A random blogger recently made a rather
stunning
prediction
: That Xen is as good as dead. His logic? Citrix, which bought
Xen, is so wedded to Microsoft that it will kill Xen in favor of Hyper-V.
I interviewed Citrix chief Mark Templeton for the premiere issue of Virtualization
Review magazine (you can check out the article here).
The interview came just as Microsoft and Citrix were announcing a multiyear
cooperation agreement over virtualization. The deal calls for both companies
to support each others' hypervisors, Hyper-V and Xen, and work on interoperability.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 10, 20080 comments
We've been talking a lot about Microsoft's challenges in Web services. This
is an area we explore in our recent
Redmond
magazine cover story
where we conclude that on the enterprise side, Microsoft
has done a fine job turning server-bound tools like Exchange into software services.
We saw less progress on the consumer side -- the space where Google happily
resides.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 09, 20080 comments
With Steve Ballmer's
continued
push
to overthrow the Yahoo board, Doug asked readers yesterday whether
buying Yahoo is even a good idea. Here's what some of you had to say:
Should Ballmer buy Yahoo? Simple answer: NO!
-Anonymous
This makes no sense at all. You have an open source culture in one company
and one of the most proprietary cultures in another. Also, the DOJ should
can this deal as being bad for consumers -- one less chat system out there.
For as bad as "Yahell" is claimed to be, it has features no one
else has; it just doesn't leverage them via advertising very well. Then you
also have overlap in the online ad industry.
This should not be allowed -- period.
-Bruce
When I bought my 100 shares of Yahoo five or six years ago and saw it
split two for one a year or so later, I thought I had boarded the gravy train.
I've seen nothing since. So what have I got to look forward to? Maybe it would
be nice to exchange my Yahoo for MS. I'd be willing if they offered -- just
to have something different now.
-Steve
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 09, 20080 comments
Microsoft last week added a new element to its already sprawling array of licensing
options.
Select
Plus Volume Licensing
is a new wrinkle for the Select program.
The key features? There's one ID for the entire company and, by unifying buying,
it should make it easier to earn discounts.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 09, 20080 comments
Microsoft isn't a company known for giving up easily -- and in the case of
Yahoo, it's still stubbornly gunning for a deal.
You probably recall that after Ballmer’s $40 billion-plus bid was rejected,
Microsoft gave up the chase, only to see Carl Icahn start to buy
up shares, manipulate
the board, try
to get the deal done with Microsoft, and then cash in on the premium Microsoft
would have to pay.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 08, 20080 comments
Hopefully you all had a relaxing long holiday weekend, but now it's back to
the grind. And today
is
patching time again
as Microsoft plans to roll out four fixes.
Fortunately, they're all only "important," which is far less serious
than "critical."
SQL Server is getting protection against elevation-of-privilege attacks, and
Microsoft continues to plug remote code execution flaws.
Posted by Doug Barney on July 08, 20080 comments
Microsoft has long known it had a security problem with Internet Explorer, and
it has struggled mightily to fix it. The company now argues that IE 8, now in
beta, will be
far
more secure
than any of its predecessors.
Chief among the protections are a way to stop cross-site scripting exploits,
and safer surfing of social networking Web sites. There are also ways to keep
hackers from jumping from an individual PC to the entire network.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 08, 20080 comments
Readers chime in on a grab-bag of topics -- the
Hyper-V
debate
that isn't, the pros and cons of cloud computing, and Bill Gates'
post-retirement
plans
:
Here's what has been annoying me about this Hyper-V versus VMware "debate":
There's nothing to debate! People are approaching this as though Microsoft
should be eviscerated for coming out with a 1.0 product -- how dare they!
You mean Hyper-V version 1.0 doesn't match up feature-for-feature with ESX,
a product that VMware has been working on for years? Well, that's no surprise,
and I'm a bit astounded that people are acting so vehemently about this.
I for one am excited about Hyper-V. It's apparently targeted precisely
at a shop my size. We have about 12 servers and around four or five of them
are ready to be replaced so, for me, Hyper-V looks a lot more attractive than
spending thousands on ESX features I don't need. We may someday need a more
robust product, fine, but for the time being, I think Hyper-V is going to
be just what the doctor ordered. So I wish people would get off their soapboxes
and use whichever product suits them and leave everyone else alone to do the
same thing.
-Greg
There is no choice in the browser wars! There are too many sites and devices
on the Internet that do not play well with any browser but Internet Explorer.
Our corporate HR Web site will not even let a user log in with a browser other
that Internet Explorer.
Firefox is my default browser at home. It's fast, clean and functional.
I use it for everything except the corporate stuff (and my Web cam). I have
never been hijacked or seen a drive-by download using it. But I have been
asked to clean more than my share of computers when the users (running IE),
despite having AV and anti-spyware software installed, get stuck with a useless
machine due to Internet pop-ups and browser hijacking.
-Tom
I love cloud computing for my own business and I am sure that others who
try will, too. But there is a downside: Customisation is real tricky. So yes,
I agree, the clouds are approaching fast, but once in the cloud, your business
better fit the model or you are not going to be able to fine-tune your business
model at all, wasting any savings that you might make.
-Garry
Perhaps I simply have a firm grasp of the obvious reason Billy Boy allegedly
"retired": He is taking over the programming aspect of Microsoft
once again, where he started, to be sure the next OS is not the embarrassment
that Vista is, and will continue to be. Vista is to Windows 7 what Windows
ME was to Windows XP -- simply a test product at the consumer's expense. After
all, the stock price of Microsoft has dropped and he is no longer the wealthiest
man on this planet. Ouch!
-R.M.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 08, 20080 comments
I don't use Internet Explorer even though it's still installed on my computer
(this thing is dang impossible to take off!). I switched years ago to Firefox
before IE 7 came out with tabs, and because Firefox is arguably the safer browser.
Plus, it's just cooler -- like an iPod versus a Zune.
But was that the right choice? Well, according to a new
report, it was dead-on. IE is more vulnerable.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 02, 20080 comments
Yesterday
,
I started an item about Bill Gates by saying, "Unless you were living in
a bio-dome or were in a Nick Hogan-induced coma, you must have heard that Bill
Gates retired last week."
Redmond Report reader Chris took offense and had this to say:
"Bad taste, Mr. Barney. I could see that coming from a young staff
writer, but not from an editor in chief."
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 02, 20080 comments
On Monday, Doug
posted
a letter
from reader Mark who was less than enthusiastic about Hyper-V.
Here are some more of your thoughts on the Microsoft hypervisor:
Sounds like he has a axe to grind. Hyper-V demonstrates a much more mature
software product than the pre 1.0 that the reviewer exclaims. I have found
Hyper-V to be an extremely stable and flexible product with a full Windows
2008 install or with a Server Core, the latter being much more locked down
and hacker-safe.
In the next year or two, this product will have "world-class"
written all over it.
-Howard
The issue at hand is that everyone (including Microsoft) is comparing
this product to VMware ESX. Just because they strip the Start menu out of
the OS to make Server Core, doesn't mean this is a bare-bones hypervisor.
It's merely an evolution of Virtual Server allowing deeper penetration into
VMware-entrenched territory. Now with the use of clustering, you can perform
cold migrations and have the ability to use a ridiculous amount of processors
in a VM.
There are other more glaring problems than killing a host through the
parent partition -- like not being able to over-commit the level of RAM or
iSCSI-only support. Hyper-V is a good ESX 1.0 competitor but no one will take
it seriously until you get those two limitations straightened out, along with
Live Migration.
-Lee
I have been using Hyper-V for about two months with few problems except
for the following:
- NO support for wireless adapters. Yes, you may argue that there is
no place for wireless in a server environment, but what about us developers
who emulate the complete client system on our laptops? I have been told
that the reason is that Microsoft can not clone the MAC address of the wireless
-- but it worked with Virtual PC!
- Still no USB support.
As to running out of resources on the root/parent machine, that has never
been a problem. I have configured it as core and not used the core machine
for anything (other than Hyper-V). Bottom line, I think it is a good product
and will become even better when Exchange 2007 is certified to run on Hyper-V.
-Tim
VMware Enterprise has many very cool features that Hyper-V lacks, but
the reality is that Hyper-V is version 1 and really cheap to buy and use!
For a test environment, it works great and is easy to use and set up. Heck,
VMware now gives some of its products away for free in reaction to/anticipation
of Microsoft's entry to the virtualization market.
The writing is on the wall for VMware. By the time Hyper-V is in rev
3 or 4, it will be able to support enterprise virtualization very well. Why
pay 5K a processor for VMware Enterprise when you can get it much cheaper
in Windows? Why hire a VMware OS expert when anyone that can admin Windows
can admin Hyper-V?
-Chris
I'm planning to try Hyper-V as a small computer science experiment so
that I can run Vista and XP in parallel. Toward this end, I built a new machine.
I've installed Vista Ultimate on this machine while waiting for the Hyper-V
RTM and discovered that it does a good job of supporting the hardware the
Vista analyzer said wouldn't be supported (Epson Perfection 1650 scanner and
ATI HDTV Wonder). But even so, I want to continue with my experiment to see
what happens and possibly write up my experience for the benefit of others.
This is going to be a budget project; I got Vista Ultimate and a one-year
Windows 2008 trial from Microsoft for free. Now my wait for Hyper-V is over
and I'm ready to start.
But where to start? This is the purpose of this e-mail. Do I have to
build a new system from scratch, starting with Win08, reinstall Vista, etc.?
Or can I "import" an existing installation of Vista and install
a new version of XP? And what do I do with the downloadable images Microsoft
provides? Should I use a core Win08 60-day trial and just extend it three
more times as Microsoft suggests? Then can I update that install with my one-year
trial product key? Can I extend my one-year trial three times? Does virtualization
share peripheral hardware (i.e., NICs) or do I really need to have two machines
worth of hardware on one motherboard? It doesn't seem likely that two OSes
can share the same MAC/IP address, I must admit, but that would be quite a
problem if I wanted to run 12 OSes as "astute reader Mark" desires
to do.
Keep the info coming. I'm indeed about as giddy as Mark suggests but
I'm not going to let his comments spoil my buzz. I can see from his comments
why an actual server administrator might be a bit less than over-enthused
by Hyper-V 1.0. If I can get just XP Pro and Vista Ultimate to coexist, I'll
be one happy camper.
-Eric
More
Posted by Doug Barney on July 02, 20080 comments