"...what happened to xVM Server"
Beleaguered server and system-software maker Sun Microsystems wants to change the Big Blue subject big-time, if only so that someone could talk about the new VirtualBox 2.2 virtualization software the company is announcing on Wednesday. We'll oblige. VirtualBox, like many Sun technologies, was acquired rather than created as …
Traditionally I would have used VMWare but the UI and experience is pretty clunky. VirtualBox seems just as functional, at least for workstation style use and the interface is far easier to work with. Best of all, it's free.
"Neither can VirtualBox yet have a virtual machine span more than one physical core in a server or desktop.."
Of course it can .... whenever the Environment is fully Virtualised [and AIdDynamIQ]....... and thus does IT Render the Server and Desktop as a Remote Controlled Proxy Driver of a Virtual OS System .... and/or Networks InterNetworking RobotICQs for AIReal SMART Virtual Reality Play Stations, which are just two Options Currently available to Power Core Services and NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActivity.
If you are honest with yourself, given what is well known and universally accepted and acceptable about Teutonic Engineering Excellence [and in a landscape of Big Iron where V8 might be considered a pinnacle, the competition is Majoring and Pioneering and Excelling in V10/V12/W16] you can fully expect Virtualisation DriverWareFare to be second to None and Light Years ahead of the Norm. And it is also a DNA thing which History/Memory confirms has a Fervent Discipline well above the Norm.
Oh ... and when I went to install the VirtualBox download, this popped up ..... "The software you are installing has not passed Windows Logo testing to verify its compatibility with Windows XP.[Tell me why this testing is important]
Continuing your installation of this software may impair or destabilize the correct operation of your sysyem either immediately or in the future. Microsoft strongly recommends that you stop this installation now and contact the software vendor for software that has passed Windows Logo testing " ...... which was somewhat unXPected. Anyone else have something similar and is it best just to ignore it or give it some credence?
Been running VirtualBox 2.1 for sometime so I followed the link but all I can find is
"The latest release is version 2.1.4"
Am I missing something?
If you stray off running a Windows guest to anything even vaguely non mainstream (i.e. BSD Unix) - particularly on a 64 bit host, Virtualbox fails consistently. VMWare and VirtualPC are *much* better. I do hope they're improving..
>"Hall says that the way VirtualBox works is that the hypervisor intercepts OpenGL calls from the VMs and passes them directly down to the host operating system and its OpenGL library, where it does the work natively. "We think this is a pretty smart way to do it," says Hall."
I don't. But the resulting guest-to-host-ring-zero pwnage will be fun :)
As it's not there Reg, only 2.1.4.
The REG - printing tomorrows headlines TODAY
That would be NT?
Posted by Not Quite The Last OS/2 User On The Planet --- 24/7/52 in fact in my office.
No, that would be a partnership between IBM and MS to create OS/2. Later, MS left the partnership and created Windows instead (Windows/DOS, not NT). NT was much later.
Boy, there are some short memories around here... and you call yourself an OS/2 user...
@ amanfromMars Wed 8 Apr 0509: "Anyone else have something similar " -
Yes, only when I have to make a temporary installation of something Chinese (-: and it's a rush'n'eyesed Windows full of inviting breaches in security. The question about SunVB, will, probably, cost the same $ 1 bn. Not very much money for a Co, but more of a controversy on a point of principle.
That would generally be OS/2 <= v1.3 which, it should be noted, will fail to work in 99.99% of virtual machines. Whilst OS/2 v2+ uses some odd features that make it difficult for it to work in some virtual machines, OS/2 <=v1.3 is downright hostile - it needs patching to work on real modern hardware anyway (PCI? What's that?).
Technically, there was a number of disk sets of Microsoft OS/2 2.0 beta code, created some time before the Microsoft/IBM split was finalised. These disks are incredibly rare.
Still, 'Microsoft OS/2' can only reasonably be called <=v1.3. It can't be denied they contributed a fair bit of code, although arguments rage over the quality of their code to this day.
Yes, there are. And some of us mossbacks remember that Microsoft's newtorking stack was really nothing more than IBM's LanManager (still is, really). We also remember when NT was codnamed "Chicago" and was being developed as a UNIX variant, but MS figured it out that they were too far behind the market to compete in the UNIX space and abandoned the work. What they delivered was some crap hammered onto Winows and called it NT.