want to do server consolidation, development testing, or in my case network security simulations. you can't beat VMWare. Much faster for all versions, whether workstation, GSX (Server now), or ESX as against Virtual Server and the interface is a definite thrill as against something that causes yo
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
I love it! LOL! ROFL! BLERT (fall over noisily). A new word for me, and I love it. Corpies.
Well Said!
What the hell is wrong with you? (Score:3, Funny)
And to make it even worse, you're saying this about a product that just wipes the floor with Virtual server. Be more positive man!
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
Unless you mean some other kind of remote access? Macs can natively handle most VPNs and have Samba built in. What sort of remote access does XP have built in that OS X doesn't?
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
You must be new here. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:5, Informative)
From http://www.vmware.com/products/server/faqs.html [vmware.com]:
Q: Will VMware Server still be free when it is generally available?
A: Yes, VMware Server will be a free product. There will not be any charge for licenses to VMware Server when it becomes generally available.
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
So does VMWare - with VMWare Server. Although it's currently a Release Candidate version, and not yet available as "Production Ready" it seems to be fairly much identical to VMWare GSX Server, minus some of the management tools. Even with the missing tools, it appears to be bette
Re:This isn't really news... (Score:2)
So far, every new version of Server has gotten better and better.. I am running it under Centos 4.3, Windows XP and Dapper and its been working great.
No details. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No details. (Score:3, Informative)
1. VMWare runs on non windows x86 platforms (Unix, linux, soon macos).
2. They have *excellent* support, even for vmware client. That is a rarity today. But if you have some problem with the virtual VGA driver on Vista when hosting on Suse/Redhat, you can file tickets with them and get someone to actually help you -even to phone up to check up on how well it worked.
3. It's pretty fast, even on x86 kit without the new opcodes
4. VMWare images are freely redistributable, they dont even ask for reactiv
I have no real comment (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft Won't Control *This* Market (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the last year or so, I've heard a lot of people in the industry talk about how VMware is fighting a losing battle against Microsoft in the server virtualization market. Really though, I don't see Microsoft beating VMware anytime soon. Here's why:
First, I don't think anyone in their right mind is ever going to truely believe that Microsoft can be entirely agnostic when it comes to what OS you run in a virtualization layer. I just can't see the Linux crowd ever fully buying into the notion that Microsoft will support Linux as a virtual server with the same zealous dedication as they'll support virtualization of Windows servers. We've all seen too many instances in the past where Microsoft has teaked some application to take advantage of their inside knowledge of Windows, at the expense of some other vender's application or operating system. I can't imagine, given this track record, that Microsoft will continue to resist the temptation to shaft everyone else in the virtualization market, ensuring that Windows continues to dominate. This idea alone will seriously retard Microsoft's ability to compete with VMware. I doubt that anyone at VMware really gives a rat's ass what you run in ESX server; Microsoft, on the other hand, will never be able to make the same claim.
Additionally, as I see it, there's also little advantage for Microsoft to expand the number of operating systems they support under their own virtualization layer. Every time they add support for an additional OS running in the virtualization layer, it gives their current customers more choices to run some other operating system that *isn't* Windows. Sooner or later, someone on the Windows server sales team is going to figure that out, potentially putting preasure on the virtualization team to do a half-assed job with anything that doesn't sport a Microsoft logo. Ultimately, I predict that this is going to ensure that Microsoft's virtual server offerings will be the most limited in the market. VMware, of course, won't be bound by the same demands. Every time they expand support for additional operating systems, it makes their products that much more attractive to buyers.
Finally, I suspect that Microsoft will decide at some point in the future that what they really want to do is to build virtualization into the Windows operating system itself. This is the only strategy that makes sense in the long-term. It keeps customers buying Windows while answering the need for server consolidation/management that virtualization brings to the table. In the end, it will put distance between what Microsoft offers and what VMware offers, leaving the independant OS virtualization market squarely in the hands of VMware.
Re:Microsoft Won't Control *This* Market (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Won't Control *This* Market (Score:2)
Not really. Sure, it'll give you similar capabilities to VMware Workstation or Server, but I'd be surprised if they were able to provide the same level of VM infrastructure capabilities as VMware ESX Server has or even management tools that are as good as Workstation. It remains to be seen whether they can even offer the same level of performance, too.
Don't forget that AMD and Intel are bui
Tagging system (Score:3, Funny)
"Lunch"? This article has anything to do with "lunch"? Give me a break.
Re:Tagging system (Score:2)
At the beginning, I thought tagging might have been useful, but 90% of the tags are simply words from the articles title or category, along with one or more of: [stupid | evil | smart | haha]. Frequently all four.
Since this has come to pass, I have adjusted my attitude to find humor in the tagging system. Come on. Lunch. It's funny.
Re:Tagging system (Score:2)
what... like... a lunch break?
(it's 4am!)
VMware for personal use (Score:4, Interesting)
It's letting me get rid of windows as my primary OS, instead now I can use ubuntu as default and only run windows when I haven't a convenient alternative.
Maybe some of the VMware people reading here could answer a few questions?
1) any plans to make a
2)Are there any plans to improve support for OSX in a virtual machine, (graphically it's a bit sluggish compared to native on the same hardware) on the otherhand adding a network controller to the VM as NAT gave network access to OSX as a wired network card (even though it was wireless in reality
3) any chance of VMware workstation being made freely available for a single vm or some other limited use.
I wouldn't want to see VMware cut its own throat but it seems the money for them is in commercial servers not an individual trying to break thier windows habit.
4)which is quicker windows in a vm hosted on windows or windows in a vm hosted on linux?
ubuntu and VMware make a great combination, it's something that should be tried by any windows user, who wants to escape the limitations of windows but needs windows compatability (at least initially) although ubuntu and remote desktop is another working alternative (video is slow thou).
Anyway to any of the VMWare team reading this you guys rock.
Re:VMware for personal use (Score:2)
Re:VMware for personal use (Score:3, Informative)
1) Couldn't get an answer for any
2) No plans that I know of. I believe the Apple EULA for OS X requires it to be installed on Mac hardware.
3) That would be the purpose of VMware Player. You might also check out VMware Server, which is more versatile.
4) The latter, Windows hosted on Linux.
Re:VMware for personal use (Score:2)
Re:VMware for personal use (Score:2)
Keep up the good work. I finally convinced the boss I would be more productive if I didn't have to spend three minutes rebooting into Windows/Linux (I'm a embedded Wince/Linux programmer). I went down to CompUSA to purchase a copy of VMWare and its not on the shelf anymore. It used to be.
The brain dead associate (called employee in more traditional times), had no idea why they didn't have VM
Re:VMware for personal use (Score:2)
You can buy directly from VMware at VMware Workstation in the VMware Store [vmware.com] (including a downloadable get-it-now version). Also, there's a reseller search engine [clickcommerce.com]. Running it for my immediate area didn't turn up any big-name stores.
Re:VMware for personal use (Score:3, Informative)
sudo apt-get install checkinstall
cd vmware
checkinstall install
VMware is leagues ahead of Virtual Server (Score:5, Insightful)
Most techs are now familiar with basic single-box virtualisation, but aren't familiar with the virtual infrastructure offerings. It's here that VMware is truly revolutionising the commodity x86 server space. Without the VM Infrastructure concept, but using virtualisation you're effectively trading off reliability for utilisation efficiency. With VM Infrastructure you're gaining both. Let me explain.
Picture this: hundreds of VMs scattered around dozens of physical servers. Under VM Infrastructure, any time a given server's resources start to struggle with the load, the VMware software automatically and seamlessly migrates some of the VMs to another server that has resources to spare. When local server diagnostics identify that a critical piece of hardware is on the way out, all VMs are automatically and seamlessly shifted to other available servers. All this while allowing you to specify per-server policies on minimum and maximum resources (CPUs, CPU time, RAM, storage capacity, disk I/O, network bandwidth, network I/O, etc). This is possible because VMs interact with virtual hardware devices rather than the underlying hardware. This means you can most a running instance from one physical server to another and there are no hardware differences visible to the guest OS.
Basically, you not only ensure that you don't have idle servers sitting around, but you actually increase your availability by mitigating hardware failures and levelling resources throughout your pool of servers when load for given VMs increases.
This works by having all storage on a SAN. This means you don't have wasted disk sitting at individual servers. It also makes your storage subsystem extremely reliable and scalable while simultaneously amortising it's cost across multiple servers. The cost of storage goes down on a per-server basis while the reliability of your storage goes up. It also means your individual servers can have a smaller form-factor as you don't need any disk space on nodes save what's required to boot the virtualisation layer.
Using VMs can make backups much, much cheaper to implement. VMs are just files waiting to be copied to media.
If you don't think that's enough (it was for me!), think of how much easier and cheaper disaster recovery becomes. You just need to replicate SAN-to-SAN and your entire server pool is effectively mirrored offsite. In the event of disaster you can simply disable all non-critical VMs (e.g. DEV, TEST, UAT and low-priority PROD), so you don't need to mirror your (now smaller) server pool at the backup site, just enough to bring up the critical production services. In the event of a disaster you've always got the option of then buying additional servers to host non-critical VMs as time permits. Since it's a SAN that's required for storage, if you're not too concerned about non-critical VMs, you can simply keep them on a separate LUN to the critical ones and not replicate that. In the event of a disaster, you can order more disks, and in the meantime you save on SAN-to-SAN replication traffic costs and bandwidth.
Finally, and this is a key selling point to infrastructure staff and customers alike, a SAN-based virtual infrastructure allows extremely rapid deployment of new servers. Let's say a project manager contacts the service desk with a request to provision two new environments (TEST and UAT) for a new development project, each with a webserver, an application server and a database server. The service desk sources the software licenses (either from a pool of spares or
So that's what kids call it these days? (Score:3, Funny)
Unless it's Microsoft. That's not called "Eating Microsoft's lunch". That's called "doing Microsoft's research for them".
People do not seem to understand... (Score:2)
Just as this article and all the anti-MS trolling in here demonstrates, people really just don't get it.
VMWare is not a 'competitor' to MS in the traditional sense, in fact the two products have a vastly different target base and vastly different lineage.
The MS technology is this, a way for Server Administrators to consolidate servers and outdated OS and technology on to new hardware. Specifically MS's newer Server technologies. PERIOD.
VMWare has a vastly different Market
Re:People do not seem to understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes.
It doesn't make any sense.
Sure it does. Just because you aren't clued in to the idiomatic meaning doesn't mean it's ready to buy the farm. Not that it's a black and white issue, mind you, but frankly I could care less.
Keep it on the black part, dude.
KFG
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be "but frankly I couldn't care less"? Or do you subscribe to the belief that "if everyone does something wrong, it's right"?
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2, Interesting)
I knew that was the one that was going to draw fire.
It's an idiom, "an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up." It doesn't mean what it literally says, just as "eat their lunch" doesn't mean that VMware is raiding the Microsoft cafeteria.
It is a shortened version of the ironic phrase, "I suppose I could care less, but I don't know how."
An older, less crude version of "I give a fuck," (shortened from "Do
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
It is a shortened version of the ironic phrase, "I suppose I could care less, but I don't know how."
You think? I doubt it. I think it's a lazy version of "I couldn't care less". Personally, I like "I could care less, but it's not work the effort."
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
but it's not work the effort
s/work/worth/
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
Laziness does not tend merely to change a word.
That's an old wise tale.
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
That's not an example of laziness. That's an example of ignorance and substituting a familiar word.
You call it ignorance, I called it laziness, I posit that there are elements of both involved.
Given the frequency with which I've seen the longer, ironic "could care less" phrase you mentioned (or other variants), I think it's far more likely that "could care less" arose from misunderstanding of "couldn't care less" than your explanation.
The "viola" case is an interesting one, since it's obvious not a m
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
Find me a native speaker who can actually misunderstand the phrase "couldn't care less."
I don't have to, because I can find you a hundred million native speakers who don't enunciate clearly. Maybe two hundred million. Very few bother with the "t" in "couldn't", particularly when followed by the hard "c", and either the "n" or the "d" gets short shrift, particularly when the context makes the negation clear or when the use of a common phrase makes its presence irrelevant because the meaning will be clea
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's an erroneous reproduction of the older idiom "I couldn't care less". Given that it relies entirely on vocal intonation (or prior knowledge of the "meaning") to be anything but gibberish, its origin was almost certainly from mispronunciations and/or "mishearings" via regional accents - probably of the phrase originating in written material - followed by repetition.
Incidentally, the word you're afte
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
That's a rather cute* insight.
*"Cute" (adj) "Ugly but interesting" (OED)
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
Re:Eats their lunch? (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Style (Score:3, Informative)
Re:is slashdot broken? (Score:2)
I think someone messed up your last eye firmware upgrade.
Re:Two problems with VMWare. (Score:2)
I don't see anyone else going after it; also, it's a very *very* narrow sector of potential use. It's not like it's going to get VMware a lot more sales. And really, given VMware's primary aim, it's not really that interesting to work on. It's not that it can't be done, but the difficulty curve
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:3, Funny)
So, you're saying Ballmer is a tosser?
/me ducks