Forget VPC or x64 and buy Virtual Server for less!

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Colin Barnhorst, Nov 15, 2005.

  1. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx

    On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the lowered
    prices yet.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Subject line correction: "Forget VPC FOR...", not "Forget VPC OR..." Sorry
    about that.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:OP7SU$...
    > 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >
    > On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    > lowered prices yet.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Colin, I was so surprised by pricing scheme, I remember Virtual Server 2005
    initial release was at $999. This is great news.
    --
    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:OP7SU$...
    > 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >
    > On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    > lowered prices yet.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Nov 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Enterprise was $999. Standard was $499. Anyway, now you have MS
    virtualization for x64.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Colin, I was so surprised by pricing scheme, I remember Virtual Server
    > 2005 initial release was at $999. This is great news.
    > --
    > Andre
    > Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    > Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    > http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    > FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:OP7SU$...
    >> 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>
    >> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >> lowered prices yet.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 15, 2005
    #4
  5. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >
    > On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    > lowered prices yet.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 15, 2005
    #5
  6. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>
    >> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >> lowered prices yet.

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 15, 2005
    #6
  7. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>>
    >>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >>> lowered prices yet.

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Nov 15, 2005
    #7
  8. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>>>
    >>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >>>> lowered prices yet.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 16, 2005
    #8
  9. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>>
    >>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >>> lowered prices yet.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Party favour prices. (Of course, given the way they have suddenly been
    handing out Virtual Server Enterprise lately, they're almost party favours.
    I've gotten 3 freebies in the last month or so. )

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

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > Makes one wonder what a VPC Next would cost. $49.95?
    >
    >> 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >>>>> lowered prices yet.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 16, 2005
    #10
  11. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>>>
    >>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >>>> lowered prices yet.

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Nov 16, 2005
    #11
  12. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >>>>> lowered prices yet.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Nov 16, 2005
    #12
  13. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >>>>>> lowered prices yet.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 16, 2005
    #13
  14. 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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/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/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsoverview.mspx
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On-line listings, such as at PC Connections, are not yet showing the
    >>>>> lowered prices yet.

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 16, 2005
    #14
  15. "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. . .
    Tony Sperling, Nov 18, 2005
    #15
  16. 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. . .
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 18, 2005
    #16
  17. 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. . .
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Nov 18, 2005
    #17
  18. 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. . .
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 19, 2005
    #18
  19. 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. . .

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Nov 19, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve Benson

    Windows server SBS cost less then Windows Server 2003

    Steve Benson, Aug 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    537
    cluedweasel
    Aug 26, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Qm9iIEs=?=

    Virtual PC and Virtual Server

    =?Utf-8?B?Qm9iIEs=?=, Jan 2, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    407
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Jan 2, 2006
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    676
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. keith chilton

    virtual pc or virtual server

    keith chilton, Jun 12, 2007, in forum: MCSA
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    295
    Scott S.
    Jul 13, 2007
  5. Rich
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    347
    Twibil
    Jun 9, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page