Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Next Round in the Virtualization Wars

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:23 PM
from the in-this-corner dept.
Software IT
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] IT: Virtualization Goes Mainstream 167 comments
InformationWeek is reporting that, during the same week that Microsoft announced the free price for Virtual PC, VMWare 1.0 was released for free as well. Though there were already many free options for virtualization available, these major products signal a shift in the industry. From the article: "There are many ramifications here. Obviously, the slew of products means network managers can now adopt virtual servers into their overall strategies and don't have acquisition costs providing a justification to avoid it. Other than the very-high-end VMware ESX and the midline Microsoft Virtual Server on mainstream XP platforms, virtualization is essentially free wherever you might want to use it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Next Round in the Virtualization Wars 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • What about XP? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by akac (571059) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:25PM (#15710554) Homepage
    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.
    • "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.
      • True if that's the host OS. But for a virtualized host, one wishes it to be as lean as possible to impact the host OS as little as possible.

      • 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 n

        • Re:Old, old Microsoft stuff (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Ed Avis (5917) <ed@membled.com> on Thursday July 13 2006, @03:57AM (#15711251) Homepage
          Windows 3.1 won't work in dosemu (which uses the old V86 virtualization that's been in the Intel 80386 onwards), nor will it run in OS/2's V86 environment. But you can patch it with some DLL you used to be able to download from IBM that makes it use DPMI for protected mode, and then it runs in both.

          The new virtualization stuff is much more capable than V86 mode so I'd be surprised if it couldn't cope with Windows 3.1.
            • Old PC-controlled laboratory instruments. If the instrument still works, why (a) pay for a new instrument, (b) train technicians on the new instrument, (c) possibly buy new mounting hardware, (c) train technicians with new versions of the software, (d) come up with new calibration parameters for the new instrument, (e) work out new statistical correlations for the different sample types' properties, (f) get the instrument certified for certain industrial applications (automotive, medical, etc.), (g) possibly buy software to convert between older and newer data file formats?

              Some lab instruments will run for a good 10-20 years... there are probably still a few DEC PDP's and Apple II/GS's out there connected to instruments somewhere!

      • Re:What about XP and others (Score:4, Informative)

        by julesh (229690) on Thursday July 13 2006, @01:50AM (#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.

  • Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gardyloo (512791) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:29PM (#15710566)
    ... does it run... aw, fuckitall.

                *head asplode*
    • 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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. (Score:3, Informative)

          by IANAAC (692242)
          I was able to install Tiger_x86 (10.4) under VMWare. Got networking with one of Maxxuss' pathes. Still can't get sound to work though. Other than that, it runs fine in VMWare.

            • Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)

              by EzInKy (115248)

              Thanks for the info. But do you know if bypassing the TMP (by removing the kext, presumably) is illegal under the DMCA? And can one get in trouble for that?


              That would depend on whether you live in a country where the DMCA was applicable and enforced.

  • Sorry Mac Users (Score:5, Informative)

    by thedbp (443047) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:31PM (#15710577)
    the version of VPC that is freely available only runs on Windows.

    Blarg!

    • Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tb3 (313150) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:49PM (#15710641) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday July 13 2006, @01:38AM (#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.

        • Not a monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MarkByers (770551) on Thursday July 13 2006, @04:04AM (#15711268) Homepage Journal
          their OS monopoly (which I find a funny term, given the Apple and Linux competition)

          Yeah, it's absolutely hilarious that people would claim that Windows a monopoly... ...until the day you try to switch and you realise:

            * 95% of your software no longer works (yes there are free alternatives to most things, but you already paid for a lot of expensive software so why can't you use it?)
            * You can no longer play your favorite multiplayer game with your friends from university.
            * Several pieces of your expensive hardware only has Windows drivers and now you can't use it.
            * A few of your favourite websites (including your net banking) no longer work because of ActiveX, Flash 8 or severe rendering bugs.
            * You can no longer watch the games/videos/greetings your family emails you as executable files (although this is arguably an advantage).
            * If you are using a free operating system, you may have trouble installing software covered by patent laws (mp3 players for example).
            * You can't access the files on your hard disk from another oprating system because Windows encrypted it (OK, this one hasn't happened yet, but I'm looking forward to it happening soon...)

          Still laughing?

            • Two different things... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by MarkByers (770551) on Thursday July 13 2006, @05:41AM (#15711459) Homepage Journal
              And the best part is that absolutely none of those reasons are why Microsoft is considered to have a monopoly.

              You do not need to be a lawyer to undrestand why Windows is so popular and manages to get such a huge share of the market. Microsoft has a monopoly because for many people, like it or not, Windows is the only choice, for reasons I listed in my earlier post. It is that simple. I am not judging whether this is good or bad, legal or illegal, I am just stating a fact.

              I am not considering if they are abusing their monopoly, which is what I think you are talking about. This is a totally different, valid but more complicated question, and that is when the lawyers start getting involved.

              you've gotta go buy an off-the-shelf PC that has a copy of Windows XP preinstalled

              This isn't true, at least not in Denmark where I live. I can't remember the last time I bought a PC with an OS pre-installed.

    • Re:Sorry Mac Users (Score:4, Insightful)

      by vought (160908) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:52PM (#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 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ditoa (952847) on Thursday July 13 2006, @02:00AM (#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.

    • 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.

      • 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).

  • What is supported (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nemith (114402) <bennetb@oMONETnewest.net minus painter> on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:31PM (#15710579) Homepage
    Check out this link as to what will work on VPC and what won't. http://vpc.visualwin.com/ [visualwin.com]
  • 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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:33PM (#15710584)
    What a bargain!

  • OSS is working (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dryanta (978861) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:41PM (#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.
    • How could virtualization spell the end of Microsoft and the tech economy as we know it?

    • Re:OSS is working (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tim C (15259) on Thursday July 13 2006, @05:09AM (#15711399)
      This huge industry push to OSS and virtualization could be the end of Microsoft and the tech economy as we know it.

      How can a push to virtualisation - the process of running an OS on "virtual hardware" - possibly be the end of a company that's core business involves selling an OS? Not to mention that most virtualisation products require a host OS in the first place (VMWare's ESX Server is the only one that springs to mind that doesn't, but it certianly still requires at least one guest OS)

      Besides which, the real uses for virtualisation (to my mind) are currently:

      1) Running multiple server OSes on a beefy server
      2) Running an alternative OS for testing or application availability purposes

      In the first instance, you're most likely going to be running server OSes, and I don't see MS changing the licencing terms for any of their Server products any time soon, so that'll still require one licence per VM. In the second instance, the licencing is immaterial, as you only need the one licence anyway.

      Now, a move to OSS I can see being problematic for vendors like MS, but let's be honest here - it's not looking to have made much of a dent in their profits over the last decade or so. Doubtless it will given time, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Ousting a company that is *that* entrenched is no simple matter.

      • Re:OSS is working (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 0racle (667029) on Thursday July 13 2006, @01:32AM (#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... (Score:4, Funny)

    by SFSouthpaw (797536) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:45PM (#15710627) Homepage
    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.

  • Four *extra* licenses? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Telcontar (819) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:59PM (#15710668) Homepage
    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...
    • 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,

      Actually no, before you needed one license per virtual machine.

      But now the question I am wondering is:

      Does the new licensing for Vista Enterprise only apply when using Virtual PC, or can you also install up to 4 extra copies when using VMWare's solution?

      If it's only the former, it looks like another case of them abusing their monopoly. I will give t
  • 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.

  • Up to four? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truedfx (802492) on Thursday July 13 2006, @12:15AM (#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?
  • 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?

  • Four times (Score:4, Funny)

    by rbanffy (584143) on Thursday July 13 2006, @12:16AM (#15710739) Homepage
    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?

  • Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday July 13 2006, @01:09AM (#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!

  • Other possible reasons for VPC (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RShizzle (983535) on Thursday July 13 2006, @01:48AM (#15710992) Homepage
    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.

  • This seems redundant (Score:3, Funny)

    by smartin (942) on Thursday July 13 2006, @06:35AM (#15711537)
    Isn't Vista already virtual
    • '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

        • Re:Virtual PC for Windows only FREE (as in beer) (Score:5, Insightful)

          by thedbp (443047) on Thursday July 13 2006, @12:10AM (#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.
    • How much do houses cost on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams?

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

      by thedbp (443047) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @11:39PM (#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:What?! (Score:2, Informative)

      by jonoid (863970)
      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, the
    • 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.

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

      by Bishop (4500) on Thursday July 13 2006, @12:57AM (#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.
    • Yes, VPC can run a variety of Linux distributions and is very useful for testing code, or having a secondary operating system. See this http://vpc.visualwin.com/ [visualwin.com] for the full list of supported platforms. However, VMware workstation is still much more configurable and powerful (though not free) and will allow you to run almost every x86 operating system completely unmodified.

    • Could someone explain to me why are VMWare and Microsoft rushing to give some of their virtualization products away free?

      VMWare makes money selling really cool management suites for their virtualization technology. They figure if they give away the low-end stuff, then everyone will use it and those with money will buy their high-end stuff, which works with it. They are otherwise competing with several free, open-source implementations which would take over if they tried to charge for them.

      MS does not li

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.