ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Windows Vienna: hypervisor being considered

Time: 00:15 EST/05:15 GMT | News Source: Ars Technica | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum

Ben Fathi, VP of Development in Microsoft's Windows Core Operating System Division, says that the next version of Windows (which may or may not be codenamed "Vienna") is coming at the close of 2009. Fathi's comments came at last week's RSA Conference in San Francisco, but the real story isn't the shipping target that the mainstream newswires are fixating on. We all know that those dates are meaningless.

Instead, Fathi's hint at what Microsoft has planned for the future is far more juicy. "We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is," Fathi said according to InfoWorld. "Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers."

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 307
Last | Next

The time now is 11:07:40 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 2/13/2007 8:16:56 AM

Operating Systems for $100 Alex.

Alex: It went down in history as one of the most bone-headed moves ever made by a software company...

BuzzzT

Player: Alex, what is "Microsoft, announcing a new Operating System being available in just 2 years, while at the same time trying to get people to shell out huge bucks for their just released version".

Alex: Correct! Choose, please.

#2 By 71315 (71.207.97.204) at 2/13/2007 8:42:27 AM

Alex, I'll take "How to Kill a Software Company" for $400.

Alex: "We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is," Fathi said according to InfoWorld. "Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers."

Ken Jennings: What is the most useless PR comment ever uttered by a clueless employee?

Alex: That's right! You win again, Ken. Mr. Gates, Mr. Ballmer; we have some nice parting gifts for you.

#3 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 2/13/2007 8:52:33 AM

TL,

Oh yes, because 2 years is such a short period of time. Apple does the same exact thing.

#4 By 2459 (69.22.113.215) at 2/13/2007 9:35:40 AM

And it's not like this is the first time they've mentioned an approximately 2-year release cycle.
They've talked about their planned release schedule over a year ago (most likely at the last PDC and/or WinHEC conferences -- can't remember where I saw the slide). In short, Vista, like Windows Server 2003 has, will receive an R2 release about 2 years later, and a major release (Windows NT 7.0) about 2 years after R2. Virtualization plans have likewise been published, though mostly referencing Windows Server. The main questions here are whether they have canned R2 in favor of pushing up the major release (unlikely) and what the codenames are for the coming releases.

#5 By 2201 (212.117.228.133) at 2/13/2007 10:03:18 AM

Are people here complaining that there'll be a new OS in 2-3 years? Are these people completely forgetting that every consumer version of Windows since 95 (bar Vista) has had a 2-3 approx spacing in between each other?

Doh!

Move along here... nothing notable...

#6 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 2/13/2007 10:26:46 AM

#3,

I wouldn't know. I haven't bought an Apple OS in 7 years. And Apple's OS is considerably cheaper. $129 full version.

#7 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at 2/13/2007 10:35:22 AM

#8 By 3746 (72.12.166.62) at 2/13/2007 10:40:30 AM

It takes 5-6 years to get and OS out and people whine. They say they are going to a 2 year release cycle and you still complain.

People buy and OS because they need it. They are not going to sit there and go "uhh well a new one is coming out in 2 years so I will wait". It would be the same mentality in buying a car - they come out with new models all the time. Some people wait. Most buy because they have a need and can't wait.

On top of that nothing is forcing you to upgrade. If you are running XP you will get full support until 2009. If they go to shorter release times that's what most people will do. Business for sure will skip releases. I don't think there are many people buy each version of OS X - if they are then they are shelling big money for very minor upgrades.

#9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/13/2007 11:29:42 AM

#8 is right - besides, this can be bad for a lot of people - developers, integrators, and certainly those that support small business - given that it results in many versions of an OS being in disty at any one time and the diversity that has to be supported, which as it stands is now [in practical terms], W2K through to Vista.

So it would seem we are to return to normal 2 - 3 year release cycles - ok, fine, but don't think that is some kind of panacea, it will come with its own headaches. XP SP2 was pure magic - not just for what it was and what it did - but as much for what it was not, and did not do... e.g., it was a service pack and as such it was much easier to roll out and did not have to rise to the level of testing that companies have to run in order to deploy a full OS release. Regardless, it was a massive pack and brought XP forward and in alignment with how threats had evolved.

All that said, none of us can, or should forget that the sea change that took place in 2004 was based mostly on how Microsoft develops OSes and software - the full impact of that has not even been explored, much less realized - as an example, Windows Update is no ho hum, yeah we have it and seen it feature - it is a new application and baked into Vista. The delivery of even major updates is possible in ways that were not previously possible and part of a much larger development methodology. So a lot of the rules, perspectives and practices of the past have been more than just modified, they have been changed entirely and a new age really has arrived. I mean, look at Windows Vista Ultimate Extras and how they ship - you think for a moment that it is just about "features" - no way... it is much more about changing how software is shipped and supported - it is as much a mule as anything else and very different from hitting a link, downloading and installing a package - it is a process integrated into the operating system and the system of systems that allow admins to manage it - be that admin a home power user, or a person like many of us.

I wrote here many times about complete virtualization of the namespace and examples of what it meant - how IE, for example would evolve as one entry point and how the desktop itself would be not one place, but many places and many entry points into singular experiences and experiences based upon the results of analysis - where "product" would be accessed - product being "finalized" information and intelligence of all types. Vista, or more to the point, the tools that were used to build that, is the beginning of that - the basis for it - where we are fools to think that we are Microsoft's biggest potential customer buying Vista - we're not... Microsoft and all developers were and are the intended target market for Vista.
... think of using every resource at once in your home, or office network.... think of a space that delivers information as visual products you can use to make more effective decisions - that will be your new desktop and it will happen so much faster than about anyone may imagine.

#10 By 2459 (69.22.113.215) at 2/13/2007 12:41:12 PM

I think Mr. Fathi is being a bit too optimistic. The Company, while the largest software company does not have the human developer resources to meet that schedule I believe. If you look at the past, Longhorn (Vista) was originally planned for release in 2003. Then it was pushed out to 2004, but because of security issues that plagued existing released products such as Windows XP, they "had to" take developers off the Longhorn Project to help develop SP2 for XP.

There are many reasons why they are not likely to fall into similar circumstances in the future.

During that period, Microsoft also stopped all development for months while their developers received additional security training, reviewed code, and implemented the SDL. This isn't likely to happen again.

The Windows architecture was mapped into layers to make component integration easier, the overall impact more predictable, and potential problems more visible, leading to greater flexibility in adding/removing components during development.

There were many changes to fundamental platform components that Microsoft tried to build on top of while those components were still in constant flux (.NET 2.0/3.0, but also others). This slowed development, and was remidied by only taking those dependencies where absolutely necessary.

Feedback on and standardization of several technologies also slowed development. This will likely factor into their schedule in the future, but will vary depending on the size/scope of the technology.

During that time MS released several updates for MCE and Tablet editions of Windows, as well as new Server, application, and tools releases.

Current products benefit from the improved development methodologies and new tools that came before, and since the security review. The codebase for several products is shared. And for future development, MS has a solid, stable foundation on which to build instead of one that was constantly shifting beneath them.

#11 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 2/13/2007 11:43:28 PM

Fantasy time: I wonder if Windows can evolve fast enough to keep up with specialized multicore processors being developed, such as Intel's 80-core CPU, some of which will be more than specialized function CPUs. Will the cart still lead the horse in a few years, or will a company like (your favorite chip maker's name here) develop a processor that goes beyond hypervisor capabilities and has an embedded efficient database OS that can run Windows on it, or anything else or run programs directly? MS has missed past paradigm shifts, while creating others. Another one is due some day in the forseeable future and Windows, as bloated as it likely will be might be at that time, might become unwanted. A CPU with an embedded lean database OS (original PICK always comes to mind as a starting point) could make MS scramble.

#12 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 2/14/2007 8:01:30 AM

IK,

Exactly what I was saying in one of today's threads.

Dammit, we need to STABILIZE things where we are. Especially in the corporate market.

The deployment/training costs for Vista and Office 2007 are going to be tremendous.

I honestly think things need to just settle down for 4 or 5 years so everyone can catch their breath.

The current driver/application issues with Vista are a good indication of why we need this.

If it isn't allowed to happen, Vista will go down as the modern-day equivelent of WindowsME. There are a lot of comparisons to be made.

TL

#13 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 2/14/2007 8:02:15 AM

BTW.... Just got the dreaded 'login' page again and I did NOT leave this browser window.

Luckly, I had done a copy/paste of my post, which I do for anything over a few lines now.

TL

#14 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/14/2007 12:38:43 PM

#11, Perhaps the most challenging part will be development for heterogeneous multi-core architectures. Few enough applications leverage homogeneous designs. One thing related to this worries me most - namely, a "good, is good enough..." mentality.

It is and has been true, that modern processors have not been fully loaded, or efficiently loaded - much less balanced. Vista and its environment are a great start - background I/O processing API's come to mind, as one example. OOPs is tough enough, as many of us know, it's going to get wild and very difficult to manage when we're writing for a heterogeneous architecture - new tools will need to be evolved and a great deal of training will have to run parallel to that - beginning with how developers approach the entire process. There are already huge chasms between what managers know and what developers do and it may get worse. Windows, to its credit, has been so forgiving and has accommodated so many different development techniques - that may have to tighten - a lot, or be compensated for.

For those that are interested, there is some material here, http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~pact2006/program/pact2006/pact056-kumar.pdf for building heterogeneous applications - one may begin to understand what AMD/ATI and Intel and to some extent, Nvidia, are trying to do.

One may begin to consider how complex this will be - but back to my fear... hoping that people will embrace the idea of moving away from uniprocessor thinking as applied to homogeneous multi-core processors and really get into how heterogeneous processors may be leveraged - small steps at first - I/O, Video, etc... each in independent and appropriate cores specifically optimized for such tasks - thermal efficiency alone, is enough of a reason to embrace this.... considering just how dreadful present thermal loss is in VPU/GPU designs... I mean... imagine how loudly we'd howl if an Intel Core CPU were so inefficient?

This post was edited by lketchum on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 12:39.

#15 By 4240821 (213.139.195.162) at 10/27/2023 3:13:10 AM