That's rediculous. I can't believe they are that worried about a service no one uses. The entire point of using Linux or Mac is to not have to deal with Windows.
Once more Microsoft don't care about resources, maybe they'll get a better bussines selling apropiated computers for their own softwares.
I'm agree that VMWare is twice faster than Microsoft Virtual Machines and it works very well with almost any Operating System.
I dont' think this could be farther from the truth. I work for a huge university and so far every department I've talked to is either implententing it or researching it. Thie target market is actually not personal users for the most part I believe. It's a huge advantage for most servers. The other thing is, MS Virtual Server was designed to be run on Windows Server 2003. It runs on XP but is not optimized for use. and again, the point of this is to utilize a server for more than one use. VMWare player on the other hand is optimized for use personal use, so it tends to run things better for the typical user. I personally still only use VMWare, the problems is there are many limitations to the free VMWare player. I love Worksation though. Unfortunely for a liegit copy is still a couple hundred dollers.
That news was great for my workplace aswell.
And i agree with the previous poster. I belive that the market are not individual users, but more likely medium/big organizations.
I like the possibility to have a big test environment with different operating systems. In fact for the last few months our company has taken VS in such uses.
I myself have used VS for a while now and havent run into anything bad. In the next few months we will be using VS to host 6-8 servers. Ill let you know how things are moving along. I could even post spesific information (mainly hardware and the configurations) about what and how were done if anyone is interested.
this is the reason M$ is afraid.
On one small Linux machine I can run Xen and it works fine. The whole problem is that M$ never made the computer use it's resources to the fullest. Windoze always took way more than was necesary.
They always relied on INTEL to do it for them. Now the computing capability thing has caught up with them.
So; on my Linux machine I can run a mail server, http server, ftp server, samba server, and they are all operating apart from each other. Free
Where does Windows 2003 server ($1000), Sharepoint server ($1000 annually), SQL server ($5000 annually), stand in all of this.
Yes, that is true. One costs (even alot by some standards) and one is basically free.
But what can you do in a big enterprise where majority of servers are MS and only 10% or less are other?
Back on topic though... does anyone have any real production environment experiences with more than few virtal machines on one virtual server? If so could you describe the setup a bit?
) so it's worth giving it a shot if you like the idea of trying out a new OS, but don't like the idea of losing Windows or repartitioning your drives.
