VMware Loses Chief Scientist

In addition to Greene and Rosenblum, VMware last week lost Richard Sarwal, the executive vice president in charge of research and development, who left for his old job at Oracle after staying around long enough for a cup of coffee. That was after Paul Chan, VP of product development, said he was quitting in October.

If you're keeping track at home, that's four major players. In fact, they'd be 1-4 in your lineup, with Greene batting cleanup. That's a huge amount of talent and vision to lose in a couple of months. It's times like this that employees start to ask themselves, and their co-workers, "Who's next?" I wouldn't want to be morale officer at VMware right now.

And could the timing be worse? Microsoft stole some of VMworld's thunder with its coincidentally timed (wink, wink) announcements yesterday of all the new products. Things just keep getting worse for new CEO Paul Maritz. Thus far he's handled all the crises with great aplomb, but how much more of a brain and leadership drain can the company handle? Maritz told the Times reporter, "Any time you have a company in transition, you have challenges."

You can say that again.

Posted by Keith Ward on 09/09/2008 at 12:48 PM3 comments

Nothing New to Report on Microsoft

It looks like there wasn't anything more reported than what I wrote up this morning, however. The latest Microsoft press release simply rehashes the earlier information. I'm trying hard to get an interview with a Microsoft spokesperson to follow up with questions about Hyper-V Server, VMM 2008 and Live Migration, so stay tuned.

Posted by Keith Ward on 09/08/2008 at 12:48 PM4 comments

Microsoft Makes Big Virtualization Announcements

We'll have full coverage of the announcements coming up, but here's a preview of what's coming:

Microsoft will be releasing Hyper-V Server, the free, standalone version of Hyper-V that doesn't require Windows Server 2008, within 30 days. That's great news for those who don't want to have to buy Windows 2008 to get Hyper-V. The release says it will be available "at no cost" via the Web. I assume (but make no guarantees) that that means that the packaged version of Hyper-V will cost $28, the price Microsoft set for the hypervisor many months ago.

System Center Virtual Machine Manager 2008 (VMM 2008) will also be available within 30 days. VMM 2008 is Microsoft's version of VMware's VirtualCenter -- your one-stop shop for managing your virtual infrastructure. Some differences, however, include the ability to manage physical as well as virtual machines, and tools to manage VMware's ESX servers.

A very juicy tidbit is this, from the release: "Microsoft demonstrated for the first time a live migration feature of Windows Server 2008 R2". So Microsoft has managed to solve the live migration puzzle, further leveling the playing field with ESX, which has had Live Migration for a long time. Live Migration, for the unitiated, means moving virtual machines (VMs) from one physical server to another without powering it (the VM) down. Microsoft's answer, upon the initial release of Hyper-V, was Quick Migration, which did involve turning a VM off, if only briefly. (One note: Microsoft officials have, for some time, attempted to minimize the benefit of Live Migration over Quick Migration, claiming that it won't make much of a difference to customers. I wonder if they'll sing the same tune now that they've added the feature in a soon-to-be-announced upgrade of Windows 2008? Will it still be a "not-that-big-a-deal" feature, or suddenly become very important, "something customers have been clamoring for"? We'll see.) In the press release, Microsoft didn't give a timeframe for Windows 2008 R2; we'll give you an update on that ASAP.

All in all, it looks to be a busy day for Microsoft. We'll be right here with you to let you know what's going on.

Posted by Keith Ward on 09/07/2008 at 12:48 PM2 comments

VMware Pricing From Both Sides

I was reading your article on VMWare's pricing and Jason's response and felt the urge to throw my thoughts into the fray. I have been an avid VMWare fan for quite some time. I started using VMWare's product when I was a lowly Network Admin working for a Defense Contractor in Monrovia, CA. Post 9/11 spending into the Defense Industry by all branches of the US Government led to releases of vasts amounts of funds into our IT budget, which led to a major Virtualization project of our DataCenters. I can't tell you how pleased I was with the performance and functionality of ESX, especially after comparing it to various other products, including Microsoft's virtualization. I didn't care what the cost was, the end result was its own reward. No more weekend/late night updates of Servers and crawling into bed at 6:00am after working a 20-hour shift. With virtualization, I suddenly had an overnight supply of test and dev systems that I could use to fully test patches and other items prior to production release. System downtime was reduced to practically nothing and I was seen as a hero. I was in IT Heaven.

I am now the CIO of a Non-Profit Community Clinic in Downtown Los Angeles and, while I still remain a huge fan of VMWare, I am struggling with its cost. We are highly dependent on MediCal funds from the State and, without a State budget, have been providing services and making payroll without the benefit of revenue coming in. We have been told by State officials that this situation may very well continue through October. You try keeping your lights on and payroll flowing with a huge source of revenue no longer being collected. Microsoft has a Non-Profit Charity program and VMWare does not. I have managed to squeeze one license of ESX Standard (no VMotion) out of another project, but that is like giving free meals at the best restaurant in town to someone who keeps Kosher. I can see all the goodies, but can't partake in them. I have switched over another server to running ESXi, as that is free. I am able to hook that into my iSCSI SAN and have been able to manually move some of my machines off our main ESX Server onto it. However, without VMotion and HA and other expensive licensed features, I am still feeling the pain.

So, while I agree with Jason that the benefits of ESX greatly outweigh the cost, I still have to say that pricing is really putting the brakes on our Virtualization. You can't milk a bull and I can't pull money out of thin air. VMWare is going to have to reduce its pricing in order to stay competitive with the market. Either that or one of my lottery tickets has to hit the jackpot.

Great insight, Ofer. VMware, what about the idea of offering a similar program for non-profits? If there is such a thing, I'd appreciate it if a VMware-ian or someone with knowledge of the program would pass it along.

Posted by Keith Ward on 09/05/2008 at 12:48 PM2 comments

App-V 4.5 is Here

The latest version, App-V 4.5, is the first rebranded name for what was SoftGrid. And it looks good, too. What continues to rankle me, however, is that it's only available as part of the Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP) for Software Assurance (SA). In other words, you need to buy into SA to get App-V. What if you don't want the MDOP or SA? Why should you have to pay a monthly fee to get a program that you should be able to buy as packaged software? It's the fact that Microsoft is taking away your right to choose, forcing you into supporting its steady revenue stream, that chafes me.

Does it do the same to you? Let me know.

Posted by Keith Ward on 09/05/2008 at 12:48 PM1 comments

Feedback: Dead Wrong on VMware Pricing

"Ask 100 VMware customers what their greatest complaints about the company are, and 99 of them are likely to list price at the top. VMware recently took a step in the right direction when it made ESXi free, but there's more to do. It's still the most expensive solution out there -- by a mile."

Jason Boche e-mailed this thoughtful response (used with Jason's permission):

"I respectfully disagree with your #1 Take: Price. I think statistics would more accurately reflect that 1 out of 100 VMware customers would complain about price. The 99 complaints on price you speak of usually come from the Hyper-V and XenServer zealots, usually in the form of anonymous blog responses.

The price of a hypervisor did not become such a large topic of discussion until Microsoft came onto the scene, in typical fashion, slashing prices on its host based products and then ultimately Hyper-V, thereby bullying competitors into doing the same or raising speculation from the uneducated market as to why Microsoft is essentially free and VMware is not.

There is much more to be considered in the cost formula of a virtualized datacenter than the up-front sticker price of a hypervisor and management tools. The cost of VMware is completely reasonable and VMware's features pay dividends for VMware administrators daily. Have a conversation with a Hyper-V user and ask them about the flexibility of hot migrating a VM from one Hyper-V host to another, and what the associated cost of downtime is each time. It adds up in the form of server unavailability, downtime during maintenance windows (or unplanned downtime during the day), change management labor and paperwork, etc.

I get tired of people like yourself perpetuating the "cost" discussion. Looking solely at list price of a product to determine its worth or value in the datacenter is foolish and naive as is basing virtualization solution decisions for the datacenter solely on price of the shrink wrapped product.

Admittedly, VMware and Microsoft are not on a level playing field when it comes to financial backing and diversity in different product lines/offerings. For those that continue to pester VMware about cost, I challenge those to propose a model on how a company like VMware can continue producing their market leading innovation without collecting revenue on products. I am a VMware customer and I guess I am the 1 out of 100 people you speak of that are satisfied with VMware's products AND their costs."

Well argued, Jason. I think your reasoning has merit. My rebuttal would start at ESXi. If customers were always willing to pay more for a superior product (which ESXi is), VMware wouldn't have made it free. What I believe this shows is that market forces are finally starting to work in the virtualization space.

Until now, VMware essentially had a monopoly. As we all know, monopolies dictate their own pricing. Once that monopoly power was broken (with the introduction of Hyper-V and, to a lesser extent, XenServer from Citrix), VMware had to respond.

We don't yet know what Sytem Center Virtual Machine Manager 2008 (VMM 2008) will cost, but I bet it will severely undercut a comparable VirtualCenter/VI3 offering. Of course, VMM 2008 will also be behind, and likely far behind, the functionality of the VMware solution (at least initially). The question potential customers will be asking themselves, though, is "Are the offerings from Microsoft/Citrix/Virtual Iron/Red Hat/Novell/etc. good enough, even if they're not at the same level as VMware?"

I believe as this shakes out that we'll see VMware drop prices on many, if not most or all, of its products. It's no longer the only game in town. Yes, their stuff is good, as anyone who's used it will tell you. But in the past, the quality of their offerings was only part of the price equation. The other part was the stranglehold they had on the market. With that loosening grip comes lower prices for all.

VMware still has a big head start on the competition in terms of technology, and under the leadership of Paul Maritz, will continue to produce excellent tools, I believe. They may get even better now, since they're being pushed as never before. But they won't be able to set their prices in a vacuum anymore. They will be keenly aware of what Microsoft, Citrix and the others are offering, and will have to be competitive on costs -- really, for the first time.

What's your take on this issue? I'd like to hear from you.

Posted by Keith Ward on 09/03/2008 at 12:48 PM8 comments

MiPhone

I used to have a Cingular 8525, but found it to be less than ideal. As a texting device, it was fabulous. The problem is that I'm not a texting addict, like my daughter; I believe she'd give up air before texting. I'm old-fashioned, I guess -- I like calling and talking to people. You know, that whole wacky "interaction" thing.

One of the things I really wanted was the ability to surf the Internet. In that regard, the 8525 was, like most Windows Mobile devices, a letdown. Most mobile-enabled versions of Web sites are lame in the extreme. Almost no graphics, lousy navigation, and nothing but the most popular stories are what you get with the majority of them -- and that's from the ones that actually have a mobile version of the site available. The ones that don't are pretty much useless for cellphone browsing. That included most of the ones I like to visit. So, after paying for the unlimited data plan for a few months, I killed it, since I wasn't using the Internet functionality.

In addition, the 8525 is bulky and heavy, the cellphone equivalent of lugging around a 60-pound pack. It did have a number of features I liked, including a mobile version of the Office suite. On the whole, though, I didn't use many of its capabilities. Essentially, it was just a phone for me. If I wanted just a phone, I would much rather use my old Razor.

So last week I took the plunge, and got a black 16GB iPhone from my local AT&T store. Since then, it's been my near-constant companion. Here's what I like about it:

-- GPS. It's hard to quantify the value of GPS. I used it to direct the kids and me out to a Barnes & Noble bookstore Saturday. It worked flawlessly, even without the turn-by-turn directions you'll get on a Garmin or TomTom (and that ability is undoubtedly on the way). And yesterday, on the way to Gettysburg, I found every McDonald's on the way simply by typing the company name in the search field. Again, this is no big deal for many of you used to GPS on a daily basis; for me, it's a revelation of historic proportions (yes, I know I sound like a fanboy. Hard not to, in your first few iPhone days). It also means I have no need of a separate GPS.

-- Full Safari Web browser. Absolutely fantastic stuff. I can view every Web site as it was meant to be viewed. Some sites, like ESPN and Google, have iPhone-tuned sites; even better. But those that don't are still eminently usable. I discovered that my little town in north-central Maryland does not yet have 3G (d'oh!), but I was told that it's coming soon, possibly as early as next month. When that happens, I'll rejoice, but for now, Edge is good enough (and I'm quickly learning where the wi-fi spots are in my area). It may take longer to load than 3G, but at least I'll see each site as it was meant to be seen.

-- App Store. Is there any doubt that this is the future of smartphones? So far I've downloaded 11 apps, a mixture of productivity, games, fitness and news apps. My personal favorites:

• Scrabble (the best game of all time for editors/writers). Works flawlessly. But the "average" setting for a computer opponent means makes it feel like you're playing against William F. Buckley -- it seemingly knows every word in the dictionary. I downgraded to an "easy" opponent.
• FileMagnet. This program transfers programs between a Mac and the phone.
• RunKeeper. Using the GPS function, RunKeeper tracks your time, pace and distance. Then, when your run (or bike ride) is over, just hit "Save" and your workout data is sent to RunKeeper's Web site, where it not only shows you that information, but provides a map showing your route. Very impressive.
• Cro-Mag Rally. I'm not a big fan of video games; for whatever reason, I've just never been able to stick with one for long (except Microsoft Flight Simulator, but that's probably because I'm a private pilot). Cro-Mag is a standard race game, with a cool twist: you tilt the iPhone around to steer. It's like using a Wii in that regard, and really ramps up the fun. And, given the small screen size, it doesn't make me nauseous the way my kids' PS2 does.

There are literally thousands of apps available now, and more coming on board seemingly hourly. And they aren't, for the most part, expensive (of course, they do add up. Remember when you first started using iTunes, and you thought "Hey, this is cheap!" Then you looked at your store receipt a week later and realized you'd downloaded $200 worth of songs, a buck at a time? It's insidious.) This makes the iPhone a platform (yeah, a closed one, but as of now there are no lack of developers, it seems), expanding its usefulness a hundred times over a Razor or BlackBerry.

One other thing I really like about it: I use reading glasses, and it was very hard to see the phone numbers to dial on my 8525 without the glasses. The iPhone's buttons are huge and easily readable without my glasses. A small, but for someone like me with old eyes, important hidden advantage.

And, of course, it's an iPod, too. Believe it or not, the first one I've ever owned (not sure I should even admit that; but hey, we're all friends here, right?).

What do I not like about it? I'll get back to you.

Posted by Keith Ward on 09/02/2008 at 12:48 PM7 comments

Free Discovery Tool Unveiled

Virtualization start-up vendor Embotics, makers of lifecycle management product V-Commander, have released a subset of that product, called V-Scout. Embotics is positioning V-Scout as an entry-level discovery product, capable of telling you what's on your VMware network. It goes beyond that, though, doing more than most free products.

Marketing VP David Lynch (not the Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks David Lynch) calls V-Scout "The industry's first free insight tool to allow users to see what's going on in their environment.(V-Scout presents) trending information, costing trends" and more. V-Scout connects to VirtualCenter, VMware's management tool, self-populating and self-discovering VMs.

(Aside: Embotics' executives page is unlike any I've seen. Of course, it'll be harder to do once the company has more than a handful of executives, but in its current state, it's way cool.)

Developing and releasing a free product like V-Scout is risky. For one, the company has spent significant time and money developing V-Scout, with no immediate return of any kind (other than the goodwill that comes from giving admins a really helpful tool) on the horizon. But the bigger danger is that customers will use the product, like it, and rather than deciding to upgrade to the full-featured V-Commander, decide that it does the job and stay with it.

Lynch says he understands the risks. "There could be a section of the market that may say 'Hey thanks, it's good enough.' But I don't think that segment would have been a good market for V-Commander anyway."

From the pre-briefing I had on the product, it looks like it could be a winner (we'll have a review for you before too much longer.) In any event, it's certainly worth checking out if you run a VMware shop (it will be available tomorrow).

Posted by Keith Ward on 09/02/2008 at 12:48 PM1 comments

Ah, 'Foo'-ey!

The cause is likely to be that the drive was formatted as FAT32 rather than NTFS, which Hyper-V, Microsoft's hypervisor, requires for VMs. It's a security thing.

Here's my question: Why would a Hyper-V coder write an error message like this? Is he or she a fan of the rock group Foo Fighters? Is it a nickname? Hey, whatever the reason, I kinda like it. Beats those boring, cryptic messages you normally get, even if it has no meaning. So remember to make your external VM storage drives NTFS. In the immortal words of President Lincoln, "You can Foo some of the people some of the time..."

Posted by Keith Ward on 08/28/2008 at 12:48 PM4 comments

VMworld Almost Upon Us

First is the change at the top, with Paul Maritz headlining his first show. Maritz has impressed me so far, enduring a number of serious company stumbles with aplomb. His keynote will be well worth attending.

Second, VMware faces its first serious competition -- ever. Rivals are lining up, both big -- can you say Microsoft, Citrix, Oracle and Sun? -- and small, as new virtualization products hit the market almost daily. At present, VMware is the market leader, and aggressively working to build on its lead. It's recently responded to Hyper-V's free price by giving away its core hypervisor, ESX; an important recognition by VMware that market forces are having an impact.

Finally, VMware is experiencing serious sales challenges, especially to its Enterprise License Agreements, which have really tanked in the last year. The steady revenue stream that ELAs provide is crucial to a company like VMware, and had a lot to do with the feeble stock performance of late.

Maritz has promised changes on all these fronts; VMworld will give us the first opportunity to see how that will happen.

In the meantime, Virtualization Review will have a full contingent of editors at the show: myself, Executive Editor Tom Valovic and Editor in Chief Doug Barney will be diligently following all the news that comes out of the conference. We'll be blogging regularly and writing lots of news stories, so check the site often. If you see me at the show (I'll be all over), please stop and say hi. I love meeting readers.

Posted by Keith Ward on 08/26/2008 at 12:48 PM4 comments

Microsoft Eases Up on Licensing

Starting Sept. 1, according to this document ("Application Server License Mobility"), you can now move certain applications around to various servers within a farm without buying extra licenses. It's very complicated (par for the course when it comes to Microsoft licensing), but broken down into its simplest terms, this is what it means:

Under the old system, if you moved an app from one server to another, you couldn't move it again for 90 days without buying a license for the new server. In other words, you would need two licenses for your copy of Exchange 2003, if the software was regularly moved from one physical box to the other. This, of course, is the rule with virtualization. Under the new rules, if those servers are part of a farm, the only license you'll need is for the software itself -- not for each individual server on which the software may run.

Chris Wolf, our "Virtual Advisor" columnist, wrote about this circumstance in our March/April issue. It was the key reason he had Microsoft in his "thumbs down" category when it comes to virtualization licensing. Now, to a large degree, Microsoft has overcome that weakness.

There are a number of restrictions to the new policy, though, and they will rankle many of you. First and foremost is that server OSes aren't included. So you can move SQL Server 2007 around to your heart's content; try the same thing with Windows Server 2003 or 2008, and you're violating your license agreement. This seems strange and capricious to me. Isn't server consolidation the main reason, at present, that most people start using virtualization? To restrict the mobility of server OSes is just not smart.

The other big omission in the new policy will hurt small and medium businesses (SMBs). The new rules only apply to volume license agreements, which requires a minimum of five instances of a product. So if you only need one instance of Microsoft Identity Lifecycle Manager 2007, or three copies of SharePoint Server 2007 and don't want to pay volume licenses (but still want the high availability benefits of using a farm, or even two servers), you're plumb out of luck, and will need to buy licenses for every server. Why cut out the little and medium-sized guys, Microsoft? If anything, they have less ability to fork out giant amounts of dough for licenses than the enterprises.

But even given those oversights, it's still a very positive change. Microsoft's byzantine licensing requirements have stumped smarter people than me; in the recent past, though, Redmond has been willing to be flexible in making changes, and listens closely to customer feedback in this area.

One piece of advice: you have negotiating power with Microsoft when discussing licenses; they're almost never cut and dried. No matter what size shop you have, you can work for the best deal, and maybe get the volume license restrictions, for example, lifted if you're an SMB. How? Tell Microsoft that you're considering moving to open source software if it doesn't give you what you need. And don't make it an empty threat. Mean it.

Let me know what you think of the new rules, and whether or not Microsoft needs to go further.

Posted by Keith Ward on 08/19/2008 at 12:48 PM7 comments

VMware Earns Microsoft Validation

It's the second piece of very good virtualization news out of Microsoft in the last two days, following on the heels of the changes to its virtualization licensing program. That announcement wasn't as good as it could have been; this announcement couldn't be better.

What it means, in layman's terms, is that Microsoft will provide support for a number of its server OSes, even when it's running in a VMware environment. The supported OSes:

• Windows Server 2008
• Windows 2000 Server Service Pack 4
• Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 and subsequent service packs

In other words, it includes just about every Windows server OS still in use (you're not still on Windows NT, are ya?)

Keep in mind that not all virtualization vendors do this. In fact, Oracle does just the opposite; if you're running an Oracle database on VMware, you get nothing from them. Microsoft is at the opposite end of the spectrum here -- they'll support Windows on all the major platforms, including Cisco, Citrix, Novell, Sun and Virtual Iron.

That's a big deal, and Redmond is to be highly commended for supporting its software on so many competitor's platforms.

Posted by Keith Ward on 08/19/2008 at 12:48 PM1 comments