Microsoft Providing Virtual Server Free 401
liliafan writes "In an effort to gain a market majority over VMware Microsoft announced it is giving Virtual Server away for free, additionally they will provide customer support for Linux. In a related move VMware have opened their partition file format to the community, aggressive and suprising moves in the virtualisation market."
Really, now... (Score:5, Funny)
In related news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My question (Score:3, Insightful)
an Indian giving away steel cheap. It would be (and is) considered illegal
dumping. So whay not for software?
Re:Really, now... (Score:2)
The other relevent quip... (Score:3, Funny)
This is a good move for the consumer (hopefully) (Score:5, Interesting)
What is surprising is Microsoft lagging behind VMWare big time when it comes to server virtualization. When I spoke to a VMWare sales rep, he said the money comes from ESX (which costs $3750 a pop), not GSX or the workstation products. People buy ESX because they want the following (I know this because the company I work for evaluated the different VM products):
-Faster VM performance
-Support (anyone that works in a datacenter will tell you that support is always necessary)
-Features (virtual center, virtual SMP, vmotion)
No other product stands up to ESX when it comes to the datacenter environment, and thats the market Microsoft needs to go after. The midrange virtualization products like GSX or virtual server are used for developer testing or in QA, but not for running production services (at least not in the big environments). This move by Microsoft won't make much of a dent in VMWare's share (at least where the money is) so its not a huge step.
I love ESX, and one thing that I hope will make ESX better is Microsoft putting pressure on VMWare to not get too comfy and to constantly innovate because the company's future depends on it. I just hope it doesn't have the same outcome as IE vs NS.
Re:This is a good move for the consumer (hopefully (Score:3, Insightful)
The new VS2005 R2 has some very interesting features such as iSCSI and 64 bit support. VMware can start making rapid updates to Server to compete and roll up the good stuffs
Re:This is a good move for the consumer (hopefully (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is a good move for the consumer (hopefully (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Really, now... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Really, now... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Really, now... (Score:3, Funny)
wow, more echoes from the past (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I'm missing something here, this action on Microsoft's part is reminiscent of their "response" to Netscape when Microsoft finally recognized they had fallen way behind in an important market.
And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition.
And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.
(As an aside, interestingly enough, I was surprised to find Microsoft's virtual server technology STILL does not offer hypervisor services... to give some perspective as to how far behind that puts them in "getting it", I worked on virtualized VM boxes on IBM 360 mainframes in school back in the mid-70s! These systems were implemented with hypervisor. Wow!)
(Caveat: For those of you with home systems with XP Home Edition, this virtual server doesn't come free -- you'll need to flip for the $100 XP Professional upgrade.)
(Caveat II: I don't always completely trust stories from the Register as I find them a little over-the-top in their anti-Microsoft rhetoric. However I was able to verify the Microsoft Virtual Server IS available for free download.)
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:5, Informative)
You're mistaken. That's not how anti-trust law (in the US works). The question is whether consumers are harmed, not competitors. You can make a case that killing VMWare would be bad for consumers in the long run, but that'd be difficult to show today.
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:5, Insightful)
VMWare has recently started giving away some valuable products too (Player and Server), which perhaps clouds the issue. But the fact is, VMWare has to make money on their virtualization software, and Microsoft does not. They can use the Windows tax to subsidize virtualization for as long as need be to ensure that, eventually, Windows is the only "choice."
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:5, Insightful)
And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition.
And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.
I thought so too, but it also seems that VMWare started the price war when they started giving away VMWare Player. Microsoft may be able to fairly say that they are just reacting to pricing in the market,
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought so too, but it also seems that VMWare started the price war when they started giving away VMWare Player.
Which arguably they wouldn't do in a competitive operating system market.
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:5, Informative)
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt that legit VMware reps would have made a claim otherwise, but if so, they either misspoke or were given incorrect information.
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:2)
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, most F/OSS software is given away for free, should that be illegal too? To answer my own question: of course not! The situation is quite different. However, I'm willing to bet the situations arising from Microsoft's "free" offerings and the "Free" Software movement look the same in the minds of certain lawmakers/enforcers (and if this were true, this would not be a Good Thing).
Let's hope we keep our freedom to give things away for free!
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the "supporting Linux" part that gives me the giggles. Believe anything out of a Microsoft mouth on the subject of Linux? The giggles are getting uncontrollable.
They may not be in trouble, but they're definitely having to do things they'd very much rather not do.
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:2, Informative)
It wouldn't be virtualization if it didn't have hypervisor services. Maybe you're talking about hardware virtualization, which was just added by Intel, so
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:4, Insightful)
What's great about this announcement is that MS paid lots of money for virtual server and now they are forced to not only give it away for free but also provide support for it. That's millions of dollars down the drain for MS, money that could have gone to research, lobbying, advertising, PR, or even given back to the shareholders. Money down the drain, bad for MS, good for the rest of the world.
Is all this legal? Well probably. To be honest in a very real sense it's dumping. No company without a monopoly and monopoly profits could have afforded to spend that kind of money on virtual server and then give it away AND support it. The only reason MS can do it is because they have two established monopolies and they can use the obcene profits they make from their monopolies to fund money losing schemes like this (and virtually every other piece of software they hawk). In a pure market economy this could not work.
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:3)
With IE the goal was to kill netscape by giving away everything netscape sells. Not the shoe is on the other foot. It's not an investment because XEN is giving away they something they planned to sell.
"What is a million dallars to MS?"
Nothing of course. They have the luxury of having two monopolies and they can dump products on the market using their monopoly pr
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like someone slept through Microsoft Hating 101...
IE was
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's more of an act out of desperation. VMWare started this was a few months back by releasing one of their server products for free. Arguably VMWare is the monopoly -- Microsoft is nowhere near the company in terms of marketing penetration or mindshare.
"And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition."
Microsoft's monopoly is with Windows, which is installed on 90%+ of the world's machines. What got them in trouble in the browser wars (and again with media players) wasn't the fact they were giving software away but they bundling it with Windows.
Microsoft isn't bundling Virtual Server with Windows. In fact, it would make little sense, as very few Windows users would have a need for this software. If any when they release it with Longhorn Server (which is their plan) then it could be seen as unfair competition.
"And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal."
You're mistaken. Again, dumping software doesn't get these companies in trouble -- bundling it does. If you applied your logic to every company, Apple should be in trouble for iTunes, Sun for Java and Macromedia for Flash.
"(As an aside, interestingly enough, I was surprised to find Microsoft's virtual server technology STILL does not offer hypervisor services... to give some perspective as to how far behind that puts them in "getting it", I worked on virtualized VM boxes on IBM 360 mainframes in school back in the mid-70s! These systems were implemented with hypervisor. Wow!)"
At this point "hypervisor" is a more a marketing term than anything. You don't need a hypervisor to have a successful VM. 360 mainframes were able to do it because their CPUs were designed to. The x86 architecture hasn't lent itself very well to hypervisors, which is why most companies that do VMs (including VMWare) don't use one on the platform. Intel is finally releasing a desktop chip that will support virtualization. Don't blame the software companies for lackluster hardware support.
"(Caveat: For those of you with home systems with XP Home Edition, this virtual server doesn't come free -- you'll need to flip for the $100 XP Professional upgrade.)"
Considering it's called "Virtual Server", why would anyone running Home edition try to use it? It's clear that the product is intended for administrators and developers, hence the OS requirement.
"(Caveat II: I don't always completely trust stories from the Register as I find them a little over-the-top in their anti-Microsoft rhetoric. However I was able to verify the Microsoft Virtual Server IS available for free download.)"
Um, congrats? You're able to use Google. Very nice. Not sure why this statement should be considered a caveat.
This is just bogus. (Score:3, Informative)
I know, I know, we've all heard it before, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist... but for what? Bundling a free (as in beer) web browser with their OS qualifies as taking advantage of their monopoly?
People get upset every time Microsoft gives something away for free, always claiming it pushes other compa
Virtual Server is better than VMWare (Score:3, Informative)
a) Virtual Server is 64 on a 64 bit OS, if you want it, but VMWare was only available in 32 bit.
b) Virtual Server, running the application as VMWare, actually ran those apps 10% faster than did VMWare. Our application pegs the CPU for several hours, and so we felt that this was as good as test as any.
c) Virtual Server was easier t
Re:Virtual Server is better than VMWare (Score:3, Interesting)
a) Virtual Server is 64 on a 64 bit OS, if you want it, but VMWare was only available in 32 bit. ... but windows runs 32-bit code fine). The real test is running 64-bit guest OSes - who can give the application the advantage of 64 bits? Because it's the application that matters, not the OS.
64-bit OSes run 32-bit code just fine (well, except linux distros that screw up the 32-bit compatability layer
b) Virtual Server, running the application as VMWare, actually ran
Re:wow, more echoes from the past (Score:3, Funny)
I disagree. Vista is a monster of Godzilla proportions, and if they loosed that on the world, they could wreak some major damage.
MS has a lot to loose, and they have nothing to lose by doing it!
What kind of free? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing it isn't gonna be free as in Free.
Re:What kind of free? (Score:2)
Re:What kind of free? (Score:2)
Negativland did a really good song about freedom with hilariously sad quotes.
The strongest word is still the word "Free."
At 7-11 freedom's waiting for you.
Re:What kind of free? (Score:2)
Re:What kind of free? (Score:2)
Start Making Sense (Score:2)
Re:What kind of free? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if you don't run Linux on MS VS, what do you run? That's right, you run MS Windows. So now you have one big server running three copies of MS Server:
Number of CPUs: 2
MS Server 2k3 /w VS
/w MS SQL 2k
/w MS SQL 2k
1. MS Server 2k3
2. MS Server 2k3
3. MS Server 2k3
So, on 2 CPUs, you are running four copies of MS Serv
Re:What kind of free? (Score:3, Informative)
They're giving away [microsoft.com] the OS licenses too...
"Better virtualization value. Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition provides better value in server virtualization. Licensing policy changes now allow customers to run up to 4 virtual instances of Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition on one licensed physical server or hardware partition."
Re:What kind of free? (Score:3, Informative)
in related news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:in related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Upgrade to Windows Vista (Score:4, Funny)
And what will their standard answer be? "Upgrade to Windows Vista"?
I will now hold my breath... (Score:3, Funny)
OK, I changed my mind.
Re:I will now hold my breath... (Score:4, Funny)
VMWare == good (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft Virtualization is the key to the future (Score:5, Funny)
Same goes for CPU-based stuff, like Virtual-PC. They just don't run Windows properly. The thing is, since Microsoft has the only operating system out there that is largely, or even majority, undocumented, it makes sense for them to provide the virtualization software. That way they can make it work on their own undocumented platform, while using other platforms' APIs to permit easy access to Linux, OSX, etc.
This is a win-win-win for everyone!
Re:Microsoft Virtualization is the key to the futu (Score:3, Informative)
Also, remember, VM products aren't designed to run the latest and greatest games or something. They are designed to fill two niches, extremely secure testbeds for software where you want crashes to be easy
VPC != MS Virtual Server? (Score:2, Interesting)
Where is VirtualPC different in this? Virtual Server *is* VPC, MS bought Connectix and changed the name of the product... VPC is an virtualization environment where you install windows (and other OSs), so you need windows to install it, I don't see the difference.
If you say Microsoft's Virtual Server is con
VMware (Score:3, Interesting)
Just how compatible must the license be be (I imagine a BSD type is pushing it)? Also, do they mean GPL 2 or 3?
Bah... (Score:5, Informative)
And here is direct link to the Microsoft download [microsoft.com] page that requires registration.
Direct link to the 32bit version: here [microsoft.com]. (no reg required)
Direct link to the 64bit version: here [microsoft.com]. (no reg required)
Happy downloading.
Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most likely the "free" Virtual Server will require Windows 2003 Server which is very expensive. "free" VMWare Server is $0 running on GNU/Linux.
Re:Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. (Score:3, Informative)
Windows Server 2003
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1
Windows XP Professional Edition
Windows XP Service Pack 2
Re:Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Darn it (Score:2)
Stifling Innovation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Stifling Innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fox Supporting the Penguinhouse (Score:2)
Degraded Performance? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Degraded Performance? (Score:2)
But Im also talking about the workstation version. Even after beta its still worse performance then my 'paid' copy.
Re:Degraded Performance? (Score:2)
Fighting the last war (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember that when Xen was a research project at a university they had XP running in Xen because they had a source license for XP. However since said license didn't allow actually releasing anything derived from knowledge gained from that source they couldn't release the XP client drivers. Had Microsoft removed that restriction or, even better, provided Microsoft supported drivers Xen would likely crush VMWare in a few short years.
And don't forget AMD/Intel (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And don't forget AMD/Intel (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, there is no shortage of competitors, as far as companies that are trying to come up with tools. XenSource and Virtual Iron are two I can think of off the top of my head. Right now neither is positioning itself directly, head-to-head against ESX Server, because they know that's a hard road to climb. But eventually they'll have to. I have no doubt that Red Hat, and Novell especially, will be getting in on that action soon, too, given their support for Xen.
The next couple of years are going to be pretty interesting for the virtualization market.
Great news! Question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great news! Question... (Score:2)
Yes i know its free, and they have doen a LOT of good work on it, but its not yet to where i can realistically use it at the office.
VMware server is free too.. and better.. (Score:3, Insightful)
All the work I do; making VMs, API based automation, etc.. works great on a Linux or Windows host.
Why would you want to run VMs on only a Windows host when VMware gives you choice?
after the market research.... (Score:2, Insightful)
My submission about VMWare was rejected.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's a new product, still in beta... about equivalent to the GSX Server. They just released Beta 2 either today or yesterday. It's a _really_ good product. The current keys they're giving away expire, but they say the final version will also be free-as-in-beer.
Basically, it'll do everything Workstation will, plus it allows you to see the consoles of virtual machines that are on another computer. It also gives you a fairly rudimentary web-based control panel, wherein you can start, stop, or restart particular VMs. You can also set up user accounts, and restrict access to particular machines appropriately. It's not ISP-class, but it'd be damn useful for QA teams or suchlike.
Re:My submission about VMWare was rejected.... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/03/13
Damn I am defending
I LIKE PICKLES!
Re:My submission about VMWare was rejected.... (Score:2)
The reason is because Slashdot ran the story two months ago here [slashdot.org].
Re:My submission about VMWare was rejected.... (Score:2)
Anyway, it IS good software. Wish it were truly free, and I'm looking forward to what happens with Xen, but free-as-in-beer will do for now.
VMWare Forums not good example (Score:2)
http://www.vmware.com/community/ [vmware.com] or http://www.vmware.com/community/forum.jspa?forumID =219 [vmware.com]
These sites run like a dog, even though they presumably have access to all the latest high tech VMWare stuff, and the funds to support the highest performance forum software. Not very inspiring.
Nice timing (Score:2, Funny)
Let's Not Forget The Mac Community... (Score:2)
Re:Let's Not Forget The Mac Community... (Score:2, Interesting)
Multinationals institute a standard OS that sysadmins are stuck with, and you just can't justify changing OS's on anything unless it's critical for your business that you do it, and that's a tough sale indeed if any MS representative can go to the boss and s
now you can buy multiple windows licenses per box (Score:2)
Yup ... (Score:5, Funny)
Windows on Windows? (Score:2)
The register piece makes it look like you'll only be able to run other OSs. Being able to virtualize Windows could be a Good Thing.
The end of the world as we know it... (Score:2)
Same old Microsoft... (Score:2, Interesting)
But seriously, in a normal market with healthy competition among OS makers, Microsoft would leave VMware alone and be happy that they're doing so well, selling products that work with Windows. However, this is not a normal market and Microsoft is a monopolist by any definiti
...And its cheap at half that price! (Score:2)
So what's the underlying OS (Score:2)
Virtualization is the next commodity technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Not unexpected. MS is simply price matching VMWar (Score:3, Informative)
I'e been using QEMU which is GLP'd and does a few things neither of the above products do. However I have to admit that VMWare is slick. Good interface and easy to install.
Good thing (Score:3, Informative)
Virtual Servers and Vista (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest reason for all the bugs, compatibility issues, and bloat in Microsoft's operating systems is backwards compatibility. And I have to admit that they've done a commendable job, given the tens of thousands of Windows applications out there, each with multiple versions. Not a perfect job, but I have a few ten-year-old applications running, unrecompiled, on my XP box at home.
Microsoft wants Vista to be excellent, and to break new ground, but they are hobbled by binary compatibility issues with versions of Windows dating back to the 80386 -- and the 8086 in some cases. Instead of being excellent, Vista has been a nightmare. They can eliminate that nightmare, can dramatically reduce the size and complexity of Vista if they were just willing to jetison backwards binary compatibility. And with Virtual Server, they can do just that.
Imagine: Your company lives or dies by an application written by a long-gone vendor, that runs great under NT 3.1 but crashes everything written since. No problem! Boot up NT under a virtual server and run it there. Got a proprietary database that only runs on Solaris x86? Same answer. Your kid's favorite game originally written for Windows 95? Hell, a computer built in 2007 won't even notice Win95's footprint.
In fact, it probably makes sense for Microsoft to ship Vista with new versions of XP, NT, 95, Win3.1, DOS 5.0, and whatever else floats their boat, each recompiled with exactly one device driver for video, keyboard, mouse, disk, CD and network.
So everybody's legacy system problems are solved by Virtual Server. Meanwhile, Vista itself provides a fast, stable, flexible platform for new applications to be built on, and Microsoft has a maintainable operating system, completely unencumbered by their past mistakes, that they can improve on for years to come.
Xen??? (Score:2)
Microsoft has teamed with the developers of the open source Xen product to gang up on server slicing leader VMware.
OK guys, now I'm confused. WTF is going on here? Have the Xen people been bought my Microsoft?
Re:Xen??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Xen hasn't learned one of the prime lessons of history: partnering with Microsoft is merely the first step towards being put out of business by Microsoft.
Xen isnt eating MS at all.. (Score:2)
Now, perhaps they are afraid of QEMU ? Or is that what caused VMware to give away their low end products, and now MS is worried about VMware taking more market share?
Xen will run Windows soon (w/new CPUs) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Aggressive and surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's because the Virtualization market is heating up. And it's likely VMWare that's causing Microsoft to sweat, not Xen, or any F/OSS alternative.
You used to see this back in the day when local, and ma' and pa' shops roamed the earth. For instance, one bakery would have a monopoly in the area, when a new one would pop up, and start undercutting the other's prices. Then they'd retaliate, and you'd end up with a flying storm of lowering prices, until one of them were forced out of business.
At this point, the price would be rock bottom, and the winner, would gradually increase prices until they were making a good profit again, but generally it worked out well for the community that was shopping there.
Of course, the whole problem comes in that to startup a bakery you don't need billions of dollars and years of development to produce your product. Microsoft is now sitting in a practically unchallengable monopoly position. When monopolies hit this point, it's my opinion that controls should be leveraged to ensure that they're not gouging their captive audience.
Re:well... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This Move doesn't make any sense to me. (Score:2)
risky, risky, risky..... (Score:4, Interesting)
so i don't understand.
eric
Re:Goodbye VMWare (Score:4, Insightful)
If you've already got an infrastructure built in VMWare, how does it make sense to spend the labor leaving it for no good reason?
Re:Why on earth... (Score:4, Insightful)
Solution: if you can't get drivers for your hardware, use VMWare to abstract the Windows drivers to Linux. My wireless card looks like a regular 100mbps Ethernet card to Linux, which needless to say works great. With a decent processor and 2gigs of ram, I'm very, very happy with FC4 under VMWare at 1900x1600.
If there's one thing that Windows is unbeatable at, it's adapting proprietary drivers to Linux!
Re:Why on earth... (Score:3, Interesting)
Although this is only until I can talk him into a Mac, of course.