Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software IT

Microsoft Plans Hypervisor for Longhorn 384

Posted by Zonk from the hand-me-the-hydrospanner dept.
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.' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Plans Hypervisor for Longhorn More

Microsoft Plans Hypervisor for Longhorn

Comments Filter:

  • just wondering... (Score:5, Funny)

    by professorhojo ( 686761 ) * on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @03:57PM (#12751487)
    will this "Hypervisor" come in the form of a paperclip?

    "Hi! It looks like you're trying to load an alternate operating system."

  • Unix Support? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geomon ( 78680 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @03:57PM (#12751489) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Microsoft cripple a competitor's software? Say it ain't so! I mean, Bill Gates is such a great guy. He gives all that money to needy people. He'd never do anything so ethically questionable. He's an all-around humanitarian.
    • I wonder if it will support Mac OS X...

      • Re:Unix Support? (Score:4, Funny)

        by lostchicken ( 226656 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:11PM (#12751654)
        Geez, I almost did my usual "No, silly, Mac OS X won't run on x86..." post. It's pretty much reflex at this point.

        (of course, it probably won't run Mac OS X/Intel, which will most likely require some sort of special hardware, be it a custom firmware or chipset, to run, just to ensure that you're using an actual Mac)

      • Re:Unix Support? (Score:2, Informative)

        by cstacy ( 534252 )
        I belive Apple has stated that MacOS (on Intel) will not be allowed to run on any hardware other than their own. I suppose this will be achieved by a combination of hardware differences (theres much more to a computer than the CPU) and by software licensing (and enforcement).
    • Might? Why even test this?

      At best it will slow things down so as to be uncomfortable to use.

    • Re:Unix Support? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Mutilated1 ( 836311 )
      I doubt that they would do that because if they did, you could always remove the Windows, run the UNIX natively ( which is really what you should probably do in the first place ), but Microsoft will undoubtedly add some "feature" that will require Windows. Personally I have no idea why anyone in their right mind would want to use this, but I'm sure by the time the Microsoft PR machine gets through with it managers everywhere will be wanting to load Windows Longhorn so they can try out Linux.
      • you could always remove the Windows, run the UNIX natively
        Not if said UNIX is Mac OS, and you're using a non-Apple brand computer....

        Maybe that's the "feature that would require Windows?"
    • SCO [sco.com] is the only one they plan to support at this time.

    • (cf. Windows ain't done 'til Lotus won't run...)
    • MS already makes VirtualPC, which, AFAIK, runs *nix just fine.
    • 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, ther

  • Right.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @03:57PM (#12751493) Homepage Journal
    ... built right into the operating system... just like IE, and Windows Media Player...
    • All your OS are belong to hypervisor! For great justice, move all *nix!

    • ... built right into the operating system... just like IE, and Windows Media Player...

      Hope not! Given that Microsoft bought Connectix (the Virtual PC developer) a while back, they should have the expertise to build something that won't be another vector for worms and viruses. I don't recall Virtual PC needing to be built into Windows to work well.

      • I don't recall Virtual PC needing to be built into Windows to work well.

        You obviously don't understand Microsoft innovation [see: marketing spin] very well. Else you would realize that there has never been anything like this. Oh, the unfettered and anticipatory rapture of the user community. Only as a symbiotic component of the operating system can such a marvelous capability be offered to the millions of Windows users. And it can be yours! Yours for the small additional sum of $129 over and above the pri

    • Great ! (Score:5, Funny)

      by alexhs ( 877055 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:16PM (#12751728) Homepage Journal
      Then you will be able to contaminate multiple operating systems instances with a single instance of IE running on a single instance of Windows !

  • Good Luck (Score:2, Funny)

    by buddhapkt ( 549319 ) *
    They can't seem to ever get their own operating system right how are they gonna emulate anyone else?

  • Not quite (Score:5, Informative)

    by gtrubetskoy ( 734033 ) * on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:02PM (#12751544)

    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 [lwn.net]

    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.

    • So when is Linux VServer going to be merged into the official Linux tree or supported by a major distro?

      • So when is Linux VServer going to be merged into the official Linux tree or supported by a major distro?

        With respect to Linux tree, based on this [linux-vserver.org] coment by Herbert who is the main VServer developer, probably not as soon as we all would like. I think at this point the main kernel developers do not understand the value a project like this brings to Linux.

        As far as a major distro - it works with any distro already.

    • Re:Not quite (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Bog Standard ( 743863 )
      I think that real threat is to this is yet to come. In the not to far off future (2-5 years) I can well imagine that as the amount of cores on a single CPU die increase AMD/Intel will add this functionality at the hardware level (how do IBM manage LPARS at present anyone?) with BIOS type hooks etc.

      As an aside I would be very interested in the pro's and con's of the Xen type virtualisation method versus the VMware ESX type method, especially regarding inter-image security.

      Be alert, the world needs more ler

      • Xen vs. VMWare ESX (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lemming Mark ( 849014 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @07:19PM (#12753368) Homepage
        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
    • Section 1.3 and 1.4 of the FAQ seem to indicate Xen does not support Windows.

      FAQ: Xen FAQ [xensource.com]

      Perhaps it's out of date?

      • Re:Not quite (Score:3, Informative)

        by Lemming Mark ( 849014 )
        It's not out of date - Xen 1.0 supported an in-house Windows port but that will never be redistributed. With upcoming hardware hypervisor support from Intel and AMD it will nolonger be essential to port OSes, at which point Windows will run (with decent performance).

  • Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:02PM (#12751547) Homepage Journal
    I thought Xen supported Windows XP quite well, but that support couldn't be released because of licensing issues -- Xen's technique requires the rewriting of portions of the guest operating systems. Wasn't Microsoft Research actually participating on the Xen project as well?

    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.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 )
      I thought Xen supported Windows XP quite well, but that support couldn't be released because of licensing issues

      Translation for normal people: Xen doesn't support Windows.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lemming Mark ( 849014 )
      Windows on Xen will come along when Intel Vanderpool CPUs (later this year) and AMD Pacifica (next year) are available.

      Code for using Vanderpool extensions is in the Xen tree right now, contributed mostly by Intel. It's not quite ready to run Windows yet (various 16 bit functionality still needs to be implemented) but it's getting there.

  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by devphaeton ( 695736 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:02PM (#12751549)
    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.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 )
      Windows 2000 Server, for really old apps.
      Windows 2003 Server, for old apps.
      A few isolated copies of Longhorn Server, so when one crashes it doesn't take out the others.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:14PM (#12751700)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cduffy ( 652 )
      Multiple instances of the same OS, of course.

      Imagine a separate mail server, web server, terminal server, etc. all running on the same hardware, with support for migrating -- live! -- any particular OS instance over to different hardware (on the same SAN) if you're so inclined.

      Well, I'd hope they could provide that latter feature -- Xen does.
  • FTA: Xen doesn't yet support Windows, however.
    And although Xen will probably support Windows in the future, I'm sure Hypervisor won't support Linux.
    • No, windows will have to be changed to support Xen, since Xen can't handle privileged instructions. (No joke)

      This is a problem, but the Xen folks have managed to successfully sell it to everyone as a feature since a side effect of this lack of virtualization is that the emulation runs somewhat faster, but with questionable compatibility.

      GJC

  • yes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:03PM (#12751566) Homepage
    "...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

  • I'm sure they will charge some sort of messed up licensing fee for each virtual machine (or subset of that machine).
  • 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".

  • VMware? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stibidor ( 874526 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:05PM (#12751583) Homepage
    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?

    • Re:VMware? (Score:5, Informative)

      by palfrey ( 198640 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:41PM (#12751970) Homepage
      VMWare creates a virtual machine for your OS to run in.
      Advantage: provided it's simulation is good, everything that runs on the real hardware runs in the virtual machine
      Disadvantage: that compatability comes at a significant runtime cost, which makes VMWare mainly used only for testing purposes, not for running multiple OSes for general work.

      Hypervisors (like Xen) and what MS is claiming (I will believe this when we see it given the list of things they've dropped) use a technique called paravirtualisation to vastly reduce the speed problems. However, this requires support from the host OS. The Xen performance page (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/pe rformance.html [cam.ac.uk]) describes this better than I could.
    • I bought vmware workstation 4.5 because of the free upgrade to 5.0, and because I needed windows for stuff that wine won't do (visual interdev... yeah i know it's crap but my company uses it). Oh yeah and I also run iTunes in it so I can sync up easily with my iPod shuffle.

      I love it. It's amazing how fast windows performs on it. I can't say it's at native speed, but it is close. It's also really, really easy to backup. And the snapshot feature is nice, but it's kind of annoying that it restores your _

  • Implications? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:07PM (#12751593) Homepage Journal

    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

    • One use I can think of immediately that doesn't require any non-MS OS is testing on multiple versions of Windows and/or IE.

      As a web developer, I have to care about how my sites work and look in IE 5, IE 5.5 and IE 6 (as well as Firefox, Moz, and sometimes Opera). It's much nicer being able to do that on a single machine, than having to have several physical machines set aside for the task.
  • 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.

  • What about licensing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by astrashe ( 7452 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:08PM (#12751611) Journal
    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 i
    • Do you know anything about Xen? The way Xen works you have to make some changes to the kernel to allow it to run on Xen. At least in the x86 world. So right now you're only option is to run an open source system on xen because you can recompile the kernel. Microsoft Dev Labs might have a version that runs on Xen but it's not publicly available. Red Hat, Suse and Sun have announced that they are going to be building Xen support into their kernel but that hasn't happened yet. Intel and AMD have announce

  • More innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bjdevil66 ( 583941 )

    This sounds a lot like they're trying to steal VMWare's [vmware.com] 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?

    • But allowing OSX to have a virtual machine for older mac programs is ok? It's basically the same thing going on, technology-wise.

      Besides, MS already has a virtual server program called Microsoft Virtual Server 2005. It's decent, but has more overhead than VMWare. The benefit is that it's a hell of a lot easier to get running and keep running than VMWare.

      Also, linux comes prepackaged with a firewall product and I don't hear anyone complaining about that. I think the big point you should be making is th

  • This isn't about multiple OSs: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by acceleriter ( 231439 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:10PM (#12751642)
    This is about DRM -- an all-encompassing, Microsoft controlled supervisor mode controlling access to "trusted" components.

  • A good move (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kkelly ( 69745 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:10PM (#12751643)
    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.
  • 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

  • Nothing concrete yet... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:10PM (#12751647)
    Sounds like they're just restating something we already knew about. They acquired Connectix [microsoft.com] 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).

  • DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. ( 142215 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:12PM (#12751680) Homepage
    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.
    • I don't believe MS will gain that much market share. I don't think they'll get that much control over hardware and software at the same time - there will always be an OEM market that knows how to get Linux running. You think MS is going to get that much control over the server market? Think again.

    • Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iphayd ( 170761 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @05:48PM (#12752651) Homepage Journal
      You have to realize that MS is no longer able to dictate _all_ of the PC specs.

      - I couldn't imagine that Apple will build a box that requires Hypervisor to run.
      - I couldn't imagine IBM will build servers that require Hypervisor to run.
      - I couldn't imagine HP will build machines that require Hypervisor to run.

      These three companies have a vested interest in _not_ allowing Microsoft the kind of power that you are suggesting.
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cr0w T. Trollbot ( 848674 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:16PM (#12751726)
    Brain: Mac OS X on Intel, Microsoft offering virtual OS environments on Windows...Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

    Pinky: I think so, Brain, but won't Bill have to divorce Darl McBride first?

    Crow T. Trollbot

  • Now I can run Xeyes and still get my beloved BOSD!!

  • What I want in a hypervisor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:24PM (#12751799) Homepage Journal
    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 [slashdot.org] are hard to read. Where's the "play audio" button?
    • That's basically what Xen and the MS hypervisor do (and the IBM POWER hypervisor on pSeries - that actually *is* in the firmware too).

      Both Xen and the MS Hypervisor (why can't they give it a name I can use!??!?!?!) are to be a "thin" layer (Xen will likely be smaller, IMO, as it won't support full virtualisation without hardware support. They'll both be very lowlevel, anyhow) that just multiplexes low level resources: CPU, memory, interrupts...

      However, that doesn't give you the complete virtualisation sy
  • 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
    • 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 ca
    • 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 [l4ka.org]

    • Re:Xen is not a true hypervisor (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lemming Mark ( 849014 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:56PM (#12752150) Homepage
      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 ;-)

      • Re:Xen is not a true hypervisor (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Lemming Mark ( 849014 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:58PM (#12752179) Homepage
        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.
    • I just found out (http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f 3 fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05013_WinHEC0 5.ppt [microsoft.com]) 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.

  • Fond Memories of Commodore Amiga (Score:3, Interesting)

    by airship ( 242862 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:30PM (#12751874) Homepage
    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*

  • Yes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:32PM (#12751888)
    You'll be able to run Longhorn, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Bob, Windows 95, DOS, and Windows Me!

    All at the same time!

    And hypervisor is just the working name. The final product will be called KlustrPhuk.

  • 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!

  • So they have time for this but not WinFS? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @04:54PM (#12752140)
    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.

  • I don't think the name is Hypervisor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anthony Liguori ( 820979 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @05:15PM (#12752326) Homepage
    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).

Slashdot Top Deals

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Close