Need clarification

Hello, I am trying to decipher exactly the differences of ,
VirtualPC 2007 (I understand it runs VMs with different OSs but requires
resources enough for the two of them, and 2 licenses?
Also how does (or does it ? ) make my machine anymore
secure from a malware attack. In other words aren't you
still dependant on your AntiMalware to protect against
keylogging and clipboard stealing etc even while in the VM?)
And what is "Cloud computing" ? (is this an offsite access thing where nothing
is stored on your machine ? If so I surmise you are dependent
on whatever protection the Cloud company is offering while
you use this, not to mention if you are accessing from a computer
instead of one these quick boot netbooks wouldn't you still be
dependent on your machines security software?
And what about some of these Beta "Kernel VMs" that run VM copies of the
same OS (usually XP) that claim to be faster since your are
only running the base OS and the VM code (not two OSs).
This sounds real handy for someone that doesn't have a need
for different OSs, but once you install and run one of these
things obviously you are going to have to tell your security
software to let the VM run. So ....hopefully these beta
authors are not in the information stealing business ?
Appreciate any and all information and links you would be so kind as to give me.

Thanks that makes sense. But yet many (if not all) of these VM (in all flavors) tout
their VMs as being more secure or at least capable of reverting back to previous
before corruption with a reboot. In other words they claim that the malware cannot
break out of (or write out of ) the VM currently running.
------------------------previous thread
"Mark Rae [MVP]" <> wrote in message news:%...
> "RB" <NoMail@NoSpam> wrote in message news:...
>
>> VirtualPC 2007 (I understand it runs VMs with different OSs but requires
>> resources enough for the two of them, and 2 licenses?
>> Also how does (or does it ? ) make my machine anymore
>> secure from a malware attack. In other words aren't you
>> still dependant on your AntiMalware to protect against
>> keylogging and clipboard stealing etc even while in the VM?)
>
> The key to understanding virtual machines is to remember, always, that they are absolutely identical to physical machines as far
> as the software running on them (both OS and applications) is concerned. This can be used to answer (almost) any software
> virtualisation question. So, if the host machine has 4GB RAM and the OS running on it requires 2GM, that leaves 2GB for other
> applications to use, and Virtual PC is just an application like any other. Using virtual machines is no more or less secure than
> running physical machines. If you run a virtual machine with Internet access, it is just as liable to be infected with malware as
> any other machine - the host machine won't protect it:
> http://vpc.visualwin.com/ngfaq.aspx
>
>
>> And what is "Cloud computing"?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing
>
>
> --
> Mark Rae
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://www.markrae.net

Exactly what is top-post. I was told on another group some time ago not to
post unless I included the previous message below. Damn it is irritating to
have these rules and regulations when all we are looking for is just a little
help if someone more knowledgable would be so kind.
I'm not sure what you mean by the remark "No they don't" since YES
some do, or I would not have gotten that from them.
Otherwise thank you for the reply.

-----Previous thread------
"Mark Rae [MVP]" <> wrote in message news:%...
> "RB" <NoMail@NoSpam> wrote in message news:...
>
> [please don't top-post]
>
>> Thanks that makes sense. But yet many (if not all) of these VM (in all flavors) tout
>> their VMs as being more secure
>
> No they don't - because they aren't...
>
>
>> or at least capable of reverting back to previous before corruption with a reboot.
>
> As previously explained, that is *PRECISELY* the same as any physical machine which is imaged regularly. I.e. take an image of
> your physical machine before connecting it to the Internet, then connect it to the Internet and wait for it to become infected
> with malware, then trash it and restore the last known clean image. Hey presto! the malware is gone... :-) Some virtualisation
> software can do this via snapshots or similar functionality, but the concept is no different.
>
>
>> In other words they claim that the malware cannot break out of (or write out of ) the VM currently running.
>
> No they don't, because that would be *completely* untrue. As previously explained, a networked virtual machine is no different to
> a networked physical machine as far as the software (both OS and applications) running on it is concerned, or as far as the other
> machines on the network are concerned - generally speaking, they can't even tell the difference anyway. There are any number of
> viruses which are capable of propagating themselves between different machines on the same network - physical or virtual is
> irrelevant...
>
> Of course, you can create virtual networks which are completely isolated from your physical network... But you can do that with
> physical machines anyway... There *REALLY* is no difference.
>
> As before, all you have to do is to think of a virtual machine as *identical* to a physical machine. The fact that it's made of
> software rather than hardware is completely irrelevant...
>
>
> --
> Mark Rae
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://www.markrae.net

RB wrote:
> Exactly what is top-post. I was told on another group some time ago not to
> post unless I included the previous message below. Damn it is irritating to
> have these rules and regulations when all we are looking for is just a little
> help if someone more knowledgable would be so kind.

Top posting is placing your reply above the quote. The preferred practice in
usenet is bottom-posting (placing your reply below the quote), or interspersing
your reply as Mark did.

There is an old usenet joke:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in usenet?

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:54:10 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous Remailer
(austria)" <> wrote:

>In article <#>
>"Mark Rae [MVP]" <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "RB" <NoMail@NoSpam> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>
>> [please don't top-post]
>>
>>
>
>Have you always been this anal?

Have you always been this afraid of criticism that you have to hide
behind an "Anonymous" signature?????

--

Bo Berglund (Sweden)

>Mark Replied
>>RB's question
>> Exactly what is top-post.
>
> See David's reply.
>
> Also, see: http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by the remark "No they don't" since YES
>> some do, or I would not have gotten that from them.
>
> Any vendor of software of a virtualisation product who claims that virtual machines are somehow "more secure" than physical
> machines simply because they are virtual, is misleading you...
> Mark Rae ASP.NET MVP
---------RB's reply---------------
Ok thanks for the reply, and I believe I have my reply back in correct format this
time. Actually I always originally posted on newsgroups in the past with only cut out
pertinent quotes before my reply (which I surmise would be an abbreviated bottom
posting ? ) But a few other groups insisted I use what appears to be a top post.
And incidentally this reply (and thanks for all replies) is to David, Mark and Christian
(which I would have put in the subject header but figured that might not be allowed either)
I would surmise that this group is specifically in reference to MS's VirtualPC which
from what I can tell is multi OS VM and not a clone copy OS VM ? The former requiring
more resources (and licensing). So I apologize if I was off topic, this was the only group I
found that seem to have any recent traffic. The apps that are really more what I would
need are the clone copy of the base (and only) OS. But I am concerned if some of these
(from foreign countries) are not fronts for malware activity or even how would one know?
In any case if you want to comment I welcome it, otherwise thank you for your previous
input.
RB

RB wrote:
> Ok thanks for the reply, and I believe I have my reply back in correct format this
> time. Actually I always originally posted on newsgroups in the past with only cut out
> pertinent quotes before my reply (which I surmise would be an abbreviated bottom
> posting ? ) But a few other groups insisted I use what appears to be a top post.
> And incidentally this reply (and thanks for all replies) is to David, Mark and Christian
> (which I would have put in the subject header but figured that might not be allowed either)
> I would surmise that this group is specifically in reference to MS's VirtualPC which
> from what I can tell is multi OS VM and not a clone copy OS VM ? The former requiring
> more resources (and licensing). So I apologize if I was off topic, this was the only group I
> found that seem to have any recent traffic. The apps that are really more what I would
> need are the clone copy of the base (and only) OS. But I am concerned if some of these
> (from foreign countries) are not fronts for malware activity or even how would one know?
> In any case if you want to comment I welcome it, otherwise thank you for your previous
> input.

In as much as there is an official etiquette for usenet posting, bottom posting
with appropriate trimming of the quote is the one, so I would say you were
correct in the first place. While I would agree that there are more important
issues, a thread that contains a mixture of top and bottom posting can become
very difficult to read.

If by "clone copy OS VM" you mean "clone copy of host OS" then this is not legal
without a separate license, just as it would not be legal if you used a clone
copy on another physical computer.

(If you have a retail license, it is legal to transfer the license to another
machine, physical or virtual, provided that you stop using it on the original
machine.)

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

"RB" <NoMail@NoSpam> wrote in message
news:%...
> But a few other groups insisted I use what appears to be a top post.

I've encountered this on several web-based forums. And given the software
they used, it made sense there.

The forums (not newsgroups) linked message and presented them in a easy to
ready scrollable list. So you didn't really even need the quotes at all.
In these cases, top posting was arguably the better approach since you'd see
the top of the new message in a window, with the quoted text perhaps
partially visible lower in the window or, in some cases, automatically
hidden. Then the previous message, again presented the same way, and so on.

On the other hand, I don't recall anyone on an actual newsgroup (as opposed
to a forum) encouraging top posting, unless they were reading the newsgroup
via a software package that presented the newsgroup in a forum-like manner.

So, I've no doubt someone told you exactly what you say. But you were
right, at least for newsgroups.

- Bill

> If by "clone copy OS VM" you mean "clone copy of host OS" then this is
> not legal without a separate license, just as it would not be legal if you used
> a clone copy on another physical computer.
> David Wilkinson Visual C++ MVP

Thank you for the reply:
Well yes, I would agree but possibly I have not clearly described (or possibly
fully understood what I have read ) what they actually claim on their sites. I think
I should leave out the word "clone" on one of them. But rather it appears from the
descriptions that it is running the VM at the kernel level of the base OS so that you
have VMs all running off the original OS.
This one of them specifically is at http://icoresoftware.com/benefits-of...alization.html
and more info at http://icoresoftware.com/virtualization-technology.html
Also another one I was looking at that possibly does require another OS license
(since it does use the term clone) is at http://www.returnilvirtualsystem.com/rvs-home-lux
If you care to comment on these (any and all aspects of them) I would be interested
in what you would have to say.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:26:22 -0500, "RB" <NoMail@NoSpam> wrote:

>> If by "clone copy OS VM" you mean "clone copy of host OS" then this is
>> not legal without a separate license, just as it would not be legal if you used
>> a clone copy on another physical computer.
>> David Wilkinson Visual C++ MVP
>
>Thank you for the reply:
>Well yes, I would agree but possibly I have not clearly described (or possibly
>fully understood what I have read ) what they actually claim on their sites. I think
>I should leave out the word "clone" on one of them. But rather it appears from the
>descriptions that it is running the VM at the kernel level of the base OS so that you
>have VMs all running off the original OS.
>This one of them specifically is at http://icoresoftware.com/benefits-of...alization.html
>and more info at http://icoresoftware.com/virtualization-technology.html
>Also another one I was looking at that possibly does require another OS license
>(since it does use the term clone) is at http://www.returnilvirtualsystem.com/rvs-home-lux
>If you care to comment on these (any and all aspects of them) I would be interested
>in what you would have to say.
>

I'm not sure this is "virtualization" in the virtual machine sense,
maybe "virtual" user accounts.
Also, the product is limited to XP and requires Fast User Switching to
be enabled before installation.

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
http://smudj.wordpress.com/