What’s new in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 SP2?

Links for December 3, 2008 « Steve Mullen’s Blog

Links for December 3, 2008 « Steve Mullen’s Blog — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:42:50 GMT

Pingback from Links for December 3, 2008 « Steve Mullen’s Blog

re: What’s new in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 SP2?

Waethorn — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:18:16 GMT

....my question still stands.

I'm guessing Microsoft will never do this officially anyway, since they recommend that the parent OS be dedicated to running the Hypervisor and nothing else. I'm not sure exactly what the reasoning is for this. I'm guessing it has something to do with having minimal overhead and offering the highest level of performance for load balancing between child partitions.

It also means the parent OS has access to all this nice hardware that the child partitions don't, and it's not even being used to its full extent.

I just don't see the full-performance load balancing thing being a big issue for virtualization on a desktop. I mean, Virtual PC can only do enough as it is.

Virtual PC already supports VT hardware too though.

I kind of wonder, that if Microsoft implemented Hyper-V in a parent desktop OS (and supported sound, etc.), what would the performance difference be between it and Virtual PC running with VT hardware support....

Is there much difference?

What are the barriers in implementing "full" hardware virtualization too? ie. full video card virtualization, DirectSound support, etc.

Isn't this breaking into the realm of what I was talking about in the other article about layers of complexity? I mean, if you only had a hypervisor which virtualized all hardware, and then stripped direct hardware requirements out of legacy operating systems, you'd be left with something that looks like an OS shell which runs as an isolated environment for legacy apps.

Hmm....

re: What’s new in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 SP2?

Waethorn — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:25:51 GMT

"Waethorn you can run Hyper V on Vista, its called VMware workstation 6.51 and it kicks *** all over Hyper V, 8 days a week."

Apples (not those Apples) to oranges. VMware Workstation is a for-pay version of Virtual PC. It's not a hypervisor solution, nor is it free.

re: What’s new in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 SP2?

Lindy — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:59:11 GMT

So now its safe to install a Windows Server os at SP2? Why do they do this, it just confuses people.

Waethorn you can run Hyper V on Vista, its called VMware workstation 6.51 and it kicks *** all over Hyper V, 8 days a week.

file server | Digg hot tags

file server | Digg hot tags — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:28:54 GMT

Pingback from file server | Digg hot tags

re: What’s new in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 SP2?

Waethorn — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:49:17 GMT

What would be involved in hacking Hyper-V so that it installs in Windows Vista?

re: What’s new in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 SP2?

tayme — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:44:48 GMT

Another fine example of our local zit faced teenager in the basement on Daddy's iMac...what a tool you are, robertsjoe. just once, I'd like to see you back up a single claim that you make with factual data. Such a waste.

--tayme

re: What’s new in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 SP2?

robertsjoe — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:32:40 GMT

Confusion about editions of Microsoft products?! No way! @mikegalos thinks it's the best way to do things. Clearly Microsoft and Mike are wrong, wrong, wrong.