Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7's Virtual XP Mode a Support Nightmare?
CWmike writes "Microsoft's decision to let Windows 7 users run Windows XP applications in a virtual machine may have been necessary to convince people to upgrade, but it could also create support nightmares, analysts said today. Gartner analyst Michael Silver outlines the downsides. 'You'll have to support two versions of Windows,' he said. 'Each needs to be secured, antivirused, firewalled and patched. If a company has 10,000 PCs, that's 20,000 instances of Windows.' The other big problem Silver foresees: Making sure the software they run is compatible with Windows 7. 'This is a great Band-Aid, but companies need to heal their applications,' Silver said. 'They'll be doing themselves a disservice if, because of XPM, they're not making sure that all their apps support Windows 7.'"
...but didn't Apple successfully pull this off twice?
stop posting troll articles!! :@
Not really feeling that. It's a great way to put deprecate old support. Similar to how my visual studio compilers work. Each version will give a specific warning about deprecating certain calls. The next version will kill that call off completely.
I plan on using the XP Virtual mode rarely. I'll probably only end up using it when the software hasn't been updated, yet. Probably not as a permanent solution for anything.
On one side, you have the convenience of having an OS thats tested, your apps work on it, everything is good. On the other, you're perpetuating an old system, and keeping people from moving forward. Support nightmare isn't the half of it, you're going to have a very mixed level of application compatibility as well. In fact, the better option might have been a better more robust compatibility function to better support older apps. Because while it's all well and good to say that companies need to upgrade their products, how about the apps that are no longer supported, but switching away from them is no option. In many larger companies it can take years to migrate to another system, even upgrading may not be an option.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
The better it works the easier it will be to support. Also why does the XP instance have to have its own antivirus and firewall? I don't understand why the windows 7 (Magnificent 7? Windows Magnifica!) firewall and antivirus won't be sufficient for the virtual XP machine inside.
If you don't like it, don't use it. At least its there if you want it.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
This could be very good for support people. Since Microsoft would have to keep supplying patches to XP, there will be no reason to even think about installing Windows 7. Thus allowing support people to the confidence of continued patches.
This is exactly what we want them to do. Virtualize the deprecated, old stuff, and get it out of the main operating system. Move on from the cruft of yore and build in some sweet new fundamentals that break backwards compatibility. We've been crying for them to do this for forever, so let's encourage it. It might add a bit of a support burden, but if it gives us a better product overall, what's the big deal?
I honestly don't see anything wrong with this. The people supporting the PCs still have control of the software running on them. If you don't want to have to support XP, then you just use all software that is Windows 7 compatible. If something you absolutely need isn't compatible, then you still have to run XP one way or another.
This simply provides more options to admins, and there's nothing bad about that.
As opposed to what, supporting an install of XP and an install of Windows 7? Or Windows XP in a VM and Windows 7?
Just think about it.
When has M$ ever released an OS that wasn't a support nightmare?
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Fear and doubt...doubt and fear.... Our two weapons are fear and doubt...and ruthless uncertainty.
These are the same analysts whose opinion is dismissed when the say anything positive about Microsoft, but when they say something worth spinning negatively, it makes the Slashdot front page.
I thought one of the key advantages of running a virtual OS was so that you could completely bork it without harming your host OS... Plus, once all the OEMs start slapping "Made for Win7" on their retails, it's not like they're going to be writing drivers for their stuff to work in WinXP. Put another way, anything out there that is designed to work under WinXP today should work just fine under an emulated WinXP tomorrow, right? Otherwise, what's the point?
There is simply too much glass..
...but didn't Apple successfully pull this off twice?
... Apple doesn't have every IT criminal on the planet gunning for their OS. They are bloody lucky to be in that situation and should IMHO be less smug about Windows security problems in their advertising. On the other hand running the defense grid for one Windows instance was fatiguing enough to persuade me to abandon Windows and become a Linux user and then an Apple customer. I still have to put in work to secure my machine but it is a lot less work than if I was using Windows. If this really means MS is doubling the security workload on each Windows box then.... hell.... I don't even want to think about it.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I'm 100% sure that a competent IT dept that has no use for this feature will, unsurprisingly, NOT USE IT, saving themselves all the support hassles entirely.
And for those that DO need this feature, they know there's basically no other way and it's worth the extra support hassle because they know they will have people saying Application XYZ MUST work I don't care how.
I suspect this means that the old applications that have to work and only currently work on XP can now be moved forward and the IT dept can get everyone onto Windows 7. Once there, the devs of these applications will have Windows 7 rather than XP to test against/run with and they'll have an incentive to update their programs to just work on Windows 7 because, like Classic on Mac OS X, this mode will have just enough 'impedience' that programs will be updated to work on Windows 7 native; but they will work okay in the meantime.
That's the thing - this isn't seamless. It's going to be a little tricky to set up applications to run in the XP box rather than natively on Windows 7, even if launching them is easy.
The trick is "Just enough impedience to get people to update to 7 native while providing a path."
When has [anyone] ever released an OS that wasn't a support nightmare [when it's actually put in the hands of users]?
All better now?
You guys are missing the point, do you know how much "corporate legacy software" is written using VB6 - which will not run on Vista? That is the single reason for XPM in Win7 - and it is the single reason why many corps do not want to update to Vista, they have to re-write all of their apps.
It's the "cobol" problem.
a beowulf cluster of these??
Gartner?
Analyst?
The option to download a free XP license and VM with linked desktops is a BAD thing? Really?
FUCK.
Just leeeave kdawson alooone. Leave k aloneeee!!!!!!!!!
go POSIX with MacOS X and Ubuntu. Switch to Qt, Cocoa, or GTK, then build your app against winelibs, and then factor winelibs out and take more advantage of the native features of KDE, Aqua, and GNOME. Either that or we _will_ replace your application with a Free alternative that, sooner or later, will make its way back onto the Windows platform to bite you, really hard, in the butt.
The version of XP you get in this case is XP SP3, presumably with up-to-date hotfixes.
done by companies that went bust and do not have any new versions for w7 nor will ever have?
Finally Microsoft's way of doing business is backfiring at them "big time" albeit by proxy.
With current climate (since 2003 or so) there is no chance this will change for the better.
The sooner Windows solutions are dumped for something that does not depend on any one particular company or companies the better.
Question-OTD: How does it feel having your data taken hostage by the programs/hardware you rely upon?
The bottom line is that I can't do a seamless implementation into the environment, the amount of overhead for the extra testing, training, hardware, certification means that it simply cant cost justify. Microsoft needs to remember that their two biggest competitors are XP and Linux. Any CIO worth his salt is going to ask one very simple question when presented with these costs. "Why aren't we sticking with Windows XP to begin with?".
I'm not opposed to things like VMWare, I have set up labs professionally for clients as a consultant and personally have paid for the workstation application and run it at home. I think it's great for IT needs, but the above issues should help explain why this feature is not the answer that Microsoft thinks it is. On a personal level I like this feature, and will almost certainly run it at home, so I speak professionally, not personally.
From TFA:
"Windows XP Mode is specifically designed to help small businesses move to Windows 7," Scott Woodgate, director of Windows enterprise and virtualization strategy, said in a blog entry last Friday.
Corrected:
"Windows XP Mode is specifically designed to help us move copies of Windows 7 proffessional and ultimate, as opposed to the cheaper home addition,"S cott Woodgate, director of Windows enterprise and virtualization strategy, meant in a blog entry last Friday.
How would running XP in a virtual machine be any different from the usual windows experience?
It depends on whether Windows 7 can pass-through USB devices and PCI cards to Windows XP. Otherwise, people will try and fail to use hardware with XP drivers on the virtual XP. (Windows 7 uses Vista drivers.)
I am sure this is going to be a total disaster!
But then again I will spread any FUD to keep my /. username relevant another 7 years. And if it keeps my consultant prices up in the meanwhile so be it.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Instead of copping out with a VM, MS should instead use Wine to run legacy apps.
That would be a win for everybody.
How stupid are these people?
Windows alreadys supports multiple OSes, from the Win16 and DOS subsystems to the BSD/UNIX subsystem, and also the Win32 and Win64 subsystem.
Which all have their own kernels, and run in NT OS subsystems.
So adding in a VM'd version of XP is going to add to 'support'? How?
The updates still come from MS Update, it isn't like the in house people are writing the patches themselves.
If anything this creates more work for MS, not a freaking IT department.
I'm not sure where to even begin with how stupid this sounds...
More tech support? Really?
If an IT department isn't using group policies and the business centralization and integration technologies of Windows, they shouldn't be using Windows and instead move to something that has almost no central control or mangement like Linux or OS X.
The hallmark of why business CONTINUES to choose Windows deployments is the ease and control that MS continues to give IT administrators, along with their centralized server management concepts that really do make anything else out there look foolish.
A well deployed Windows server/client environment is peanuts to administer, even when the IT people shove Firefox on users and have to run around and do 'manual' updates because Firefox is 'retarded' about allowing remote or admin level updates without giving your users administrator rights.
The second part of this is not understanding the virtualization technology being used. They assume it is like a 'free window' VMWare mode.
It isn't, it somewhere better a VM and a Subsystem on the NT architecture, which is one thing that makes HyperV as powerful as it is.
Truly people forget that NT is a user mode OS-less architecture, and that everything anyone sees is a 'virtual' subsystem, even Win32 has its own kernel and doesn't really know that NT is running under it.
Ok, I'll let people go grab the facts on this crap themselves, and give Win7 a week or two i people's hands that actually 'do' know what they are talking about...
PS The XP Virtualization is mainly for corporate clients, as 99.9% of all software works on Vista and Win7.
It is only the in house written or 'corporate' written software crap that has no concept of NT security that has problems with Vista or possibly Win7 that enforces the 20yr old NT security model that the software developers should have written for in the first freaking place.
It didn't seem to be that much of a nightmare for Apple when they still had classic mode under OS X. Maybe they could talk to the Apple folks and ask... Oh yeah, never mind!
Why bother
If any kind of nasty program gets installed, it's going to have hit the file system at some point
SQL Slammer didn't hit the file system.
If you're going to run virtualized, why bother using Windows 7 as the host OS? Ubuntu can virtualize XP with Virtualbox-OSE, one install away. You only need a license and any system currently running XP can be upgraded to Ubuntu with XP virtualized.
Interesting times...
POKE 36879,8
what happened to rewriting system services and the Windows shell in managed code (.NET)?
For one thing, low-cost subnotebook PCs happened. Managed code tends to have a larger working set than native code, which needs more RAM (more $$$):
Why does every user need two operating systems? That seems awfully wasteful.
Because a non-free application that's no longer supported by its original publisher needs Windows XP, but the only OS of which Microsoft is selling new copies is Windows 7.
This is sad, just another example of how the wheels are coming off the cart while careening down another blind alley. I was at a trade show last month, and the visit to the Microsoft booth was surreal. The first kiosk was for Windows 7 and a smiling young man touting the virtues of this beta software. When I mentioned that I was having trouble running Vista on a 3.2GHz P4 with 4GB RAM, a 512MB ATI video card with DX10.1, and a terabyte HDD, he scoffed and said that nobody at Microsoft was running Vista, not even the developers. He gave me a DVD of beta 7 and told me that even as a beta, Windows 7 was "so much better than Vista." I accepted his disc (which expires on August 1), and went to the Windows Mobile (WM).
This kiosk had a good looking young man who was part of the product management group for WM 6.5 and very knowledgeable about the product. When I told him that I was a WM developer, he listened attentively as I explained my frustration in trying to program the WM6 smartphone camera to work. His smile faded as he explained that Microsoft had failed to thoroughly test the OEMs for WM5, WM6 and WM6.1. As a result, the DirectShow APIs for many phones were not fully/correctly implemented. He showed me a web page - http://studierstube.icg.tu-graz.ac.at/handheld_ar/camera_phones.php - that explained the problem phones. Then I asked, "will this be fixed in the coming 6.5 release?" He shook his head and replied, "no, not until WM7." I thanked him for his candor and moved onto Live Search.
At Live Search, a bright young man was touting the performance of their latest version and let me test it against Google, where it seemed to respond comparably. He talked about how his group was trying to get other parts of Microsoft to use their Live Search instead of their own, "an uphill battle." At that moment, another person walked up and asked a question, prompting him to pull out his iPhone. I reached out with my WM phone and joked, "wouldn't it be more politically correct to show this?" He responded, "oh, no. Most of my friends at work have iPhones. It's OK."
The problems documented by Daniel Wagner's web page (above) and unmentioned on microsoft.com or msdn.com cost us three months of development time. I should have suspected; mea culpa. Our application now runs on iPhone, and we are not looking back.
BTW, the Microsoft coffee table looks like a giant iPhone.
Either that or we _will_ replace your application with a Free alternative
Some categories of application tend not to have a comparable Free alternative:
So when Intel and AMD couldn't increase the speed of their processors any more, they decided to introduce dual core chips. Does this mean that Microsoft has decided they couldn't slow down computers any more with Windows 7 and is now planning on shipping a dual OS system to ensure slow performance?
I think this is a great idea on Microsoft's part.. They get everyone to pay for a copy of windows 7, just so they can still run their XP programs. The wonderful thing is that Microsoft doesn't have to worry about patching the XP VM at all since they no longer support it. It's up to the users to deal with issues that arise.
Why does every user need two operating systems? That seems awfully wasteful.
You don't need two OSs. However, even Microsoft has realized the only way they can sell a new OS is to bundle the old OS with it.
Here it is 2009 and Microsoft's biggest competitor is their own OS from 2001. How's that for innovation. The better part of a decade and nothing to show for it.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
yeah, the whole thing reeks of FUD, since XPM was just announced days ago.
Some slashdotters can't be happy with anything...
'They'll be doing themselves a disservice if, because of XPM, they're not making sure that all their apps support Windows 7.'
Is that like saying "They'll be doing themselves a disservice if, because of $virtual_machine_that_can_run_Windows_XP, they're not making sure that all their apps support Linux"?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
To be fair, every OS that I've ever dealt with has had issues with major upgrades. Whether it's glibc problems with older Linux binaries, or compatibility and driver problems moving to newer versions of Windows, there's always pain. For most of the history of computing, upgrading basically meant old binaries were FUBAR. Either you didn't upgrade or you had to compile/buy new versions of critical software, and put up with all the headaches that went along with it. Binary compatibility has always been as much a dream as a reality, and I think pretty much all *nix versions now do recompiles. Certainly most Linux distro familes at least recompile for all the major versions, and in many cases if you're a Debian user, you'll likely be using a different build of any given piece of software than an Ubuntu user.
Microsoft's chief problem for much of its history has been insisting on insane degrees of backwards compatibility, meaning a lot of legacy code is passed on from generation to generation, making getting new versions of Windows out the door has been an increasingly complex process. The newest generations of CPUs, the better average baseline hardware, and significant strides in virtualization technology now means that in future versions, a lot of this legacy code can be essentially left behind, and if users need to support older apps, they can run it in VMs, while Windows itself can be taken in any direction Microsoft sees fit. The underlying architecture becomes an open book again, as opposed to be constrained by a quarter century of legacy support.
And as to the concerns that some have raised her that developers won't write for newer versions of Windows, I don't buy that either. We're talking about a VM running an old OS which will not contain any new features, ever. At best some resources may have to be dedicated for the foreseeable future to keeping XP patched beyond current abandonment dates, but providing Microsoft gives users real reasons for upgrading beyond the eye candy crap, developers will be pursuing that brass ring.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Windows has lots of legacy subsystems and most of them are implemented less elegantly.
The biggest support headache that this is going to generate is that XPM is going to solve very few user problems. Most people have compatibility problems with hardware (not relevant to a VM), games (which won't have direct access to the 3D engine), and most system utilities (again, not relevant to the VM). The vast majority of "plain jane" (doesn't use a lot of DirectX) apps written for XP work just fine in Vista. XPM is mainly for businesses running very badly coded in-house apps that only work in XP for some reason and can't be easily updated. If doesn't fix broken drivers or broken games.
Maybe they should include virtualized Vista too so Windows 7 can look better by comparison.
Also, most license agreements for software simply says that it can be used on "one machine" or reference the hardware in some way. So since it's one machine on one computer hardware system, you can basically force the company to cough up another license or extend yours to work in both environments. Some companies have specific statements related to virtualization but not a lot of them.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Others are calling it like it is. This has to happen eventually, and the time seems to be now. I do support this move, we need to get this monkey off our backs, it was gonna be painful either way they did it, but we gotta do it and be done with it.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
'They'll be doing themselves a disservice if, because of XPM, they're not making sure that all their apps support Windows 7.'"
They'll be doing themselves a disservice if, because of XPM, they're not taking make sure that all theirs apps are migrated off of Windows altogether.
There... that's how it should have read.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I run Windows XP in a VMWare Workstation virtual machine. My laptop requires 64bit and runs (believe it or not) better with Vista 64bit than any other Windows OS.
However, there are some apps that refuse to run correctly in Vista. So it's a cake walk with VMWare to run XP.
For support - I don't see an issue. XP actually runs pretty damn good in a controlled virtual environment. You get away from all the wacky hardware drivers and shit that normally trips up XP. The problem I see is if/when Microsoft ends XP support for security updates.
So, there's actually no full-on windows XP installation. It's application level support that wraps XP applications so that they work with Win7. Patching, antivirus, etc can all be handled by Windows 7.
Seriously, this sounds a lot better than XP's lame "compatibility mode" for Windows 98 and older that never seemed to work anyway.
Legend has it that XP will run in a virtual machine in (gasp!) Linux.
As long as you're going to run all your legacy apps in a VM and everybody has to learn a new interface anyway, why not get off the train to crazytown now? You can keep your legacy apps, you can keep paying Microsoft their Software assurance, and - hey - I'll bet you will be amazed how well some of your stuff migrates.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
But how do you sell a software license to someone who already owns one? If XP were the ultimate Windows OS, then Microsoft would be reduced to making money on Microsoft Office. Microsoft could make some money on XP from OEM sales, but the OEM price isn't that high. Indeed, how would you encourage people to upgrade their hardware?
You seem to understand virtualization just fine.
Having upgraded from almost every Microsoft OS going back to DOS 1.1, I can say that XP to Vista was the most hassle by far, for the least amount of improvement, at least in terms of my needs and interests. There was no feature or improvement in Vista that I cared about, and lots and lots of things that were worse.
I like XP, although I run Linux full-time at home. I still would have no reason or interest in updating it, and since it's obvious that MS has no intention of offering me anything that would actually improve my computer experience (I don't need the security improvements and I think the new UI is ugly, just like everything else since Win2k has been). Microsoft simply has nothing to offer me any more, so I have simply stopped using their products. If XP were still the currently maintained OS, it's likely I would still be using it, at least on some machines, but since they've given it the death sentence, I figure I might as well cut my ties now. Make a clean break. I'm not missing anything, except the ability to run certain games.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Windows XP in a Virtual Machine running under Windows 7 for the sake of legacy support !? Great. So when someone needs to run Windows XP because they connect to some hardware for which there are no Windows 7 device driver, how the hell is a Virtual Machine going to help with that?
- James
don't fucking install the addon if you don't want it! AND why the hell would it be running at start-up if its a VM???
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
XP has become a victim of its own success.
There are many people out there who are clinging to XP, and they don't want Vista, they don't want 7...they want Windows XP 4 EVAR! And there is nothing wrong with that. XP isn't broken, don't fix it.
Sure, Windows 7 might 'suck less' than Vista, but that's merely providing the remedy to the poison. Easier to use, simpler, less eye candy.
There's nothing wrong with providing virtualization, and perhaps if they slapped a better GUI and contributing with new features to VirtualBox that might be worth writing home about. (Specifically the braindead ISO image manager that's a PITA to use when all is needed is a combobox for previously saved images, adding an OSX compat layer, adding JIT app translation for emulated binaries, etc)
Microsoft needs figure out what works well and make it work even better, not try to give us something new.
Gawd, where do they find these imbecile "experts"??
They apparently have *zero* clue how this works...
Multiple images? Multiple systems to protect? Are they fraking High??
Apply existing policies to a new Virtual image, use that image, in non-persistant mode, accessed from the server, for everyone.
Problem solved. *one* Image, one "system" to secure, antivirus and patch. ...and here I thought the slashdot crowd was supposed to be computer literate.
Go ahead stay in the reality distortion field and drink the kool-aid.
It's NOT the contest that proves it. Just read what the guy says and go investigate to see if what he is saying is true.
Just see: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941
and: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9759132-7.html
Quote:
"With my Safari exploit, I put the code into a process and I know exactly where it's going to be. There's no randomization. I know when I jump there, the code is there and I can execute it there. On Windows, the code might show up but I don't know where it is. Even if I get to the code, it's not executable. Those are two hurdles that Macs don't have."
You don't have to be a genius to figure it out. OSX doesn't have the same protections. It doesn't even have the protections Windows XP SP2 has and that came out 5 years ago.
If you don't believe me, just get the opinion of any of the top security researchers on the security of OSX compared to XP/Vista.
The reason why OSX is not exploited as much as windows is it is the equivalent of a house in a small village. Hardly anyone would bother break in even if the door is unlocked.
There's no point creating a tiny network of zombies. A huge network is where the money is.
If I were a malware writer I'd be rubbing my hands with glee if OSX's market share goes up.
Apple makes cool stuff, but they don't make secure stuff.
Doh! I forgot about POSIX, thanks.
While there would be difficulty, a new generation of operating system could bring some control over viruses that assume the old WIndows system architecture. The inclusion of the virtual XP mode means that all the old malware and viruses will find a happy home in the new operating system. Although walking away from the legacy software is dramatic, Apple has done it and survived, and Windows users would consider it if it would cleanse our machines of this unwanted infection that compromises our ability to depend on our systems.
I would have thought that business users would have had enough by now of the security problems and were looking forward to something better.
I believe that Microsoft is not capable of bringing about this needed change to more secure architecture. They just care about the easy bucks and the status quo. There days will pass.
Well hat depends on the kind of driver you need. As an OS X user I can tell you that USB driver work fine in VMWare.
And what other driver do you need? Sound is virtualized, Graphic is virtualized. Harddrive is vitualized.
Nope - never missed driver support in a virtual mashine.
This sounds very similar to VirtualBox seamless mode. I've been running XP apps under Vista for ages using Sun's VM software. My only concern will be businesses thinking Windows 7 should be faster than Vista, but with XPM it might be (significantly?) slower.
'You'll have to support two versions of Windows,' he said. 'Each needs to be secured, antivirused, firewalled and patched. If a company has 10,000 PCs, that's 20,000 instances of Windows.'
I'm sure glad they cleared things up, but I think I'm gonna need a few more examples with numbers before I can really grasp the multiplication by two.
This seems like a needed fix that is preventing the transition to 64bit. With Win 7 in x64 mode there is no support for 16 bit apps. Here in Las Vegas there are many custom and semi-custom apps for dealing with the local slot machines and other hardware. Now you can run the older programs on the 32 bit VM with 16 bit support.I am ASSUMING that 64bit would use the 32bit XP for a base, not the 64bit XP. I STILL use the occasional 16bit app(game) at home. My personal solution has been VMware, but that is not for deployments, etc. For the future I see Win 8 being a x64 only with the XPM (or Vista 32bit?) being the solution for the future.
It goes with their "Do no good" ethics.
Of course it depends on Microsoft's implementation of the whole thing. But if done correctly Windows XP will run in a nice environment that is protected by Windows 7.
In fact, Windows 7 could act as an Hypervisor to secure XP.
A hypervisor is great when it comes to security, because from its vantage point it can control the guest OS (antivirus, firewall, etc.) without risking to be compromised itself.
Notice that you are not forced to use the XP Mode, in fact, the early reports mention that you have to explicitly install it as an add-on. This means that companies have the CHOICE to either go for a full Windows 7 compatibility track (yes, they should) OR they can choose to support two operating systems until a legacy application fades out.
This is just Microsoft trying to convince IT admins not to have application compatibility as an argument against Win7 migrations, and not requiring to implement dreaded MED-V like, Terminal Services, Remote Desktop XP, VDI solutions just to keep that darn ol' app running. That also requires maintenance of multiple operating systems, and in fact, just as many as there are instances of non-compatible apps.
At least it is employing people
The opportunity of employing people is that they aren't spending their time enriching society in other ways.
Wouldn't it be better if their labor wasn't needed, and they instead (say) worked at some kind of manufacturing? Then society would have more cars/TVs/furniture/${item}.
It would also be better if we didn't need policemen and lawyers, but that's not going to happen either. In any reasonable future there will be computer security threats.
Your point is a valid one, and without question I have been bitten by that rattlesnake too many times. I can assure that a fair number of the people I have talked and worked with (myself included) have taken a hearty look at Ubuntu 64bit edition as they have also been bitten. If Microsoft forces the issue by saying they are going to remove XP from the table altogethor than Ubuntu 64 will start to get serious field tests.
It isn't a question of capability for desktop work for Linux (I largely view that is capable), it's a question of compatibility and training costs. The bottom line is - can it meet operational needs - can it do so cheaper than something else? The upgrade path many organizations have is XP32 bit for as long as possible followed by either Windows 7 64bit or Ubuntu 64bit. Ubuntu seems to have nailed many of the desktop support issues that other distros have missed and I have no doubt they are the leading Linux based contender right now.
I always have to look at things from two different perspectives, personally and professionally. Personally I run VM Ware at home and I love it, professionally asking me to have tens of thousands of users running it would be a logistical boondoggle. The bottom line is that you support what best meets operational requirements are, even if you don't like it. I use firefox personally, but trying to roll it out on a widescale for an enterprise would have a significant cost for training, compatibility testing and software rewrites to work with another browser.
They could provide a default disk image which could be restored with 1 click. Oh, but then they'd get sued by Amazon.
Don't really worry about extra work securing the XP on my qemu cylinder.
1) Hasn't, but, gets corrupted, I'll untar an archive.
2) Data is on the Samba share.
Really, the whole thing is just an awkward way to get Adobe web development programs running because my linux versions of Adobe products are.....where?
'They'll be doing themselves a disservice if, because of XPM, they're not making sure that all their apps support Windows 7.'
Many Windows apps weren't upgraded to run as native OS/2 applications and look how well that turned out.
"Each needs to be secured, antivirused, firewalled and patched"
I think this comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of how this sort of virtualization would work in the real world.
Any company that upgrades to Win 7 is going to have the bulk of their apps ready to run on it, or there would be no reason to upgrade. No one is going to install W7 and then run all their apps virtualized in XP.
The point is that many companies will be stuck with a couple aging apps that aren't upgradeable for whatever reason but are vital to their workflow. These few legacy apps will be run in a virtual XP image that is running inside W7. All traffic from the old app to the hardware and the internet will be going through W7's firewalls and A/V already. No need to run Norton in the XP instance also.
And since these old apps will already be well configured, the virtual image will be a steady-state, not requiring patching. In the worst case scenario, someone gets a virus in their virtual machine. So, you close the application and boom, the virus is inactive. Then you re-install the VM on that user's PC and the virus is gone.
Although I'd rather see an automatic compatibility mode for programs instead of a separate virtual OS instance, this may be an acceptable bridge for some people. Funny, thing... We could do this with Vista today. Now lets get ready to hear the complaints about all the extra memory and disk space this will take.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Everywhere. Just enter 'homebrew' with your favorite console name in google [...] WiiBrew
Wii System Software 4.0 is a month old and still not jailbroken. Besides, even if you bought your console before the release of 4.0 and haven't updated since then, I haven't seen a Free game on Homebrew Browser with nearly the production values of even WiiWare games, apart from emulators such as ScummVM and FCE Ultra GX that are promoted for their ability to run questionable copies of non-Free games. Where are the Free games for video game consoles that don't rely on jailbreaks that the console owner can unbreak at any moment?
And then we have the handheld consoles build around the oss concept (gp2x, open-pandora, wiz)
None of them advertised to the general public in the United States by their manufacturers.
The thing that bothers me is that this is -not- what Microsoft is doing. They aren't building something clean, modern, and new, then sticking the legacy stuff in a VM. Windows 7 has all the nasty crap Vista did, with a little spit-and-polish on it. They just tacked-on an XP VM at the last minute just-in-case.
Instead of using virtualization as a way to safely remove deprecated code from the OS, they're keeping the kludgy, unmaintainable crap, adding an entire legacy runtime, and using it as a buzzword for the PHBs.
What I want is a native 64-bit only Windows OS that runs only 64-bit .NET apps, no 'system32-is-the-64-bit-system, WOW64-is-the-32-bit-system, reflected filesystems and registries, etc.' crap. Give me something that's actually a base for a new decade in computing, then build something like Apple's 'Classic' to run XP apps inside a seamless VM.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Cause crazy people make bad configuration decisions?
"To be fair, every OS that I've ever dealt with has had issues with major upgrades. Whether it's glibc problems with older Linux binaries, or compatibility and driver problems moving to newer versions of Windows, there's always pain."
I just fired-up a bunch of programs I compiled while in college on a number of Solaris boxes ranging from 2.5, 2.5.1, and 2.6 and they all ran perfectly fine just now on Solaris 10. That is a span of something like 15 years of compatibility. So if your OS decides to do things like change the way thread local storage is done, add international support in a non backwards compatible way, move from COFF to ELF, then in ELF change and extend the format of the relocation entries, not to mention use a C++ tool chain that keeps modifying the ABI, then yeah you really have no recourse. Oh and Solaris has not really changed the device driver model much from SunOS 4.x, pretty much any driver (well it has to be 64-bit for a 64-bit kernel) from 2.6 is going to work in Solaris 10, unless it used something esoteric, going back before then will need some minor tweaks to some structures. Check out the man pages in section 9E or the funtions that start with 'ddi' sometime (alternately http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-3196/ )
"... companies need to heal their applications" Clearly a bunch of nonsense analyst speak. Must be an expensive analyst for this high level of bullshit.
No offense, but, are you drunk?
If so, you have my sympathy for still constructing posts concerning technology while drunk. When drunk, you should do fun, irresponsible stuff. Hit on the catholic schoolgirl, and show her your dark side.
Why don't you try him directly on any points he made, because I have watched the AC apk trash many an ambiguous idiot like yourself here many times the past 5 years now. I think you don't dare hit on any of the points he made specifically, like by quoting them, because you do not possess the knowledge in computers to attempt to do so primarily, but also that you know you'll get shredded if you try it. The best you have was the crap about being drunk, but personally I think you're nothing and were rightfully told to phuk off here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1213751&cid=27749317 as you were. I hope you grow some testicles and try mess with him on any of his points via quotes and I will watch him rip you in half as he usually does versus you incompetent "I will respond with slurs and general garbage instead of specifics, because you are clearly of that type of incompetent ilk.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1213751&cid=27749811
"A big proportion of graphic designers and sound engineers use macs"
Windows [...snip...] a Support Nightmare.
There. Fixed that for ya.
The leap to Firefox is not as great as the leap to IE8. If your organization can't handle this technology shift, you've got real problems. They're not in the IT department, and you're not going to avoid them because you don't really have a choice whether or not to move on from the Microsoft application versions. The only choice you have is where you move to.
Ubuntu is looking good and their support rates seem quite reasonable. I'm typing this in Jaunty right now, and am very happy with it. It supports as many VMs as I have resources for - I'm still testing it so I've got Linux Mint playing a DVD in one window and YouTube playing in another. I'm not sure what the business case for VT on the enterprise desktop is yet, but I'm sure we'll find some excuse eventually. Micro-VMs for application sandboxing maybe? Microsoft isn't going to play in this space for a very long time - perhaps too long to save their bacon.
There are custom distributions that do some really cool stuff. Archeos is a good example of this - it's for archaeologists and people who do GIS applications. The Distro system makes for a great model for image development tailored to specific job roles and it's open to you too, to roll up the apps you want into your own distributions or publish virtual machines tailored to specific jobs. Because the software is free, the accounting headaches are taken care of - just buy the support for the folks who need it, usually your platforms development team and support crews. There's probably a distribution out already that's a great fit for everyone in your organization. If you're running XP in a VM you've now got plenty of time to port everything and you can get the rest of the Return On your Investment you were expecting when you licensed those applications for XP. XP is more secure in a VM and it's easy to wipe and refresh so you don't need to fret as much about patches either.
Or you could re-up on the horror train, just for a little while. Just a warning though: getting off the train at the station is a lot easier than between stops.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Ok, omitting OS/2 was simply context, there are many subsystems that run on NT and have ran on NT, from both MS and 3rd parties.
The OS/2 subsystem was a 1.x implementation that was provided mainly for server related processes, as it was kind of a stripped down version with regard to GUI access due to the conflict with IBM.
(MS could have went on to provide a full OS/2 3.0 subsystem, but after the IBM failout, they didn't give a crap about OS/2, even though IBM was reaping the work MS engineers had done in designing the OS/2 3.0 Object Desktop GUI.)
But that is just extra info, and again not relevant to the point about NT not being a normal or classic kernel/OS architecture, which tends to confuse die hard *nix fans the most, as they are use to working from a basic kernel and API set interface that is directly binded in one package.
For example Linux and the Framebuffers and the mixing of locks and items that are throughout the various layers of the kernel that are not things that can not be easily replaced at this 'core' of a level.
Where on NT, the low level HAL interface and basic NT kernel APIs are pretty much agnostic to the upper level OS interface API sets. There are exceptions with later incarnations of NT, and there are exceptions with NT being a 'hybrid' kernel allowing both direct and indirect calls.
Ha - From what I understand of Windows Presentation Layer (how video's done & what subsystems are called upon now in the latest versions of Windows by default for desktop display AND gaming), now that GDI & User32 are NOT the default display manager in VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7?
Well, it's back to usermode via DirectX, but a fast version of it (probably as fast as MS really CAN make it & yet have the video subsystem be safer, as it was in NT 3.51 & below... still heavier & slower than User32 + GDI drawn 2d display though, imo!
Ok, this is a lot of information kind of mashed together and not very accurate.
1) NT Video Drivers. Yes, prior to NT 4.0 they were a higher level or 'type of user mode level drivers.
NT 4.0 changed this to give Direct Draw and later DirectX access to hardware with direct calls to the GPU without NT managing via its hardware isolation policies.
So the Video Driver model was moved to what would be generically called a Ring 0 level, even though on NT, it really isn't that low.
This was both good and bad in the timeframe this was done, as getting pixels to the screen was not so easy or fast.
NT didn't have an open interface for new GPU features, as it isolated the original Video drivers too much, and basic OpenGL was all that could be filtered through, and not very fast. (This is kind of what you find in the *nix world on many variants today depending on the kernel driver model.)
2) With Vista this again changed, but didn't move back to User Mode. The WDDM of Vista uses a hybrid video driver, with a basic set of features that still run at the 'Ring 0' kernel level that provide a powerful set of basic features that are called by the upper level portion of the drivers.
This keeps the performance of having the video drivers running at the kernel level, but with a basic abstraction in the drivers themselves so that calls are managed between to the two layers and thus makes it extremely hard for a Video Driver to crash the OS as a whole.
MS even took this one step further with a whole set of recovery and exception rules that work in the Video driver model between the two layers, so that if either layer of the Video driver fails, Vista itself won't fail.
This means that a game crashing won't drop your OS or your video card's basic kernel mode drivers, and the OS will recover the upper level drivers and the screen will redraw and nothing bad happens.
It also means that the lower level video driver is not 'tied' to the upper level drivers, and if the hardware fails or is 'changed', the OS can recover the lower level video driver (even dynamically change