The Next Round in the Virtualization Wars 355
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."
What about XP? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about XP and others (Score:2)
Old, old Microsoft stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
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 n
Re:Old, old Microsoft stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
The new virtualization stuff is much more capable than V86 mode so I'd be surprised if it couldn't cope with Windows 3.1.
Re:Who still runs Windows 3.1? (Score:4, Informative)
Some lab instruments will run for a good 10-20 years... there are probably still a few DEC PDP's and Apple II/GS's out there connected to instruments somewhere!
Re:What about XP and others (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft licenses typically allow you to run an older version of the same software in place of the current version if you wish. I'm not sure that this applies to the vista license, but I suspect it does.
The same question exists if I have an XP system and I want to install an XP virtual machine on it.
The XP license (at least the corporate one) allows you to run one virtual instance, in the same way the Vista one allows 4. All they're doing here is increasing the numbers.
Re:What about XP and others (Score:2)
This was seen in practice a lot during the migration from WNT 4 to W2K; companies bought as many W2K licenses as they needed, but actually ran WNT 4 until they were happy enough with W2K to switch over.
Re:What about XP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. But what about in 2 years or so? Vista may be a hog, but every year more resources are available.
Re:What about XP? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
*head asplode*
A better question (Score:2)
Does it run MacOS X_86? (or can be 'patched' to do so instead of buying MacBook-clone hardware)
Re:A better question (Score:2)
Re:A better question (Score:3, Interesting)
Did the Apple change their EULA so you cannot do that with 10.5_x86?
Re:A better question (Score:2)
You get a copy of MacOS with your Mac. Assuming you take it off your Mac, wipe the hard drive, and then install your one copy elsewhere, it might be legal. I'd have to read the EULA.
But 99% of EULA's out there allow for one copy on one PC for your license, and if you have MacOS, it is because it is already on your Mac. Putting on any other PC via any other means would be illegal.
Yes. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Yes, actually, it does (Score:2, Informative)
Have a look for yourself: http://vpc.visualwin.com/ [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
Sorry Mac Users (Score:5, Informative)
Blarg!
Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Not a monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Not a monopoly? (Score:2)
Two different things... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not a monopoly? (Score:2)
* Games are the only reason I still own windows. There ARE games that linux-only, and quite a few good ones that run on both, though.
* Bzzzt. Wrong. I've got a LOT of high-end hardware and most of it just magically works now. Try upgrading your kernel.
* VERY few websites don't work anymore. My bank (Wachovia) switched quite a while
Re:Not a monopoly? (Score:2)
No flame intended, but that's one thing that confounds me - the USA, of all nations, seem to rely on ActiveX-based online banking. Over here in Germany we have developed an online banking standard called HBCI [wikipedia.org] (to be superseded by FinTS [wikipedia.org]), which allows any compliant online banking software to interact with any bank, provided you have a smartcard reader (Linux compatible ones are
Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:2)
Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:2)
That is a smart move and one that Linux distributions should take note of. Xen potentially has a lot to offer here.
Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:3, Informative)
Red Hat has been bundling Xen for nearly 18 months now.
Debian has been bundling vserver for nearly 6 months now.
Sounds to me like Microsoft is playing catchup to the Linux distributions (again).
Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:2)
Although, Suborn & Desperate Edition is transitioning to "VPC: Mac Don't Give A Sh*t About Edition"
Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:2)
What is supported (Score:5, Informative)
Virtual PC 7 for Mac (Score:2)
VPC 7 for Mac does not appear to be free.
Any one know otherwise?
Re:Virtual PC 7 for Mac (Score:2)
4 BSODs for the price of one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:4 BSODs for the price of one... (Score:2)
OSS is working (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OSS is working (Score:2)
Re:OSS is working (Score:2)
I can't seem to find how much Ms paid for connectix (anybody know?) but that's millions of dollars Ms spent that they will never make a penny on. Windows 2003 server enterprise cost anywhere from 2500 to 5000 depending on your volume and such, if vi
Re:OSS is working (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhm, no, Microsoft's not doing all that just to compete with Xen. Its real competition is VMware, which already is giving away some of its products away for free. And no, VMware's not doing all that just to compete with Xen either; its real competition is Microsoft.
Re:OSS is working (Score:5, Insightful)
What does MS have to worry about with Xen or VMWare for that matter if they give VPC away? You still need to have a valid licence to run Windows on it or VMWare. VMWare has little to worry about too. Where are you going to get support for Xen from? Does Xen even come close to providing what VMWare workstation or ESX can do?
People are only running scared from OSS in the minds of many Slashdot users and bloggers no one cares about.
Re:OSS is working (Score:5, Insightful)
Xen cannot run Windows (and 'we swear someone did it in a lab but we can't prove it or tell you how to do it' doesn't count). That means it is *not* a competitor for either VMWare or VirtualPC. In fact there's nothing in the OSS space that is.
Re:OSS is working (Score:2)
What a bunch of crock. MS bought a company that was selling a product and making money on it. Xen directly caused VMware to start giving away one of the products which in turn made it impossible for Ms to recover it's investment in the company they bought.
"You still need to have a valid licence to run Windows on it or VMWare. "
Except that they just announced that you don't need to for the first fo
Re:OSS is working (Score:2)
Xen can only run *modified* operating systems. That means ones you can get the source code for.
The claimed about a year ago to have got Windows XP to run, but have never managed to get it working properly because of course they don't have the Windows source code. Their own FAQ bears this out (oh and the 'we hope to have a version that does it' date keeps changing.. vapourware at its finest).
Quote: "Currently Xen supports Linux 2.4, 2.6, and NetBSD 2.0."
Sorry, to be a competitor to V
Re:OSS is working (Score:2)
Re:OSS is working (Score:5, Interesting)
How can a push to virtualisation - the process of running an OS on "virtual hardware" - possibly be the end of a company that's core business involves selling an OS? Not to mention that most virtualisation products require a host OS in the first place (VMWare's ESX Server is the only one that springs to mind that doesn't, but it certianly still requires at least one guest OS)
Besides which, the real uses for virtualisation (to my mind) are currently:
1) Running multiple server OSes on a beefy server
2) Running an alternative OS for testing or application availability purposes
In the first instance, you're most likely going to be running server OSes, and I don't see MS changing the licencing terms for any of their Server products any time soon, so that'll still require one licence per VM. In the second instance, the licencing is immaterial, as you only need the one licence anyway.
Now, a move to OSS I can see being problematic for vendors like MS, but let's be honest here - it's not looking to have made much of a dent in their profits over the last decade or so. Doubtless it will given time, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Ousting a company that is *that* entrenched is no simple matter.
Re:OSS is working (Score:2, Informative)
Might have made a difference... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Four *extra* licenses? (Score:4, Insightful)
Abusing their monopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re:Abusing their monopoly? (Score:2)
VirtualPC appears to have been written with OS licensing in mind, so that XP detects when it gets moved around and asks to be re-activated.
Now, given there is a 'virtual' device that lets code in the VM detect that they are vm-hosted, its possible that MS could maybe insert some logic to stop Vista working properly under vmware, the way they did with Windows under Dr-DOS. But that would stop so many p
Reminds me... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Reminds me... (Score:2)
Darryl Hannah.. Grrrrooowwlll!
Up to four? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Up to four? (Score:2)
Actually, this doesn't surprise me at all. From MS's point of view, one license == one installation. Period. It doesn't matter how many users are using it, or how many pieces of hardware it's deployed on. Each installation requires a separate license. MS's WGA program only makes this more explicit, since you need a unique activation code (and thus licens
Re:Up to four? (Score:2)
Re:Up to four? (Score:2)
I'm also annoyed by the fact that they are tied to a single device: it seems that because of this you aren't allowed to use the feature of some virtualisation systems that lets you take a virtual machine running on one PC and move it another.
So does this mean... (Score:2, Interesting)
Four times (Score:4, Funny)
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?
hmm wake me up... (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
How generous of Microsoft! (Score:2)
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.
Re:How generous of Microsoft! (Score:2)
No, but installing multiple instances on your hard disc might be.
What a load of crap.
Probably true.
Re:How generous of Microsoft! (Score:2)
You missed the point, being that in order to legitimately issue licenses for the performance of certain actions, you must necessarily have, in law, a general prohibition of the performance of those actions by unlicensed parties, and you must have been granted the authority to issue licenses.
Microsoft is selling "licenses" under the false pretense that those actions are otherwise prohibited by law.
that's a fast response .. (Score:2)
One might wish their security department would roll as fast as their customer relations department do
Other possible reasons for VPC (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Other possible reasons for VPC (Score:2)
1. Anywhere but on Windows, you don't need a copy of another OS on your desktop to do tests.
2. If you want to run virtual servers, you do care about resource usage. Both the virtualization layer and the OS inside should be as light-weight as possible.
Is this what I want? (Score:2)
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 ke
Re:Is this what I want? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is this what I want? (Score:2)
VMware's site is terribly vague about the difference between the Server product and the Workstation product. About the only thing they say is Workstation has "more features", "advanced features", and "productivity enhancements" that the Server version doesn't.
Anyone know what's the difference really?
Re:Is this what I want? (Score:2)
Free as in Beer download. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
XEN? (Score:2)
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 wors
This seems redundant (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (Score:2)
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
Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (Score:2)
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
So tell me... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I don't get why this is so special? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:I don't get why this is so special? (Score:2)
Re:What?! (Score:2, Informative)
It's similar to the example of someone losing their dog and putting up signs offering a reward. If you were to find the dog and give it to them without knowing about the reward, the
Re:Two words (Score:2)
Re:Two words (Score:2)
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 depende
Re:[: == FreeBSD + VMware == :] (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:[: == FreeBSD + VMware == :] (Score:2)
Re:Patches (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (Score:2)
Hold on... I thought Direct3D support was a system requirement to run Vista?
Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (Score:2)
Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (Score:2)
There is nothing stopp
Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (Score:2)
Today's Ars Techinica article [arstechnica.com] mentioned that their "head-to-head showdown" (from August 2004) [arstechnica.com] found Virtual PC 2004 "to be somewhat inferior to VMware (Workstation) at the time it was originally released." Note that Virtual P
Re:Why not individuals who buy Ultimate? (Score:2)
Re:All great, but... 100% CPU utilization (Score:2, Informative)
95% - idle
2% - Virtual PC.exe
2% - taskmgr.exe
1% - svchost.exe
Re:single user single device (Score:2)
The other issue with VPC is shown in this document, which covers developing and debugging under VPC:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/techinf o/debug.mspx [microsoft.com]
Its a pain to go through the wizards to create and clone VMs, and even when you've done so you still can't reliably use the cl
Re:single user single device (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mac version (Score:2)
Re:VMWare beta Microsoft at their own game... (Score:2)
Re:Why free? What's up? (Score:3, Informative)
Could someone explain to me why are VMWare and Microsoft rushing to give some of their virtualization products away free?
VMWare makes money selling really cool management suites for their virtualization technology. They figure if they give away the low-end stuff, then everyone will use it and those with money will buy their high-end stuff, which works with it. They are otherwise competing with several free, open-source implementations which would take over if they tried to charge for them.
MS does not li