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?
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();
"...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
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/
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
"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.
In short, you hate when people verbize stuff.
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 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.
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.
You, sir, are a newbie. The original quote was " DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You know that x86 processors don't support full virtualization very well? True virtualization software like VMWare does it with a performance hit, which Xen evades. Thus, one can argue that Xen is better option than true virtualization.
And now for something completely different...
People from L4Ka have built a pre-virtualizer, which allows to easily compile virtualizable kernels from unmodified source, which can be then run on Xen or L4Ka microkernel.
Pre-virtualization with Compiler Afterburning
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.
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'm attached to the Xen project, so I have an obvious bias ;-)
;-)
Nevertheless:
* I'd consider Xen a true hypervisor because it runs on the "bare metal" and multiplexes multiple "supervisor" kernels on top of itself.
* It was *not* designed as a full virtualising hypervisor, however.
* Paravirtualising gives better performance than full virtualisation on x86 - however full virtualisation is still nice for running things like Windows.
* Full virtualisation will be available on Intel Vanderpool / AMD Pacifica machines. Before those are ubiquitous, if you want to run virtualised Windows with maximal performance, yes, you should run VMWare
Oh, and there are quite a few similarities with the MS hypervisor:
* drivers run in a guest OS, not in the VMM itself
* guests can be ported to the VMM the achieve better performance (yes, MS are doing it. They call it "enlightenments". Hmmm. Doesn't Zen have something to do with enlightenment?)
* special VMM virtual devices for better performance
These characteristics are also shared by IBM's POWER hypervisor on pSeries.
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.
Verbizing is bad, but it's the renounification I really hate.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
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).
Microsoft is just entertaining the latest buzzword. Next year it might as well be kernel checkpointing for uninterrupted failover of windows computing clusters.
- Roey
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.
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
Microsoft had had builds of Windows for the following platforms since the first NT beta:
-Alpha
-PPC
-MIPS
-x86
IA64 support started a *very* long time ago, and x86-64 basically took the shortest time (you only basically need to recompile using a good optimizer, and change some code to take advantage of some new features... the big problem is changing the ASM code in the kernel/hal, but there isn't much of that.
MIPS/Alpha/PPC support was officially cut during the Win2K beta, but Microsoft has been keeping private copies mostly because Cutler liked it that way, and also because it ensures what you're doing is still portable. In fact, the first version of NT that was booted and tested was not the i386 port, since MS wanted to make sure that the system was portable enough so that it would work on the least-targetted platform first (and boy it did).
MS does not however have a G5 build of Windows, since there are too many Big Endian issues and it isn't worth it for them anymore.
I just found out (http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3 fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05013_WinHEC0 5.ppt) that the Windows hypervisor will require hardware support (Vanderpool or Pacifica).
Xen will also use this hardware support to fully virtualise but won't require it for ported OSes.
This makes the picture rather different to how I expected it to be.
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.