On Nov 11, 2003, at 8:00 AM, Joe Toon wrote:

> Sure, Linux might be able to run on Virtual PC 2004 and beyond, but it 
> is still not an officially supported OS. Since it is outside of 
> Microsoft's purview, there will be no official customer support for 
> emulation issues and I would expect that the in-house testing against 
> Linux to be non-existant or minimal at best.

I read the article as saying that they were simply going to leave the 
'Linux' button in the dialog box that pops up when you configure a new 
virtual machine. I still think that's praiseworthy. I certainly joined 
the chorus who called them petty when t was reported that they were 
taking it out.
>
> Perhaps I am far out of the loop, but is there any real advantage to 
> running Linux in Virtual PC? It seems like the target platforms 
> (Windows and Mac OS X correct?) already can either run or use much of 
> the same software (OS X can usually run it native and Win32/cygwin 
> ports are pluntiful). It seems like anyone that is doing more than 
> running an occasional application or two inside of Virtual PC would be 
> much better off simply getting a second system & KVM switch.

It's certainly not advantageous for everybody. Consider, however, the 
support person in a firm that has some XPs some WinMEs some Red Hat a 
Debian or two and a legacy OS/2 machine that runs a custom app in 
accounting. Or the programmer who really doesn't want her app the be 
'Red Hat only.'

VPC and VMWare do have their niche.