Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Next Round in the Virtualization Wars

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the in-this-corner dept.

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."

cancel ×

355 comments

What about XP? (3, Insightful)

akac (571059) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710554)

I guess its fine for Vista, but frankly if I'm running an OS in virtualization, I'd prefer one that uses fewer resources than Vista. XP is a hog, but a thin one by Vista's standard.

Re:What about XP? (1)

mehself (988590) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710596)

If you want thin go for a Longhorn Core install.

What about XP and others (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710856)

I agree with the sentiment, but it doesn't go far enough. From Microsoft's own website: Save time and money as Virtual PC allows you to maintain the compatibility of legacy and custom applications during migration to new operating systems and increases the efficiency of support, development, and training staffs. So they come out and say that this can be used to maintain conpatability with legacy programs. But how do I do that if I have a Vista system and want to install a copy of XP? Or even if I want to install a copy of Win98 or Win95 or Win3.1, no longer sold. The same question exists if I have an XP system and I want to install an XP virtual machine on it. In theory I've already paid to run XP on that system, but all of the phone-home technology, WGA and the rest, it would seem that there will be serious problems trying to run the OS's that we actually want to run and the OS's that would indeed let us maintain the compatibility of legacy and custom applications as claimed.

Old, old Microsoft stuff (2, Interesting)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710942)

Or even if I want to install a copy of Win98 or Win95 or Win3.1, no longer sold.
...funny thing about that. I still have DOS 6.22 and Win3.1 kicking around, so I put them on a partition on my new computer (as of last fall). DOS works, but Win3.1 will crash with a general protection fault unless I run it in DosBox. I have even older copies of Windows which don't work at all!

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 no guarantee they'd work even in emulation.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Microsoft VM didn't let you run anything older than Win2K, seeing as support for Win98 just ended...

Re:What about XP and others (3, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710995)

But how do I do that if I have a Vista system and want to install a copy of XP?

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 (1)

cowbutt (21077) | more than 7 years ago | (#15711012)

It remains to be seen if this is true in this case, but in general, Microsoft have allowed their Windows and Office licenses to be used instead for a single installation of any previous version at the customer's option.

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? (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710937)

"I guess its fine for Vista, but frankly if I'm running an OS in virtualization, I'd prefer one that uses fewer resources than Vista. XP is a hog, but a thin one by Vista's standard."

Sure. But what about in 2 years or so? Vista may be a hog, but every year more resources are available.

Anyone want to buy some VMware stock? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710562)

Cheap?

Still not worth getting it. (0, Redundant)

agentdunken (912306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710563)

People still wont use VP as much for the fact it only runs on 2000 and XP. No Linux/Unix/Mac support. Plus VMware just pwns all!

Re:Still not worth getting it. (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710661)

Nah. VPC has advantages. It's the only one that can run OS/2 4 Warp easily. It's got support from the software maker to emulate, so really the software should work 100% (I've never had a problem).

VMware can run Mac OS X x86 with very little done (10.4.3 with hacks works great). However, I find Parallels the best in performance for Windows & Linux. So far, it's the only one I found that can play XviD and DVD movies at full-speed or near, even at full-screen (not that its useful). The rest can do audio and such, but the audio emulated in VPC is an old Sound Blaster to run old MS-DOS games. The audio in VMware is another Creative. The most modern audio device emulated is with Parallels, an AC97-based card. Also, Parallels emulates a 6MB video card as opposed to 4MB in VPC and VMWare.

Yes, but... (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710566)

... does it run... aw, fuckitall.

            *head asplode*

A better question (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710615)

Yes, but a better question would be:

Does it run MacOS X_86? (or can be 'patched' to do so instead of buying MacBook-clone hardware)

Re:A better question (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710875)

Given that there isn't a legally released MacOS X86 for non Mac hardware, then virtualization licenses don't really apply. If you can install MacOS on your hardware, then I'm pretty sure you can install it via VMWare or a similiar option, but it won't be legal.

Re:A better question (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710966)

Well, I read the EULA (or whatever Apple called those) for 10.2, and there was nothing said there about the legality of running that OS on non-apple hardware. So I ran it on PowerPC emulator http://wiki.pearpc.net/index.php/PearPC_Tour [pearpc.net]

Did the Apple change their EULA so you cannot do that with 10.5_x86?

Yes, actually, it does (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710833)

By the looks of things, it does, in fact, support quite a wide range of *ix-based OS's...
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 they say does, it'l be more than usable.

I don't get why this is so special? (0, Offtopic)

jokersmild (854303) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710568)

Haven't people been doing this stuff wiht "wine" for years?

Re:I don't get why this is so special? (5, Informative)

thedbp (443047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710608)

Um, NO.

WINE uses reverse engineered Windows APIs to run Windows apps w/out running a copy of Windows and isn't compatible with a metric shit-ton of software.

Virtual PC runs a full copy of Windows in a sandboxed environment, great for servers to compartmentalize their various services or for Mac users to run a Windows-only app and is exactly like running Windows on an actual PC.

Don't you people know how to use Google?

Re:I don't get why this is so special? (0, Troll)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710855)

"or for Mac users to run a Windows-only app and is exactly like running Windows on an actual PC."

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloa ds/sp1.mspx [microsoft.com]

Microsoft Virtual PC 2004 Systems Requirements

Virtual PC 2004 SP1 runs on: Windows 2000 Professional SP4, Windows XP Professional or later, and Windows XP Tablet PC Edition or later.

I see no mention of a Mac operating system as a host.
personally I see no value in Virtual PC,

1) you need to run basically 2000 pro or XP pro (excludes 2003 server)
so you need a licience of an insecure OS that in the case of XP phones home everyday and apparently may or maynot decide to turn off with the genuine advantage program.

2)nice that the enterprise version (that would be the most expensive version of vista) now gives you four liciences for your virtual vista installs. however does that include cals to actually do any thing with this virtual os. as for resources surely vista as the most resource hungry os on x86 isnt going to be a good choice to run anything.

vmware on the otherhand runs on linux which is free and secure. The VM doesnt need admin rights to run.
you run what you want in the VM and you can choose a virtual os that isn't taking most of the resources just running the OS. The point of a Virtual OS isn't running an Os but an Application(s) in a Secure sandboxed environment.

vmware runs on windows too but why would you want to?

Re:I don't get why this is so special? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710890)

He's talking about virtualization in general, you pedantic assclown.

Re:I don't get why this is so special? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710683)

f u c k i n g _ m o r o n
BR stay out of slashdot

Re:I don't get why this is so special? (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710972)

Some people use wine to run windows software, but personally I whine anytime I have to run windows software.

Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710574)

I wish people stop calling Virtual PC for Windows, VirualPC. And also it is only VirtualPC for Windows that is FREE and not Virual PC for the Mac which is the important one. Yes Intel macs suck so what, Apple messed up by moving over to x86. Again Connext sold out, just like Bungie.

Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710591)

Sounds like your copy was free as in Kool-Aid.

Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (1)

thedbp (443047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710600)

'Sup troll, how's it going?

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 was a great business decision, and you can't fault a company for wanting to grow their business. Would Halo have been nearly as successful for the company if it had come out for Mac first, and not at all for XBox? Doubtful.

Oh, yeah, BTW ....

pnwed!

Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710676)

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.

Well, some people are a little touchy about endianness among other things. It can be a little frustrating when you extoll the virtues of the PPC in the mac compared to intels 'crap', then Apple switches and you're left with your foot in your mouth.

Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (4, Insightful)

thedbp (443047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710713)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The P4 designs SUCKED, and PPC was better. The Core designs from Intel are worlds better and wipe the mat with PPC.

Stupidly clinging to one position no matter what variables change is something that politicians do that makes me absolutely sick. For some reason, geeks have adopted this kind of cult like mentality too. Ignore changing circumstances and stick with your original position at all costs.

In every race, opponents change positions. Sometimes one opponent has the lead, sometimes another has the lead. In the case of tech, however, the race just keeps on going, and there will never be a 'winner' per se, just back and forth trade-offs in leadership.

Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710765)

The problem is that you are doing the same thing. The only thing that has changed is the processor in your scenario. The problem here is that a Pentium 4 is much closer in design to a Core than the PPC. The Core is not some new product, but rather an enhanced version of the Pentium III. It is still CISC based, although it does have a number of RISC based implementations, but so does every other Pentium since the Pentium II.

Apple has not been a performance leader since the G3 was on the market. The G3 was barely faster than a similarly configured Pentium II. With the advent of the Pentium III, Intel left the PowerPC in the dust (for most things).

Summary of Story: You are using a CISC based chip, which is okay because it is faster than the PPC. You, however, employee a strange form of cognitive dissonance in order to not believe you had been taken as a sucker over the last six or so odd years.

Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710869)

You are aware that the "core" has been around for years with the name Pentium-M, right? Nope, you were too busy stupidly clinging to your obsolete pocket-calculator G4 and your frying-pan G5, until Fuhrer Steve told you otherwise. Choadmonger.

Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (1)

linguae (763922) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710887)

It can be a little frustrating when you extoll the virtues of the PPC in the mac compared to intels 'crap', then Apple switches and you're left with your foot in your mouth.

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 really getting old. The Core Duo chips builds on the same technology as the Pentium M, which were designed for heat efficiency. And they are very great performers, too. x86 assembly may suck, but Intel knows how to build a processor.

My only worry about the Intel switch is the future of OS X. But that's something I'll save for another post.

Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (1)

nihaopaul (782885) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710690)

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.

just wanted to add to this, the intel macs are fast, but they are buggy with applications like photoshop, i guess this could be that it isn't a binary for intel yet but when it buggs it takes a whole rebuild to get it back stable again, the updates easlier this month fixed alot of this but its still wiggin. oh and the migration tool from ppc to intel brings with it some drawbacks... finder locked up hard with access errors for that user, seems the uid wasn't updated in the migration and a few incompatibilitys so it took the original machine and the new machine to bring over the information without using the 'migration' tool.

that said, i'm getting me a black macbook this year not the pro and building me a 4 proc workstation since working on a laptop isn't the same as a desktop, before i get flamed for that comment, i've used a sony vaio grt30p since when they first came out, its a great machine for power but its heavy the battery only lasts around an hour and i can't upgrade any part other than the ram, hdd, broken dvd+/-rw and battery, oh! best yet, i have a perminant tan on my left thigh from the heat, a patch 6x4 inches

So tell me... (1, Funny)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710610)

How much do houses cost on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams?

Sorry Mac Users (4, Informative)

thedbp (443047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710577)

the version of VPC that is freely available only runs on Windows.

Blarg!

Re:Sorry Mac Users (4, Insightful)

tb3 (313150) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710641)

Right, because there's competition for VPC on Windows, from VMWare and others. There's not much, other than Parallels, on the Mac side right now.

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 (5, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710963)

The problem is VMWare opened the door. They released free products (player and server). It's actually their move to try and drive MS out. MS doesn't have a product that competes with their high end server products. So they are hoping they can become ubiquitous as the VM technology in the low end market, so whenever anyone thinks VM, they think VMWare and buy the high end stuff (MS will have a high end virtualization solution at some point). MS now can claim, with 100% justification, that they are eimply pricing competitive with the market. A monopoly can't use preditory practises but they aren't reuired to screw you. There's no "If you are a monopoly you have to charge more than your compeition."

In any competition, you have to be careful what you do because it could invite reprisals. The same si true when it's a bigger player. If you decide something should be free, they have every right, regardless of position, to answer that with a similar free product.

Now they could get in trouble if they leveraged Windows to try and force their product. IF the virtual license applied to VPC only, that could get them in trouble as they are using their OS monopoly (which I find a funny term, given the Apple and Linux competition) to help their VM division. However since the license applies to their competitiors equally, it's not anti-competitive in the slightest.

Re:Sorry Mac Users (3, Insightful)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710647)

It would be nice if someone told the nitwits at Microsoft that there is a Mac Business Unit within the very same company - and that it also sells a product called Virtual PC - BEFORE announcing that "Virtual PC is now free".

Re:Sorry Mac Users (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710687)

Dude where the fuck have you been?

Virtual PC has been owned by Microsoft since 2003.

Re:Sorry Mac Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710743)

and where the fuck have you been? Virtual PC was owned by Connectix and sold more products for Macs for the decade prior.

Re:Sorry Mac Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710804)

what's your point?

Re:Sorry Mac Users (4, Interesting)

ditoa (952847) | more than 7 years ago | (#15711017)

In all fairness they never said "Virtual PC is free" they said "Virtual PC 2004 is free" as VPC2004 is Windows only one would hope they could work out only the Windows version is free. As soon as I saw the "2004" bit I realised this was a Windows only freebie. I wouldn't be surprised however if a) Microsoft buy Parallels, everyone talks about Apple doing it but seem blind to the fact MS already has a PPC emulation product and will most likely want to make an Intel based virtualization product, why start from scratch when you can buy a, small and therefore cheap, Russian company who has already done 100% of the work. They will then of course make Parallels free (the client application at least) and do a bundle of Parallels + a Windows license (perhaps even a preconfigured VM as it is possible) and then sell that, perhaps even as a deal with Apple so it comes preinstalled.

Re:Sorry Mac Users (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710774)

Why on earth would Mac users expect to get Virtual PC for free? Microsoft is not giving Virtual PC away here, they are bundling it with the O/S.

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 (2, Informative)

nathanh (1214) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710827)

That is a smart move and one that Linux distributions should take note of. Xen potentially has a lot to offer here.

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 (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710900)

Yup... this is "VPC: Don't Give A Sh*t About Edition".... As opposed to "VPC: You have a PPC Mac & Are Suborn & Desperate Edition".

Although, Suborn & Desperate Edition is transitioning to "VPC: Mac Don't Give A Sh*t About Edition"

single user single device (0)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710578)

ooohhh woooow I am impressed considering I am running what, 12 instances on one of my xen servers and thousands of users.

What is supported (5, Informative)

Nemith (114402) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710579)

Check out this link as to what will work on VPC and what won't. http://vpc.visualwin.com/ [visualwin.com]

Virtual PC 7 for Mac (1)

sasha328 (203458) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710580)

I scoured their pages, and it looks like VPC 2004 is the only "free" one made available.
VPC 7 for Mac does not appear to be free.

Any one know otherwise?

4 BSODs for the price of one... (4, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710584)

What a bargain!

And best of all... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710839)

they're a transparent glassy blue in Vista. :D

Two words (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710587)

Anti Trust. How the hell is this legal. It's Netscape, Real all over again, except this time it's VMware.

Re:Two words (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710770)

You mean the same VMware that have also today released one of their VM systems for free, too?

Re:Two words (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710976)

You mean the same VMware that have also today released one of their VM systems for free, too?

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 dependent on, just wants more share and kill the other one. In this case I don't really think Vmware should be that afraid though, since Vmware's products are still way superior than anything MS can show up in virtualization.

Re:Two words (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710866)

There's nothing illegal about giving something away. What on earth would make you think it would be?

Oh, just wonderfull (-1, Redundant)

argoff (142580) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710593)

4 blue screens of death for the price of one.

OSS is working (5, Insightful)

Dryanta (978861) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710612)

Microsoft is scared, this is the first time I can ever recall them becoming MORE lax on licensing schemes for a new OS. They're not just scared, they're terrified! This huge industry push to OSS and virtualization could be the end of Microsoft and the tech economy as we know it. Or, they could pull another halfway-decent suite out of their backsides and surprise us. Even if this is the climax of the market share crescendo... at least at the end of the day the poor IT guys stuck in Microsoft solutions will thank us all for it.

Re:OSS is working (1)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710722)

How could virtualization spell the end of Microsoft and the tech economy as we know it?

Re:OSS is working (1)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710748)

it's probably a way for MS to keep supporting all olders apps. let's rebuild Windows already.

Re:OSS is working (1)

SCdF (914795) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710758)

But... what does them releasing their VM software free have to do with OSS. Vmware did it, and they are following suit to keep up with the competition. I don't see the correlation.

Re:OSS is working (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710813)

What a powerful demonstration of exatly how disruptive open source is. As soon as Xen started picking up some steam and press VMware made their server free and now MS not only makes their virtual PC free they also forgo profits on four copies of vista enterprise.

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 vista costs about the same then they are also giving up 10 to 20 thousand dollars of profit for every install of virtualPC.

All that just to compete with Xen.

Amazing.

Re:OSS is working (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710886)

Wow. You guys are really full of your own self-importance.

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 (5, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710949)

All that just to compete with Xen.
No one cares about Xen. Microsoft made a copy of VPC free to drum up business for a product they just bought. VMWare made one of their products free to expand their market, they can even still make money with VMWare server by selling support for it, or when its users realize they need more and upgrade to ESX. Xen exists for some hobbyists.

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.

Might have made a difference... (4, Funny)

SFSouthpaw (797536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710627)

If VMWare didn't have a, IMHO, better solution.


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.

What?! (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710646)

Do all the people who paid for a copy get a refund?

Re:What?! (2, Informative)

jonoid (863970) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710720)

Nope. Unless you bought it in the last couple of weeks or so you would not be entitled to a refund. Since you accepted the price of whatever it costs, you are not entitled to automatically get a lower price once it is lowered (or made free). I doubt Microsoft would be nice enough to refund the money of EVERYONE who bought it.

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, then see the sign and try to claim the reward, you would not be entitled to anything.

Wow, I actually retained knowledge from law class. Amazing.

[: == FreeBSD + VMware == :] (-1, Flamebait)

JPyObjC Dude (772176) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710658)

VMware and FreeBSD offer a rock solid and secure open source powerhouse.

Why would I go with a network crippled VM solution like VPC and use a bloated OS like vista. For a server, use a server OS - BSD!

Unless of course I love to click pretty boxes and turn white at the first sight of a CLI ;^)

JsD

Re:[: == FreeBSD + VMware == :] (1, Insightful)

suckmysav (763172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710779)

Kewl. I'm going to head on over to the vmware website and download the source code right now!

Re:[: == FreeBSD + VMware == :] (1)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710897)

VMware has not supported FreeBSD as a host O/S for some time now.

intentional or oversight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710666)

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

is this a loophole they're going to be closing later? seeing's how vmware is their primary competitor there's no need for them to make their lives easier.

on the other hand, maybe this is a tactic to forestall linux. the harder it is to run vista legally, the more likely linux adoption increases.

Four *extra* licenses? (3, Insightful)

Telcontar (819) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710668)

Up to now, one could run as many copies of the OS in virtual machines as one wanted, hardware permitting. Now the limit has been increased from infinity to four, not unlike the chocolate rations in "1984". And the author of the summary does not realize that any more than Winston can avoid his fate...

Re:Four *extra* licenses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710696)

Did you ever actually read the XP license agreement? It requires one purchased copy of the OS per VM.

Re:Four *extra* licenses? (1)

w3bgeek (530334) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710796)

Actually, under certain circumstances under XP you can do the "host" OS + 1 VM for free. Any more than that is a license per VM - running or not.

Reminds me... (1)

DuranDuran (252246) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710682)

For some reason I'm reminded of this...

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.

Why not individuals who buy Ultimate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710708)

I plan to buy Ultimate and would like to play with virtualization - sounds like home users who buy the flagship OS will not get the 4 instances.

Mac version (2, Interesting)

brownsteve (673529) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710709)

As of right now, the Mac version [microsoft.com] of Virtual PC is still retail. Any thoughts if they might give out the Mac version too? My intuition says no. Although it's a big name in their isolated Mac division, Virtual PC is the entire product category on the Mac platform. They have no VMWare with which to compete in this arena.

The irony of the whole thing is that M$ bought VPC off Connectix just so they could finish porting it to x86 and use their branding/marketing/FUD to make big bucks. Now they're giving it away, too. Sounds very much like Microsoft's category-conquest tactics: acquire, rip off, and undersell the competition.

VPC for Mac (1)

zefram cochrane (761180) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710712)

So, M$ made Virtual PC for the PC free, but those of us with older (G3/G4/G5) macs are not in luck with this announcement. I wonder if we'll ever see VPC Mac as a freebee offering. I don't use it very often, but I have a few Windows programs that are invaluable, such as greeting card creations software and a few development packages that I used in my computer science coursework.

Re:VPC for Mac (0, Troll)

Hymer (856453) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710878)

"...but those of us with older (G3/G4/G5) macs are not in luck with this announcement."

Oh Yes, we are... we can't ruin our Macs with Windows...
and if you don't think so, why did you buy a Mac in the first place ?

--

Emulated sig. Patent No. 54324543322673221

Up to four? (5, Insightful)

truedfx (802492) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710729)

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.
Am I the only one who finds it completely ridiculous that using the software by a single user on a single machine could ever require multiple licenses?

Re:Up to four? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710810)

Am I the only one who finds it completely ridiculous that using the software by a single user on a single machine could ever require multiple licenses?

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 license) for each VM you're running.

TBH, I'm surprised you *didn't* think this was the case.

Re:Up to four? (1)

truedfx (802492) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710857)

Actually, this doesn't surprise me at all. From MS's point of view,

I disagree with MS's point of view. That's why I took a quote from the article that came from Windows's license, and stated one implied assumption seems ridiculous to me. If I did that to show I agree with it, it would be I who was being ridiculous.

(I do think you're misrepresenting MS's point of view, and I wouldn't try distributing a hard disk image containing a full installation of Windows.)

Re:Up to four? (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710918)

It's utterly ridiculous, but they seem to be getting away with it.

Re:Up to four? (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710986)

No, but that's software licensing for you.

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... (2, Interesting)

Boap (559344) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710735)

If I buy a five user licence for Vista I can have up to 20 virtual machines on a single system and still be legal?

Re:So does this mean... (1)

wjsroot (732775) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710961)

Running that many virtual machines of Vista violates serveral laws of nature/physics, but to m$, thats still legal...

VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (0)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710736)

On Windows XP host machines, which virtual client software is better? Are there any reviews that compare both products in terms of performance, compatbility, features, etc.? Can VPC do OpenGL unlike VMware to play old 3D games?

It is good to see a war between these two products. :)

Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15710822)

Before you listen to any more drivel by 'AntDude [slashdot.org] ', take a look at who you're dealing with: http://pbx.mine.nu/antdude.jpg [pbx.mine.nu] . The abortion in the center is 'AntDude'. I won't even get into discussion about him listing his 'sex' as 'female' on his SHITTY 'blog' (aqfl.net [aqfl.net] ). This faggot has nothing better to do than sit on the internet and spew worthless garbage. He's the new LostCluster [slashdot.org] when it comes to posting utterly worthless tripe. Not to mention his submitted stories! Every single one of his last 10 or so submissions have been tagged as 'lame' or 'slownewsday'. Why does taco even bother posting his shit. Maybe he gets some tiny deformed chinese cock up his taco ass in exchange for some linkspam with google ads? Do the world a favor and never reply to comments from ANTDUDE and mark him as a FOE [slashdot.org] .

Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (0)

timecop (16217) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710840)

VMWare is definitely a lot better than VPC.
One of the very handy features in VMWare is snapshots/machine cloning feature, and while VPC offers some kind of snapshot functionality, its less intuitive and limited.

Also, (in my personal experience), VMWare has been as fast as native, and at times even 'faster' than native - because of smart disk caching, tasks like installing Windows XP as vmware guest complete faster than native on same hardware.

VMWare 5.5 can also do pass-through Direct3D emulation (its a beta option, see http://www.vmware.com/support/ws5/doc/ws_vidsound_ d3d.html [vmware.com] ), don't know about OpenGL, hopefully by 2006 nobody actually cares enough about OpenGL to make a difference.

Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (0)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710883)

Thanks Bishop and TimeCopy! :) I guess I will stick with good old VMware.

Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (5, Interesting)

Bishop (4500) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710848)

The snapshot and clone features in VMware v5 beat VPC 2004. VMware v5 is a recent product VPC 2004 is not. In general VPC 2004 ran windows guests faster then VMware v4 (four). The difference was marginal. I have not tested the speed of VPC 2004 against VMware v5. VMware runs all non-windows guests faster then VPC v4. (In some cases infinitely faster as VPC had trouble with certain versions of Linux and FreeBSD.) You can run a kernel level debugger such as SoftICE under VPC. SoftICE and Vmware have/had issues. IIRC VPC has no opengl/directx guest support. I doubt that you will ever see that feature in either product. The new virtualization instructions in Intel and AMD processors may change that, but I would not count on it.

I use VMware daily. VMware support other guest operating systems better then VPC. But the big winner is VMware's management features. The snapshot managment, cloneing and templating are wonderfull.

Re:VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004? (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#15711014)

IIRC VPC has no opengl/directx guest support. I doubt that you will ever see that feature in either product.

Hold on... I thought Direct3D support was a system requirement to run Vista?

Four times (3, Funny)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710739)

Is a box with four VMs running Windows four times more vulnerable to attacks than one running a single Windows instance?

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?

Patches (1)

BunnyClaws (753889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710740)

Which Virtual Server will require more patches? When you have to patch the host virtual server (VM Server or MS Virtual Server) and reboot that will be production down time for all of those virtual servers running on that host. Which do you think is going to have more patches required? VM Server or MS Virtual Server?

Re:Patches (2, Insightful)

the.metric (988575) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710800)

You're probably better off using a VMWare offering on Linux with Win guests. Less reboots due to security updates of the host OS and no licensing costs.

Yes, but... (0, Offtopic)

calculadoru (760076) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710806)

...will they run dupes? [slashdot.org]

hmm wake me up... (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710881)

When they've got a Beowulf cluster... oh shit is it 2006 already? Damn I told the concierge to wake me up in 10 hours... 10 years and this is all we get? Thanks Micro$oft ;-p

Interesting (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710882)

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.

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! (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710896)

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! (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#15711007)

I guess, by that logic, running multiple instances of MS Word, Internet Explorer or any other program on my computer is copyright infringement.

No, but installing multiple instances on your hard disc might be.

What a load of crap.

Probably true.

All great, but... 100% CPU utilization (1, Interesting)

postmortem (906676) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710908)

Virtual PC 2004 has 100% CPU utilization when just one virtual machine is loaded. There's option to reduce utilization when virtual machine window is not active, and still significant portion of CPU processing power is used in that case. Now, it is obvious that such wasting of CPU time cannot be good, either from wasted CPU resources that could be used for something useful, power consumption, heat generation. It is like CPU is running an infinite blank loop whenever you turn on virtual machine.

that's a fast response .. (1)

freaker_TuC (7632) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710978)

First the VMWARE free; now VirtualPC free; one day later.

One might wish their security department would roll as fast as their customer relations department do ;)

Other possible reasons for VPC (4, Interesting)

RShizzle (983535) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710992)

I've scanned through the number of replies regarding this and I just find a number of fanboys saying this is the triumph of Open Source over the gigantic evil corporation. The fact is, this is a smart move to promote Microsoft technology (VPC) that has had a bad reputation, but has seen steady improvement. VPC isn't so much competition for Xen as much as it for VmWare Workstation. Both VPC and VmWare allow the installation of unmodified operating systems (not so much VPC), whereas Xen requires them to be ported or "enlighted". Tack on the fact that Xen only runs on Linux, and the ported version of XP is unavailable due to copyright issues, and Xen doesn't look like a very realistic solution for the primary uses of virtualization technology, developers testing their software on a different OS, or sysadmins running virtual servers (production, or testing of Windows platforms). Yes, some people do prefer Windows Server 2003 over BSD. VPC on the other had, works well enough for testing on a variety of Windows platforms, will now be free, and is in most cases good enough. The primary reason I can think of why someone would virtualize instances of Vista is to provide RDP access to a sandboxed environment, not to use Vista as a server. VPC and this Vista deal shouldn't be seen as a competitor to Xen. If you're planning on virtualizing instances of a server, especially a Windows Server, VmWare GSX or ESX server would be the only real options. Regarding licensing issues, a virtual machine is exactly that, a virtual representation of a completely different machine. It will show up the the OS as different hardware. Have any of you tried activating an XP installation within VPC or VmWare? It still asks for a new, unique key (unless of course, its a volume license). People question the financial costs of this, that Microsoft will now forgo the revenue on four vista licenses. First of all, many estimate that Vista will retail at as low as $100. There will actually be tighter license restrictions, as there are plans to have an active licensing server for volume licenses, instead of the honor system currently in place (which is often abused). The motivation of this deal isn't to make money, its to promote certain technologies, and to encourage people to convert and stay with the Windows platform. Why does Microsoft give away millions of dollars of software in the form of the MSDN Academic Alliance every year to schools and students? Why does it have an entire "software evangelist" program? It's not to make money in the immediate short term, but to make people convert to Microsoft products, many of which are quite well made. (Anyone play with Visual Studio Team Foundation Server?) Sure, there are open source alternatives but sometimes its easier to click a few buttons on a GUI instead of customizing a .conf file. And, if people convert to the Microsoft way of doing things, they're more likely to purchase the money makers, like Office, or use certain software solutions when making purchasing decisions for their IT department.

Shya - and monkeys will fly out of my butt (1)

shoma-san (739914) | more than 7 years ago | (#15710994)

PFFFFHHHH

I'd like to see a PC with Vista installed on it running 4 Vista virtual machines (via Virtual Anything)...

It's like making Congress tell the truth. It can't be done.

Windows Need Only Apply (1, Informative)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | more than 7 years ago | (#15711019)

You'll notice that only the Windows version of VPC is free. Mac users still have to shell out. True, VPC for Mac isn't exactly virtualization (it's straight up emulation), but it's all pretty much buzz words (Yes, I know what the difference is), when you consider that the two products accomplish the same task, and have the same name.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...