Confirmed: Windows 8 to include Hyper-V

Not sure why they thought it'd be necessary to do that. I mean I'm not complaining by any means, but I just feel like the vast majority of Windows users won't even know what virtualization is. Interesting none the less!
 
They do it so they can claim the most virtualization or hypervisors shipped. It's an old MS marketing tactic.
 
Having direct VM support built into an OS is an excellent idea for a Desktop system. It might mean that XP mode becomes even more robust & allows near-seamless legacy app integration.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
Having direct VM support built into an OS is an excellent idea for a Desktop system. It might mean that XP mode becomes even more robust & allows near-seamless legacy app integration.
Click to expand...

i have a feeling there will be a lot of virtualization in win 8
last i heard, xbox games are supposed to magically work in win 8, there must be some sort of virtualization for that.
 
Does anyone know when Win 8 will be launched?................never mind...fall 2012
 
I think its inclusion is because of one of the following reasons -

1. Legacy compatibility, i.e. Win7 and prior - or any MS OS that doesn't look like a phone. Far simpler to build an OS from the ground up by simply isolating the legacy environment. Of course I expect that 8 isn't new from the ground up, so this justification isn't very likely.

2. Marketing speak, footprint bloat, cool new toy feature. As was stated, Hyper-V would be essentially given away in an attempt to be the most prolific VM platform you can't (literally) refuse. And I suspect most of us will still prefer VMware...

I'd be ok with reason 1 if were true. But it just isn't. Instead, I only see it as more baggage added to a base install and more services to have to disable.

If microsoft were smart, they'd go the bare metal hypervisor route and virtualize the 'base' OS install. Then you gain instant portability for your desktop install, among many other very cool features. But they haven't exactly had a record of smart moves lately so I'm not holding my breath...
 
SpaceHonkey said:
If microsoft were smart, they'd go the bare metal hypervisor route and virtualize the 'base' OS install. Then you gain instant portability for your desktop install, among many other very cool features. But they haven't exactly had a record of smart moves lately so I'm not holding my breath...
Click to expand...

How would something like that work with things like video card drivers?
 
SpaceHonkey said:
I think its inclusion is because of one of the following reasons -

1. Legacy compatibility, i.e. Win7 and prior - or any MS OS that doesn't look like a phone. Far simpler to build an OS from the ground up by simply isolating the legacy environment. Of course I expect that 8 isn't new from the ground up, so this justification isn't very likely.

2. Marketing speak, footprint bloat, cool new toy feature. As was stated, Hyper-V would be essentially given away in an attempt to be the most prolific VM platform you can't (literally) refuse. And I suspect most of us will still prefer VMware...

I'd be ok with reason 1 if were true. But it just isn't. Instead, I only see it as more baggage added to a base install and more services to have to disable.

If microsoft were smart, they'd go the bare metal hypervisor route and virtualize the 'base' OS install. Then you gain instant portability for your desktop install, among many other very cool features. But they haven't exactly had a record of smart moves lately so I'm not holding my breath...
Click to expand...

I suspect strongly that like most Windows 7 features you have to actually choose to install the Hyper-V feature rather than having it switched on natively. Did you watch the video?

You mean like Citrix Xenclient and Nxtop? Have you seen the client system HCL for these? This will be a looooong process.

To be fair I don't see this as a great boon, the future for me to end users is more in application flexibility rather than OS flexibility, but this is a very anti-MS post without much "fact" in there.
 
AMD_Gamer said:
How would something like that work with things like video card drivers?
Click to expand...

Full Install of Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V has the main OS "virtualized", as in, it runs on top of the hypervisor and everything is passed through the hypervisor layer without issue.
 
Full Install of Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V has the main OS "virtualized", as in, it runs on top of the hypervisor and everything is passed through the hypervisor layer without issue.
Click to expand...

This is not necessarily accurate. When installing the Hyper-V role, it actually installs a Parent VM. This VM is responsible for the communication over the VM Bus to access the physical hardware. Windows Server 2008 R2 Host OS is not "virtualized."

This diagram pretty much sums it up.

hyperv.png
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
This is not necessarily accurate. When installing the Hyper-V role, it actually installs a Parent VM. This VM is responsible for the communication over the VM Bus to access the physical hardware. Windows Server 2008 R2 Host OS is not "virtualized."
Click to expand...

Hence the quotes around "virtualized", the point was, it's already running on top of the hypervisor. Trying to keep it simple for the OP with how it currently works with video cards in 2008 R2 and the base install. If you want to get GPUs into the child partition then you need to look at things like RemoteFX.
 
Though I'm not a fan of Hyper-V ...probably because I don't fully know how to use it :), the inclusion of it in a desktop OS is pretty boss imo.
 
Wonder if it will be in all versions or limited to pro, enterprise, and ultimate
 
SpaceHonkey said:
I think its inclusion is because of one of the following reasons -

1. Legacy compatibility, i.e. Win7 and prior - or any MS OS that doesn't look like a phone. Far simpler to build an OS from the ground up by simply isolating the legacy environment. Of course I expect that 8 isn't new from the ground up, so this justification isn't very likely.

2. Marketing speak, footprint bloat, cool new toy feature. As was stated, Hyper-V would be essentially given away in an attempt to be the most prolific VM platform you can't (literally) refuse. And I suspect most of us will still prefer VMware...

I'd be ok with reason 1 if were true. But it just isn't. Instead, I only see it as more baggage added to a base install and more services to have to disable.

If microsoft were smart, they'd go the bare metal hypervisor route and virtualize the 'base' OS install. Then you gain instant portability for your desktop install, among many other very cool features. But they haven't exactly had a record of smart moves lately so I'm not holding my breath...
Click to expand...

If they could get the 'base' working with 3d acceleration and all peripherals, that would be the gamechanger for desktop virtualization. Even moreso if they made it so that OSX could be a 'base' as well. Have shortcuts like hardware KVM switch to go back and forth immediately between 'bases'.
 
Sweet, wonder when technet will have this for download...
 
Last edited:
adi said:
If they could get the 'base' working with 3d acceleration and all peripherals, that would be the gamechanger for desktop virtualization. Even moreso if they made it so that OSX could be a 'base' as well. Have shortcuts like hardware KVM switch to go back and forth immediately between 'bases'.
Click to expand...

You can also do things like increase portability and recoverability and of course complete segregation of disparate systems. Instead of shipping an app (and having to deal with co-application incompatibilities), you can ship appliances.

Of course I do realize this is already done in the server world (and app isolation with stuff like thinapp), but I think that would be a far better use of Hyper-V than whatever reason they are actually shipping it for.

Haileris, I will admit I am definitely not a big Microsoft fan - but that is mostly because I've grown so tired of them passing up opportunities to do things right. And all I'm doing is speculating and have honestly done little research into Win8 - after seeing the phone/tab interface of 8 (at least as they were shown when it was first revealed) I lost interest because I think it seems clear they are missing the mark of what we users want.

Including Hyper-V is cool, I will give you that. But I think it needs a reason to be there. Having Exchange built in would be cool, but completely pointless. Hyper-V would also be pointless to me unless there is a showstopping feature that requires it. And I'm REALLY hoping that feature isn't loading the classic Windows 7 interface. I'm not certain I could get excited about using the new interface with a complex application UI. That style of interface just isn't suited to that usage, to me atleast.

As far as HCLs and whatnot - this doesn't have to be a problem. If the market creates a situation that it becomes a must have feature, the drivers would come. Video card switching (or any passthru style virtualization) should be able to be fixed with what would essentially be a VT compatibility at the component level. That obviously would be a ways off, but again - make it sliced bread and all the cool kids will be doing it.

To me virtualization (and fully featured web based apps) is the next big thing, and this has yet to trickle down to the desktop level to a great extent. Now is a great time to step in that direction and if Win8 doesn't in a deep way, I feel they are missing the mark again. I don't need another Win7 with a phone interface slapped on.
 
SpaceHonkey said:
You can also do things like increase portability and recoverability and of course complete segregation of disparate systems. Instead of shipping an app (and having to deal with co-application incompatibilities), you can ship appliances.

Of course I do realize this is already done in the server world (and app isolation with stuff like thinapp), but I think that would be a far better use of Hyper-V than whatever reason they are actually shipping it for.

Haileris, I will admit I am definitely not a big Microsoft fan - but that is mostly because I've grown so tired of them passing up opportunities to do things right. And all I'm doing is speculating and have honestly done little research into Win8 - after seeing the phone/tab interface of 8 (at least as they were shown when it was first revealed) I lost interest because I think it seems clear they are missing the mark of what we users want.

Including Hyper-V is cool, I will give you that. But I think it needs a reason to be there. Having Exchange built in would be cool, but completely pointless. Hyper-V would also be pointless to me unless there is a showstopping feature that requires it. And I'm REALLY hoping that feature isn't loading the classic Windows 7 interface. I'm not certain I could get excited about using the new interface with a complex application UI. That style of interface just isn't suited to that usage, to me atleast.

As far as HCLs and whatnot - this doesn't have to be a problem. If the market creates a situation that it becomes a must have feature, the drivers would come. Video card switching (or any passthru style virtualization) should be able to be fixed with what would essentially be a VT compatibility at the component level. That obviously would be a ways off, but again - make it sliced bread and all the cool kids will be doing it.

To me virtualization (and fully featured web based apps) is the next big thing, and this has yet to trickle down to the desktop level to a great extent. Now is a great time to step in that direction and if Win8 doesn't in a deep way, I feel they are missing the mark again. I don't need another Win7 with a phone interface slapped on.
Click to expand...

The way I see it is the replacement for Virtual PC which has serious limitiations. With VMware jacking up theur licensing costs and the features offered in Hyper-V 3 I think it should be given serious consideration by a lot of people due to its cost advantages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top