Windows 8 May go Fully Virtualized!!!!!!!!

[safan80]

I like the sound of this version of windows! I like the use of VT.
Hopefully they make windows 8 more modular.


http://www.dailytech.com/Slides+Reve...ticle20181.htm

User would have unique desktop accessible from any machine; company would sell "Desktop as a Service"

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's comment that Windows 8 was his company's most risky endeavor sparked much curiosity. Little is currently known about the upcoming operating system. So why is Windows 8 such a high risk proposition for Microsoft?

The answer to that may have come in a newly surfaced slide deck from the Microsoft architectural summit held in London in early April 2010. In the deck Microsoft describes how Windows 8 (referred in the deck as "Windows NEXT") will be the company's first OS to throw the user deep into the world of virtualization.

With a traditional OS, maintenance burden is on the user or their hired help. The company writes in the presentation, "[Customers today] see application compatibility issues, they see DLL hell, they see an inability to manage efficiently, they see high costs associated with maintenance and upgrades, they see a relatively short lifespan…..This cannot continue. Customers are increasingly refusing to let this continue."

Microsoft's answer is to deploy "native VHD" (virtual hard disk) capabilities with Windows 8 and change its sales model from OS as a service to "desktop as a service" (DaaS). The slides indicate that under Windows 8, user apps and data will be "treated as cached entities and synchronized with an appstore and 'user state store'".

The approach has definite advantages. Microsoft could remotely fight malware and fix compatibility issues as they occurred, rather than trying to update OS installations after trouble occurs. And if a user lost their laptop, they wouldn't lose access to their installed programs and data.

The company writes, "[T]he desktop should not be associated with the device. [T]he desktop can be thought of as a portal which surfaces the users apps, data, user state and authorization and access."

The new virtualization technology is founded on Microsoft's existing virtualization portfolio -- Virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI); application virtualization (App-V, MED-V, Remote Apps, Terminal Server); OS virtualization (Remote Desktop, Terminal Services, VDI); data virtualization (folder redirection and synch); hardware virtualization (Hyper-V); and various System Center management offerings.

This would be a huge change for Microsoft, and it would put the company's direction in line with Google's plans for its upcoming netbook/tablet Chrome operating system. But its also a huge risk as virtualization is something utterly unfamiliar to most customers.

As many are speculating, Microsoft may partially back off fully virtualizing all its commercial Windows 8 offerings. With a launch in "2012+" scheduled, beta builds are widely expected to come in 2011. These builds should reveal whether the ambitious DaaS redesign persisted. And if Microsoft indeed goes ahead with this concept, the reaction it gets from the beta may play a role in just how deep Microsoft jumps into the virtualization waters.

[ripken204]

ugh, wtf?
so is our data not being stored on the computer?
who the hell cares about laptop users who are stupid enough to lose their laptops.

[-Boris-]

I think there might be som security issues with that approach.

But another question, will this mean that hardware such as graphics cards can be run in virtual desktops natively?

[SpikeP]

A big issue for me as i read this is what about small application producers. If there not big companies, microsoft could stop them from developing all together. Just be one big monopoly.

Think of it like TV was before the internet. very narrow and you was controlled as to what info you would get, and how it was spun to the public. Internet brought along other means of communication, which is good.

Unless you have the option to go OS on hardware or virtual, i can't help but see this as a good move for large companies, good move for your average joe, and a terrible move for us that want full control over what we can do.

Paul

[HAVO]

they are going to fail HARD if they think the whole world have acces to internet..

and pay monthly to USE A FREAKING OPERATING SYSTEM !???!?!? WTH ?!?!?

this MIGHT work for some specific case.. but you cant expect to be a standar for everyone everywhere... PERIOD

[Bobsama]

This is already being done. It's called a thin client. They make both laptops and desktops, mostly for mass deployment, that rely upon external servers for everything except the basic OS (usually Windows Embedded).

[Peakr]

Unless you have the option to go OS on hardware or virtual, i can't help but see this as a good move for large companies, good move for your average joe, and a terrible move for us that want full control over what we can do.
Paul

Not to mention Big Brother telling us what we can and can't do. Think they won't? Think again. I foresee more user friendly gui's for linux.

[ripken204]

This is already being done. It's called a thin client. They make both laptops and desktops, mostly for mass deployment, that rely upon external servers for everything except the basic OS (usually Windows Embedded).

and if u have ever used a thin client it will make you want to cry.
the file access speeds are stupid.
if they dont have a version like there is now then windows is dead

[Manicdan]

this seems to be all about the business side of things
with networks in small companies easily having 1gbit/s, i somehow bet its possible to boot up faster by downloading instead of using your own weak hard drive.
at my job we have to do a backup every night, and god forbid theres a windows update. i could see my company jumping onto this since everything we work on is for the company and its own by them. the only issue i can see is when working at home (which i am doing right now). if i dont have a fast internet connection, it can suck waiting for windows to load, or larger apps.

at my school we have virtual desktops and its quite slow, but every machine had office10 the day it came out.

there are definitely pros and cons, and future network enhancements will eliminate some of those cons.

[BeepBeep2]

and if u have ever used a thin client it will make you want to cry.
the file access speeds are stupid.
if they dont have a version like there is now then windows is dead

I've used thin clients multiple times, I can't stand them. If I could, I'd set my school districts 1300 thin clients on fire then throw them one by one off a building.

this seems to be all about the business side of things
with networks in small companies easily having 1gbit/s, i somehow bet its possible to boot up faster by downloading instead of using your own weak hard drive.
at my job we have to do a backup every night, and god forbid theres a windows update. i could see my company jumping onto this since everything we work on is for the company and its own by them. the only issue i can see is when working at home (which i am doing right now). if i dont have a fast internet connection, it can suck waiting for windows to load, or larger apps.

at my school we have virtual desktops and its quite slow, but every machine had office10 the day it came out.

there are definitely pros and cons, and future network enhancements will eliminate some of those cons.

1GBit = ~120 MB/s...if you have only 10 machines on that same network downloading at the same time the most you are going to get from each one is 12 MB/s? My flash drives are faster than that.

[Bobsama]

and if u have ever used a thin client it will make you want to cry.
the file access speeds are stupid.
if they dont have a version like there is now then windows is dead

My experiences exactly. Everything was laggy on it and it took like 5 minutes to log-in.

I've used thin clients multiple times, I can't stand them. If I could, I'd set my school districts 1300 thin clients on fire then throw them one by one off a building.

They're just a bad idea in general.

[Nikolasz]

I think i goin to like new windows
I like it allready

[Manicdan]

1GBit = ~120 MB/s...if you have only 10 machines on that same network downloading at the same time the most you are going to get from each one is 12 MB/s? My flash drives are faster than that.

if you have a company of 10 people, your already spending half a million a year on paychecks, you can probably afford a nice switch to your network, and the only thing being slowed down is the router at each station. and the chances of 10 people booting up at the same time is very unlikely until your hitting a company size in the hundreds. however since this also being used for loading apps and whatnot, you probably want to have secured 20-50MB/s per person to ensure you dont have serious slowdowns.

[MrMojoZ]

I like how the people instantly assumed that the classic OS install would be completely banished if native OS virtualization became an option. Oh internet, will your deep hyperbole wells never be empty?

[Solus Corvus]

Not to mention Big Brother telling us what we can and can't do. Think they won't? Think again. I foresee more user friendly gui's for linux.

This would be a case of a corporation telling us what we can and can't do. Microsoft isn't a branch of the government. Big surprise, I know.

The government is never going to tell us that we have to run windows instead of linux. But Microsoft would bar people from using linux on the same machine in a heartbeat if they could. They have already tried by fiddling with the bootloader.

[Molotox]

1GBit = ~120 MB/s...if you have only 10 machines on that same network downloading at the same time the most you are going to get from each one is 12 MB/s? My flash drives are faster than that.

It's pretty easy to have multiple network cards teamed into one to secure >2Gbit/s. Any company willing to make the change would analyze it's bandwidth need and scale the server up accordingly. I recently built a cheap fileserver for home usage with dual lan teamed into a 2GBit connection. If I could do this, I'm pretty sure the trained server guys will.

[Psykocyber]

Where do you guys read it going to be cloud based? Yeah, some thing could be cloud based, but an OS that requires internet at all times? I don't belive it. Virtualized doesn't always mean cloud.

[Solus Corvus]

Where do you guys read it going to be cloud based? Yeah, some thing could be cloud based, but an OS that requires internet at all times? I don't belive it. Virtualized doesn't always mean cloud.

This is true. Virtulization means that your os/data can be in the cloud, not that it necessarily has to be.

[Calmatory]

they are going to fail HARD if they think the whole world have acces to internet..

and pay monthly to USE A FREAKING OPERATING SYSTEM !???!?!? WTH ?!?!?

this MIGHT work for some specific case.. but you cant expect to be a standar for everyone everywhere... PERIOD

"Pay to use" model isn't that bad. A dollar per week? Half a dollar per week? The only thing that matters is the pricing of the model.
Though, of course Microsoft strives for a solution where the customer would pay more for the product, and the customer base would get broader.

Cloud computing sucks!

[RejZoR]

Basically what they are trying to say is that they want to turn Windows 7 into a big massive Java Virtual Machine that runs on hardware directly. Not sure if this is a good idea...

[Solus Corvus]

Basically what they are trying to say is that they want to turn Windows 7 into a big massive Java Virtual Machine that runs on hardware directly. Not sure if this is a good idea...

This has nothing to do with java.

[Iconyu]

Oh wow, I wish I had bothered to read this thread earlier, now any snide comments I could drop would be redundant. Surely some of you realise how silly you sound, right?

[Mats]

Now I understand the earlier claim that W8 was aimed for business use.

But how do you do a Daas Boot (no pun) without internet? If you must have a regular OS as a backup on your laptop then the whole idea gets pretty pointless.

Unless the backup OS is an image of the latest online OS version used.. now that sounds more realistic.

this seems to be all about the business side of things
with networks in small companies easily having 1gbit/s, i somehow bet its possible to boot up faster by downloading instead of using your own weak hard drive.

You're right, if it wasn't for the SSD's getting cheaper every day.
A cheap, fast <32 GB SSD for the OS, the rest on server.

[ripken204]

Where do you guys read it going to be cloud based? Yeah, some thing could be cloud based, but an OS that requires internet at all times? I don't belive it. Virtualized doesn't always mean cloud.

that's why i cant believe this.
the paragraph that confuses the hell out of me is this:

The approach has definite advantages. Microsoft could remotely fight malware and fix compatibility issues as they occurred, rather than trying to update OS installations after trouble occurs. And if a user lost their laptop, they wouldn't lose access to their installed programs and data.

how could this not be cloud based yet you can magically get your data back
and i would assume there would be a limit of GB per account.
unless this is going to be like a more advanced Ubuntu One where you have a set amount of online space and you can choose which files/folders to sync

[PaganII]

WebTV reborne.
No thanks.