Virtual PC Guy's Blog

-- Ben Armstrong, Virtualization Program Manager

Talking about core virtualization at Microsoft (Hyper-V, Virtual PC and Virtual Server).

Search
  • Advanced search options...
Recent Twitters
Tags
Common Tasks
Hyper-V Links
MVP Sites
SCVMM Links
Virtual PC / Virtual Server Links

Microsoft Virtual Server is now free

MSDN Blogs > Virtual PC Guy's Blog > Microsoft Virtual Server is now free

Microsoft Virtual Server is now free

3 Apr 2006 4:02 PM
  • Comments 15

Today Microsoft announced that Virtual Server 2005 R2 will be available as a free download (yay!) - you can go to http://www.microsoft.com/virtualserver to grab a copy.  Now to answer some questions that I am predicting people will have:

  1. So does this mean Virtual PC is dead?

    Not at all.  Microsoft is still actively developing Virtual PC and you can expect to see updates on this in the future (but apart from that - my lips are sealed - so don't ask for more information).

  2. You guys are just doing this in response to VMware / Xen / etc... - right?

    Not really.  Microsoft has announced that Windows virtualization technology will be available as part of Windows in the Longhorn Server wave.  Given this - charging for virtualization today just does not make sense.

  3. Is it Virtual Server 2005 R2 Standard Edition or Virtual Server 2005 R2 Enterprise Edition that is being made available?

    Enterprise.

Have fun everyone!

Cheers,
Ben

Leave a Comment
  • Please add 7 and 7 and type the answer here:
  • Post
Comments
  • wpSlider
    3 Apr 2006 7:45 PM
    I've got another one.

    Why Virtual Server and not Virtual PC? - it's customary not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I still wonder...
  • Dan Bugglin
    3 Apr 2006 10:26 PM
    Virtual Server won't run on XP Home. :(  I'll stick with the VMWare Server, which does.
  • Graham Russell
    4 Apr 2006 4:46 AM

    So what is happening with the Standard Edition?
    Is this being dropped, and replaced with the Enterprise edition?
  • Cory Nelson
    4 Apr 2006 5:39 AM
    Cool!  Unfortunately it seems Debian keeps freezing while installing :(
  • Olirockerdude
    4 Apr 2006 6:05 AM
    That's awesome, thanks! =D
  • DosFreak
    4 Apr 2006 7:54 AM
    Also DosBox 0.65 was released a couple of days ago. http://dosbox.sourceforge.net ;)
  • william
    4 Apr 2006 11:25 AM
    That's great. I had Vista beta 2 installed in Virtual Server while it couldn't be installed in Virtual PC... strange. Anyway, Virtual Server works well in multiple monitors setup for me :) Just... kinda feel that Virtual Server is a little bit slower than Virtual PC and I HATE web interface for configuration.
  • Richard Gadsden
    4 Apr 2006 12:36 PM
    Can I install VS Standard Edition for free (I'm on Select, so I have media) or do I have to install Enterprise Edition?
  • 4 Apr 2006 2:31 PM
    Only Enterprise edition will be available - given that the only difference between the two is that standard supports fewer processors than Enterprise, it makes no sense to make both available free.

    Cheers,
    Ben
  • 4 Apr 2006 2:32 PM
    Only Enterprise edition will be available - given that the only difference between the two is that standard supports fewer processors than Enterprise, it makes no sense to make both available free.

    Cheers,
    Ben
  • kbiel
    4 Apr 2006 11:27 PM
    Cory,

    You probably have assigned more than 512MB of memory to the virtual machine.  Debian has a bug that can not handle more than 512MB when the aspci timings are "off".  Because it is a virtual machine, the aspci is not perfect, but most OS kernels can handle it.  The 2.6 linux kernel can handle it (and will log dopey "aspci count too high messages), but some bug prevents itfrom working with more than 512MB of memory.
  • Phylyp
    5 Apr 2006 5:33 AM
    I guess the big question now would be: what's the incentive to consider using Virtual PC?

    Is it the fact/advantage that it's more lightweight, hence is a better choice for those who need only 1 or 2 VMs running (developers, safe net browsing, etc.)?

    >but apart from that - my lips are sealed - so don't ask for more information

    I guess answering my question would probably violate this, but, man, I needed to get my question out!
  • DosFreak
    5 Apr 2006 1:53 PM
    IMO, ever since the MS takeover of VPC technology, and the increased development of Vmware and QEMU and the release of DosBox 0.63 there hasn't been a reason to continue using VPC.

    If you are a current VPC 2004 user though then be aware that Virtual Server is NOT intended for home use. Virtual Server, as the name states is for Server usage not home usage.

    The Virtual Server interface requires Internet Explorer (Didn't work well with Firefox for me), which already right there is a big letdown (I don't even like to use Internet Explorer to download required Windows Updates).

    The Web page interface is also annoying and confusing for home use.

    I wouldn't say that it's "lighter" than VPC, if anything it's heavier since it also requires IIS to be loaded and undoubtedly has changes for server usage.
  • Phylyp
    7 Apr 2006 10:24 AM
    Well, my question is pretty much answered by David's summary at http://blogs.msdn.com/david.wang/archive/2005/07/22/Why_Virtual_PC_vs_Virtual_Server.aspx

    The big point in VPCs favor is that it supports a lot of interactivity b/w the host and guest(s).

    @DosFreak:
    > I wouldn't say that it's "lighter" than VPC

    I guess I didn't write my statement clearly, I was referring to VPC being lighter than VS, especially since VS requires IIS (as you've mentioned).
  • Neil
    8 Apr 2006 9:58 PM
    Any word on when/if Virtual Server will run under Vista?  Even after I install IIS, VS doesn't seem to see it.
Page 1 of 1 (15 items)