| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
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.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 217 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:48:09 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 7/17/2008 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 7/17/2008 8:56:05 AM |
| Anybody remember the announcement years ago about the end of paper? The paperless office is . . . |
| #3 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at 7/17/2008 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 7/17/2008 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 7/17/2008 5:41:05 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 7/17/2008 6:35:04 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 7/17/2008 8:57:35 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 7/17/2008 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 7/18/2008 8:32:34 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 7/18/2008 8:40:15 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 7/18/2008 3:11:20 PM |
| #9 Windows. Not Linux. Not Unix. Windows. |
| #12 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at 7/18/2008 8:57:10 PM |
| How are you going to be able to tell with all the swapping? |
| #13 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 7/19/2008 12:52:00 PM |
| W2K3 runs great as a VM with 512MB. |
| #14 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at 7/19/2008 7:24:48 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 7/20/2008 6:15:03 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 7/20/2008 10:43:39 AM |
| with how many users on the exchange server? |
| #17 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at 7/21/2008 6:55:02 PM |
| 58 users on the server... the thing hardly breaks a sweat! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 217 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:48:09 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
