Who the f**k would want (or choose) to use fister ?

Lets see now - correct me if i'm wrong - i'm sure i'm missing something :-) :

a) a much slower and heavily crippled OS where content is concerned

b) in a restricted pool of memory where 2GB is only just "get out of bed"

c) on emulated hardware, where even real hardware runs like a bag of sh!t

Nah, i'll pass !

(it isn't even worth adding "thanks" to that)

I'm getting old - the Amiga could do a GUI desktop in <300K (even with pinching screen memory from RAM) and was as happy as larry with 2Mb, multitasking with the best of them.

I don't get it, always thought the virtualization exercise was to reduce the servers footprint in the data centre, by breaking the 1 app 1 server model, plus having the ability to move your guest OS around physical box.

With Vista knocking out one core and stymying any app running on the other one there is little hope to get any of the benefits. Fix the bloody OS before, unless the aim is to run one guest on 2 or more boxes (Sequent did that many years ago with NT or ptx ;).

And 'Terminal' in Windows Servers Terminal Services refers to Terminal Disease not ttya. It's OK to administer a server but not to have a bunch of CPU hammering devprs working on it.

I'd be interested to hear from people happily using Citrix or Win TS.

.... still a long way to go to beat VDI + a Wyse terminal

Colin,

There's a story about Microsoft at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/21/microsoft_seeks_dismissal_wordperfect_lawsuit/comments/ and you haven't posted a non sequitur about how much you hate Vista in the comments thread. Quick now! The Register® will surely fail without more of your insightful adjuncts!

Microsoft - more U-Turns than the Labour government!

I'll stick with VMWare I think...

It doesn't seem that long ago that we were stuck with an obsolete version of NT for some considerable time, purely because MS wouldn't let Citrix get access to the nuts 'n bolts of the more current versions. Worried that it would queer the pitch of their shiny new WTS they were (and rightly so).

A week may be a long time in politics but a few short years is a bleedin' lifetime in IT.......

Colin,

At the risk of sounding fanboyish....

I've been running Vista for a year now on a Dell Precision box (picked up from Europc for 300 quid) with a Pentium 2.8 HT processor, 2gb of memory, a sata 7200 100gb disk and an Nvidia 7900 GT gfx card (ok...that was an extra 100 quid off ebay). Hardly the cutting edge of todays dual core all singing and dancing fancy pants systems you can buy today. I've got office 2007 running, three visual studio 2008 sessions (largish multi project solutions), two SQL 2005 std instances running and umpteen other things on the go, the aero ui is slick and fast and I hardly feel 'crippled'.

How about qualifying your bandwagonesque bash-vista slashdot type rumours with some actual facts?

Reminiscing about amiga is all lovely and fine (I had a 500, loved it to bits) but lets face and be realistic it the UI/experience was a far cry from rich experience of XP/Vista/Gnome/KDE GUI's.

Peace and love though.

Kev

Why doesn't MSFT just buy Citrix and call it a day ?? It seems all the rage these days for the big boys to own some 'open source.'

They could do it by proxy if the bought Citrix (and left them intact.)

It might wreak havoc on all the customers and channel partners who love the squeaky-clean and scandal-free Floridians, but maybe some of that mojo would rub off on Redmond.

Are they waiting for Citrix to gobble up Virtual Iron first ??

I beginn to wonder if MS research shows abounding stuff that is (mostly) sold off to corporate clients grabbing the best bits that eventually leave a poorer subset of functionality that is cobbled together to make something like Vista?

If so, then virtualization is really going to be best manifest not by what MS research say but by what corporate customers demonstrate as MS merketing gets under way?

Thoughts?