 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Windows will be killed by virtual appliances: VMware exec | |
|
||
| Time: 23:49 EST/04:49 GMT | News Source: IT Wire | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
According to Paul Harapin, managing director for Australia and New Zealand at VMware, Windows and other large operating systems are already starting to be replaced by virtual appliances running on thin layers of Linux.
|
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 17 of 17 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:03:28 AM |
| VMWare is big and powerful. They lack the killing power of which they brag. In fact, Windows will likely grow instead as multiple appliances serving different fucntions on a single virtual server. The blike had one too many ales, mate. |
| #2 By 9589 (169.200.173.50) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 08:56:05 AM |
| Anybody remember the announcement years ago about the end of paper? The paperless office is . . . |
| #3 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:43:34 AM |
|
We went VMware a few years ago. I would vote against it today.
Real servers are now so cheap from Dell, I can get dozens for what VMware licenses cost. And they will only get cheaper. |
| #4 By 16302 (98.173.149.162) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:14:25 PM |
| Three words: out - of - touch. This guy has no understanding of the business needs that drive the demand for general purpose operating systems, nor the ISV industry, nor corporate IT management. If this is the type of person who VMWare has at the senior levels, then they are doomed as a company. |
| #5 By 54556 (67.131.75.22) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 05:41:05 PM |
|
"Real servers are now so cheap from Dell, I can get dozens for what VMware licenses cost. And they will only get cheaper. "
But its not just about the price of servers. Its also about the price and availability of rack space, the price of electricity (including environmental control system and UPS requirements), and the price of hardware mainenance and depreciation...a least for shops with dozen to hundreds of servers. For shops with just a few servers, you're right; VMware never was cost effective (especially if you needed ESX), for many I saw it had it more to do with toy value then cost effectiveness. |
| #6 By 16302 (98.173.149.162) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 06:35:04 PM |
| Let's see - virtualization has been around for at least 5 years. Linux for even more, and dedicated appliences more still. Now VMWare predicts that Microsoft will lose everything because of Linux, virtualization and appliances. Why then did their revenue just surpass 80B this year? Nothing has changed. This guy is a lunatic! |
| #7 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 08:57:35 PM |
|
#5 I understand your point. But servers are only going to get cheaper. Quad core servers with 4GB of memory and 2x160GB drives can be had now for 729$ from Dell (no OS).
Put Hyper-V on it or VMware Server and run 8 VM's. No ESX needed. Next year they will be even cheaper. |
| #8 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:33:01 PM |
|
I am not sure how far a server with 4GB of RAM could go; my desktop running Vista 64 has 4GB of RAM.
We ordered a Dell server three days ago with 16 GB of RAM. Nowadays RAM is cheap, SCASI HDs and other things brought the price of our box at $5000; note that I am not complaining at all: three or four years ago a similar box would have costed us $10,000. |
| #9 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at Friday, July 18, 2008 08:32:34 AM |
|
"servers with 4GB of memory" ... "Put Hyper-V on it or VMware Server and run 8 VM's."
VMs running what? DOS without HMA? |
| #10 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at Friday, July 18, 2008 08:40:15 AM |
|
This guy is a little off. Does he not realize that MS can now put multiple OS's on a single box. That makes them more money. Right now people cram multiple roles on a single OS. With Virtual Machines you can get one box. Install a "DB Server" "Application Server" "Terminal Server" "Exchange Server" "File Server" yada yada. When one needs more resources just toss it on some new metal. Frankly I doubt MS cares if its VMWare or Hyper-V. Hyper-V is just an easier way to get more people ot adopt the idea.
I've been using Virtual Server 2005 in production for over a year and its fantastic. Only thing I've left on the metal was a Dell PE Nas and thats gonna be it. Everything else will be Virtualized either and in the end MS will get more money out of us for that versatility. |
| #11 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at Friday, July 18, 2008 03:11:20 PM |
| #9 Windows. Not Linux. Not Unix. Windows. |
| #12 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at Friday, July 18, 2008 08:57:10 PM |
| How are you going to be able to tell with all the swapping? |
| #13 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:52:00 PM |
| W2K3 runs great as a VM with 512MB. |
| #14 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at Saturday, July 19, 2008 07:24:48 PM |
|
yeah, if all its doing is acting as a DHCP server for 2 laptops ;-> welllll, seriously, it might be able to handle being a file server or a small web server with mostly static content, but thats about it with that little memory. I wouldn't dare try to make it a db server or an exchange server.
And just wait till you upgrade to WS2008: MS recommends 2 GB if I recall correctly. |
| #15 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 06:15:03 AM |
|
#14 - believe it or not... Windows (or associated server apps) doesn't actually need 4GBs to run, it does work perfectly fine in environments less than 1GB.
I run Exchange 2003 on Windows 2003 R2, as a VM with 512MB... we also run WSUS SP1, IBM Director, McAfee admin/distro point and Spiceworks on a Windows 2003 R2, as a VM with 512MB. These are two of the more "busier" (number of app's) servers that we have but in both cases, they were perfectly. No RAM problems, no paging problems, no problems at all. |
| #16 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:43:39 AM |
| with how many users on the exchange server? |
| #17 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at Monday, July 21, 2008 06:55:02 PM |
| 58 users on the server... the thing hardly breaks a sweat! |
