To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The article seems to be forgetting VMware ESX, I don't think Microsoft will be able to compete for the same level that ESX provides for a while yet.
ESX runs VMware's own kernel and hypervisor so instead of having virtualization logic *added* to the kernel, the kernel is designed for virtualization, leading to better performance.
Microsoft may be able to convince some shops to switch to their own built in virtualization tool for some testing but I wouldn't expect them to start taking over the market. Also you have to consider what operating systems will be supported for running in the virtualized environment, if non-Windows guests couldn't perform well then that could be a show stopper for some.
When it comes to virtualization, the money is not in the host runtime - both MS and VMWare give it away for free - but in the managability software that surrounds it (there are strategic aspects too). Microsoft makes the System Center product line, which has virtualization concepts built deep into it and correspondingly they offer a runtime.
Microsoft definitely desires that Windows be your virtualization host (for any and all workloads), and will build good guest-level support for alternative OSes to support that goal. Their arrangement with Xen speaks to that.
Edited 2007-07-09 23:24
Although I can understand MS wanting to get on board the virtualisation gravy train, mainly due to the fact that you have several virtualisation technologies out of the box on any Linux distro (not to mention built into the kernel), trying to kill off a former 'partner' by offering a free, Enterprise level alternative integrated into it's consumer desktop offering just seems like more abuse of it's virtual monopoly.
This time around it is going to be hard to cry monopoly like before with Internet Explorer being deeply integrated into the OS since Linux has virtualization right in it's kernel too.
Virtualization makes sense in the kernel, this is something that Microsoft should do.




Member since:
2006-12-28
Looks like MS is out to take over another 'partner's' market. From the article -
Although I can understand MS wanting to get on board the virtualisation gravy train, mainly due to the fact that you have several virtualisation technologies out of the box on any Linux distro (not to mention built into the kernel), trying to kill off a former 'partner' by offering a free, Enterprise level alternative integrated into it's consumer desktop offering just seems like more abuse of it's virtual monopoly.
Hopefully we can have several open source implementations to offset MS if they're offering turns out to be as bad as VirtualPC currently is. ;-P
Edit: Added some bits for clarity.
Edited 2007-07-09 22:50 UTC