Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

Microsoft's Next Virtual PC Will Run Linux 322

Fallen Kell writes "Contrary to previous reports, eWeek is reporting that Microsoft's new version of Virtual PC will support Linux as a virtual OS. I for one am very glad that MS did not strip out all the capability from this great product."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Next Virtual PC Will Run Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by Smork ( 711547 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:30AM (#7442558) Homepage
    ..for just $699 :)
  • by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:30AM (#7442559) Journal
    Two things...

    First, I've been using Virtual PC now for many years under both Mac and Windows and I have yet to come across an example of where Connectix went out of their way to support Linux. That Linux runs under Virtual PC is a testiment to the quality of Linux as an operating system and Virtual PC as a x386 emulator, but as far as I can tell, no special effort has been made to support Linux under VPC.

    Second, in my view it is likely that Redmond explored the possibility of hobbling Linux under VPC, but found that to do so would either a) entail a rewrite of significant portions of the code, or b) damage compatibility with Windows applications that currently run under VPC, so they decided that c) it just wasn't worth it. Why else wait this long to make this announcement?

    When my current copy of Virtual PC on Windows becomes antiquated for whatever reason, I will replace it with VMWare [vmware.com]. Hopefully, this will happen at the same time I go AMD64, and I will switch from running Windows as my host OS to running Linux.

    Virtual PC on Macintosh has already become antiquated for my purposes, and I have solved that by ceasing to use the Macintosh for everything save development.
    • Huh?
      I've never run the Mac version, as I hate Macs, the last Apple I touched was a Lisa...
      But the Win version is fantastic; no PCI problems, runs Slackware, Mandrake, BSD no problems what so ever.
      And better yet, OS/2, All versions of Dos, I've yet to come across anything it won't run that I'd be interested in running.
      VMware is great on Linux, but the Win version I've never had anything but problems out of.
      I've never tried running Mandrake on Vpc in Win2k, then VMware in Vpc Mandrake.. I'll try that the next
  • by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:31AM (#7442564) Journal
    So, if MS are happy to let one of their high-priority risks/competitors onto their new product, what's the reason. I somehow doubt it's good-nature :-)

    They don't want to antagonise any judicial review of their current "settlement" ?

    They simply don't care, figuring that the cost of preventing "those damned hackers" from (ab)using it is higher than simply selling it ?

    They've accepted that Linux will not go away, and are making plans to adapt the 'embrace and extend' policy as best they can ?

    Hmmm....

    Simon.
  • by dlb ( 17444 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:35AM (#7442579)
    "Virtual PC will support Linux" as in you can load a supported linux distribution on Virtual PC....for now.

    You still have to be running Windows or MacOS to use Virtual PC.

    ~dlb
  • by SynKKnyS ( 534257 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:35AM (#7442582)
    Linux version 2.4.22 (root@macuser.org) (gcc version 3.2.1) #2 Mon Nov 02 00:08:59 EST 2003
    BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
    BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 00000000000a0000 (usable)
    BIOS-e820: 00000000000f0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
    BIOS-e820: 0000000000100000 - 000000000fff0000 (usable)
    BIOS-e820: 000000000fff0000 - 000000000fff3000 (ACPI NVS)
    BIOS-e820: 000000000fff3000 - 0000000010000000 (ACPI data)
    BIOS-e820: 00000000ffff0000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
    255MB LOWMEM available.
    On node 0 totalpages: 65520
    zone(0): 4096 pages.
    zone(1): 61424 pages.
    zone(2): 0 pages.
    Kernel command line: auto BOOT_IMAGE=linux ro root=306
    Did not detect DRM license
    Kernel Panic
    • Linux version 2.4.22 (root@macuser.org) (gcc version 3.2.1) #2 Mon Nov 02 00:08:59 EST 2003

      Note that 2.4.x series kernels are supposed to be built with gcc 2.95.x. The new 2.6.0 kernels have gcc 3.x as the "official" compiler for the x86 architecture.

  • by a.koepke ( 688359 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:35AM (#7442583)
    The technology will run almost any x86 operating system in a Virtual PC environment, Huffman stressed. "So Linux can be installed on a virtual machine on Virtual PC. There has been some misunderstanding about this: You absolutely can run Linux in Virtual PC," she said.

    The Virtual PC software can run Linux as it can run any other OS that works under the x86 systems. This does not mean Microsoft supports people running Linux. They even state this later on in the article

    "We don't support Linux, and we also don't support third-party applications. We direct customers to their Linux providers if they have an issue running Linux on Virtual PC, and if that Linux provider triages that issue as a Virtual PC bug and submits a bug report, we'll work with them to fix the problem. We're treating them like we treat third-party applications," she said.

    As it says... they do NOT support Linux but are not going to do anything to block Linux from running under it. Allowing it to run is not the same as supporting it.
    • As it says... they do NOT support Linux but are not going to do anything to block Linux from running under it.

      That isn't quite right. The Microsoft spokeswoman said:

      But Microsoft has optimized the product around key customer needs, which is helping them address application compatibility issues they are having with older, custom-written applications when they are buying new PCs and upgrading to newer operating systems, she said.

      Translation: we're going to optimise it to run what we want it to run, if

  • by thona ( 556334 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:36AM (#7442586) Homepage
    ...expecially the ones from eweek.

    MS has dropped SUPPORT for Linux. VirtualPc could always run linux, but until now (from conectix) ths was official. Means: you could call connectix and ask for help when your linux started to misbehave.

    MS is now dropping SUPPORT for Linux. Means: you CAN run Linux, as this basically is a i386 emulator, but if you run into trouble, don't call Microsoft. Also, dont expect MS to provide the nice (and necessary) accelerated graphics drivers that emulators normally come with. Ms will only support Windows.

    THis is all MS ever said - actually they pretty directly said Linux will run all the time.

    But then, you really had to read to understand this. And eweek seems to have lost this ability.
    • REALLY tired.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by michaelhood ( 667393 )
      of people generalizing americans. Just because the editors at eWeek are incompetent, doesn't mean I don't read. This is like saying that your poor grammar ("american's"?), is a good indication that Brits don't brush their teeth.

      Burn karma, burn.
    • Look, Slashdot is corporate-owned and has an agenda. This is just a simple fact. Look at the proportion of Microsoft to Linux articles that appear on the front page these days (particularly in the last few months...it's a constant barrage).

      Slashdot needs these "M$" bashing articles to generate page hits and comments. It doesn't matter if Microsoft never said they were dropping emulation support but simply technical support. Slashdotters don't care, and won't read the article to figure that out. They'l
  • Kernel oops. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by valentyn ( 248783 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:38AM (#7442592) Homepage
    Windows XP supports Java
    Explorer supports style sheets
    Windows 3.11 supported DR-DOS
    Office supports XML
    Windows Media Player supports MP3

    Now Virtual PC will support Linux. That just means Microsoft hates Linux as much as they hate Java, style sheets, DR-DOS, XML and MP3, thinks Linux a danger for their business model (which it is!) and will try to destroy it. (Which of course we knew already).
    • Or, it just means they didn't feel like stripping things out of their i386 emulator for no reason.

      Your post doesn't even make sense. Office supports XML--is that supposed to mean Microsoft hates XML? Is that why Office 2003 (and Longhorn) is centered around it?

      Why would Microsoft even hate MP3s?

      But, I guess logic and calm rationality wouldn't jive with the "M$ conspiracy" themes in your head, would it?
  • Nothing changes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tychay ( 641178 )

    SlashDot claimed that the next VirtualPC has removed Linux and *BSDs from the list of "supported OS" and this spokesman quoted on eWeek claims that you can still run Linux and *BSDs on Virtual PC though it is treated as another application (read: it's still unsupported).

    Doesn't look like anything has changed to me. As long as the reference hardware that VirtualPC emulates is relatively sane, I'd think that you can that VirtualPC will still run Linux and the *BSDs. However it begs the question if VPC will s

  • by Freidenker ( 722292 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:40AM (#7442604)
    With everything history has told us (DrDos etc...),
    who can really believe it will run any non Windows Operating System without any personalized Glitches.,
    introduced by "pure hasard"...
    Regards,
    • To be fair, it's going to be really, really, really hard to introduce "personalized glitches" into the software just for Linux, because "Linux" isn't a single kernel the way DRDOS 9 (or whichever it was) was.

      My kernel is almost certainly unique in the world on a binary level. Moreover, if Microsoft does try to glitch the emulator, whatever is hanging up the emulator can probably be patched around. Linux is a moving target, unlike proprietary binaries based on multi-year release cycles. Conspiracy theories
  • to vmware - we were about to get a couple of copies fo vmware for the office, but VirtualPC is obviously a lot cheaper.

    Are we going to be missing a great deal?

    • by croddy ( 659025 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @06:08AM (#7442681)
      VMWare is an unbelievably outstanding product. a couple of the labs here on campus run it on top of RH7 for MS Access (cringe), while the machines continue running their Linux-based neural modeling software without interruption. my personal experience with it has been that it's a rock-solid, very efficient way to run multiple OS'es on a single hardware box.

      deploy an installation image to multiple 'machines'... install from ISO images on HD... bridged, NAT'ed, even local-only networking... hell, it emulates sound hardware! I know a guy that even got a Longhorn beta running on VMWare ;-)

      ...and while MS's VPC Server product isn't yet available, VMWare's GSX Server product is available right now. VMWare's stuff is *well* worth the price of entry.

      • a couple of the labs here on campus run it on top of RH7 for MS Access (cringe)

        There seems to be a glaring lack of an Access-like product for linux. Even FileMaker-like would suffice. Has anybody seen one? I mean a real one, not pg-access (a nice effort, but not an Access replacement). Are there any projects with traction, even if it's like gnumeric was several years ago?
    • VMware RUNS on linux, BSD etc , never mind just having them as guest OSs. Virtual PC is a windows only app which is probably why its a lot
      cheaper , anod now its MS owned you can guarunteed that future versions will have virtual hardware tweaks that are Windows specific which
      IMO means it should be avoided like the plaque.
  • Question... (Score:5, Funny)

    by shplatt ( 545662 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:52AM (#7442637)
    Now, can you run multiple Vitual PC Linuxes in a Beo... Oh. Crap. Nevermind.
  • Strange how although they explicity mention that Linux will run, we still don't have any solid confirmation coming from the mouth of the overseer that BSD, Netware or Solaris will work.

    I don't think -
    "will run almost any x86 operating system in a Virtual PC environment"
    Makes the cut. I was more hoping for a -
    "You absolutely can run [{Linux, Solaris, BSD, Netware}] in Virtual PC"
    Statement.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @05:58AM (#7442653)
    iTunes for Windows...
    popup blocking in XP
    Linux on MS VPC!

    yep.. it's a cold day in hell
  • by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@ y a h o o.com> on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @06:05AM (#7442677) Homepage Journal
    Don't 'upgrade'(accepted term) past 6.0.1 - I think that is the last version before MS took over, and changed the title to "Microsoft Virtual PC: It's not Done till Lotus Notes and Wordperfect and Linux and Falcon's Eye and Netscape and AOL and BeOS and Mr. Do and Office Don't Ruu..and...OFFICE!?! This time We've gone TOOO FAR!!"

    MS's 'bug fixes' are like feeding an food poisoning victim more tainted meat.

  • *yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davmoo ( 63521 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @06:10AM (#7442684)
    Microsoft isn't doing anyone any favors here, or tossing us a carrot.

    The job of Virtual PC is to emulate a x86 environment. The job of the most common version of Linux is to run on a x86 environment. Doing anything that would willfully prevent Linux from running would most likely also break a hell of a lot of other applications that Microsoft loves.

    About the only way Microsoft could stop Virtual PC from running Linux (or any other OS for that matter) without breaking other apps would be to put code in that explicity looks to see if its Linux you're installing, and if so Blue Screen. Even Microsoft isn't going to be that openly blatant.

    For me personally, this doesn't really matter. I'm sticking with VMware, and I don't much give a damn what Microsoft does with Virtual PC. VMware ain't broke, so I ain't fixing it :-)
    • Re:*yawn* (Score:2, Informative)

      by DragoonAK ( 17095 )
      I think you mean, they won't be that blatant again. Anybody else remember their tricks with Windows 3.0 and DR-DOS [wikipedia.org]?
      • Yeah, I remember that one first-hand. Pissed me off royally, too. It was obviously deliberately designed to harm sales of DR's much superior product.

        The most infuriating part was that these dirty tricks were so overwhelmingly successful. The phony error message in Win3.0 reinforced in a lot of people's minds the misconception that DR was a johny-come-lately with a cheap knock-off product. Then came the broken compatibility in Win3.1, which damaged DR immensely. It prompted many DR-DOS users to purchase M
    • Re:*yawn* (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AVee ( 557523 )
      I'm sticking with VMware, and I don't much give a damn what Microsoft does with Virtual PC. VMware ain't broke, so I ain't fixing it :-)

      You forgot the must important advantage of VMWare, it not only runs linux, but it also runs on linux.
    • Actually there is a lot they could to break it, starting simply from not fixing bugs that only affect Linux, through to emulating hardware that Linux traditionally has a problem supporting. Think winmodems and the like. It could be rationally argued that a virtual machine shouldn't emulate actual hardware but implement thin custom drivers that handle calls natively on the other side of the emulation. This would allow for tighter integration with the guest OS.

      For example, VPC traditionally emulates an S3 g

  • What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Talez ( 468021 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @06:22AM (#7442712)
    2 weeks ago: "we do not support the Linux platform but you can try and run it"

    This was defined as: "MICROSOFT IS RIPPING LINUX OUT OF VIRTUAL PC!"

    Today: "we do not support the Linux platform but you can try and run it" which is now being defined as "YOU CAN STILL RUN LINUX!"

    Can someone explain this to me because I am totally confused.
    • Re:What the hell? (Score:3, Informative)

      by RevMike ( 632002 )

      2 weeks ago: "we do not support the Linux platform but you can try and run it"

      This was defined as: "MICROSOFT IS RIPPING LINUX OUT OF VIRTUAL PC!"

      Today: "we do not support the Linux platform but you can try and run it" which is now being defined as "YOU CAN STILL RUN LINUX!"

      Can someone explain this to me because I am totally confused.

      Easy!

      1. Two Weeks Ago in Redmond: We've removed Linux from the list of officially supported applications.
      2. Two Weeks Ago on Slashdot: The sky is falling!
      3. Yesterday in
    • ...welcome to ./
    • Re:What the hell? (Score:3, Informative)

      by antiMStroll ( 664213 )
      Easy, this statement:

      This was defined as: "MICROSOFT IS RIPPING LINUX OUT OF VIRTUAL PC!"

      is incorrect. The original poster jumped to that conclusion because MS hid the Linux option of a product with once excellent support under 'Other'. Posters - both pro-MS and anti-MS - quickly pointed this out and the discussion revolved around whether this constituted a drop or reduction in support. Nothing in today's announcement changes that. You preconceptions confuse you, go back and read the old posts.

  • Check it out http://www.overclocked.org/OCspare.htm
  • by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @06:31AM (#7442748)
    I think it was primarily for XBOX2. As everyone knows XBOX 2 will not use an intel chip. One generation backward compatability is quite important. Buying Virtual PC gave them the opertortunity to go with a non intel chip and the purchased a company least venders uped the price for a licence once MS was commited.

    Secondly it gives them some technology to integrate into windows to gaurantee backward compatability yet allow them to change or remove certain things. They can stop adding support for Win9x and instead just use a virtual session. I wouldn't be surprised if some future version of windows took the technology to it's core such that windows is by default virtual. It would also allow them to support windows on all sorts of other platforms without needing to redesign it's kernel. They might even design a virtual hardware platform specificly expecting emulation and compile windows for it.

    I would expect them to play with all these things in lab but who knows if they get released.
  • I'd like to see more work done on QEMU and BOCHS two x86 emulators. QEMU needs more porting work (Alas, it does not work on my beloved OS X yet...), and BOCHS is fairly slow.

    QEMU [nongnu.org] BOCHS [sourceforge.net]

    However, I think QEMU could compete head on with Virtual PC within a year if it gets additional porting effort.

  • Microsoft is doing this in what many know of MSs act of embrase and extend.

    Sure MS cannot own Linux, but it can add its functionality to their own and persent a combination that Linux alone cannot present.

    What MS is doing with longhorn and pursuing .net patents is most certainly consistant with this.

    Consider SCO as an associate with MS, where SCO is exploring the possibilities for MS to use, no matter how insane a possibility might seem doing such is looking for teh boundries of the GPL....in MSs effort
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @06:36AM (#7442765)
    Now we can have access to that multitude of Linux applications for not more than the price of VirtualPC and MSWindows, and get the legendary stability and resilience of MSWindows, to boot. And boot, and boot, and boot.
  • by burdicda ( 145830 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @06:49AM (#7442802)
    Running Linux on top of windows...
    isn't that like wearing a raincoat so you don't get wet while riding in a boat with a hole in the bottom
    of it...hehe

    • isn't that like wearing a raincoat so you don't get wet while riding in a boat with a hole in the bottom of it...hehe

      Or wearing a rubber while your boyfriend slams you in the ass without one?

      Sorry, I saw "wearing a raincoat" and had to come up with a useless way to use a condom.

  • whats so bad about that? First of all, you will still have the capability to run linux if you install it "manually", so they don't actually drop the OS support, but they drop the "preset" configuration. so, even if you can't choose linux as an installable system, you can still install it while using a "generic" (or custom or whatever) setting. On the other hand VPC isn't the only pc emulator, i personally use VMWare that emulates a windows2000 when i acutally have a linux box.
  • If we all just stoped complaining about useless stuff, we could stop spreading FUD and these guys at eWeek could actually write about real problems.

    You do all realize that even if Linux didn't show up in the menu it is still supported. You just choose Other and set your memory allocation. I don't understand what the big deal is and why everybody can't really understand that those OS's listed are just templates not supported OS's. You would think a technical bunch like /. would really understand that an
  • The virtual machine is a virtual hardware architecture and will not be exactly the same as real hardware. There are likely to be architecture enhancements unique to the virtual architecture that allow more efficiency than would otherwise occur in an emulated machine. In the mainframe world they used to be called virtual machine assists. Guess who is more likely to know about these enhancements and who is not?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @06:55AM (#7442817)
    this is not news. it always could run linux. the story is implying in some way the product has been prevously crippled not to. this is not the case
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The connectix price included a license of Windows for the $200+ price. You could buy the $99 one with a DOS license (at least, for the mac), but it was still the same product and allowed you to install (any number of) your own OSs.
    Unless you do get a license of Windows thrown in (which I doubt), then it isn't an undercut but a price hike.
    Anthony
  • I realize there are a few applications that run on x86 Linux and not Linux for PPC for whatever complicated compilations reasons, but can anyone list me some of those applications? I've never heard anyone complain about Yellow Dog Linux [yellowdoglinux.com] (what you'd probably run on PPC hardware). The US Navy didn't seem to have any qualms about YDL [theregister.co.uk].

    While you're listing apps, make sure you tell me why you'd rather run them on PPC hardware inside of a $100+ x86 emulator instead of on $300 of true x86 hardware with performan
  • When it was theorised that MS wouldn't let you install Linux on VirtualPC, everyone shouted that it's a conspiracy and MS are evil.

    Now that they're supporting it... guess what, it's a conspiracy and they're evil!

    Some people are hard to please ;)
  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @08:04AM (#7443015)
    There is nothing to lose by supporting Linux as a guest OS - Microsoft sell more copies of Virtual PC, they harm VMWare, and at the day you have to be running XP or OS X anyway to use it anyway.


    But don't hold your breath expecting to ever see it run on Linux.


    The bigger story here is the vaunted price cuts for this software. I'm sure they're not trying to drive VMWare out of business or anything. No indeed.

  • "We have not heard negative feedback from those testers that the product wasn't sufficient for their needs,"

    That is one of Microsofts biggest problems is with their beta testers. Most of the time they require people to pay for the privilege to become Beta Testers. Next all the Microsoft Beta testers I have seen just do it so they have all the "1337" Technology in their hands first. But when there is a bug they don't bother reporting it and the figure that someone else will. Microsoft should find better
  • by baudtender ( 80377 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @08:15AM (#7443096)
    Don't gloss over this part of the article:

    "Asked whether Microsoft is considering integrating the virtual technology into the core Windows kernel, Huffman skirted the issue, saying Microsoft is committed to developing virtualization solutions for the Windows platform. "It's too early to say how we will deliver these solutions going forward," Huffman said."

    Consider two different "embrace and extend" compatible strategies: A) add a virtualized sandbox for Linux/BSD/etc. or B) add a Linux compatibility layer to the Windows XP/2000 kernel.

    Strategy A also provides them with some added benefits - it solves a whole bunch of security embarassments in one fell swoop and re-opens some markets that are currently starting to close down on them. They could also argue that the virtualization is generic, and therefore they are not directly competing in the Unix market ("we treat Linux as any other third-party app.")

    Strategy B boils down to a pissing-match over kernels - I still lock up XP on a several-times-a-week basis, but if they _could_ get a stable and secure kernel (yeah, I know, not holding my breath either), they could effectively co-opt everything in the OSS world for their own benefit without having to worry about "viral" licenses, while still providing a platform for their own proprietary software product line. Of course, they would have to get out of (if they haven't already - did SCO really inherit the Xenix contract?) that pesky committment not to compete in the Unix market.

    The best attack for Windows to embrace and extend Linux is to first confuse the two and assimilate what people think of as "Linux" into Windows (or...shudder...vice-versa.)

    Projects like WINE have us thinking in one direction - what if Microsoft were to pull the same trick going the other direction? If they can't sell a Microsoft-branded web server, at least they can sell the operating system that you run Apache on top of.

    Strategy C scares me the most: Microsoft would have to decide how important their kernel is to their OS sales - THEY could just as easily create a 100% working WINE and sell the Windows "Look & Feel" running on top of Linux or BSD kernel just as MacOS did (except under x86), and re-brand it as a security-solution with cross-platform compatibility benefits (that will cost just about the same price as their own-kerneled OS's, methinks.) You can see how they are pissed-off at the GPL - that's how they get around it and get the open-source volunteers working for them.

    I have to hurry and finish this because the Microsoft Death-Beam satellite is due over my home in just a few moments, and I'm running low on tin-foil and........gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
  • Virtual PC used to come in different flavors.
    The virtual PC program was the same, but you could buy it with PCDOS (IBMs DOS), Windows or Linux. I had a copy with PC DOS and installed Suse linux on it. Worked great. Obviously the windows version cost more

    Im betting no more PCDOS and Linux virtual PC. You'll have to buy the emulator with windows (Much like you can't buy a naked PC).

    Sigh

    Although with OSX there is less need for running emulated linux, and there are Linux distributions for mac hardware now.
  • by jd ( 1658 )
    Microsoft updates report saying Linux will run under Virtual PC. Support will integrate Microsoft's patented BSOD Generator, causing Linux to blue-screen for no apparent reason, suffer memory errors at random, and include Clippy in all Linux *Office applications.
  • What they're not saying is that it's the new "Microsoft L++", which doesn't run any applications except The Gimp. Especially not Apache, no sir.
  • by dheltzel ( 558802 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @09:20AM (#7443508)
    It will combine all this in a single server:
    - the speed of an emulated 386
    - the uptime and reliability of the Windows host OS
    - the security model common to all Microsoft products

    How can they lose?
  • by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @09:23AM (#7443524)
    Contrary to previous reports, eWeek is reporting that Microsoft's new version of Virtual PC will support Linux as a virtual OS.

    Is the OS of a virtual machine really virtual? If so, how far does the virtuality extend? Do I virtually type on my virtual machine running a virtual copy of Linux? Am I virtually coding virtual thoughts when I virtually type on my virtual Linux while it runs on the virtual machine?

  • Since X-BOX-2 runs on the new Power CPU from IBM (juiced up version of the one in the new MAC) they needed the ablilty to run older XBOX and PC software in emulation. That's why they bought VirtualPC. They don't care about the linux aspect at this point in time.
  • It's a conflict of interest for Microsoft to offer both an operating system product and a product for running competing operating systems virtually.

    Anyone that buys Virtual PC to run anything other than Windows is asking for grief. In fact, with the end-of-life dates for most older versions of Windows, expecting any support from Microsoft for anything other than XP on Virtual PC is a stretch.
  • MS Supports a lot of things. But often things that are compatible with compeditors tend to be slow and buggy... as if to entice you to not use them.

"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...