«

Might this have anything to do with VMWare having resently been aquired?
(Make aquisition hurt, or something?)

Tony. . .


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Well, I had to buy VMWare, and got Virtual Server for free. I'm happy with
> my purchase. Seroiusly, VMWare still has a significant advantage over
> VS, IMHO. I don't like their networking setup as much, but they do support
> USB devices, they do support x64 guests, and they have "teams" and
> multiple snapshots. All of these are big items. Well, all but USB. I don't
> actually give a hoot about that, though some do. And adding a tape drive
> in VMWare was, frankly, trivial.
>
> But on price? Oh, it's going to hurt VMWare sales unless they do something
> fairly drastic to their prices.
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> Yes. A very savvy step too.
>>
>> I wouldn't want to be a VMWare salesman reading that news, though. It
>> must have been something they said. Maybe the free VMWare Player was
>> just too much.
>>
>>> Good news on pricing, this is going to be a huge step forward for
>>> virtualization.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>> For those of you wanting to run virtual machines on XP Pro x64, here it
>>>> is:
>>>> Virtual Server 2005 Release 2 has now gone into manufacturing and the
>>>> price for the Standard Edition (supported on machines with up to four
>>>> processor sockets) is $99.00. That's ninety-nine dollars! Yes, that a
>>>> cut from $499.00 for VS 2005 original. That means you can now buy an
>>>> off-the-shelf copy of Virtual Server R2 Standard for LESS than Virtual
>>>> PC 2004 SP1. The enterprise edition is only $199.00 (reduced from
>>>> $999.00). See:
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...r/default.mspx
>>>>
>>>> Windows XP Pro x64 is now listed as a supported Host for non-production
>>>> uses (dev and testing). Of course, you cannot run 64-bit guests. That
>>>> should come with Microsoft Virtualization Technology in the Longhorn
>>>> wave.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...soverview.mspx
>>>>
>>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
>>>> lowered prices yet.
>
>

Yeah, might as make it a free download for XP and future versions of
Windows.
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:...
> Makes one wonder what a VPC Next would cost. $49.95?
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Well, cheers to competition!
>> --
>> Andre
>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Yes. A very savvy step too.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't want to be a VMWare salesman reading that news, though. It
>>> must have been something they said. Maybe the free VMWare Player was
>>> just too much.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in
>>> message news:%...
>>>> Good news on pricing, this is going to be a huge step forward for
>>>> virtualization.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>
>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>>> For those of you wanting to run virtual machines on XP Pro x64, here
>>>>> it
>>>>> is:
>>>>> Virtual Server 2005 Release 2 has now gone into manufacturing and the
>>>>> price for the Standard Edition (supported on machines with up to four
>>>>> processor sockets) is $99.00. That's ninety-nine dollars! Yes, that
>>>>> a
>>>>> cut from $499.00 for VS 2005 original. That means you can now buy an
>>>>> off-the-shelf copy of Virtual Server R2 Standard for LESS than Virtual
>>>>> PC
>>>>> 2004 SP1. The enterprise edition is only $199.00 (reduced from
>>>>> $999.00).
>>>>> See:
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...r/default.mspx
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows XP Pro x64 is now listed as a supported Host for
>>>>> non-production
>>>>> uses (dev and testing). Of course, you cannot run 64-bit guests.
>>>>> That
>>>>> should come with Microsoft Virtualization Technology in the Longhorn
>>>>> wave.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...soverview.mspx
>>>>>
>>>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
>>>>> lowered prices yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I would think an adjustment for the price of the current product is in
order, but not THAT much of an adjustment.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Yeah, might as make it a free download for XP and future versions of
> Windows.
> --
> Andre
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Makes one wonder what a VPC Next would cost. $49.95?
>>
>> --
>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> Well, cheers to competition!
>>> --
>>> Andre
>>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
>>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> Yes. A very savvy step too.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to be a VMWare salesman reading that news, though. It
>>>> must have been something they said. Maybe the free VMWare Player was
>>>> just too much.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in
>>>> message news:%...
>>>>> Good news on pricing, this is going to be a huge step forward for
>>>>> virtualization.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>
>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>>>> For those of you wanting to run virtual machines on XP Pro x64, here
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> is:
>>>>>> Virtual Server 2005 Release 2 has now gone into manufacturing and the
>>>>>> price for the Standard Edition (supported on machines with up to four
>>>>>> processor sockets) is $99.00. That's ninety-nine dollars! Yes, that
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> cut from $499.00 for VS 2005 original. That means you can now buy an
>>>>>> off-the-shelf copy of Virtual Server R2 Standard for LESS than
>>>>>> Virtual PC
>>>>>> 2004 SP1. The enterprise edition is only $199.00 (reduced from
>>>>>> $999.00).
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...r/default.mspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows XP Pro x64 is now listed as a supported Host for
>>>>>> non-production
>>>>>> uses (dev and testing). Of course, you cannot run 64-bit guests.
>>>>>> That
>>>>>> should come with Microsoft Virtualization Technology in the Longhorn
>>>>>> wave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...soverview.mspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
>>>>>> lowered prices yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

An interesting question, but I'm sure that we'll never hear about it from MS
if that is one of the reasons. I think it is more likely pressure from
enterprise customers.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Might this have anything to do with VMWare having resently been aquired?
> (Make aquisition hurt, or something?)
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Well, I had to buy VMWare, and got Virtual Server for free. I'm happy
>> with my purchase. Seroiusly, VMWare still has a significant advantage
>> over VS, IMHO. I don't like their networking setup as much, but they do
>> support USB devices, they do support x64 guests, and they have "teams"
>> and multiple snapshots. All of these are big items. Well, all but USB. I
>> don't actually give a hoot about that, though some do. And adding a tape
>> drive in VMWare was, frankly, trivial.
>>
>> But on price? Oh, it's going to hurt VMWare sales unless they do
>> something fairly drastic to their prices.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> Yes. A very savvy step too.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't want to be a VMWare salesman reading that news, though. It
>>> must have been something they said. Maybe the free VMWare Player was
>>> just too much.
>>>
>>>> Good news on pricing, this is going to be a huge step forward for
>>>> virtualization.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>
>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>>> For those of you wanting to run virtual machines on XP Pro x64, here
>>>>> it
>>>>> is:
>>>>> Virtual Server 2005 Release 2 has now gone into manufacturing and the
>>>>> price for the Standard Edition (supported on machines with up to four
>>>>> processor sockets) is $99.00. That's ninety-nine dollars! Yes, that
>>>>> a
>>>>> cut from $499.00 for VS 2005 original. That means you can now buy an
>>>>> off-the-shelf copy of Virtual Server R2 Standard for LESS than Virtual
>>>>> PC 2004 SP1. The enterprise edition is only $199.00 (reduced from
>>>>> $999.00). See:
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...r/default.mspx
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows XP Pro x64 is now listed as a supported Host for
>>>>> non-production
>>>>> uses (dev and testing). Of course, you cannot run 64-bit guests.
>>>>> That
>>>>> should come with Microsoft Virtualization Technology in the Longhorn
>>>>> wave.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...soverview.mspx
>>>>>
>>>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
>>>>> lowered prices yet.
>>
>>
>
>

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%...
> An interesting question, but I'm sure that we'll never hear about it from
> MS if that is one of the reasons. I think it is more likely pressure from
> enterprise customers.
>

I wonder, though. If that was the 'real' answer, nothing from out of Redmond
would cost more than 10 bucks! But, actually, my mind was drifting there; I
just had an exchange with Charlie, a few days earlier, when He adviced me to
get VMWare for my needs. I new of VPC, but not of the Server - mine is a
desktop, so I wouldn't want anything 'over-the-top', anyway - but I became
aware of the competition and suddenly the issues seemed 'fuzzy'.

For a desktop - is VS a product that is closer to VMWare, or is VPC the
immidiate competition? At that price, will VS (installed on Winx64) run
guest OS's the same as VPC and VMWare? What will happen now to VPC?

I am certainly not about to rush into things right at the moment, it is to
be expected that VMWare will respond. And I am leaning towards going VMWare
anyhow, they have excellent backing in the computing community. They also
have excellent documentation, I understand - something that microsoft can
peer anytime they wish to, but often do not - IIS documentation, as only one
glaring example.

There are prize reductions, and there are big prize reductions, but this is
violent? There's got to be issues about 'competition', things that one can
do and the other not. Patent issues? But all that stuff on it's own is
hardly interesting outside the business-world. The implications of it are,
however.

Tony. . .

Yes, VSR2 on XPx64 will run guest OS's the same as it and VPC do on x86.
The price reduction is not reflected in any reduced funcionality. MS simply
cut the price.

The price reduction does not have to be a result of competition, it can also
come from pressure from enterprise users to lesson their costs.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> An interesting question, but I'm sure that we'll never hear about it from
>> MS if that is one of the reasons. I think it is more likely pressure
>> from enterprise customers.
>>
>
> I wonder, though. If that was the 'real' answer, nothing from out of
> Redmond would cost more than 10 bucks! But, actually, my mind was drifting
> there; I just had an exchange with Charlie, a few days earlier, when He
> adviced me to get VMWare for my needs. I new of VPC, but not of the
> Server - mine is a desktop, so I wouldn't want anything 'over-the-top',
> anyway - but I became aware of the competition and suddenly the issues
> seemed 'fuzzy'.
>
> For a desktop - is VS a product that is closer to VMWare, or is VPC the
> immidiate competition? At that price, will VS (installed on Winx64) run
> guest OS's the same as VPC and VMWare? What will happen now to VPC?
>
> I am certainly not about to rush into things right at the moment, it is to
> be expected that VMWare will respond. And I am leaning towards going
> VMWare anyhow, they have excellent backing in the computing community.
> They also have excellent documentation, I understand - something that
> microsoft can peer anytime they wish to, but often do not - IIS
> documentation, as only one glaring example.
>
> There are prize reductions, and there are big prize reductions, but this
> is violent? There's got to be issues about 'competition', things that one
> can do and the other not. Patent issues? But all that stuff on it's own is
> hardly interesting outside the business-world. The implications of it are,
> however.
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Colin!

Tony. . .


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:...
> Yes, VSR2 on XPx64 will run guest OS's the same as it and VPC do on x86.
> The price reduction is not reflected in any reduced funcionality. MS
> simply cut the price.
>
> The price reduction does not have to be a result of competition, it can
> also come from pressure from enterprise users to lesson their costs.
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> An interesting question, but I'm sure that we'll never hear about it
>>> from MS if that is one of the reasons. I think it is more likely
>>> pressure from enterprise customers.
>>>
>>
>> I wonder, though. If that was the 'real' answer, nothing from out of
>> Redmond would cost more than 10 bucks! But, actually, my mind was
>> drifting there; I just had an exchange with Charlie, a few days earlier,
>> when He adviced me to get VMWare for my needs. I new of VPC, but not of
>> the Server - mine is a desktop, so I wouldn't want anything
>> 'over-the-top', anyway - but I became aware of the competition and
>> suddenly the issues seemed 'fuzzy'.
>>
>> For a desktop - is VS a product that is closer to VMWare, or is VPC the
>> immidiate competition? At that price, will VS (installed on Winx64) run
>> guest OS's the same as VPC and VMWare? What will happen now to VPC?
>>
>> I am certainly not about to rush into things right at the moment, it is
>> to be expected that VMWare will respond. And I am leaning towards going
>> VMWare anyhow, they have excellent backing in the computing community.
>> They also have excellent documentation, I understand - something that
>> microsoft can peer anytime they wish to, but often do not - IIS
>> documentation, as only one glaring example.
>>
>> There are prize reductions, and there are big prize reductions, but this
>> is violent? There's got to be issues about 'competition', things that one
>> can do and the other not. Patent issues? But all that stuff on it's own
>> is hardly interesting outside the business-world. The implications of it
>> are, however.
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Well, almost true. VMWare does x64 guest OS's too. It'll be a while
before we have that from VS, unfortunately.

I have mixed feelings overall. Some things I like better from one, some from
the other. I'll probably continue to have both available on different
machines.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> Yes, VSR2 on XPx64 will run guest OS's the same as it and VPC do on x86.
> The price reduction is not reflected in any reduced funcionality. MS
> simply cut the price.
>
> The price reduction does not have to be a result of competition, it can
> also come from pressure from enterprise users to lesson their costs.
>
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> An interesting question, but I'm sure that we'll never hear about it
>>> from MS if that is one of the reasons. I think it is more likely
>>> pressure from enterprise customers.
>>>
>>
>> I wonder, though. If that was the 'real' answer, nothing from out of
>> Redmond would cost more than 10 bucks! But, actually, my mind was
>> drifting there; I just had an exchange with Charlie, a few days earlier,
>> when He adviced me to get VMWare for my needs. I new of VPC, but not of
>> the Server - mine is a desktop, so I wouldn't want anything
>> 'over-the-top', anyway - but I became aware of the competition and
>> suddenly the issues seemed 'fuzzy'.
>>
>> For a desktop - is VS a product that is closer to VMWare, or is VPC the
>> immidiate competition? At that price, will VS (installed on Winx64) run
>> guest OS's the same as VPC and VMWare? What will happen now to VPC?
>>
>> I am certainly not about to rush into things right at the moment, it is
>> to be expected that VMWare will respond. And I am leaning towards going
>> VMWare anyhow, they have excellent backing in the computing community.
>> They also have excellent documentation, I understand - something that
>> microsoft can peer anytime they wish to, but often do not - IIS
>> documentation, as only one glaring example.
>>
>> There are prize reductions, and there are big prize reductions, but this
>> is violent? There's got to be issues about 'competition', things that one
>> can do and the other not. Patent issues? But all that stuff on it's own
>> is hardly interesting outside the business-world. The implications of it
>> are, however.
>>
>> Tony. . .

I'll bare that in mind, thanks. One fine day, I may find the resources (time
and money) to both upgrade the existing, as well as buying the next one too.
One good omen is: the next one will be a dual-core and an old s-754, woun't
contribute much to that on the second-hand market, and there is little
reason in carrying that memory across.


Tony. . .


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Well, almost true. VMWare does x64 guest OS's too. It'll be a while
> before we have that from VS, unfortunately.
>
> I have mixed feelings overall. Some things I like better from one, some
> from the other. I'll probably continue to have both available on different
> machines.
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> Yes, VSR2 on XPx64 will run guest OS's the same as it and VPC do on x86.
>> The price reduction is not reflected in any reduced funcionality. MS
>> simply cut the price.
>>
>> The price reduction does not have to be a result of competition, it can
>> also come from pressure from enterprise users to lesson their costs.
>>
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%...
>>>> An interesting question, but I'm sure that we'll never hear about it
>>>> from MS if that is one of the reasons. I think it is more likely
>>>> pressure from enterprise customers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder, though. If that was the 'real' answer, nothing from out of
>>> Redmond would cost more than 10 bucks! But, actually, my mind was
>>> drifting there; I just had an exchange with Charlie, a few days earlier,
>>> when He adviced me to get VMWare for my needs. I new of VPC, but not of
>>> the Server - mine is a desktop, so I wouldn't want anything
>>> 'over-the-top', anyway - but I became aware of the competition and
>>> suddenly the issues seemed 'fuzzy'.
>>>
>>> For a desktop - is VS a product that is closer to VMWare, or is VPC the
>>> immidiate competition? At that price, will VS (installed on Winx64) run
>>> guest OS's the same as VPC and VMWare? What will happen now to VPC?
>>>
>>> I am certainly not about to rush into things right at the moment, it is
>>> to be expected that VMWare will respond. And I am leaning towards going
>>> VMWare anyhow, they have excellent backing in the computing community.
>>> They also have excellent documentation, I understand - something that
>>> microsoft can peer anytime they wish to, but often do not - IIS
>>> documentation, as only one glaring example.
>>>
>>> There are prize reductions, and there are big prize reductions, but this
>>> is violent? There's got to be issues about 'competition', things that
>>> one
>>> can do and the other not. Patent issues? But all that stuff on it's own
>>> is hardly interesting outside the business-world. The implications of it
>>> are, however.
>>>
>>> Tony. . .
>
>