×

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!

Microsoft Unveils Virtualization Strategy

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the getting-all-hyper dept.

Microsoft 141

billstewart writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft will be announcing a virtualization strategy on Tuesday. Of course there's plenty of focus on the competition with VMware, including the obligatory reference to Microsoft's entry into the browser wars prior to cutting off Netscape's air supply. The pieces of the picture will include: an alliance with Citrix Systems, owners of XenSource; acquisition of privately held Calista Technologies of San Jose, which has software that speeds up the performance of applications running in a virtualized environment; and lower price for Windows Vista used on virtualized computers. Microsoft also reversed its earlier position and will now allow the Home Basic and Home Premium versions of Vista to run under virtualization. The company confirmed its plans to deliver its Hyper-V hypervisor within six months of the launch of Windows Server 2008 (betas available now), which is expected this quarter."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

141 comments

HELP DESTROY SCIENTOLOGY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135762)



The Internet has declared war on the cult of Scientology [encycloped...matica.com]. You can help! Just try visiting their website [scientology.org] and hitting refresh a heap of times (or ideally make a script to do so for you). OR ring their free hotline, 1-800-367-8788, and waste their time.

The War Against Scientology has begin. And with your help, we will succeed.

You need help, I'll Send Tom over to help you (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136352)

Tom. Tom Cruise. We have a job for you. What do you mean you're busy? OK, asshole! Kirstie. Damn, where'd that ho' go? All right then. John? Hey, Bah-bah-bah-Barbarino! get your ugly chiselled mug over to Norway and fix those goddamn communist humanist athiests! I don't care how you do it. Just do it!

Hyper-N Hypervisor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135776)

Manages multiple nigger crackhouses.

Sincerely,
Ron Paul

Re:Hyper-N Hypervisor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136134)

Manages multiple nigger crackhouses.

Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Yo bitch. Shut da fuck up. I be beatin' yo cracka ass in da primary, bitch.

Praise Allah!
Barack

Re:Hyper-N Hypervisor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136182)

Manages multiple nigger crackhouses.

Sincerely,
Ron Paul

Yo bitch. Shut da fuck up. I be beatin' yo cracka ass in da primary, bitch.

Praise Allah!
Barack

I thought I tasted Monica when fellating Bill this morning, but that's crazy talk... right?! :_(

Hill-dawg

Re:Hyper-N Hypervisor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136412)

Manages multiple nigger crackhouses.

Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Yo bitch. Shut da fuck up. I be beatin' yo cracka ass in da primary, bitch.

Praise Allah!
Barack
I thought I tasted Monica when fellating Bill this morning, but that's crazy talk... right?! :_(

Hill-dawg
Wow, what a coinkidink dawg! I thought the same thing!

Praise Allah!
Barack

Re:Hyper-N Hypervisor (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136574)

Manages multiple nigger crackhouses.

Sincerely,
Ron Paul

Yo bitch. Shut da fuck up. I be beatin' yo cracka ass in da primary, bitch.

Praise Allah!
Barack

I thought I tasted Monica when fellating Bill this morning, but that's crazy talk... right?! :_(

Hill-dawg
Wow, what a coinkidink dawg! I thought the same thing!

Praise Allah!
Barack


Hey, did you guys hear I was mayor of New York City during the September 11th terrorist attacks?

9/11!
Rudy-poo

MSFT and VMW to plummet today (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135788)

niggers have sabotaged the stock market

Microsoft Windows (3, Funny)

andruk (1132557) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135790)

now with N times more vulnerability per physical machine!

...and real brine shrimp (sorry, I couldn't resist)!

Re:Microsoft Windows (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136456)

The N stands for niggers right?

So that's why slashdotters hate Windows. Its full of niggers!

There is no disagree moderation and offtopic, troll and flamebait are not good substitutes. Don't abuse your mod points and mod this down!

XKCD's aquarium ! (2, Funny)

DrYak (748999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137494)

Cheap price for virtualised Vista ?
"Home Basic" and "Home premium" version authorised to run on virtual machines ?

XKCD [xkcd.com] now has all needed ingredients for his aquarium !

(to be soon followed IRL, just like the ball pit... )

Niggers on parade. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135796)

Ballmer throwin' chairs. Niggers outta control.

Bill Gates '12

H Y P E R N I G G E R S (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135802)

Yo!

Steve Niggmer

Re:H Y P E R N I G G E R S (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136268)

Steve Niggmer


Develniggers, Devilneggers, DEVILNIGGERS!

Microsoft's virtualization strategy: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135808)

1. Virtualize.
2. ???
3. NIGGERS!

Re:Microsoft's virtualization strategy: (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137388)

Jeebus, I even laughed... Can this guy be blocked or tracked down? He's been posting this racist bullshit for a few days now; its getting annoying.

Scary? (4, Interesting)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135810)

Well, I think there's something to worry about here. Bearing in mind Virtualization is the Next Big Thing ® right now, and businesses being quick on the up-take (I know my employer is a big fan, and we have ~5k employees and several large in-house development departments), I think it's going to be a bonus for a company to take a Virtualization offering from their primary OS supplier. Especially when you've got it in live deployments.

Is there room in the market for MS? Or will they squeeze VMWare out? We'll soon find out...

Re:Scary? (1, Insightful)

stevie.f (1106777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135846)

It's always scary when Microsoft go for the Next Big Thing.

Somehow their first attempts always seem so much worse than anyone elses first attempt. I imagine this endeavour will be no more successful than vista

Re:Scary? (4, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135930)

Usually Microsft's first attempt *is* someone else's first attempt. Their roduct development roadmap is a case of "that's cool, we must have some of that, buy that company".

Who did they buy to get Virtual PC in the first place? I'd be very surprised to hear that they developed it entirely in-house.

This endeavour will be somewhat successful - VPC is out there at the moment, and its free since roughly the same time VMWare offered VMWare server for free (go figure :) ). If this hypervisor is not free too, then it'll have a hard time being adopted by companies that are used to, and happy with, VMWare.

If they do give their hypervisor away for free, then VMware will release ESX too and nothing will really change! I think this can only be a good thing for us :-)

Re:Scary? (5, Informative)

atezun (755568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135962)

Since you asked, Microsoft obtained VirtualPC when they bought out Connectix.

Re:Scary? (2, Funny)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136000)

cheers for that. I was beginning to get worried as I typed that message... perhaps Microsoft had actually produced some original software. Normal service is now resumed and I can get back to my knocked off from Java development.

Re:Scary? (3, Interesting)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136492)

If they [Microsoft] do give their hypervisor away for free, then VMware will release ESX too and nothing will really change! I think this can only be a good thing for us :-)
Unless after a few years of giving away their products for free, VMware goes bankrupt. Microsoft, on the other hand, remains extremely wealthy due to Windows and Office revenue, and then proceeds to charge money for Microsoft virtualization products. This is a good thing only for Microsoft, and they've done it before.

Re:Scary? (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136924)

No need to fear... VirtualBox and Xen have already gone open-source, so regardless of their profit status, their code will continue to benefit the world. I'm a fan of VMware and hope they do well, but they may need a similar model to Xen and VirtualBox to have real staying power.

Re:Scary? (1, Insightful)

stevie.f (1106777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136292)

Flamebait? I thought it was a relevant point. Almost every Microsoft product feels as if it has been released just a little too early and isn't as 'finished' as most other companies products. It takes a while for it to get to the point where I feel it is a product I could be using and I don't see why this instance should be any different

Re:Scary? (1)

dp3n3tr8 (966761) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136940)

Almost every (any company name here) product feels as if it has been released just a little too early and isn't as 'finished' as most other companies products. Fixed that for you

Scary?-The future. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135862)

Xen will squeeze VMware out. Anyway ZFS and virtualization are the two hot items. Throw in adaptable networks [amazon.com] and the pictures complete.

Re:Scary?-The future. (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135894)

Xen won't squeeze VMWare out until they get themselves a freakin' UI that is usable.

Re:Scary?-The future. (1, Flamebait)

wzzrd (545802) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136034)

With this you are implying Virtual Center is a usable product (as in non-breaking, stable, etc.)? That, sir, I find offensive.

Re:Scary?-The future. (1)

Mitch Haile (822543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136132)

What are some of the problems you've had with Virtual Center?

Re:Scary?-The future. (3, Interesting)

wzzrd (545802) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136282)

Mostly that the information it presents is not always consistent with what you find on the service console of you individual ESX servers and that it misses some functionality (like batch-creating VM's). Apart from that, VC is an extremely slow application (just *selecting* a couple dozen ESX hosts slows it to a crawl) and written in .Net, binding me to a platform I would rather not be bound to. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one complaining about this. My parent post was meant as a poke in the ribs. VC is not unusable for every task, but it is also a long way from being a polished, complete product, which would eliminate the necessity of the service console. And *that* is what really scares me: the road VMWare is apparently taking with 3i (removing the SC) and not having management tools available which can do the job as good as the SC. Really, the new scripting interface in 3i is a joke. VMWare should not remove the SC until we do not need it anymore.

Re:Scary?-The future. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22137318)

Open Virtual Centre, move the window onto your second display then right-click on a Virtual Machine instance. Oops.

Forget everything else, that one just bugs the shit out of me.

Not after Xen was acquired by Citrix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136326)

Xen will squeeze VMware out. Anyway ZFS and virtualization are the two hot items.

By mentioning ZFS, you clearly had the Unix/Linux side of virtualization in mind. While you could be right about Xen squeezing out VMWare in the pure Windows area, it's unlikely to happen across the board because XenSource is now owned by Citrix.

Unfortunately, while Xen started out as a FOSS-oriented project, the acquisition of XenSource by Citrix probably signals the end of that, as Citrix's business is all about Windows, and they have no interest in, nor support for, the Linux community. My guess is that in due course this will cause a rift, and FOSS Xen will fork away from XenSource Xen. As things stand though, Xen isn't likely to bloom in the Linux world, because that's not what Citrix do.

Fortunately, Linux has no shortage of other virtualization systems, and they're getting much more development time than Xen these days. If something is going to displace VMWare, it could easily be a dark horse such as KVM. The crystal ball is pretty cloudy in that area at the moment.

Re:Scary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135910)

Microsoft still have a long way to go to match software like VMWare ESX, VMotion & ACE, so they're not going to squeezing VMWare for some time yet.

As for the poster above me who thinks Xen are going to squeeze VMWare: not on your life. Not without an equally large investment from XenSource and heavy focus on tools. Xen can do virtual machines, but it doesn't offer any real managing your virtual machines and the servers they're running on.

Re:Scary? (5, Interesting)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135954)

Is there room in the market for MS? Or will they squeeze VMWare out? We'll soon find out...

HaHaHa!

This is Microsoft we're talking about here - there is no room in the marketplace!

On a serious note - virtualisation plays a major part in computing today, if Microsoft's os is going to be virtualised it will be done on thier terms and of course deeply integrated.

If they want to do this that's fine... . . However, typically Microsoft's business practise is to try and 'remove' any competitive products from the marketplace - vmware had better be sharp because thier life is about to get more difficult.

When an emerging market is noticed by Microsoft they seem to wait and see how it develops. If it appears to be profitable they wade in with thier own version and take it all even if thier own product is inferior - they can use thier OS as leverage (which has happend time and time again).

Again, it's Microsoft's monopoly status that allows them to do this and I have a problem with that.

If vmware are forced out the market at least there are open-source alternatives available which fortunately cannot be forced out the market (unless patent issues are raised?).

Re:Scary? (2, Insightful)

stevey (64018) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136262)

On a serious note - virtualisation plays a major part in computing today, if Microsoft's os is going to be virtualised it will be done on thier terms and of course deeply integrated.

Agreed.

One of the benefits of virtualised Linux is that you can run minimal VMs for different purposes. Right now I have a desktop running about 8 Xen instances of Debian, in a mixture of Stable, Testing, and Unstable.

If you imagine running Microsoft Windows for testing you'd be interested in running XP, Vista, and Server. That is most likely going to become a licensing nightmare.

Running virtual Windows should be OK itself, if your host hardware is sufficient (since Windows has GUI and is generally "busier" than Linux installs. But the licensing cost(s) will be something that don't tend to apply to the Linux virtualization.

Re:Scary? (2, Interesting)

Philosinfinity (726949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136964)

Virtualized OS is only the first baby step. Virtualization becomes very cool when you see it done at the application layer. Read up on MS Application Virtualization which is a pretty bad ass application. It is essentially an AD integrated method of application deployment to the client without requiring installation. Think about running every version of Excel ever made simultaneously in its own virtual space. I have seen quite a few demos of this, and at the desktop architecture level, this is where virtualization is really headed.

Microsoft and Xen will kill VMWare (4, Interesting)

Psiren (6145) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135956)

Microsoft will do what they always do, bring out something that is good enough for 95% of people, 95% of the time. They'll leave the finer points to third parties. It'll be good enough for most places running Windows only networks.

There appear to be several virtualisation platforms appearing on the Linux side. I haven't used Xen myself, as when we were moving to virtualisation it didn't have the capabilities or support that VMWare did.

Unless VMware gets its act together it's going to lose market share pretty quickly. The documentation is awful. Just. Fucking. Awful. There's tons of it to be sure, but it's contradictory, badly written, confusing and downright wrong in places.

Ultimately I think Microsoft's hypervisor will become the default for Windows, and one of the others for Linux. VMware will become a niche product.

Re:Microsoft and Xen will kill VMWare (1)

NotZed (19455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136274)

Well, it'll look like it's good enough for 90% of the people 90% of the time - when infact it wont quite meet those expecations - after everyone's spent too much time on it to back out.

And then they'll illegally bundle it with one of their 'server' os's, and effectively kill the market instantly.

Have the VMWare virtual appliances improved? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136362)

"The [VMWare] documentation is awful. Just.... Awful. There's tons of it to be sure, but it's contradictory, badly written, confusing and downright wrong in places."

I haven't looked at them for a year, but in the past the VMWare Virtual Appliances [vmware.com] were more likely to hurt VMWare's reputation than help it, in my opinion.

Re:Microsoft and Xen will kill VMWare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136504)

But currently it looks like it's the last 5% that actually depend on, and use virtualisation. The rest just want an internet browser, and something to sync their ipods to.

Re:Microsoft and Xen will kill VMWare (1)

Psiren (6145) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136624)

But currently it looks like it's the last 5% that actually depend on, and use virtualisation. The rest just want an internet browser, and something to sync their ipods to.

We're talking about servers here. Essential infrastructure for any business large or small. What the hell have ipods and browsers got to do with it?

Re:Microsoft and Xen will kill VMWare (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136956)

For now, VMWare has absolutely nothing to worry about. From hardcore linux users to the most Kool-aid drinking Microsoft users I know, everyone of them universally thinks VirtualPC is a flaming piece of shit. Microsoft has a long way to go to beat them. Also, VMWare's real strength is ESX in the linux space. Microsoft won't give a shit about running linux... they'll care about how it runs Windows, and make a token pitiful effort at getting it running linux.

I think VMWare will be fine so long as they keep the linux side spanking whatever MS can do there.

Re:Microsoft and Xen will kill VMWare (2, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137044)

Unless VMware gets its act together it's going to lose market share pretty quickly. The documentation is awful. Just. Fucking. Awful. There's tons of it to be sure, but it's contradictory, badly written, confusing and downright wrong in places.

Maybe so, but it's streets ahead of the documentation of the Linux-based offerings (to say nothing of the UI and management tools). VMWare have a long, long way to fall before any of the current alternatives knock them off (through either fair means _or_ foul).

Re:Microsoft and Xen will kill VMWare (1)

Psiren (6145) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137348)

You're probably right. But that most definitely won't be the case with Microsoft's documentation. Windows is a reasonably large market for VMWare, even though they seem to be doing a pretty poor job of supporting it properly.

Re:Scary? (1)

superash (1045796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136310)

Is there room in the market for MS? Or will they squeeze VMWare out?

VirtualPC and VMWare are both competitive tools for the job. In fact, they're both so refined that your ultimate purchase decision will be affected more by your own needs than by any inherent problems with the programs. VirtualPC keeps things simple and if you need more control than Virtual PC offers, you should get VMware.

Re:Scary? (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137244)

There are a couple of area's where microsoft might have an advantage in future vm releases.

1 has to be better graphics drivers
2 networking improvements, it is very hard to make a vm a peer in a network especially so with wireless cards.
3 support for Pci cards within the host.
4 networked printers.

Having an existing working relationship with hardware manufacturers should ease development issues.

Negatives
running a windows host.

I'd love to see apple competing here too, but virtual macs on pc hardware isn't something I could see Mr jobs backing.

What worries me. (5, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135828)

If I were a prospective client, I would think about the effective way IE killed the then king netscape, sure.

I would also think about the way IE turned into an awfully modularized insecure POS after winning.

Let's just hope Xen makers don't play the part of NCSA Mosaic.

Re:What worries me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136174)

How is it that people remember Netscape as anything other than the ever deepening portal to the abyss that it was? They could have been google + microsoft, they weren't because they thought they were the only game in ton and kept putting out progressively worse directionless products.

Re:What worries me. (2, Insightful)

Migala77 (1179151) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136208)

I would also think about the way IE turned into an awfully modularized insecure POS after winning.
I disagree. IE just didn't improve much after winning. It always was a POS. Just as netscape was. Neither product was very standards-compliant, mostly because the standards were also POSs (PsOS?) at the time. The decision to rewrite Netscape wasn't taken because it was a perfect product. Luckily we now have better, more standards-compliant alternatives.

Re:What worries me. (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136720)

I would also think about the way IE turned into an awfully modularized insecure POS after winning.


It turned into a piece of shit? I'm pretty sure it was one of the Microsoft-types who showcased IE7 said that it started out as a piece of shit. Of course, he was claiming it had improved, particularly with 7, but we all know the truth of that.

Virtual evil is still evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135840)

So Microsoft have a virtualization strategy, my strategy says avoid Microsoft tech at all costs.

Wonder whose strategy will prevail?

Gates announces... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22135904)

... the solution to Vista is to use it to run Ubuntu inside VMWare...?

Other way around ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136030)

the solution to Vista is to use it to run Ubuntu inside VMWare


The true solution is the other way around. Use Ubuntu with KVM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel-based_Virtual_Machine [wikipedia.org] to run a virtualised copy of Vista.

FTA:

The pieces of the picture will include: ... and lower price for Windows Vista used on virtualized computers.


You get to run Linux as your main (secure, stable, malware-free) OS, and you get a cheaper Vista, which you might need to run the odd Windows-only application.

Re:Other way around ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136074)

No, MS wouldn't say that as win2k runs better under VT than Vista or XP and there's none of the activation bullshit either.

Re:Gates announces... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136692)

Now I can run Vista inside my virtualized XP.

I just hope VirtualPC gets updated... (4, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22135914)

I hope that even with the Hyper-V stuff that is based in Windows Server 2008, that MS keeps VirtualPC updated. For what it does, its excellent as a quick and dirty hypervisor, especially for stuff like Thinstall where you just need to open a VM briefly to do a check before installing, install a program, run the afterwards delta, then build the Thinstalled output. No special client or Web server needed (as opposed to the latest VMWare 2.0 beta which seemed to require a full Java, Apache and Tomcat install and available to the world to even turn on.)

The Hyper-V implementation in the RC1 build of Windows Server 2008 requires your CPU have specific hardware virtualization built in, so you can't really use it on anything less than midrange+ hardware. Maybe its a good thing, as MS is likely intending this for machines designed for being VM servers from the ground up.

If you.... (0, Flamebait)

budword (680846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136052)

If you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Anyone who chooses M$ tech deserves what they get.

Puzzled by Windows Vista price reduction (2, Funny)

scsirob (246572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136070)

Why would you want to run a consumer desktop operating system in a virtual environent? How will that help you being more efficient? Microsoft can't be seriously promoting the use of their desktop OS for server tasks, are they??

Re:Puzzled by Windows Vista price reduction (1, Flamebait)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136220)

One of the uses of virtualization is testing. Probably Microsoft is tired of seeing how everything is broken in their newest DRM OS, so they want to make it easier for developers to try. (Personally, if I were offered such a possibility, I'd work hard to make sure it doesn't run on Vista.)

Think of it as a petri dish. You can try your software under Vista in the same way as you can try whether some organism can coexist with AIDS or not.

Re:Puzzled by Windows Vista price reduction (1)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137426)

Lol, flamebait? Was Slashdot taken by Microsoft fanboys while I was not looking? The next thing I'll see is somebody praising DRM for allowing you to enjoy your music.

Re:Puzzled by Windows Vista price reduction (1)

theskipper (461997) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136948)

Why would you want to run a consumer desktop operating system in a virtual environent? How will that help you being more efficient? Microsoft can't be seriously promoting the use of their desktop OS for server tasks, are they??

I'm running Ubuntu (AMD-64) on two home and three business machines. Each has XP virtualized (512MB memory, 8GB image) for the few apps that couldn't pass muster with Wine (or Crossover). Acrobat 7.0, for example. All XP instances are full retail licenses, perfectly legal via an MSDN subsription in 2002. The only software cost has been $180 for VMWare Workstation which was worth every penny.

Point is, Microsoft hasn't seen a dime from me in 5 years, not even OEM revenue since all hardware is via Newegg; not Dell, etc. This program at least holds out the possibility that I might purchase a Vista license in the future (which will be virtualized again, no possibility it will be the primary OS). The chances are very slim but greater than zero.

Of course this "sample of one" is probably atypical and not what Microsoft is targeting. It's a data point nonetheless.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136096)

...basically MS is spending money in order to let other OS'es run on their own.

What exactly is the bad thing here? Virtualisation may just be the only way to let some people get a whiff of a different OS.

Re:So... (1)

Reivec (607341) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137002)

That is a rather short sighted view of virtualization. The more common use would be to use a high end server to run multiple instances of a windows OS on it at the same time thus turning one physical server into several virtual servers. It is cheaper to run that way and with VMware at least there are other nifty tricks that go along with that. Like being able to move your virtual servers from node to node seamlessly without making the server go down, yet you can still move all the servers off your hardware for maintenance and then move them back.

It isn't about using different OS'es, it is about using a different server structure to be more cost efficient.

Vista now virtualisable (5, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136112)

Whether you go for their whole strategy or not, a good thing to come out of their announcement is them allowing non-Ultimate Vista to be virtualisable (or non-Business, or whichever of the twenty levels they arbitrarily set it at the last time).

I'm on OS X and run a VMware image of XP for a couple of apps. I have no need for Vista, but should a need arise I can now upgrade to the lower versions and carry on running. MS gets some money from me it previously wouldn't have had and I can still use my platform of choice.

That's good news for people.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Vista now virtualisable (1)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136230)

I have no need for Vista, but should a need arise I can now upgrade to the lower versions and carry on running. MS gets some money from me it previously wouldn't have had
Great, you've told them exactly what they wanted to hear.

Why not "Microsoft won't get money from me until they move to my side and get rid of DRM"? Or, "Microsoft won't get paid for such a crappy OS"?

Re:Vista now virtualisable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136502)

Is that how you read what is in that article?

"Microsoft had irked some virtualization suppliers by adding language to the licensing agreements for two consumer versions of Windows Vista that barred the use of virtualization. More-costly versions of the software, sold primarily to businesses, weren't covered by the restriction. But Microsoft has now decided to allow use of virtualization on the two consumer versions, Windows Vista Home Basic and Windows Vista Home Premium. VMware's Mr. Raghuram said he welcomed the change."

"on" the two consumer versions. Not "of".

Could be a misunderstanding or even a mistype, but I'd be interested to see corroborating sources.

Re:Vista now virtualisable (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137176)

Really? Just like people are being unable to find reasons to migrate their PCs to vista I can't think of a good reason to migrate my virtual box machine to vista, after all I use it for app and hardware compat and Vista doesn't sound too great at that, and XP uses less resources anyways.

Microsoft Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136126)

What concerns me are the ducks being lined up:

Novell
Xandros
Linspire
and others

Which have entered into agreements with Microsoft and some (Xandros and the EEeePC , or whatever its called -and- Linspire and computers at Sears) of these are launching into stores since the Dell/Ubuntu efforts launched by the most noble Mark Shuttleworth. With people buying these Xandros/Linspire machines, is there a Microsoft tax involved? Can we expect more companies to join Microsoft and sell Linux? Should something bad happen and the Ubuntu well dries up, will Microsoft retract the Microsoft-pact Linux offerings? We know what happened to Corel Linux after Microsoft came in.

This is going to be a long battle, Microsoft is ruthless in its history of dominating others, as it is a criminal organization and gets away with almost anything in the United States. I fear for the future of FREE and true linux distros. I'm convinced if these pacts continue, Linux's fate is to be wrapped in a closed source blanket of Microsoft's electric semen.

Wow (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136200)

I know that slashdot eds are supposed to be the some of the worst ever, but MS is in the running... One of the suppported OS's for the Hyper v is.... Microsoft Office 97 or later version

The below is taken from the MS website.

"System Requirements

        * Supported Operating Systems: Windows Vista; Windows XP

Microsoft Office 97 or later version"

Conflict of interest (3, Interesting)

lnxpilot (453564) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136232)

And who in their right mind will get virtualization software from Microsoft?

One of the main reasons for virtualization to is to run other, competing OSs (mostly Linux) on the same hardware.

You can bet M$ would do everything to make Linux look bad: "see, same hardware, XP / Vista runs better".

It's like putting Ford in charge of building roads and gas stations.
How long do you think before Toyotas, Hondas etc. will develop "unexpected" engine problems from the gasoline served there?

Re:Conflict of interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136300)

That's rubbish.

In the corporate world the main use of virtualisation is to run lots of the same OS on one piece of hardware.

In this sense, choosing MS as the virtualisation provider for the MS operating system is a win-win.

Re:Conflict of interest (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136560)

In this sense, choosing MS as the virtualisation provider for the MS operating system is a win-win.

Of course MS-MS is a win-win, becauce 'win' is often associated with Windows. However, that in turn brings to mind 'loss' (of productivity, security, performance, etc.), so 'win-win' is not necessarily a good thing. I prefer saying 'lin-lin' when describing a mutually beneficial outcome.

Part of the virtualization strategy... (4, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136336)

should be to run a virtualized Ballmer so that they can shut him down whenever he puts both of his dancing shoes in his mouth during interviews.

Interviewer: "Mr Ballmer, how cool is the Brown Zune?"

Ballmer: "It's an iPod killer. I squirt to you, you squirt to me and then..."

[Ballmer disappears suddenly]

Interviewer: "Wha... What happened?"

Voice From Above: "Do Not Worry. The Virtual Ballmer Has Been Shut Down. Your Interview Has Not Been Affected."

Deployments (2)

cshbell (931989) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136472)

Microsoft is completely missing that what its enterprise customers *really* want is a Type-1 hypervisor (akin to Hyper-V) for desktops and laptops. It would radically simplify deployments; rather than having to maintain an RIS/WDS server with different images for different hardware configurations, a company could just have one software image for all the boxes and let the hypervisor worry about the hardware.

From a device security perspective, this could be useful too, as the hypervisor could be tuned to only expose certain hardware to the operating system, allowing corporate IT departments to restrict ports, drives, and network adapters that can leak data.

Re:Deployments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136650)

Cute MS sales girl + a couple of conferences in desirable locations + pick one clueless "decision" maker = MS good enough

The parent post is right and this is why VMWare is moving into "bios" space.

However, some enterprises will get it and the others will except an MS only air supply.

What else is new? Most IT managers think MS invented the computer.

two things to worry about? (1)

drfireman (101623) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136550)

Does this mean that xen will become subtly but increasingly unstable on the linux platform?

Does this mean that Microsoft is going to launch a virtualization patent army (of lawyers), forcing vmware to devote most of its resources to legal matters?

I would love to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136598)

One topic without someone mentioning the idiots guide to linux! Ubuntu! No one cares you run a bad os.

I think this is a good thing (3, Insightful)

HaloMan (314646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136662)

No, seriously. VMWare having some decent competition isn't going to do any harm - and VMWare will still dominate the Linux market which is not insignificant - and everyone legally allowed to virtualise any version of Vista is great news for everybody including VMWare, if belated.

Microsoft wanting a piece of the market could easily result in great products being created. Look at the recent versions of IIS that have been a vast improvement thanks to the old versions being crappy compared to Apache. Even MS realise that people who are interested in this sort of thing aren't after any old shit.

Reasons to Avoid Microsoft VM Products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22136758)

1) It may well lock you in to using M$ as the Host O/S
2) They will probably cripple (in performance terms) any M$ software running on anything but a M$ Host
3) They may also cripple the performance of say Linux when running on M$ VM
4) Spread lots of FUD about how well Vista performs on Server 2008 and say it still costs less than Linux

Disclaimer,
  I use VMWare Server on Linux & Windows(free) and VMWare Fusion on OS/X and have no problems moving the VM's around between systems as required.
The primary use is for training. Students can D/L VMWare Server and run the pre-configured classroom VM's with ease. I shudder to think what licensing hurdles M$ are going put in the way of doing this with their solution especially if it needs a CPU with VM Instructions.

Just my 2p worth.

Now for sale: (2, Insightful)

G-News.ch (793321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136762)

- Windows Vista Virtual Machine edition - Windows Vista VM edition plus - Windows Vista VM edition ultimate - Windows Vista VM home edition - Windows Vista VM edition OEM and of course the always popular - Windows vista VM edition ultra & Solitaire Pro Edition 2008 ultra Pricing yet to be decided.

cant we fork it !?!?! (2, Insightful)

noobstate (1224768) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136836)

since its under GPL, is it possible for someone to just FORK XEN now and not even worry about it ... or is there no point since it is GPL and open source ... but is it possible for microsoft to change license later down the line screwing everyone into paying ?!? Microsoft cant be trusted, thats a fact. why doesn't someone just fork it now steal all the true open source developers and move on .. something with such great potential (Enterprise wise) shouldn't be trusted within a corporation noways. it should be open source .

Put up or shut up (2)

ZenKen (963177) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136882)

I don't think MS is in the same position they were twelve years ago. Microsoft Live still has yet to compete with Google (even in mindshare). I think people are starting to believe (thanks to various communities like Open Source) that MS needs to actually put up or shut up. I think gone are the days of 'announcing' a competitive product and delivering one (and increasingly, a better one).

VMWare isn't going anywhere soon (4, Informative)

goldspider (445116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136902)

VMWare will automatically move virtual servers off of failing hardware; you need your servers to be clustered to get similar functionality from Microsoft.

Until Microsoft's virtualization offering has the hardware independence that VMWare has, many businesses will (correctly) consider it a weak product.

what alternatives are there (1)

noobstate (1224768) | more than 6 years ago | (#22136966)

what alternatives are there (cause nobody prolly reads the subject)

other then vmware

and kvm

XEN scales very nice and has alot of front ends which are web based what would challenger..ed.ed...ed it in the open source market ?

Different philosophy (5, Informative)

Natales (182136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137220)

What I find missing in all the comments so far is the completely different approach to virtualization that VMware has when compared to MS and Xen. The in MS/Xen model, the hypervisor is flat out part of the OS, and the VMs rely on some sort of Dom0 or master partition where most of the real drivers exist.

In the VMware model (think ESX 3i [vmware.com]), the hypervisor is a completely different layer that sits under the OS, so there is no direct OS dependency. All the drivers are specially designed and engineered to be high performance for that kind of environment, a reason why it scales so much better (at least when compared to Xen) and also a reason why they don't support all the devices out there.

I think for most of us that care about freedom of choice, the VMware model makes more sense going forward. A good, OS independent, thin hypervisor with standard open interfaces (VMI [vmware.com]) for any guest OS kernel that wants to leverage paravirtualization, or just a full hardware abstraction via the VMM for the ones that do not, coupled with good, open source set of instrumentation tools and accelerated drivers [sourceforge.net].

On top of that, VMware has open sourced their virtual disk format (VMDK [vmware.com]), has collaborated with Xen on a completely open VM portable packaging format (OVF [vmware.com]), and has a number of fully open source programs [vmware.com]. This is allowing the developing of the Virtual Appliance concept and has facilitated the penetration of Linux in places that wouldn't have otherwise.

Now, because I work for VMware (use as disclaimer also), I can tell you that the bread and butter for us is NOT the hypervisor, but all the stack we built on top of it, that includes disaster recovery, lab automation, VM lifecycle and a bunch of other very very high level stuff.

Still, competition is good for the market, open source or not, and as users, we'll all benefit.

Virtualize Linux (4, Interesting)

pesc (147035) | more than 6 years ago | (#22137458)

Windows virtualization strategy is to embrace Linux in the server rooms by virtualizing it. This will degrade Linux from an operating system to an application stack. You will buy the OS from Microsoft, and the Linux application stack from Novell.

Thus, Microsoft will extend Linux by providing better drivers to proprietary HW, nice managing consoles, etc.

When this is sufficiently entrenched, the extinguish phase can begin when somehow Microsofts virtualized software stacks run better than the virtualized Linux stack.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...