Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [Rival] Microsoft Well Behind in Virtualisation Market, Fails to Innovate

On Sep 2, 11:54 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Swsoft plots buying spree
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The world+dog are lining up to kick Microsoft's Viridian hypervisor, only
> | likely to arrive at the back end of next year and with some features
> | surgically removed, but Beloussov says the race isn't to the swift.

Remember that Microsoft has been doing virtualization for several
They purchased Connectix, a competitor to VMware who made
software for Windows.  Microsoft rebranded Connectix as Virtual PC,
began offering, first as a product for around $100 per PC.  The
biggest drawback
to Virtual PC was that it would ONLY work on Windows, while competitor
such as VMWare would work with Both Windows and Linux as a host.
developers, having full access to the kernel, were able to make even
better virtualization
engines, including Bochs and Xen.

One of the biggest problems with running Windows as the host to a
virtualized system
is that Windows, especially Windows XP, is terrible about granting the
required RAM to
the application.  It can take up to an hour to get all of the required
memory because
Microsoft won't swap out their own DLLs , buffers, and memory
allocations dedicated
to Microsoft.  Even with 2 gigabytes of Memory, Windows XP starves the
client VM of

Microsoft is acutely aware that Virtualization has become widespread,
and in the server
market, nearly all Microsoft Windows 2003 servers are actually running
as virtual clients
to Linux host systems such as VMWare's ESX, which combines a very
lightweight Linux
kernel, configuration console, and interfaces/drivers, and runs
Windows 2003 even faster
than it runs in "Native" mode.

Microsoft is also acutely aware that Desktop Virtualization has been
leading to similar
trends.  VMware Player and Xen have made it possible to create virtual
imiges for Windows
that can easily be repaired.  Microsoft has not really tried to keep
it a secret that they
have been working with Xen and other Virtualization vendors to create
a "Hosting" system
based on Windows, but Microsoft would have to make radical changes to
the flexibility and cooperation, as well as 64 bit support and support
for extremely large
memory models.

.Linux already has all of these capabilities, and their virtualization
tools.  Many of those
who have experience with Virtualization have now reached the point
where even Microsoft
Windows as CLIENT is more like an unwelcome guest.  A bit like the
obnoxious uncle you
have to invite to the family reunion, even though he annoys everybody
almost from the first
moment he steps into the room.

> | "I don't think it's in massive trouble," he said. "It's the Microsoft model
> | not to innovate. Being first to market doesn't matter."

Microsoft has been making deals with Linux distributors, which appears
to involve
exchange of patent rights.  Details have not been disclosed.  Is it
possible that
we are actually seeing "Microsoft Linux" in the form of a
Virtualization platform
owned and controlled by Microsoft?

Microsoft would have to really come up with something totally amazing
be able to displace not just a solid market, but a market that is
has achived extraordinary numbers (over 200 million copies of VMWare
deployed), Xen is somewhere around 100 million?

> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42058

> Does Citrix Have A Chance Against VMware In Virtualization?
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "VMware will probably not be able to maintain its extreme domination in the
> | server virtualization market forever," Kumar writes, "but there is not other
> | realistic competition right now. Microsoft is far behind and everybody else,
> | including XenSource, is a speck on the horizon."

VMware isn't the only player on the market, and there are some worthy
On the other hand, VMWare has done a great job of making
virtualization as easy
as installing and running an application.  They have executed
extremely well,
and they have made it easier to create VMWare Images from running
Windows systems
than it is to install a "Dual Boot" Linux system.  Even better,
creating a VMWare image
using VMWare Converter is easier than doing back-up and recovery using
back-ups technologies.

It would be wonderful if the other competitors were able to provide
similar capabilities, with
as much ease.  VMWare took a page from Microsoft's playbook.  Instead
of being satisfied
with simple and limited interfaces, they took the feedback from
desktop and server users
and created really good user interaces and made it VMWare appliances
easy to install
and easy to use.  Many vendors, including Oracle, IBM, and Sun, are
now offering VMWare
"Appliances" that can be used on VMWare hosting systems, including
Player, Server,
ESX, and their other products, using Linux or Windows as a host.

I've been a satisfied customer for years, and have gladly payed the
price for VMWare Workstation
for both Linux and Windows.  I prefer the Linux version, because the
VMs tend to start faster,
run faster, and are much more reliable.  I've had some cases where I
have had to revert to the
Windows version because of driver issues.

> http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2007/08/27/does-citrix-have-...http://tinyurl.com/35bvcg

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index