Two choice “Supporting Industry Quotes” from Microsoft’s press release announcing the acquisition of Connectix Virtual Machine Technology:
“We fully support Microsoft’s efforts to drive a standards-based approach to virtualization, and together will collaborate on integrated hardware and software solutions that help enterprises consolidate network resources, improve control and optimize IT investments. Companies worldwide are feeling the pressure of smaller IT budgets and increasingly rely on standards-based solutions from trusted partners to help lower costs and improve IT infrastructure.”
– Linda Hargrove
Vice President, Worldwide Enterprise Systems Marketing and Product Management
Dell Computer Corp.
“HP is very excited about Microsoft’s acquisition of Connectix. Many of our Windows Server customers require virtual partitioning. Connectix’s Virtual Server technologies running on HP’s industry-leading ProLiant servers will be a great solution for our customers.”
– Rick Becker
Vice President and Software CTO
HP Industry Standard Servers
Full release here.
Read SteveJack’s take on the matter in our Opinion Section here.
See my post on the previous story, this is not about the Mac, it’s all about the virtual machine technology. Microsoft has bought the most expert people in the field, with the developed software coming along for the ride. the people coming over from Connectix are obviously well-versed in the Windows & Mac OS. You can also throw in the LINUX OS as it is also based in UNIX. The VPC product is not the big thing, the underlying technology is.
The Dell rep using “Microsoft” and “standards-based” over and over!!! What a hoot!!!
Does no-one see an antitrust issue here? While everyone recognizes that Mac OS and/or Linux OS, etc., are the only things (barely/arguably) preventing Microsoft from holding an OS monopoly, no-one seems to recognize that Connectix’s VPC products (were) also direct competitors to Windows OS (even while requiring Windows OS), and the purchase removes a product that prevented Microsoft from holding a monopoly in the market of software that enables hardware to run Windows OS applications. Yes, WINE, Lindows, etc., some others survive. Nonetheless, Microsoft now may control whether or not, 5 years from now, anyone will be able to run Windows OS applications on other OS’s or other hardware, and if not that, at least the price one will pay for it. I admit, it’s a hard issue to tangle through, it just seems fishy.
They ( MS) will kill VPC
When VPC for mac is killed (or “optimized” like the mac version of internet exploiter), I hope there is an underground movement to copy and distribute the remaining working copies of vpc for mac.
Okay… so MS has eaten yet another project that “threatens” their total domination of everything on this planet.
Yes, they wanted Connectix’ Virtual machine technology… and kill VPC too. By eating Connectix’ VM technology, they can eliminate it and thereby eliminate anything that can make itself compatible with MS, despite MS’ best efforts to make itself incompatible with everything else.
This is blatant anti-competitive behavior, and exactly the sort of thing we have to expect now that MS has purchased the support of the American Republican party… which now owns the Executive branch, the Judicial branch and Congress (both houses), as well. In effect, MS has eliminated the law by purchasing those who are supposed to enforce it. That’s how organized crime handles the police in local jurisdictions.
“Who will Watch The Watchmen?”
The only thing that can hurt MS’ current efforts to eliminate non-MS platform compatibilities is the fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat. There are other projects that also offer the ability to emulate Intel techno-drek on superior hardware/op system platforms. Intel technology is primitive enough that it can be done relatively easily, and now that MS has eliminated the dominant force in that area, they have only succeeded in cutting off one head of the hydra… and how many other will suddenly spring up in its place?
I am looking forward to MS having to face even MORE ways to bypass their clumsy efforts to destroy competition, despite having bought off an entire government.
My nose bleeds for Little Billy and Baldy Ballmer!
Does anybody remember Halo?
Frankly, I see only good things for VPC… and BETTER thing$ for M$! MS doesn’t sell hardware; they sell software. They can jack the price of VPC up and bundle Windows with it (as it is now, optionally) and make MORE MONEY selling MORE COPIES of Windows that will run on MORE MACHINES. Physical, virtual; both type of machines have the same color of money.
I do feel that MS will continue to develop VPC and make it a decent emulator. MS is doing everything it can to get and keep developers on Windows. By making a good emulator, MS can push the developers onto a single instruction set. The software developers would in all liklihood buy into this as it would be only a single code base to maintain. I am sure MS isn’t too keen on seeing Objective C or Java achieve any penetration and Connectix technology is one way to slow it down. To be honest, MS may also be hedging their bets regarding IBM’s upcoming processors and this might allow them a means to move over to PowerPC technology if AMD and Intel fall on their noses. (IBM sure seems mighty confident regarding their upcoming PowerPC processors.) I’m sure that MS also is attempting to use this in an attempt to stem the defections over to Linux and also to get the shops still using NT to finally upgrade. But, from my standpoint, I see this as more of a way to attempt to get all, or at least a vast majority of software developers to standardize on the Windows instruction set and to keep control of the computing world. Use one instruction set and run it on any platform. Only that MS controls the instruction set. Whether running on Windows, OS X, or Linux, a single codebase to maintain that runs on any platform. The developers would likely see this as a huge benefit. It is an incredible and a bold move. I just don’t know whether MS will allow a Windows emulator on Linux or not. I do know that they will likely have a Linux emulator on Windows running as a virtual machine. It makes little difference semantically which OS runs virtually, although it is a big difference practically with Linux being much more secure than Windows. But as long as MS sells a license for Windows and keeps everyone using the using same Windows development instruction set, I don’t see how it would make much difference. People would still be dependent on MS, whether running Windows natively or virtually or on Linux or OS X. This ensures they stay relevant if IBM pulls a rabbit out of their hat and relegates Intel processors to the very low end. A truly brilliant move on the part of MS. It may not seem obvious, but it is a move that may keep the company relevant for a very long time. They may yet do an end run around Apple and Linux. They would have more control than ever with software development on all platforms. To think that we might yet still be dependent on MS is downwhat depressing.