VMware Signs Deal with Microsoft 187
ken_i_m writes "VMware has signed an OEM deal with Microsoft to offer various flavors of Windows pre-installed with their product. Here is VMware's news release." Don't get too angry about this; if you're using VMware, you're probably loading up a version of Windows anyway.
Re:VMWare has no choice (Score:1)
Win 2000 is stable (though the hardware requirements make it unusable for most computers made before 1999).
Mac OS X is is stable & unixy. I know of quite a few people who have switched from mklinux/linuxppc to use OS X Server for server purposes.
BeOS personal Edition - it has some limitations, and some people are complaining, but the interest in it is incredible - are Linux advocates looking for something else that's free, but user friendly
Linux stocks are at record-low prices - and dropping. Net & tech stocks are also off, but the linux decline preceeded them.
So has linux peaked?
Re:Win 98/2K only or VMWare/Win/Linux? (Score:1)
Not true. VMWare will run at whatever resolution your Xserver is running at. This goes for color depth as well.
Regarding SC, for example, it requires 256 colors at 640x480, no more. If you are running your Xserver in 16bit, it won't work, because it can't switch to 256 color. On top of this, it requires DirectX, which is not yet supported under VMWare.
That said, I am aware of people running SC in vmware. Myself, I just run it with WINE. ?:^)
Re:IF I EVER... (Score:1)
Re:Why Angry? (Score:1)
--Emmett
Oh, and check out #slashdot on irc.openprojects.net.
Re:don't get mad! please? (Score:1)
--Emmett
Re:One image for everyone? (Score:1)
As far as I understand it, VMWare presents the same machine to the OS running in it, regardless of what your hardware is. They fake a generic NIC card, video adapter, and SCSI adaptor (and probably other things), so you should always end up with the "same" hardware under VMWare.
Oops, it was SuSE 6.2 (Score:1)
VMWare didn't work for me... (Score:1)
Here's a short list:
Second Reality
Panic
Optic Nerve
Crystal Dream II
Anyone get any of these running under Linux?
--Threed
Browsing at +2, or else on my Cell Phone. I see no trolls.
Re:Slam dunk! (Score:1)
Not quite... (Score:1)
Using Windows is taxing.
Upgrading Windows is both a tax and taxing.
This helps (Score:1)
Re:Comments Summary (Score:1)
OS/2 Alive on my desktop (Score:1)
Netscape Communicator 4.61
Netscape Communicator 4.04
Netscape Navigator 2.02
HotJava 3.0
HotJava 1.15
Lynx/2
WebExplorer 1.2
Sslurp! 1.6 (site downloader)
If I wanted, I could run the very alpha Opera/2, or several versions of Netscape/W16, Opera/W16, or (rumor has it), IE3/W16.
Also, using XFree/OS2 provides a platform on which a number of browsers have been ported (and the GIMP, which is about all I use XFree/OS2 for myself).
So there are quite a few web-browsing options under OS/2. And even most unix shells, shell tools, good editors, ports of all my favorite compilers. Overall, a nice place to work.
A question (Score:1)
vmware rocks, but ... (Score:1)
That said, what the fuck is with the stupid "tux in a business suit" icons? Gee, that's sooooo cute. I hate suits at work and I don't need to see my favorite mascot disgraced in this way.
Can we at least have tux dressed up like Che or something to even things out? Sheesh.
vmware is too slow for games (Score:1)
It's fine for most applications you can't run in linux and things like that but it is too slow for games.
you think about it! (Score:1)
2. Just because you can't think of a reason to run a virtual win9x machine in linux doesn't mean there isn't one. Where I work, I need access to a MS proprietary mail system, windows only netware management tools, MS Office, and a host of other such bullshit. I need linux to keep my sanity only, because honestly I could do without it and use some windows ssh client to manage the linux machines. However, I would go insane using windows all the time.
Re:A double whammy for backward compatibility (Score:1)
Oh? Hmmm. They describe their product as being for NT and W2K. What the heck, maybe I'll take it for a spin and stick FreeBSD on my system... or a Linux distro...
A double whammy for backward compatibility (Score:1)
I haven't bothered with VMWare yet because it doesn't support Win98SE and I think it's gonna be kludgy to go from Win to WinLinux, fire up Linux VMWare then re-launch Win98SE.
If VMWare are getting in bed with MS, they'll be working hand in hand with a company that hasn't shown a whole lot of interest in maintaining backward compatibility. This reinforces my suspicion that VMWare won't bother extending their product's capability back to '9x.
If I've proven myself clueless, at least make your flames educational, OK? I'm man enough to be insulted if at least I get to learn something in the process.
Maybe people DON't want to install WIN2K (Score:1)
Maybe MS thinks that people are finding out their OS sucks and won't install it.
Dancin with the Devil (Score:1)
Good (Score:1)
Re:Pain elimination? (Score:1)
Slam dunk! (Score:1)
Bundling pre-installed Windows with VMWare is a slam dunk. I'm quite glad that VMWare made this move, because it means that it will be cheaper for me to install Win2k on my VMWare box (after I upgrade my computer, blah blah blah :)). It also makes it that much easier to poke and prod Win2k for flaws on top of my Linux box.
And additionally, it will save you money if you want your cable modem to be installed on your Linux box...:)
And we can soon give VMWare and Microsoft the award for best Linux application (VMWare with WinNT :)).
SIGH (Score:1)
Okay, at least try paying a
little attention. This is to run Windows under other operating system. Now, yes, the other operating systems might Windows NT, but they're more likely to be Linux or FreeBSD or whatever else can be used as a VMWare host OS.
-David T. C.
Re:Making Windows stable (Score:1)
What they gain. (Score:1)
1. Following the "Windows Everywhere" strategy, they get a copy of Windows9X/NT/00 on machines that otherwise wouldn't run Windows.
2. While the press release doesn't say this, it is a reasonable assumption that MSFT will get some sort of licensing fee from VMWare for each copy sold.
3. By increasing the number of PCs running Windows, MSFT gains more potential users for other MSFT software such as Office or IE. This enables them to earn more revenues for copies of those products, too. This increases "lock in" at the corporate level ("sure, we can use Linux on the desktop for the geeks who want it, without giving up MS Word and MS Excel as our standard word processor and spreadsheet."). "Lock in" ensures future product sales.
Finally, I think MSFT realizes that the battle for the desktop is over and they won. They don't need the monopoly on desktop OSes any more. They've got additional areas where they own the de facto standards (MS Word and MS Excel come to mind. IE to a lesser extent). I suspect that their attempt to settle w/ the Feds will revolve around lots of apparent sacrifices regarding their OS monopoly. They can afford it since they've got many other areas where they've locked in vast numbers of customers.
This is a small sacrifce for MSFT, if any.
Re:The point? (Score:1)
Pump (Score:1)
It comes with Red Hat IIRC, I am using Mandrake 7 now and I had to use Rpmfind to get it. (Why it does not come with Mandrake I do not know...)
Speed Issue? (Score:1)
So what happens when someone loads up Linux in a window? It's slow, and feels bloated. This stifles the great thing about Linux by putting a plastic bag over it, and telling users that it choking is its own fault.
In other words, "go back to Windows. It's faster."
Re:Slam dunk! (Score:1)
However, if anyone could help me with this, it would be nice:
Whenever I shut down my net connection (on reboot or whatever), I can't reconnect to RoadRunner for several hours. I'm guessing that RR is not realizing that I've disconnected, and I have to wait for it to timeout. The reason I think this is because I can swap network card cables (I do IP masq'ing for our in-house LAN), and most of the time it will just connect.
Does anyone know how to properly shut down the connection? I've tried 'pump -k' and 'pump -r', but that doesn't help.
Re:Good, because... (Score:1)
But it takes a lot longer to cut and paste from GVIM running in Linux/X to the Win95 box, and pasting into a WinNT box, as well as drag and dropping files files between the Win9x and Samba running on the Linux box.
The great thing about VMWare is that it is very seamless. AND My win9x VMWare boxes are much more stable than any box I've seen. And reboot time of newer, bigger machines is very annoying. There is a time and place for Dual-Boot (Gaming), but in a work environment, VMWare is much more practical. Allowing me to do all my primary work under Linux, and run Office and Outlook under Windows.
-- Keith Moore
Re:Why Angry? (Score:1)
Re:A good thing! (Score:1)
I also question the cable boxes, and since the X box won't be out for at least another 18 months, who knows what will happen in the gaming console market.
Re:Good, because... (Score:1)
Yes, you may want a machine with lots of RAM to run multiple OS's at once, but that doesn't mean that each instance will use up lots of RAM. I have a machine w/ 256 Meg RAM, and host multiple NT guests running under Linux, w/ no problem.
This is good for linux (Score:1)
I have found that I can install linux and VMWare with windows on a machine in our engineering dept and before long the user is spending more time using linux apps then windows apps.
Re:Comments Summary (Score:1)
Re:Comments Summary (Score:1)
moderators suck. fucking humorless assholes.
Re:Ok, so I'm suspicious (Score:1)
contradict their "us or nobody" approach.
see citrix [citrix.com]
js
Re:It has to be said... (Score:1)
Nice thought...however, VMware has some detection mechanism that will not allow you to run a virtual machine inside another virtual machine. I understand this would create some rather nasty problems.
Re:How about an OS Variety Pack (Score:1)
And for just $210 you could get *BSDs, Solaris 8, several distros of Linux, EROS, BeOS, AND Windows. (monopo-what? price-gouga-who?)
--
Re:It's Simple - Windows 2000 Isn't Selling (Score:1)
I can only assume that I hit too close to the truth for somebody.
Re:Good, because... (Score:1)
I'm betting that my motivation will be to run Windows without having to reboot the base O/S when Windows bluescreens. A Win98 window on a Linux box sounds about right.
Besides, I need some excuse to buy that dual Celeron motherboard.
--R
Let 'em do it... (Score:1)
Not surprising... (Score:2)
I will consider VMWare a product that is recomendable by me until such time as you can't buy it without purchasing another copy of Windows.
I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to purchase VMWare.
A linux distro did come with VMWare for Windows NT (Score:2)
It was rather nice. I'd always wanted to try SuSE out, but never had the time. This was so easy and the image ran under my copy of VMWare for Linux as well.
Re:Ok, so I'm suspicious (Score:2)
What they lose is they legitimize a platform that they often tell people is "not up to the job" and "not robust enough". Plus they help pave the way to loosen their death grip on the market. If I were an IT manager, i'd look at this and think. Hmm maybe I really can replace windows on the desktop, get a lot more stable environment but not have to give up all those bloody applications that i paid through the nose for.
Re:Win 98/2K only or VMWare/Win/Linux? (Score:2)
It's a nice solution for what it is, but it's not going to put a full Windows box on your desktop.
Re:VMWare has no choice (Score:2)
Re: Please! (Score:2)
Of course, OS/2 didn't like vmware AT ALL. I tried to get win3.1 loaded, but I lost the last disk!! Probably not that big a deal.
I will be able to try out other linux distro's as well. VMware is a great tool. Now, I need more HD space...
OS/2 on VMware (Score:2)
Re:One image for everyone? (Score:2)
Re:A couple of tangent-topic questions (Score:2)
Re BeOS - I agree, it's a matter of getting Be interested in this. BeOS 4.5 does get halfway through the boot sequence...
Re:Making Windows stable (Score:2)
Of course, the corollary for this is that if you buy an AMD PCnet NIC, SB16, and so on, it should be ultra stable at running NT...
I wouldn't really recommend NT+VMware+Linux as an elegant solution for reliable applications, but if there's an app that runs only on Windows, it's not a bad approach.
For a dedicated 'Windows' workstation, you could even run VMware instead of a window manager, in full screen mode, so the system appears to boot 'right into Windows'. If you ran this on another X display (e.g.
Re:Making Windows 2000 stable (Score:2)
YMMV of course...
Re:Win 98/2K only or VMWare/Win/Linux? (Score:2)
VMware is not really intended for playing games at the moment - stick to dual booting until it gets better, or buy Linux games
Re:VMWare already ships with Linux distro (Score:2)
It has to be said... (Score:2)
Aside from MAME, it'd be interesting to run some standard benchmark, or nearly standard, like Bytemark or SPEC (if someone with the $$$ for SPEC was interested) to see how much the CPU bogs down with each layer of emulation. Theoretically, if VMWare just passes x86 instructions to the processor, each additional instance should only suffer a small bit, rather than getting completely mangled.
Alternatively, one could run slackware inside of debian inside of openlinux inside of redhat inside of turbo linux... yikes!
One image for everyone? (Score:2)
While this is both a great move for VMWare and potentially a great new product for consumers, I have my doubts about how well a "one size fits all" preinstall can work on all machines.
This should be fine for MS-DOS 98, but IIRC on an NT system some of the low level system stuff has to match between the real machine and the virtual machine (e.g. the HAL). I wonder if VMWare intends to have different images for different configurations... This could be a real pain for the user.
Of course, I've met some of the guys who work on this and I have faith in their ability to work it out.
It's not a tax as long as you have a choice (Score:2)
As long as VMWare is still selling a version with no operating system (and it appears they intend to continue doing so) I see no reason to complain about a "tax" on the Windows-bundled versions.
To me this just seems like an even better tool for those IT admins who want to start deploying other operating systems in their organizations.
Re:One image for everyone? (Score:2)
That's the idea but it might not be quite that easy. At least with the version I ran (v1) it wasn't able to translate between two different HAL's - I tried to run a single processor VM on a dual processor machine and it choked. I had to change the way NT was installed on the real machine.
Maybe all of this is fixed in v2. In which case, it's good news all around.
Re:Why Angry? (Score:2)
Oh come on, it is no such thing. It wouldn't surprise me at all if VMWare started including a linux distro for all the people using VMWare for Windows, so that they could run linux in a box without having to go download a distro over a phone line. (Actually, that's not a bad idea at all. And it'd cost them next to nothing.) Would that make linux the inferior operating system?
Re:The slow encroachment of M$ into linux territor (Score:2)
If they can sell Windows, Office, and add-ons to people running these under VMware, it's no different than selling Windows, Office, and add-ons to people running these on actual x86 boxes.
The problem for Microsoft comes about when people move from a Windows-only box to running Windows under VMware to not running Windows at all. But historically, they've been better at creating good applications than creating good operating systems.
If they can reduce the operating system problem to an application level (more features) without having to worry about reliability (hey, just reboot or restart VMware), that's good for them.
'Course, you could argue they already do this...
------------------
Re:Slam dunk! (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:VMWare has no choice (Score:2)
Re:Slam dunk! (Score:2)
My linux box has worked flawlessly with three different cable modems on two different services (@Home - static, and Bresnanlink - dynamic).
</me too>
What I liked was the last guy said, oh, well you probably know enough about networking to get this running, so unless you want help with it right now, I won't screw with your stuff...
I like it when people realize you have a clue, so they don't insist on 'I have to install this for you and screw up netscape, all your settings, etc...' (and support afterwards is still free).
Question though - what is 'pump'? Is that a util that RR gives you? Never heard of it....
To cure denail... (Score:2)
This seems to show that Microsoft is beginning to admit that it is in denail about it's inferior products.
After the admission you must discover what you are in denial about.
Microsoft now must identify which products are inferior. (IMHO every single one of them except freecell)
After discovering your areas of denial you must fix them.
For Microsoft I think this is impossible. Once a project hits a certian point you must scrap it. Kinda like a nuclear explosion. Once the Plutonium or Uranium starts to FIZZ you can't stop it.
Re:Sounds good (Score:2)
At US$300 plus, they could OEM Win9x in there and hardly notice. I was all set to buy a copy when I thought it was $99 but it ain't worth three times that per seat.
Besides which, I'm still having fits with making the networking work on the eval copy.
Win 98/2K only or VMWare/Win/Linux? (Score:2)
Like The Sims
The key word here is Offer (Score:2)
Sounds good to me. Then you don't have to make a boot floppy, FDISK and format your imaginary partition, sit through the installation which goes even slower than normal since it's running in VMware... And it gives me a good reason to get a completely legitimate windows license.
Re:Futher evil? (Score:2)
Re:RIP OS/2 (Score:2)
Seriously, OS/2 has tcp/ip and has had it for a long time. If you don't have "Warp Connect", which is the default LAN install, you have to add it as an add-on. I bet that's what you had.
Browsers were a problem. There was a version of Netscape for it at one point, but I don't think it did Java. I had better luck installing an X Server on OS/2 and running Netscape off of a Unix box.
Windows 2000 OEM - $135 (Score:2)
> You can pay $200 for an upgrade copy of W2k, wow.
If you buy a motherboard & CPU you can get Windows 2000 Pro OEM, the full package, not merely an upgrade, for $135. I just did last week, and it arrived yesterday.
I haven't installed it yet, but I must say, the CD is beautiful! They put a "holographic" image on it. If it were a Pokemon card, it would be worth $100 easy. My SGI/Debian CD looks positively dowdy in comparison. So even if the OS is unusably bad, which isn't very likely, I feel I will have gotten my money's worth.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Is it bad? (Score:2)
Re:RIP OS/2 (Score:2)
Re:VMWare has no choice (Score:2)
compatible product, that lets you run linux, not the other way around. IBM is getting out of Redhat, and, as Redhat goes, so goes linux. Once Dell dumps linux (soon), Linux will be regulated back as a Fringe OS.. Then you know
how the Mac/BeOS people feel.
Is there any evidence that dell is going to drop linux support in the near future? I would like so hard evidence for this one.
OS/2 and Stuff (Score:2)
If you buy OS/2 you're already paying for a copy of Windows, since IBM pays Microsoft a royalty on most copies of OS/2 sold (Not OS/2 for Windows but I don't think you can find that anymore.)
So if you buy vmware to run OS/2 (Assuming that's possible) you'll most likely be paying Microsoft 3 times for Windows -- one for the pre-load on your machine, one for VMware and one for OS/2.
Microsoft must think that's amusing.
Re:Good, because... (Score:2)
-- Andy
Can't be a tax (Score:2)
Pain elimination? (Score:2)
O.K., so you eliminate the pain of the Windows install. To me that's only the beginning of the pain, reguardless of. I wonder if it also eliminates the pain of reinstalling?
Re:Comments Summary (Score:2)
Apology (Score:2)
kwsNI
Re:The slow encroachment of M$ into linux territor (Score:2)
Isn't using Windows enough of a tax?
Office is where their money comes from anyway.
Don't forget Asheron's Call.
kwsNI
running starcraft (Score:2)
If you have the commercial version... mount the cd... locate install.exe... and change to that directory.
type: wine -display localhost:0 -winver win95 install.exe
choose 'no' to install directx, other defaults are generally acceptable.
It only works in linux in 256 640x480.
To play: cd to the install directory and '
wine -display localhost:0 -winver win95 -depth 8 \ > -geom 640x480 Starcraft.exe
(it assumes your windows partion is mounted as /c) I don't have the game, so I havn't had a chance to try it, poor poor pitiful me
VMWare for NT (Score:2)
Now I would like to know if they have sign a deal with some Linux corps (RedHat, Suse, Debian ...) or *BSD groups to distribute their distros with VMWare for NT.
Maybe this new deal keep them from distributing another OS ???
Re:Ok, so I'm suspicious (Score:2)
Pipe-dreams aside, I really wonder why M$ does so poorly at a (semi-) solved problem when they have an essentially infinite amount of money and (AFAIK) talent. Maybe Gates', "They're users, they won't care" attitude spreads through the intranet there. Or maybe there really is a god.
Or maybe Gates hacks on the release code every now and then, and the last guy who changed his code was never heard from again.
Ok, so I'm suspicious (Score:3)
Re:It has to be said... (Score:3)
Nonexistent. I can almost guarantee it wouldn't work. VMware didn't run itself recursively last I checked, for one.
You want real-world perverse twists tho, I plan to run Linux under FreeBSD by running it in VMware under Linux emulation
MS Bug Fixing (Score:3)
Maybe this is just Microsoft's way of fixing bugs in the Windoze operating systems? I can see it now - Microsoft Win2001 installs Linux, VMWare, and their OS. OS runs on VMWare, with the setting tricked out so it cannot corrupt itself into uselessness, and viola! It will be at least as stable as Windows 3.1 (I remember those days - it crashed often, but I never had to reinstall the OS).
Wouldn't that be a hoot? The system could also be "journaled" through VMWare so that the OS from before the last five software installs was accessable. Then you could "undo" a software install that fsck'd up the DLLs for other programs.
Hey, this could work....(Just my luck, trying to be funny and now I'm sitting here thinking seriously about it!).
P.S. I know VMWare does not do all that now. (Just to head off the knuckleheads that flame^H^H^H^H^Hreply without "getting" the humor).
The slow encroachment of M$ into linux territory.. (Score:3)
This caught my eye early this morning, and my first reaction was, "Are they going to raise the price of VMWare?" There's already a "Windows tax" on new PC's, is there going to be one on VMWare?
I have to wonder if this is the first step of Micro$oft's plan to move into Linux territory. Why port Office to Linux, if they can keep all the Windows-to-Linux converts using Office? Office is where their money comes from anyway.
I treat this in the same way that I treated the annoucement of Micro$oft's investment in Apple [slashdot.org] -- partly for the PR, partly to make it seem like they are playing nice in the business field, and partly to see if this can be a profitable outlet for Office and their other tools.
darren
Cthulhu for President! [cthulhu.org]
Good, because... (Score:3)
And that's a good sign.
Re:RIP OS/2 (Score:3)
But I gotta wonder. (Score:3)
Then I got to thinking... I wonder if there's any clause in the deal that prohibits VMWare from bundling a "ready-to-run" image of another OS down the road?
And if so, would it even apply to a bundled Linux config?
HAPPY BIRTHDAY HEMOS!!! (Score:3)
IT'S HEMOS'S BIRTHDAY TODAY!!!!!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY HEMOS!!!!
Re:Why Angry? (Score:4)
I'm guessing the poster is referring to the inevitable knee-jerk fizzing-at-the-mouth
How about an OS Variety Pack (Score:5)
Very handy for someone who wants to play around, or for a starting place for testing...
Cheers,
Ben
Sounds good (Score:5)
The only down side I can see to this is if, in the future, the purchase doesn't become optional.
Making Windows stable (Score:5)
VMware's website has a case study of a law firm who installed Linux and VMware in order to run Windows with fewer crashes - so this is not just my experience...
One useful feature in VMware 2.0 is the 'suspend to disk' feature (like some laptops but no OS APM or ACPI support required). Currently you can only suspend to disk as part of suspending the VM.
However, it would be possible to save the Windows or other OS state to disk in an identical way every 5 minutes or so (the save to disk is quite fast if you have enough memory as it goes to Linux buffer cache). This would mean you could recover from any Windows/other crash, no matter how bad, back to your state as of N minutes ago.
This is similar to some Windows products that recover your state, but is much more likely to be bullet proof since it's done through the VM mechanism.
It would also be useful when testing out bleeding edge Linux kernels, of course...
Why Angry? (Score:5)
And once we get people to run Windows in a Window, it becomes easier to open people up to completely different alternatives w/o legacy support.
Besides, why would a natural reaction to good news for a successful product that many power users use make people "angry". Do the story posters have to be so anti-MS?
Comments Summary (Score:5)
1.) M$ is evil.
2.) MicroShaft will never win.
3.) This program sucks. Release it under the GPL.
4.) Hot grits!
5.) The GPL sucks. Use a BSD-style license instead.
6.) This is not news. We had this running years ago on my old system using a packaged version of and a box of .
7.) Natalie Portman! Hot Grits!
8.) Slashdot sucks now. I remember when the stories where written in C and posted in binary, so you had to disassemble before you could read.
9.) 3y3 0wN j00r b0x!
10.) This is old news. Macs have had this for years.
11.) Damn linux heads! You just hate MS b/c you are jealous. MS Roolz! By the way, can someone teach me how to make a "boot disk"?
12.) This is old news. This was invented at Xerox-PARC.
13.) Too bad Amazon already has a patent!
14.) I hate Jon Katz.
15.) This is old news. This was invented by von Neumann and Turing in 1943. Read Cryptonomicon.
16.) Hot grits! In my pants!