Linked by David Adams on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 19:32 UTC
Windows Microsoft seems to be "all in" with its virtualization strategy these days: back in June we heard word of a client-hypervisor (Hyper-V 3.0) built into Windows 8 and in mid-July, Hyper-V for the upcoming Windows Server 8 was publicly unveiled. And I've dug up evidence of a much bigger presence of MinWin in Microsoft's upcoming OS. So how is this fitting together? Is this the ultimate virtualization trio?
Thread beginning with comment 483417
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Wild speculation
by hechacker1 on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 21:44 UTC in reply to "Wild speculation"
hechacker1
Member since:
2005-08-01

It appears to just decouple the kernel from the rest of the system, making a clean(er) break between the userspace API and critical kernel functions.

I do like the speculation that Windows 8 might actually emulate older software in a virtual environment to keep all the cruft off the main kernel and userspace.

Ideally every process would be contained in a sandbox, and running third-party oses could also happen seamlessly with VT-x extensions. Assuming you have the hardware, it runs at nearly native speed.

The only problem if this happens is that we will need processors that support VT-x and EPT. Intel has a bad habit of artificially segmenting those features on lower end processors. That would also leave a large part of the current market out.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Wild speculation
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 22:22 in reply to "RE: Wild speculation"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The only problem if this happens is that we will need processors that support VT-x and EPT. Intel has a bad habit of artificially segmenting those features on lower end processors. That would also leave a large part of the current market out.


The elephant in the room. My primary intel based work pc is a year old... no virtualization extensions. It was supposed to be a market segmentation ploy by intel ( if you need virtualization pay more), but it was never marketed well enough ( try guessing if a processor has virtuialization support by the name or date of an intel processor). Intel also claims that the extensions are a security risk, which is theoretically true. I'm not aware of any existing widespread threats that exploit the presence of those extensions.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wild speculation
by phoenix on Thu 4th Aug 2011 04:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Wild speculation"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Yet another reason to go with AMD CPUs. Everything but the Sempron includes SVM support. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Wild speculation
by zima on Mon 8th Aug 2011 22:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Wild speculation"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Sometimes it gets really weird: Celeron Dual-Core E3400, a CPU available for 2 years, I believe, and which costs a bit less than 40€ for quite some time & is apparently the least expensive Intel CPU at retail (nice deal overall - 2.6 GHz, essentially a C2D with large part of L2 disabled, down to 1 MiB, and 800 MHz FSB; imperceptible difference in daily usage)... does have Intel VT-x (all Celerons from E3000 series do)

Edited 2011-08-08 22:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1