Virtual PC 2007 Sucks. It's slow. It lacks any competitive features. It's nothing but a warmed-over Virtual PC 2004 with a few bug fixes. But that's OK. Microsoft wanted it this way. In fact, Virtual PC 2007 is exactly what they envisioned when they set-out to build their next desktop virtualization product: A simple, low or no-cost mechanism that provides a measure of backward compatibility for Vista users, and Virtual PC 2007 Sucks. It’s slow. It lacks any competitive features. It’s nothing but a warmed-over Virtual PC 2004 with a few bug fixes. But that’s OK. Microsoft wanted it this way. In fact, Virtual PC 2007 is exactly what they envisioned when they set-out to build their next desktop virtualization product: A simple, low or no-cost mechanism that provides a measure of backward compatibility for Vista users, and not much more.You see, Microsoft doesn’t like desktop virtualization. They don’t believe in the technology and they feel threatened by the business model. Mike Neil, the person in charge of Microsoft’s virtualization strategy, admits as much in his recent blog post. From Microsoft’s perspective, virtual machines are a data center technology, a tool for server consolidation and maximizing hardware ROI. The client, according to Mr. Neil, is best served by application-level virtualization and streaming technologies, like the SoftGrid platform they acquired last year when they purchased Softricity.This is why you don’t see Microsoft endorsing initiatives like VDI. The concept of running lots of virtualized desktops on a back-end server is entirely foreign to Microsoft (the aborted Terminal Services effort notwithstanding). In Microsoft’s world, all clients are fat clients – it’s how they built their empire. And they’re loath to change a winning formula, especially when doing so would play to the strengths of a major competitor (VMware). So in the end, it’s OK that Virtual PC 2007 sucks rocks. It’s supposed to. Software DevelopmentSmall and Medium Business