Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
f0dder:
It isn't rocket science and it is simple to provide backward compatibility through VM - they could even supply it preinstalled with VMs for common operating systems (Win98, Win XP and Win Vista would cover it).
--- End quote ---
Now that is a very nice way to deal with backwards compatibility. Brill Carol! :Thmbsup:
-40hz (November 12, 2008, 05:05 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm it's a bad way to do it, at least if you're considering the "classical" sence of a VM where you do CPU emulation (which is slowis, even with clever JIT'ing), and takes up a lot of harddrive space for the separate OS installs.
It would also signal defeat wrt. 3rd-party programmers who don't program according to specs, and I don't like that.
Besides, for most purposes, emulation (or rather, translation) layers like WoW64 work pretty well, and are a lot more efficient. For stuff it can't handle, like 32bit drivers, a VM approach wouldn't really help. There's not much hindering that a layer like WoW64 could be made an optional component, although it's unlikely to happen anytime soon; there's simply too much 32bit software around that hasn't been rewritten 64bit clean, including MS's own.
Anyway, the NT kernel can handle different subsystems for executable files, with of course win32 (which it's also called for 64bit apps :P) being the dominant. But there was (limited?) OS/2 support once, there's SFU offering a POSIX subsystem, and theoretically one could write his own. All end up depending on the NT Native API, but that's not really a problem.
Carol Haynes:
I was thinking of the VM being more like the current compatibility layer (only a version that actually works) for 32 bit software. During installation the 32-bit could be set and then load the compatibility layer automatically as required.
I am not sure I understand the current VM models well enough but AIUI stuff like VMWare doesn't actually emulate a CPU - it makes use of the CPU to execute code (which is why if you have a multiple core system you can choose which cores to use and leave alone - and even run different machines on separate cores). VMWare isn't slow - but it would be a hell of a lot faster (probably faster than most current machines) if it were coded for 64-bit and run on a version of Windows that doesn't carry all the baggage.
The question is how do you get people to migrate to 64 bit without the big stick approach? Visiting people's homes to fix problems I see all sorts of things (including lots of Windows 98/ME which are no longer supported) still out there. I don't usually like the heavy handed approach of Microsoft but there comes a point where something drastic is needed. I suspect that most larger companies have contracts with MS and so they will be supplied with new server software on a regular basis without further cost (and probably desktop operating systems).
The lack of take up of Vista can be put down to three major issues: software compatibility (this could be easily solved in all future versions of windows with good quality and transparent VM support), lack of any appreciable advantage to business of Vista and the terrible press and bug ridden release pre-SP1. If MS are to maintain any sort of market confidence Windows 7 (and server 2008R2) are going to have to address these issues big time and win customers back - I can't see them doing that if their operating systems continue to grow in hardware demands exponentially - Windows XP came on a CD and could be up and running in less than a couple of gigs of disk space and no huge hardware demands, Windows Vista came on a DVD can take up to 12Gb just to install and has made huge hardware demands (as far as businesses are concerned) - and for what business gain? Are business really going to make the leap because you can't use DX10 on Windows XP, or for the Aera interface in its current incarnation?
One method for reducing the OS overhead and actually getting bang for your buck with all this fantastic hardware that is coming out is to make the OS as unintrusive as possible. No one runs a machine for the OS - they run it for the apps and when a 64 multicore system with oodles of memory runs slower than the previous incarnation on 32bit tech, small hard disc and minimal memory something is wrong somewhere. The only way forward is to get Windows out of the users' faces and reduce the huge footprint and the obvious way to do that is to cut the chord with the past in a planned way. MacOSX did it and haven't suffered (and by the way left MacOS 9 support in the form of some sort of VM model). The key is being planned about it - Microsoft plan loads of stuff and then simply don't deliver - Vista is a case in point. We had years of hype about all the new and improved technologies (not least a new filing system) and almost none of them were delivered. They even promised ultimate addins for people who bought the ultimate version and none of it has happened. How is this helping the consumer experience?
My experience of moving XP onto a 64 bit dual core system is a bit of an improvement in speed (and that is good) but it hasn't given me anything else. My experience of Vista on the same hardware was a huge loss of speed and no particular advantage in any way.
Sorry started to rant ...
f0dder:
I was thinking of the VM being more like the current compatibility layer (only a version that actually works) for 32 bit software. During installation the 32-bit could be set and then load the compatibility layer automatically as required.-Carol Haynes (November 13, 2008, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
So more like "generic virtualizaion", and not a full-blown Virtual Machines, then?
I am not sure I understand the current VM models well enough but AIUI stuff like VMWare doesn't actually emulate a CPU - it makes use of the CPU to execute code-Carol Haynes (November 13, 2008, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, it tries to execute as much code "as-is", but certain things have to be fixed up and other things have to be completely emulated. It's sure faster than complete emulation like bochs, but still a good deal slower than the real thing.
VMWare isn't slow - but it would be a hell of a lot faster (probably faster than most current machines) if it were coded for 64-bit and run on a version of Windows that doesn't carry all the baggage.-Carol Haynes (November 13, 2008, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't see how that would make it faster, to be honest. You still get the CPU hit... Paravirtualization is an interesting (and faster) option, but requires that the guest OS is (re)written for it.
The lack of take up of Vista can be put down to three major issues: software compatibility (this could be easily solved in all future versions of windows with good quality and transparent VM support)-Carol Haynes (November 13, 2008, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
It's not easy to support all previous OS'es quirks - even vmware doesn't handle "ring0 without driver" hacks of win9x, which were used by a couple of software protection schemes. And a VM wouldn't really make things easier, just a lot heavier.
WoW64 actually works pretty well. The main issue is with drivers (including all the annoying software protection crap) and not with running 32bit software on 64bit windows. I daresay that it's a much bigger problem running applications without admin privileges under Vista... which is simply because of moronic developers who never tested their software under a limited user account. And apparently didn't read MS guidelines on software development either. And it's not really a Vista problem, per se... it's just too bad MS didn't make the default system account a reduced-privilege user much earlier, like at least Win2k.
The only way forward is to get Windows out of the users' faces and reduce the huge footprint and the obvious way to do that is to cut the chord with the past in a planned way.-Carol Haynes (November 13, 2008, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't see how cutting the past helps, in this regard. I haven't analyzed what all the files on a Vista install are for, but my guesstimate is that it's the "new stuff" that takes up most of the space. For instance, I was able to shave off 6 gigabytes from the x64 Vista Business installation by vLite'ing it, and removing new stuff that I wouldn't need.
40hz:
I don't usually like the heavy handed approach of Microsoft but there comes a point where something drastic is needed. I suspect that most larger companies have contracts with MS and so they will be supplied with new server software on a regular basis without further cost (and probably desktop operating systems).
-Carol Haynes (November 13, 2008, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
I must have missed that program up on the Microsoft Partner website. ;D
Every company I work with (including some Fortune 500 behemoths) pays for each and every copy of Windows they use regardless of whether it is the server or desktop version.
AFAIK Microsoft does not do "free" when it comes to their operating systems. And "site-licensing" has not proven popular due to the costs involved.
Minor point: IT does not generally welcome new versions of Windows. Most organizations are very reluctant to upgrade server and desktop software as long as their current version is working. So unless the newer version offers significant and measurable benefits, most businesses will only go to the new release when they buy new hardware that includes it. Buying a new computer is still the most cost-effective (as opposed to cheapest) way to buy a copy of Windows.
8)
CWuestefeld:
I must have missed that program up on the Microsoft Partner website. ;D
Every company I work with (including some Fortune 500 behemoths) pays for each and every copy of Windows they use regardless of whether it is the server or desktop version.
AFAIK Microsoft does not do "free" when it comes to their operating systems. And "site-licensing" has not proven popular due to the costs involved.
Minor point: IT does not generally welcome new versions of Windows. Most organizations are very reluctant to upgrade server and desktop software as long as their current version is working. So unless the newer version offers significant and measurable benefits, most businesses will only go to the new release when they buy new hardware that includes it. Buying a new computer is still the most cost-effective (as opposed to cheapest) way to buy a copy of Windows.
8)
-40hz (November 13, 2008, 06:42 AM)
--- End quote ---
My employer derives well over a billion dollars in revenue a year from such licenses. I could cite a list of household-name companies as long as my arm that are customers of ours, and satisfy their s/w needs (Microsoft, Adobe, McAfee, etc) with licenses like this. For medium-to-large companies, license agreements is the way to get your software. Actually, I can only think of one household-name-size company that does not do this.
(These aren't quite "site-licenses"; they don't mean "everyone regardless of how many"; there are price gradations that set ceilings on the number of deployed licenses. Typically a customer will self-audit annually and purchase additional true-up licenses at that time. But within the agreed-on range, there's little concern. So at the margin it behaves like a site license.)
Some sw manufacturers offer things akin to Microsoft's "Software Assurance" program, which gives you the right to ongoing upgrades of covered products over a time period (3 years for MS). So Carol is exactly right.
For large organizations, getting an OS upgrade via new hardware is decidedly not the most cost-effective approach. This is due to the costs of IT support. Generally speaking, large organizations want to minimize the variety of systems they must support. Having to maintain the skillset for multiple systems, needing to keep track of who has what, needing to get a meaningful answer from the user about (what version of Windows do you have? What about Office?) is a really significant cost.
This is true for hardware as well. You personally can get a computer much cheaper because you're only supporting yourself; we have many large customers who are willing to pay a premium to us to ensure that we'll be able to supply to them the exact same models over a full generation in their business (say, three years); we must stock a warehouse with these to ensure that if the manufacturer discontinues the model, we'll still have a sufficient stock to satisfy those customers.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version