Linked by Drumhellar on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:18 UTC
Windows Since its introduction at Microsoft's BUILD conference last September, Windows 8 has garnered a large measure of attention, especially with regards to the new Metro interface. The feature that intrigued me the most, however, was the inclusion of Hyper-V.
Order by: Score:
Comment by frood
by frood on Thu 28th Jun 2012 12:07 UTC
frood
Member since:
2005-07-06

Very interesting article. Thanks

Reply Score: 2

Good article
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 28th Jun 2012 12:38 UTC
Flatland_Spider
Member since:
2006-09-01

Good article. I would have like for you to have explained yourself a little more when you mentioned competing products, but this wasn't a vs. article.

Also, VMware kind of came out of nowhere. I thought you were just comparing to VirtualBox, then VMware comes in. What version of VMware was that anyway? ESX, ESXi, vSphere 5, Workstation, Server, Player?

Hyper-V is close to be ready for widespread desktop use. The performance is there, as are the heavyweight features. However, the complete lack of of desktop integration makes it cumbersome to use.


That's the exact same reason I'm using VirtualBox over KVM. USB, sound, and file passthrough are there; it's the lack of a fullscreen display resolution that gets me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good article
by Soulbender on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:07 UTC in reply to "Good article"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

it's the lack of a fullscreen display resolution that gets me.


Maybe I am misunderstanding you but VirtualBox can run in fullscreen mode and the resolution adapts to your monitor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good article
by Flatland_Spider on Sun 1st Jul 2012 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Good article"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. KVM can't do that, so I'm using Virtualbox instead.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good article
by tanzam75 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 15:58 UTC in reply to "Good article"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

I thought you were just comparing to VirtualBox, then VMware comes in. What version of VMware was that anyway? ESX, ESXi, vSphere 5, Workstation, Server, Player?


Hyper-V is really designed to compete against ESX, ESXi, and vSphere.

VMware Workstation is in a different class of product. VMware Server has reached end-of-life.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good article
by Flatland_Spider on Sun 1st Jul 2012 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Good article"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Right, but the author didn't specify what he was comparing it to. He just said VMware, which could mean anything like that. Including VMware Server even if it is EOLd.

It was criticism to show he needs to be more specific in his writing. It's obvious to him what he's comparing it to, but not to us.

Including Hyper-V in Windows consumer versions, versus server versions, automatically puts Hyper-V into the VMware Workstation and Virtualbox class of product.

Edited 2012-07-01 19:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good article
by Drumhellar on Thu 28th Jun 2012 16:46 UTC in reply to "Good article"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Also, VMware kind of came out of nowhere. I thought you were just comparing to VirtualBox, then VMware comes in. What version of VMware was that anyway? ESX, ESXi, vSphere 5, Workstation, Server, Player?


Oops. I was comparing against both VirtualBox an VMWare Workstation at different times. I used to use VirtualBox, but now I have access to VMWare Workstation 8, which I've found to be much more stable than VirtualBox.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good article
by Soulbender on Fri 29th Jun 2012 04:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Good article"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I was comparing against both VirtualBox an VMWare Workstation at different times.


That's not really a good comparison. V-Server competes with server virtualization products like Xen(Server), KVM and vSphere/ESX(i)/Whatever-vmware-calls-it-today. It's not intended for desktop use in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good article
by Drumhellar on Fri 29th Jun 2012 06:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good article"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Well, Microsoft is beginning to position Hyper-V for desktop use, so comparing it in that context is fair.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good article
by kaiwai on Fri 29th Jun 2012 07:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good article"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, Microsoft is beginning to position Hyper-V for desktop use, so comparing it in that context is fair.


I'm assuming that the positioning for desktop use may include the moving of win32 into a Hyper-V session rather than the frankenstein setup that uses a maze of registry hacks and shims as to get a desired result?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Good article
by tanzam75 on Fri 29th Jun 2012 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good article"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19


I'm assuming that the positioning for desktop use may include the moving of win32 into a Hyper-V session rather than the frankenstein setup that uses a maze of registry hacks and shims as to get a desired result?


It may be a Frankenstein setup, but App-V works. Apps are isolated from each other, and will uninstall cleanly. And you don't have to manage a whole other operating system, because the apps are still running (through a redirection layer) on top of your primary OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good article
by Flatland_Spider on Sun 1st Jul 2012 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Good article"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

No worries, just realize readers only know what you tell them, and little details like that aren't obvious to people who weren't there.

Reply Score: 2

No NAT?
by BrianH on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:14 UTC
BrianH
Member since:
2005-07-06

There's no NAT? What about Internet Connection Sharing, does that still exist for Windows 8? If so, that would work.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No NAT?
by tanzam75 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 16:03 UTC in reply to "No NAT?"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

On Windows Server, you could setup NAT by installing the routing role on the host machine.

Not sure how it is on Windows client. Perhaps they're planning to make the integration available via a post-RTM install, like they did with XP Mode on Windows 7? But XP is going to reach end-of-life soon, so are they still making it available for enterprise customers?

Reply Score: 1

RE: No NAT?
by Drumhellar on Thu 28th Jun 2012 17:00 UTC in reply to "No NAT?"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Using ICS would work, but it's not exactly a great solution. All your guests that are configured for host-only networking would become connected. As far as I know, ICS also isn't configurable via group policy, or via the management console (If I'm wrong, let me know).

Reply Score: 2

on the desktop
by l3v1 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 14:04 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

So, we're talking about virtualization for desktop use. For such scenariosn, the things listed (no NAT, sound or USB, no shared folders, also "If you have other VM software installed at the same time, it will likely refuse to run") do not make it particularly interesting and/or usable. I'd take VBox any day for desktop use over it.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by andih
by andih on Thu 28th Jun 2012 16:24 UTC
andih
Member since:
2010-03-27

Hyper-V = lol

I would never ever put windows on iron. never.
and even less, put guests on top of it..
But I avoid windows in general.

Virtualbox is ok for playing around with OSes for noobs.

VMWare, for big enterprise that needs lots of bells and whistles and pay well..

KVM awesome (a tool for pros, arguable faster than vmware)
For dedicated server or on desktop.
Xen too

Reply Score: 0

FreeBSD will be supported on Hyper-V.
by jkim on Thu 28th Jun 2012 16:49 UTC
jkim
Member since:
2006-01-18

FreeBSD will be officially supported as a Hyper-V guest.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/openness/archive/2012/05/10/freebsd-supp...

It was presented at BSDCan 2012.

http://www.bsdcan.org/2012/schedule/events/287.en.html

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

That is awesome. I'm a big fan of FreeBSD. It's my *nix of choice, and I'm always happy to see it get broader support.

Reply Score: 1

Performance on host system?
by ANorthernSoul on Thu 28th Jun 2012 16:55 UTC
ANorthernSoul
Member since:
2012-06-28

When Hyper-V is activated on 2008/R2 the host system becomes a client of the Hyper-V server. The experience is seamless to the user but the transition happens when it's activated. So my question is, how does this affect performance on the host system for things like games or other programs that rely on direct access to hardware? There is usually a performance degradation that happens when running software like games in virtual machines. Has Microsoft found a way around that on the host system?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Performance on host system?
by BluenoseJake on Thu 28th Jun 2012 17:28 UTC in reply to "Performance on host system?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

There doesn't seem to be any performance penalty for the host, I run hyper-v on a AMD X2 2.4Ghz box with 8G of ram, running 2 Win2k8R2 vms, a 2k3r2 VM and a Debian VM, and can watch 1080p video, play games, whatever, while the box is streaming video to every other device in the house using tversity. It might be running ~50-60% cpu, but it's responsive and fast.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Performance on host system?
by Drumhellar on Thu 28th Jun 2012 18:50 UTC in reply to "Performance on host system?"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

At least for Windows 8, Hyper-V is a service like any other (mostly), and doesn't virtualize the host like 2008/R2.
I've been playing Deus Ex lately, and haven't noticed a performance or quality difference with Hyper-V installed or not.

Edited 2012-06-28 18:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Performance on host system?
by tanzam75 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance on host system?"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

At least for Windows 8, Hyper-V is a service like any other (mostly), and doesn't virtualize the host like 2008/R2.

I've been playing Deus Ex lately, and haven't noticed a performance or quality difference with Hyper-V installed or not.


You would not be able to feel the performance penalty in client usage. You would need to benchmark your machine before and after adding the Hyper-V role to get an accurate measurement.

Hyper-V is a hypervisor, or Type 1 virtual machine monitor. By definition, it runs directly on bare metal. This means that all OSes -- including the primary OS -- run on top of Hyper-V, rather than directly on the CPU.

The way it worked on Windows Server was that the primary Windows instance got direct access to the hardware, while the other virtual machines didn't. Thus, the primary Windows instance had access to sound and USB, even though it was running on top of Hyper-V, which did not provide emulated or enlightened devices for these functions.

Windows Server began running on top of Hyper-V as soon as the Hyper-V role was installed -- even if you created no other virtual machines. (This is why installing/removing Hyper-V required a reboot.)

Microsoft has stated that a CPU with SLAT will be required to run Hyper-V on Windows 8. This is presumably because high-performance video drivers will thrash the TLB if the CPU does not have SLAT. This may be acceptable on a server, but would be unacceptable on a workstation.

Reply Score: 2

Why is it there?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 29th Jun 2012 15:53 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

I'm kinda out of the whole windows loop. Can anyone explain why Hyper-V is there on a desktop OS? Did they kill off virtualPC? I would have thought that virtualPC would have made more sense on a desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why is it there?
by sgtarky on Fri 29th Jun 2012 19:50 UTC in reply to "Why is it there? "
sgtarky Member since:
2006-01-02

yes hyper-v killed off virtualpc. I wish they would implement hyper-v like xenclient...basically it boots to a light desktop with all your virtual machines running on it..it is a bare metal hypervisor as well.

Reply Score: 1