Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Plans Hypervisor for Longhorn
ninjee writes "Microsoft reiterated plans to launch its own Windows-based 'hypervisor' software for running multiple operating systems. Bob Muglia, senior vice president in the Windows Server Division, said on Tuesday that the software will be 'built directly in Windows and will allow companies to virtualize multiple operating systems.' "
will this "Hypervisor" come in the form of a paperclip?
"Hi! It looks like you're trying to load an alternate operating system."
I wonder how many of the x86 family of Unix will run in this Windows-based virtualization product. I don't think Microsoft would intentionally cripple the functionality of a *nix OS running in hypervision, but they might.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
... built right into the operating system... just like IE, and Windows Media Player...
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
They can't seem to ever get their own operating system right how are they gonna emulate anyone else?
They're rebranding Virtual PC?
I am sure he meant multiple "MS Windows" Operating systems.
Now I can run Windows, OSX, Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD at the same time! As usual, I fail to see the point of this. I mean honstly, running Windows from Linux I can see - you get the security of Linux with the compatibility of Windows. But other OSes under Windows? I don't see the point.
2b || !2b =?
this sounds like another one for the anti-trust gang.
Windows, now newer and better tasting! It slices, dices, and now also controls all your other Operating Systems!
Sources not included, some assimilation required.
From TFA:
Microsoft's rival in this area is shaping up to be Xen [...] Xen doesn't yet support Windows, however
AFAIK Xen actually does support Windows, and it's not exactly a rival because it was originally sponsored by Microsoft Research - here is a relevant link
Having said this, I'm still convinced that full virtualization is the wrong approach and the separation technologies such as Linux VServer, FreeBSD jails or Solaris Containers will ultimately kill hypervizors.
I'd suggest Xen is less competition to this new initiative and more a learning opportunity for all involved parties to determine ways to integrate virtualized operating systems.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
In the "All The World Is A Windows Machine" mentality of Microsoft, what OSes are they talking about running?
Certainly not OSX/x86- we know Apple wouldn't allow that.
Certainly not any *nix- lest they intentionally break and cripple it as some sort of "self-justification tool"
Other Windows Oses? I.E., XP on top of Longhorn? Win98 on top of LongHorn? If Longhorn is properly done, they won't need this for "compatibility", especially in light that XP already does this.
(seriousness over)
Or maybe it is to run the up and coming, resource-hungry SymantecOS that underlies the Norton Internet Security Suite.
do() || do_not();
Ruby on Rails Screencast
"...allow companies to virtualize multiple operating systems."
It will also allow you to:
reintermediate enterprise markets
synergize synergistic metrics
strategize vertical e-commerce
deploy viral bandwidth
and lastly...
unleash user-centric portals
Gee, never saw that done before. Kinda like when Metallica's soul (or something like that) went up for sale during the Napster issue.
Ok, I guess it's a little funny.
I'm sure they will charge some sort of messed up licensing fee for each virtual machine (or subset of that machine).
Yeah I can just imagine this program in action
"Hey there Skipper, it looks like you're trying to run Linux! You must be evil! Your IP address has been forwarded to the CIA, FBI and IRS! Please stay where you are and enjoy this fine game of hypnotic solitare!"
Microsoft just bought the rights to virtual PC a year or so ago, why intentionally deny themselves another money-maker?
By "Other OS" do they mean any OS or is this just a way to sell you old versions of Windows to install to run your old DOS games?
"oh it doesn't work on XP, send us £100 for Windows 98 and install it".
I like muppets.
BTW, the versions of Virtual PC that I have used dont even allow the emulation of *nix OS's out of the box. WHo would want to emulate multiple crappy OS's on a crappy host OS? http://leetworks.homelinux.com/
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever."
TFA says that MS's rival in this area is shaping up to be a product called Xen. I will humbly admit I've never heard of Xen, and TFA says it has a lot of support. But isn't this VMware's market too? Not sure how much market share VMware currently has, but it's been a very solid product in my experience.
Yeah, yeah, VMware is not free (as in beer), and it is closed source (AFAIK). Nor is it built in to the OS. But I think it has strong support and probably a large customer base.
Comments?
http://nerdfortress.com/
well, now hypervisor will allow multiple BSOD all at once... how fun
I'm not sure what I think about the article, but I sure hate the word virtualize. In fact I am sick of people adding "ize" to the end of words to make them verbs.
Why do we keep coming up with new ways of saying the S.O.S.?
Are Microsoft admitting a mainstream demand for coexistance between non-microsoft operating systems on the same pc, and even demand for alternative operating systems by including these features, or are they hedging their bets to become a good 'host' OS, so as to ensure users stay primarily on Windows but virtualize other OS's to access their strengths.
It doesnt immediately seem clear from the article how other operating systems will be permitted, and it could be the case that the software approves what operating systems will boot within it. I wonder how this development will affect VMware, as it is one of the few end-user virtualization software companies left given Microsoft's acquisition of Connectix and Virtual PC
Business Voyeur
Sandbox fucking IE! Have it run in its own VM with a super stripped down OS that doesn't have ANY of my data files. Have a default known clean checkpoint that I can restore from at the click of a button. I might reconsider my move to opera if I could actually use IE.
If Microsoft creates this technology and we can say run Linux Apps in windows I would presure the developer team to make the apps for linux because Windows will run it. And you have the software that can work on Linux as well so if you cant get the deal with Microsoft. So your apps run in 2 OSs except for one giving you company a way out.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
... on at least getting Longhorn released sometime this decade. It's been long enough already for crying out loud. Oh well, I suppose security and all the other nice features that their customers apparently "like" take time to add in.
The problem that you have with Microsoft and virtualization is licensing.
Do you have to buy a new $800 server license every time you create a new VM? If not, is someone going to bother to tell the online activation system about this?
Let's say you have an ISP, and you want to sell hosting with IIS and MS-SQL to your customers. It would be great if you could use virtualization software to partition the machine -- it would make it easier to manage and more secure.
All the tools you need to do this now are available -- VMWare will do it.
But you can't, because you'd go broke. You have to buy a copy *per customer*.
Meanwhile, I can buy an account at a vps provider (mine is linode.com) for $20/month, and run my own web server and database engine just fine.
They have to address the licensing, or it won't fly.
Xen is an GNU kind of "hypervisor" contributed by Sun, IBM, etc. So far, it doesn't work with Windows. (Hm - love to see an OS X version come out when those X86 Macs arrive.)
Microsoft is announcing that their next version of Windows will have the same technology as Xen - but better! Hey, don't use that Xen crap now - just wait for our upcoming technology! I mean, it's not like we just announce technology years in advance in order to make people think that a current competitor isn't going to be around in a few years!
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
This sounds a lot like they're trying to steal VMWare's market and integrate it right into the OS. More innovation - just like their built-in web browser, upcoming antivirus protection, firewall, and now virtual machines. Anyone still want to claim this this isn't an illegal leverage of their OS monopoly?
From the Article:
Microsoft's rival in this area is shaping up to be Xen. (snip) Xen doesn't yet support Windows, however.
I thought Xen DID support an in-house version of XP that was ported with MS's help. Also, no mention of Vmware as a competitor. I don't think this will impact Vmware's market share very much. There was no indication in the article that it would support NON-windows OS's.
Article gets low geek points: not enough technical detail!
Who cares about that Windows stuff anyway? I'm gonna be running OS X on Intel next year! Woohoo!
This sig kills fascists.
...Right. All different kinds. Like Windows XP Pro, Windows XP Home, MS-DOS....so when you get a fatal error or BSOD in one, you can just switch to another one!
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
if (osToLoad == "Mac OS X")
{
blowUpComputer();
}
This is about DRM -- an all-encompassing, Microsoft controlled supervisor mode controlling access to "trusted" components.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Say what you will about the evil empire, but this is a good move for them and not really surprising considering their acquisition of Virtual PC (connectix I think). The VPC software while not the best on the market, is extremely useful. On my windoze XP Laptop, I have different Virtual PC images for Oracle, SQL Server 2005 Beta, Redhat Enterprise Linux, etc. The images do take up quite a bit of space, but since disk drive are affordable, I only have to run a minimal XP installation and only need to worry about upgrades when the latest and greatest service pack comes out. When I'm done with a project, I just shut down the VM, when I'm done with the technology, I delete or archive the VM and keep a clean base OS. Integrating a virtual machine seems like a logical move to me.
K
Could it be that Apple's delay until next year is because it will require Intel VT on the processor to run? Requiring VT would probably lock out all existing machines. It would also be difficult to emulate on existing chips. VT specific shuts out AMD too. Any rumors of Apple working on a hypervisor?
The simple reason for requiring VT is to get MS Windows support. Windows would run in another VM. A virtual graphics card would then make it appear inside the Mac display.
Running an SMB server interally allows partitions to be shared.
Daemons in each OS could export the clipboard over a virtual network to make DND work. And do things like mouse handoff.
Sounds like they're just restating something we already knew about. They acquired Connectix over two years ago with this goal more or less explicitly in mind.
If I had to guess, I'd say they're just restating this in light of Apple's announcement in order to head off people who might be thinking about running OS X and Windows on the same box (which doesn't make sense to me, since those who'd want to run multiple MS OSes are not the same people who'd want an OS X desktop, but then, I don't speak Marketing).
ITS HILARIOUS!!!!
Currently, many of the virtualization technologies (especially those upcoming hardware-based ones) do not yet allow nesting hypervisors. So If Windows requires running under its its own MS-hypervisor, it can then legitimately refuse to run under another hypervisor...and Microsfot maintains control of your PC.
They are doing this for DRM.
Their Hypervisor will enforce DRM, so even linux can't override it.
They'll make it so all device drivers must be signed to go into the Hypervisor which will be the only thing with any I/O privs that aren't virtualized.
They'll make it so new hardware has closed interfaces and can only be supported by a driver at the Hypervisor level.
Any drivers in any OS level won't be able to circumvent the DRM, since they'll just THINK they are talking to hardware, but will get virtual hardware instead - and the Hypervisor won't let it read any protected content through the virtual I/O, it will blank it out (e.g. all zero bytes from the "soundcard") or something similar.
The drivers designed for the Hypervisor won't work in any higher level, since they'll need to do a crypographic handshake with the hardware to verify it is "real" and the hardware will also monitor bus activity so it'll know if any extraneous activity is occur (as it would if it was being virtualized).
Everything will have a standard interface to the O/S, so Linux will still run but be very limited and slowed down - since only Windows will be allowed "preferred" access to hardware, other O/S will be deliberately crippled.
They'll say you can still run Linux.
Hardware manufacturers won't release specs, they'll say use the Hypervisor and you can still use Linux.
You'll still need to buy Windows to use any hardware - Linux won't even boot on the raw hardware.
MS doesn't care if Linux isn't killed - the above allows them lock in - no windows - your PC won't boot - since nothing but the Hypervisor will know how to talk to the IDE card, etc.
What about manufacturers that want to support open interfaces, etc? Microsoft will deny them a key which they will need to talk to the Hypervisor - and the Hypervisor will refuse to talk to them.
Support anything other than solely the Hypervisor and you can't use the Hypervisor. No Windows - lose too many sales.
And they can say other O/S's are still allowed.
They'll just not be able to give you freedom to use your hardware as you see fit (DRM, need to pay more to get software to unlock other features on your hardware), only Windows will run well, and you need a Windows license and Hypervisor for every PC or else it is unbootable.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Microsoft purchased Dack, and are using their bullshit generator to reinvent cross-platform experiences!
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Now, I can see a need for virtualization. Why? Well, at our shop, we need multiple Windows servers. Our wonderful Windows support people prattle that "we have never had an unscheduled reboot due to a hardware or OS failure!". But they do have reboots due to "memory leaks" in the major application running on that server. So they need multiple physical servers. With virtualization, if done correctly (no bets on that), they could reboot the virtual server and so have multiple low-use ill mannered applications on a single physical server.
With those trusted computings, just another brick in the wall ? Using virtualization with trusted BIOS and Longhorn able to communicate with this BIOS...
I wonder if this is based on Virtual PC's IP, purchased from Connectix a couple of years ago?
At the time, lots of people thought MS was just going to kill VPC off quietly, but it appears that they're using the technology in lots of unanticipated ways. While VPC was a decent solution for running x86 on PowerPC, it excels at virtualizing several machines on one physical x86 box.
stupid site wont let me use caps, so youll have to copy this text into notepad, and retype it in caps to get the true grakkar effect!!!!! everybody go there and bid on it!!!!!! and add it to your watch list!!!! i think if a bunch of people add it to their watch lists then itll get on the front page of ebay!!!!! so do it!!!!! cmon!!!!!!! its frickin sweet!!!! and if you win ill throw in a video of me being an attention whore!!!!!!!! guaranteed!!!!
This is maybe more required for kill freezed MS applications :)
.... so better switch to the upcoming OSX for PC ;-)
Anyway, who care about any windows update ?
This will not bring any major improvement
Obviously this is actually the means by which Microsoft plans to obtain unbeatable security.
Sure Windows has security flaws. But how could anything possibly get through TWO layers of Windows!! You'll browse and read email in one Windows while high above the Hypervisor and Master Windows laugh at the spyware crawling far below it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, they want to run a highlyrefined, processor optomizied efficient beast like linux inside of some scody monster like windows. Pointless, need I say more. Their previous attempts have been pathetic, to say the least. Heres my 2cents that it wont be any decent this time...
--i am a jackal-caution-i bite--
Pinky: I think so, Brain, but won't Bill have to divorce Darl McBride first?
Crow T. Trollbot
Then you will be able to contaminate multiple operating systems instances with a single instance of IE running on a single instance of Windows !
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
If this is the kind of stuff that is holding Longhord back I think MS needs to get a clue. Apple is handing them their but in terms of an innovative OS.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
"That's vi, he fights for the user against the hypervisor."
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Now I can run Xeyes and still get my beloved BOSD!!
Changa hates change.
...take a look at Dilbert's mission statement generator.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
And I thought a hypervisor was wiki-speak for a hypo-caffeinated PHB telling me to get the fsck off /.
Currently bidding on sig
I want my hypervisor to be a "meta-operating system" whose sole purpose in life is to mediate between real hardware and virtual hardware and run and schedule the virtual machines.
It's perfectly fine for a hypervisor to be based on an NT or Linux kernel, but I don't want it to have anything user interface except what is needed to control the VMs, configure the underlying hardware, and store the VM settings and drive images. No explorer.exe or calc.exe for example, and for certain no iexplore.exe or word.exe. A locked-down apache.exe or iis.exe to allow remote-control that serves up web pages to VMs or, optionally (disabled by default) a system-administrator's box elsewhere on the net is acceptable. There's no reason the binaries for a hypervisor can't be burned into ROM or stored on a read-only drive or CD, with just the VM setup files and disk images writable. Need to fix a bug? Flash your ROM or change CDs.
Heck, Microsoft could make some real money selling a Linux/Unix/Apple-friendly hypervisor to hardware OEMs for $10 a pop, then sell guest licenses for $BIG_BUCKS per concurrent-use license. Enforcing concurrent uses on the same machine or LAN shouldn't be a problem, Novell did it in the '80s with serial-number-checking - if you put two instances of the same serial number on the same LAN Bad Things happened.
-----------
Damn these human-detectors are hard to read. Where's the "play audio" button?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I love that the article compares it to the Xen project. There is no comparison I imagine.
Xen is not a true hypervisor, since it doesn't fully virtualize all aspects of the host machine. It is necessary to change the code of the guest operating system so that it can be run on Xen.
Go ahead, mod me down for daring to speak against the favorite project of the day, but we all know it's true.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
(cf. Windows ain't done 'til Lotus won't run...)
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
...yes, because acronyms are soooo much better!
microsoft has had windows running on ppc for the last 5 years... just in case...
Microsoft steals OTHER PEOPLES' intellectual property as a business plan, but God forbid that anybody touch theirs.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
I still fondly remember my old Commodore Amiga, running Mac OS, Windows, AmigaDOS, and UNIX simultaneously on separate pull-down screens. You could share files and even cut-and-paste between OS's. *sigh*
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
All at the same time!
And hypervisor is just the working name. The final product will be called KlustrPhuk.
Seriously, why would anyone want it? If I want wireless I can get a Mac laptop anyway, or a Linux laptop with Debian and it will work and not have Worm City or Virus City ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I give it a month after the first public beta is released for someone to hack up a way to run OS X/Intel on a regular PC.
1. a Virtual PC file
2. a Virtual HDD file
Fine tune a Linux system to run one application, remove anything not absolutely needed, package it up and call it an "install". Instead of shortcuts on the desktop, the install will create Virtual PC entries so that the new application system shows up in the choices. Pick-n-choose operating systems to best fit the purpose of the application needed...
P
You'll be able to run Longhorn, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Bob, Windows 95, DOS, and Windows Me!
...
Never underestimate the power of Bob
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Xen will support full virtualisation on machines with appropriate hardware support (Intel Vanderpool or AMD Pacifica). Paravirtualisation will likely still give better overall performance, than full virtualisation but the difference will be smaller than it is today.
Wow the spy ware doodz can get real creative and own
100 boxes for the price of one.
Got Code?
Now Microsoft will allow you to have your computer exploited transparently no matter what OS you run...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Not to be a jerk, but how are they going to put out a public beta when the hardware to run it won't exist for public consumption until the OS is released? That being said, I agree that it will be a short time until OSX runs on any old (or is that new?) PC.
Fellow Slashdotters, we've been had.
Thats exactly what I was thinking. Microsoft will have a way to take credit for any open source benefits and will have a way to blame open source for their own shortcomings. Microsoft may be evil but they aren't stupid.
If longhorn is going to be the ultimate god of an OS...why would we supposedly want to run another OS?
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
So we trap linux in a little box on windows. And get this, if windows crashes, so will linux! Most people will only ever see it like this, so they'll think that it's no better. Not to mention the possibility of some subtle sabotage that makes it crash even when windows doesn't!
Give me a Hypervisor that loads on boot and does nothing, I mean nothing, except manage the virual pc's and then I'll trust it.
Oh, and if you don't mind, I'D LIKE TO SAVE MY CYCLES FOR THE VIRTUAL PC'S, PLEASE!
The thing about Hypervisor that seems strange is that it was NOT cut from Longhorn while some other, more interesting, bits were.
That says that it is strategically very important to Microsoft.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
With no offense to Microsoft. How long its been since we have seen something original from microsoft? Seriously, all they do is see some other company releasing some cool stuff and then try to release something similar.
A Windows error made me reformat Linux. Yes, really. If I can't trust Windows to keep from forgetting what a NIC even is, while shelled into my Linux system during a system recompile (not Gentoo), which rendered said Linux system unbootable (no Bash), then how can I trust a Microsoft virtual machine to keep from crashing in a similar situation, shelled into a virtual Linux?
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
>"The VPC software while not the best on the market, is extremely useful."
Not the best indeed. If this isn't written by a Microsoft shill, I'll eat my shorts.
>"only have to run a minimal XP installation"
What's "minimal" in XP? S-H-I-L-L
>"and only need to worry about upgrades when the latest and greatest service pack comes out."
Insecurity means that's pretty much always.
Evil Empire indeed! This post has a "These-are-not-the-droids-you-are-looking-for" mind fsck context that leads me to believe this is written by a person employed by the Evil Empire.
Why not let you run Linux? They could then not only charge you for CALs for the base server, but VELs (Virtualization Environment Licenses) for each virtualized machine you wanted to run. And thus, Microsoft makes money off you running Linux.
Cha-ching!
Showing my age by mentioning OS/2, I know, but they did everything that they could to cripple OS/2 from running Windows 3.1 in a virtual environment. I can't see any reason why they would not do the reverse.
Honestly, though, this looks more like an attack against WINE. If you run WINE within Linux, you don't need a license for Windows. If you run UNIX within Windows, you still need to have a Windows license. You'll get the same effect - Windows and Linux on the same system - either way; however, there is money for Microsoft with this new scheme of theirs whereas there is no money for Microsoft when running WINE under Linux.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
How will the licensing work then? Is this gonna cost anymore?
HyperClippie: "You've started a virtual machine - please send $49.99 to One Microsoft Way, Redmond, VA -or- type your credit card number in and we will debit your account. If you do not comply your virtual machine will shut down in 10 minutes."
Or will Microsoft bless us with "you can run as many copies of Microsoft VM on that machine as possible (assuming you've got the correct processor version)"?
I think the OP is a bit confused. A hypervisor is a type of operating system that runs other operating systems. It's also called a Virtual Machine Monitor. Microsoft is building a hypervisor. They aren't building a product called Hypervisor (at least to the best of my knowledge).
In other news, Longhorn will also be featuring an improved search feature
ahem... you mean like Spotlight?
and a better root / normal user management scheme
ahem... ahem... you mean line *NIX?
and nice transparrent windows, and a cooool hypervisor!!
like X and third party software for windows have been doing for ages, and like Xen does so nicely
Give me a break, come up with something original. Say after me Microsoft... I am ORIGINAL.
This was covered yesterday. There isn't going to be a public beta in the traditional sense, but dues paying developer network members can buy development preview kits which consist of both hardware and software. One or more of them must go to a hacker somewhere.
verbing weirds language. :)
This story has been posted for **HOURS** and I didn't get a single hit searching the comments for "geordi". I haven't seen a joke setup this obvious since the damn chicken crossed the road. C'mon, people!
Maybe not a public beta, but those intel-based dev boxes will be shipping in what, a couple weeks? And once that all gets leaked, it will be public enough (and beta enough, I'm sure).
The article wrote: "Xen doesn't yet support Windows, however." Wrong, wrong, wrong! 1. Xen is an open standard, so any OS can modify their kernel to run on Xen. It's not a matter of which OS is supported by Xen, it's whether that OS is willing to support Xen. 2. At the early stages of Xen, there was a modified windows XP that can run on Xen. But soon it was withdrawn for licensing concerns. Since the sources of windows XP is not publicly available, nobody can modify it and make it run on Xen. So looks like Xen is bound to compete with windows in the future. I wonder how fair this competition is, given that MS may never make windows xen-compatible.
Hypervisor-based virtualization systems need the OS to be modified to support them. Thus, this would only work for running older versions of Windows if they're willing to go out and build versions of 98/ME/2000/XP/etc which work against a hypervisor backend rather than running against raw hardware.
I don't find this likely.
The ultimate step will be the vitualization of different hardware modules that will replace the those originally installed. The physical video card, for instance, need only have the ability to paint a 2-d screen as it does today. The virtual 3-D video card however, will require massive amounts of Main CPU cycles which Intel/AMD/IBM will happily provide. I see this going one of two ways: Multiple CPU cores proliferating to provide the cycles OR a dedicated general GPU that itself gets virtualized. Seems the former gives the most flexibility, assuming cycles are unlimited.
is this a screen scroll from the new Sims expansion?
We've been doing this on Linux for quite a while using Xen. It is certainly faster and cheaper than doing VMWare. A lot of places pay big bucks for the enterprise VMWare, which is still lacking in many respects. Plus VMWare's license manager is super annoying. A real Hypervisor is a step up from an emulator, in terms of managability and performance. Example, with a hypervisor you can dynamically grow/shrink the memory you've given to a kernel running under the hypervisor. You can define ranges of sectors on various harddrives that the client OS has access to, etc. It's all neat and tidy and the overhead is low since most of the time the client OS does not have to talk to the hypervisor.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why on earth would anyone use a Microsoft OS as a container for a proper OS ?
Surely it should be the other way round ?
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
strings /mnt/win_c/windows/system32/hypervi~1.exe | grep -i copyright
LILO version 26.9.beta9, Copyright (C) 1995-2006 Wern^H^H^HMicrosoft Inc.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Oh, gee, really? You can't get any of the other major promised features into Longhorn, but you're going to put this in now. How much sense does this make?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Oh, for a moment I thought that was something like hypertext, only with video content. Duh
"Words of wisdom: drop that zero and get with the hero" -- Vanilla Ice
Microsoft could not get one operating system to run properly on a machine and now they are going to go for many? This is something worth seeing! I can't wait to see the blue screens on this one...
If they put as much effort into writing quality software as they are now putting into DRM, closing off the competition, and locking in the customer and his money....I think we'd have a great operating system.
If they do indeed virtualize all the pre-DRM software, they could throw out the old *Window* and replace it with a brand new sqeaky clean bullet-proof five layer insulating Window.
Then we wouldn't have any Window problems such as *cracks* and leaky drafts that ran up the memory bill. But wait, we can't have that, that would leave the public with too much power! We must do everything we can to take away the public's power, freedom, money, and ability to turn of the costly ACC (Automatic Computer-code Correction) and get some fresh air (Linux). Such is the mind (apartment) of Microsoft. Until you move out, you have to *respect* the [copyright] owner's wishes....
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3f e47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05013_WinHEC05 .ppt
Their Hypervisor will enforce DRM, so even linux can't override it.
That only works if the motherboard refuses to load anything but Windows. Even Palladium didn't do that, it just said "if you don't run a 'trusted' (with chrome plated rotating finger-quotes) operating system, you don't get to read the certificates or other encryption keys in the trusted store". You're talking about something about a parsec or two beyond that: to get THAT far Microsoft would have to get all CPU and motherboard manufacturers to go along with them, and they couldn't even get that kind of support for Palladium.
In the "All The World Is A Windows Machine" mentality of Microsoft, what OSes are they talking about running?
Windows.
The Win32 design pretty much precludes running multiple instances of an application inside a single Windows instance without heroic efforts. I've been using various ancestors of what became Terminal Server since NT 3.1 and it's amazing what they've had to add over the years just to get to a point where they can virtualise the desktop. And even with Terminal Server and User Switching it's a real pain to run multiple instances of a server.
That's one reason blade servers are so big: about the only practical way to stick multiple instances of IIS or any other native-Windows server in a rack space is to cram lots of computers into the space.
In UNIX, of course, you have ample solutions. UNIX apps are designed for a multiuser environment and even the most aggressively single-instance yield to the power of chroot, and if that's not good enough you have FreeBSD Jails and IBM's Penguin Farms... but for Windows, your only option is VMware and VMware performance with multiple instances of Windows sucks Chevy Tahoes through dirty syringes.
And Longhorn won't change this. Only redesigning the APIs that apps use and redesigning the apps to use the new APIs will. Either that, or an enforced isolated namespace that the app can play in by itself... and given the way Windows is such swam of codependant components that pretty much requires a hypervisor.
Microsoft doesn't get to tell hardware manufacturers that their hardware must ship with Microsoft's hypervisor. Hardware manufacturers get to decide what software their hardware ships with.
I'm a Xen dude but I'll try not to be biased ;-)
:-)
Xen: paravirtualisation - modify the architecture dependent code of an OS so that it's hypervisor-aware
Pros:
* near-native performance
* simpler hypervisor
Cons:
* need to be able to port OSes (i.e. can't run Windows)
- NB this will be solved on Intel Vanderpool / AMD Pacifica CPUs
* need to run a non-standard kernel
- NB Xen support is integrated into the NetBSD mainline already and will be in the Linux mainline soon(ish). At that point, the Xen-aware kernel will be standard
VMWare (and MS Hypervisor, assuming it supports full virtualisation): full virtualisation - fake out an x86 machine in its entirety
Pros:
* Run Windows
* No kernel patching needed
Cons:
* Peformance penalty for kernel-intensive and IO intensive workloads
- NB VMWare mitigates this somewhat using custom VMWare-aware drivers to improve IO performance
- NB The MS Hypervisor provides these virtual drivers AND explicit APIs like Xen, so ported OSes can avoid these penalties
* Hypervisor is more complex
- NB nothing you can do about this if you want to support unmodified OSes on vanilla x86(_64)
The Xen and MS Hypervisors both have better hardware support than VMWare ESX because they run standard drivers in a virtual machine, rather than supporting them in the hypervisor itself. Note that VMWare GSX and Workstation don't have this problem because they run inside a host OS.
HTH,
Mark
Longhorn will still be bogged down with all the old shit and this will just be a half assed attempt to embrace, extend and exterminate other operating systems.
Got it in one.
Is there anyone left that doesn't think MS is slowly trying to push there way into large market share and/or dominance across most areas? You can read that a monopolization if you like.
1st it was the desktop OS (Windows), then it was applications (MS Office, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express); the development with VB, C++; Visual Studio (.net), etc.; then server OS and client server applications; and handhelds. With the exception of consoles, they have followed the model of make all the "soft" bits and let others build the box. They've been extraordinarily successful.
Currently, they are working on elbowing their way into: cell phones; other things I can't think of at the moment; and now virtualization software. No doubt the virutalization is based on their acquisition of Virtual PC. This is a very lucrative coming market considering how powerful high end gear is now and how expensive. They consistently used the dominance in a related field to pressure their way into something else. As long as they are allowed to continue unabated, they'll continue, despite what the law says.
expect DRM to be included sooner or later in the hypervizors...
Even if Linux weren't as stable as it is, I'd prefer its convenience to Windows. Windows is just a royal pain.
Ah, replying to myself again: MS will require hardware support for their hypervisor. With Xen and VMWare you don't need this. With Xen, you'll need it to run unmodified OSes but not ported OSes like Linux, BSD, etc.
:-)
I just learnt this
Actually, Windows XP can already do this, sort of. If you right click any EXE (or shortcut to one) you can select Compatibility and choose your old OS to pretend to be. When the process is then running, you'll see it as a subprocess of "wowexec.exe", where "wow" stands for "windows on windows".
"DOS" programs run in a virtual machine now as well.
This feature in XP may give us a look ahead at what Microsoft might plan, as far as cleaning up the API in general, but still supporting old programs if they really really have to.
Isn't this just virtual pc? Microsoft bought Connectix a few years back. Since then they've released new versions of VPC for windows, macs and recently windows server (their virtual server product). It just sounds like another way to sell me vpc, crush vmware and OSS stuff, and raise the price of windows again.
I wonder if this is a way to run OS X Intel edition in the future. With intel telling lamers to buy mac that will say the big word.. "Pentium".. i'm wondering what the masses will do. As bad as the apple announcment was, maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Anything but Microsoft!!!!!
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Hardware Hypervisors can be very repeatable.
Software hypervisors can be buggy. Can you really trust Microsoft to run as a Hypervisor in Ring 0? Can you trust them to run the Hypervisor on top of a standard OS that Microsoft makes with hundreds of ports open, several unnecessary services and lots of security holes and buffer overflow exploits?
Where are you today and are you sure you want to go to Microsoft tomorrow? Pacifica technology cannot get to us fast enough.
Look at your servers, 1% cpu utilization if you are lucky. 32 bit windows servers rarely need more than 2 gigs of RAM. When they do, MS Exchange, you have to wait 5 years for MS to make a 64 bit port. Exchange 2000 with 2 gigs of RAM is capable of 200 users mailboxes or 50 gig of data. I think if it was 64 bit we would benefit by running more RAM.
Virtualisation will finally allow us to get 80% cpu utilization per host. That assumes that the host OS is stable enough to run 20-30 Winedows servers and not roll over and die.
Your Average Joe
VMware is most definitely suitable for running multiple environments for general work. Like the parent, I use VMware on Linux to run a Windows environment, and I have no speed complaints whatsoever.
How could MS be trusted with something like this. Does anyone recall what they were found guilty of with Word Perfect? Code placed in Windows to cause problems....I'm sorry, but I don't believe I'll rely on MS's coding abilities in any way. They've already proven without a shadow of a doubt that their ability to right code is well below average.
What you describe is called a mainframe, and with the hypervisor-technology that's promised in future Intel-compatible chips, it should be available at PC prices before the end of the decade.
It's pretty much what I'm looking for, only sub-$2000 and it runs my current apps.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Vigor is your master!
Ya know what, I've had enough of this:
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 16 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
I can't type any slower! Adjust your frigging clock!
Interesting ploy, now they can share a piece of the pie with Apple, Sun and even Linux. But a day late and a dollar short. Why bother if (1) I can run my old Winders apps on wine, (2) I am so disgusted with MS security (lack of), prior practices etc, (3) potentially broken DRM, (4) I can get what I need for "free" or, at least, no continuing "stick up"grades. Frankly, I think MS should concentrate on getting ONE OS right.
That sorriest excuse for an operating system ever to emerge from the pits of Redmond wouldn't even run alone with every resource it wanted at its disposal...
Yes microsoft innovates again ! proving once again only change is constant !
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
Won't they be 'watermarking' each release, given that they know who they're shipping them to?
It sounds like yet another way that, with dual-core processors being released and memory being supplied in gigabytes, Microsoft produces yet another operating system that slows the whole shebang down to a crawl with all the extra features that people desperately "need". Oh and putting virtualization into a monopoly OS at no cost clearly precludes competition and is clearly an antitrust case in the making. No doubt about it, this would be Netscape/IE all over again. Nobody has said the magic word "vaporware" yet. None of this is real and yet it affects the software market in a big way.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
First, it's not really Xen that doesn't support Windows, but Windows not supporting Xen :
In order to use some OS with Xen, this OS has to be modified. Several patches exist for many OSes in order to be run with Xen. Windows Longhorn could be the only one to allow running with Xen because older Windows would have to be patched (Microsoft won't plan such thing, afaik).
Using it's own hypervisor for Windows Longhorn, Microsoft could "forbid" running it with Xen. I could hear such claims as : "Xen won't have the needed features to be able to run Longhorn..."
Remember the AARD code for Windows 3.1 which failed to boot Windows on anything but MS-DOS...
(artificial boot failure on Novel DR-DOS)
I don't feel good about this home-made hypervisor... Microsoft could just ignore Xen, and you would have to be using THEIR hypervisor to run Windows. That's unacceptable.
original here http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151888 &cid=12744831
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
There is nothing technical in the article except FUD. Xen is the best product out there at the moment, and it is mentioned as a one liner. Boy, I love how all these 'news' sites cater to the big money corporations.
His misdeeds pale in comparison to any of the people he is uusally comared to, execpt on /., where everything revolves around software and perspective is evil.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Seems like y'all have forgotten Microsoft bought up the VirtualPC folks a couple years back. Maybe, just maybe, Hypervisor will be built on this already-proven technology. The article doesn't say so, but ... ya' think??
"...the hypervisor software will be delivered in 2007, following the debut of Longhorn Server and the release of Duke Nukem Forever."
(said to Bill Gates) "...people don't hate you because you're successful or rich, people hate you because you're an asshole."
your linux folder, Dave...
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth