Microsoft and VPC ..... @#$%#%%% !!
From Ars Technica :
When it was learned that Microsoft was buying Virtual PC technology from Connectix, industry-types were quick to assume that the Redmond giant was after Mac users. After all, they reasoned, Virtual PC was all about running a PC on top of a Mac, right? However, Microsoft's real interest lies in consolidation: provide Virtual PC services on a Windows server, and you can sell Windows servers to IT shops that need to run multiple server instances but don't want to invest in new physical servers (for more information, see this). Of course, with something like Virtual PC or VMWare, you could do the same in reverse: run instances of Windows on top of a Linux server, for example. With the next version of Virtual PC, you won't be doing that with any official support, as Microsoft has pulled official support for non-Windows OSes from Virtual PC. From eWeek:
Carla Huffman, a product manager in the Windows Client Division, explained, "Customers will be able to run most variants of Linux, as well as NetWare and BSD, as guest OSes on Microsoft's version of Virtual PC. However, Virtual PC is optimized for Windows around key customer scenarios."
In other words, there will be no native Virtual PC host support for anything but Windows, and Microsoft will not support running anything but other instances of Windows as guest OSes. Here's where the confusion sets in: Microsoft has three virtual PC products in the works: Virtual PC, Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual Server. Virtual Server is the newer product?its development was never finished by Connectix. Yet, the story as it has surfaced from eWeek seems to suggest that Microfost is treating Virtual PC like a server consolidation product.
Instead, Microsoft is focusing on enabling Windows Server 2003 administrators to run Windows NT 4 applications on their updated servers. This, in turn, will help NT users migrate to Windows Server 2003. Technically, Virtual PC officially enables users to run XP, W2K, NT Workstation, 98, 95, ME, Windows 3.1, and OS/2 VMs on XP, W2K, NT 4 SP6 or Server 2003.
So, at least with regards to Microsoft's consolidation plans, it appears that Virtual PC is indeed being reigned in. But why cripple Virtual PC citing concerns that are really more at home in Microsoft Virtual Server's territory? MVS is aimed at Enterprise-level use, supporting up to 64 virtual environments per physical machine. I seems rather unlikely that Microsoft would give alternative OSes the cold shoulder there, too. Either something is amiss with the eWeek story, or Microsoft's plans for the PC-side of its aquisition are more complicated than first thought.
Finally, lest anyone worry, Microsoft says that they are still working on Virtual PC for Mac, but there is still no G5 support, and some wonder if Microsoft is being purposefully lackadaisical.
When it was learned that Microsoft was buying Virtual PC technology from Connectix, industry-types were quick to assume that the Redmond giant was after Mac users. After all, they reasoned, Virtual PC was all about running a PC on top of a Mac, right? However, Microsoft's real interest lies in consolidation: provide Virtual PC services on a Windows server, and you can sell Windows servers to IT shops that need to run multiple server instances but don't want to invest in new physical servers (for more information, see this). Of course, with something like Virtual PC or VMWare, you could do the same in reverse: run instances of Windows on top of a Linux server, for example. With the next version of Virtual PC, you won't be doing that with any official support, as Microsoft has pulled official support for non-Windows OSes from Virtual PC. From eWeek:
Carla Huffman, a product manager in the Windows Client Division, explained, "Customers will be able to run most variants of Linux, as well as NetWare and BSD, as guest OSes on Microsoft's version of Virtual PC. However, Virtual PC is optimized for Windows around key customer scenarios."
In other words, there will be no native Virtual PC host support for anything but Windows, and Microsoft will not support running anything but other instances of Windows as guest OSes. Here's where the confusion sets in: Microsoft has three virtual PC products in the works: Virtual PC, Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual Server. Virtual Server is the newer product?its development was never finished by Connectix. Yet, the story as it has surfaced from eWeek seems to suggest that Microfost is treating Virtual PC like a server consolidation product.
Instead, Microsoft is focusing on enabling Windows Server 2003 administrators to run Windows NT 4 applications on their updated servers. This, in turn, will help NT users migrate to Windows Server 2003. Technically, Virtual PC officially enables users to run XP, W2K, NT Workstation, 98, 95, ME, Windows 3.1, and OS/2 VMs on XP, W2K, NT 4 SP6 or Server 2003.
So, at least with regards to Microsoft's consolidation plans, it appears that Virtual PC is indeed being reigned in. But why cripple Virtual PC citing concerns that are really more at home in Microsoft Virtual Server's territory? MVS is aimed at Enterprise-level use, supporting up to 64 virtual environments per physical machine. I seems rather unlikely that Microsoft would give alternative OSes the cold shoulder there, too. Either something is amiss with the eWeek story, or Microsoft's plans for the PC-side of its aquisition are more complicated than first thought.
Finally, lest anyone worry, Microsoft says that they are still working on Virtual PC for Mac, but there is still no G5 support, and some wonder if Microsoft is being purposefully lackadaisical.
Comments