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.' "
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!"
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();
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?
This is about DRM -- an all-encompassing, Microsoft controlled supervisor mode controlling access to "trusted" components.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
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).
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!
Xen is not a true hypervisor, since it doesn't fully virtualize all aspects of the host machine.
I understand why you posted this and you were right a few months ago however recently thanks to Intel's VT extensions Xen became capable of full virtualization.
It's all sort of a moot point though because almost noone does full virtualization. VMware uses paravirtual drivers to increase performance and Linux on power has had hypervisor aware code for quite some time.
The reality of it is that you basically can't escape performing some level of modification of a guest OS to get reasonable performance. The only question now a days is how much modification. Xen probably requires more modification than most but it also performs better than most.
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.
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
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).