Skip to main content

Robert McLaws: Microsoft Virtual Server Sucks(?)



And this guy is a Windows guy, check his post. But seriously Microsoft has a lot of ground to gain and I am not really sure if they may ever be able to provide a robust enterprise ready (or even developer ready, like those of Robert). Why?

  • There is indeed no beta as there is no (real) product
  • Viridian has some cool plans, yeah, you don't show us or let us in (No please, I don't need a laptop with pre-viridian release), we can't say much. Robert apparently has seen some better PowerPoint sheets, I guess
  • Honestly, its a non-issue. We all know everyone hates Joe Tucci for taking VMware away.
The only other thing that frustrates me about Virtual Server is the way networking is set up. For the life of me, I can't figure out how to set up a network between a Guest and the Host that doesn't require the physical network adapter to be enabled. Sometimes I work on VMs on my laptop while I'm travelling, and since VMRC is as equally terrible as Virtual PC, I can't Remote Desktop in because the Guest VM can't get an IP address. Which means I have to make sure I shut down the VM in Virtual Server and start it up in Virtual PC first. Ugh.


I have tried it as well. I mean how hard can it be. Take parallels, VMware, or other vendors. Setting stuff up and running is the last thing I want to pull my hairs out on.
But I sure hope that Microsoft does something really *breakthrough* in the Viridian release as 2008, my friends, will be a totally different era, trust me. Take this Parallels coherence example for instance, users are getting picky. you keep them out, you're out!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more