Windows 7 to add native support for Virtual Hard Disks


Recommended Posts

Source

Out of what little we know of the next version of Windows, this feature might just be the most interesting yet. A team at Microsoft is hiring developers to work on adding native support in Windows 7 for Virtual Hard Disks (VHD) - Microsoft?s semi-proprietary specification for single-file virtual machine hard disks. Their job posting reads,

Do you want to join the team that is bringing virtualization into the mainstream? In Windows 7, our team will be responsible for creating, mounting, performing I/O on, and dismounting VHDs (virtual hard disks) natively. Imagine being able to mount a VHD on any Windows machine, do some offline servicing and then boot from that same VHD. Or perhaps, taking an existing VHD you currently use within Virtual Server and boost performance by booting natively from it.

Do you want to have the opportunity to work on a great Core OS team at the heart of Windows? If you have big ideas and want to implement them, if you love writing code, if you love delving into operating system internals, if you want to work on high visibility projects with direct consumer and customer impact and still work in a very technical environment, then you will feel right at home in this team.

Virtualization technology has been a great success with Virtual Server and Hyper-V. With native OS support on the horizon it will become an even greater hit. Our team is making this a reality in Windows 7. Consider the simplicity of backup using a VHD, or the portability of a virtual disk backed by a single file. These are a few reasons why this technology is poised to be one of the greatest features in Windows 7?come help us achieve this goal.

Whilst ?one of the great features in Windows 7″ might be a bit much, this is right up there with the new multi-line Calculator. No seriously, this has rather interesting implications for IT administrators and even home users.

For example, having an VHD dedicated to gaming with optimized system configurations is entirely feasible then. A dynamic VHD would mean it would only take up as much room as it needs, you could move the file on many system and have the same experience, but best of all, you can still enjoy the maximum native performance at the same time being able to load it as a virtual machine to maintain and configure without rebooting.

Considering how much we don?t know about Windows 7, this is extremely promising.

Update: A few people I?ve talked to have expressed their concern this may not make it to RTM and I think it?s a valid point at any time feature may be cut so I?ll just add that note for everyone else.

Sounds good?

This will be a welcomed feature, especially for those IT peeps (like me) who use virtual environments a lot. Hopefully Microsoft will learn from their past mistakes and put some type of hooks in the OS so other companies can easily implement support for their own Virtual HDD (i.e. VMware).

would be nice

it would also be nice to have built in support for mounting images (isos etc)

indeed. it seems ridiculous these days to still have to install a 3rd party app to do this. It would be like windows not recognizing a .rar format natively. :rolleyes:

indeed. it seems ridiculous these days to still have to install a 3rd party app to do this. It would be like windows not recognizing a .rar format natively. :rolleyes:

They have a tool for mounting ISOs (Of course thy have it! Microsoft releases lots of ISOs). And for making virtual desktops. It's juat that people don't know about it.

Quick, lets build the list of "official" features that are supposed to be in Win7. Later, we will be able to know what Microsoft decided to drop from the next release....

Remember the Longhorn/Vista hype?

This is exactly why MS aren't releasing info on Win7's features.

id love that as well, but then they might get more "monopoly" complaints.

They shouldnt, OS X has this feature and If Im not wrong Linux too.

Just a basic image mounting will do, the rest of the companies can make more advanced solutions.

They shouldnt, OS X has this feature and If Im not wrong Linux too.

Just a basic image mounting will do, the rest of the companies can make more advanced solutions.

both of those examples also do lots of others things MS have been and would be sued for anti competitive practices for.

when you have the most dominant OS, fair treatment isn't in the vocabulary.

Virtualization is the future!

No it's not - I've talked to my IT department at work and according to them there's no such thing as Virtualization! So there!!! :rolleyes:

PS - Yes I am slightly worried that they earn significantly more than me! :laugh:

both of those examples also do lots of others things MS have been and would be sued for anti competitive practices for.

when you have the most dominant OS, fair treatment isn't in the vocabulary.

I don't mind if people whine about Microsoft getting dinged for "anti-competitive" or "monopolistic" practices. But it doesn't make sense to bring Linux into it. In Linux everything is optional, including the whole GUI. Everything outside the kernel is 3rd party. There is only choice and no monopoly.

So, when people point to Linux and say, things like "but they have that ability, why aren't they getting sued for anti-trust" or some such nonsense, I just want to jump in and make that little clarification.

I don't mind if people whine about Microsoft getting dinged for "anti-competitive" or "monopolistic" practices. But it doesn't make sense to bring Linux into it. In Linux everything is optional, including the whole GUI. Everything outside the kernel is 3rd party. There is only choice and no monopoly.

So, when people point to Linux and say, things like "but they have that ability, why aren't they getting sued for anti-trust" or some such nonsense, I just want to jump in and make that little clarification.

I think they're referring to a commercially available boxed Linux distribution. Or at least a packaged distribution like Ubuntu.

Sure, Ubuntu lets you install whatever browser you want. But so does Windows. What these guys seem to be talking about is the default provided when a normal user installs the packaged product.

The VHD disk driver is already available since god knows when. I think it came with Virtual Server 2005 SP1, which carried it as standalone install package. So it's not like you couldn't already mount them as it is.

And booting from VHDs? What's the point? Windows ****s all over itself if main components like mainboard chipset or CPU change (the emulated environment in a VM is a different one than your real one). Not to mention the funky performance loss on disk IO due to NTFS -> VHD -> NTFS, especially with Windows' ****ty IO scheduler.

I think they're referring to a commercially available boxed Linux distribution. Or at least a packaged distribution like Ubuntu.

Sure, Ubuntu lets you install whatever browser you want. But so does Windows. What these guys seem to be talking about is the default provided when a normal user installs the packaged product.

It's much more than that, Brandon.

Ubuntu comes with both Firefox (because it is popular) and Epiphany (because it is a Gnome thing) browsers. Neither are forced to be installed. Neither are made by Ubuntu or by the "Linux" kernel team. Both can be completely removed and replaced with whatever the user wants.

And this extends to more than just web browsers. Every facet, outside the kernel, are separate and replaceable. One can even suggest that you may choose a plain Vanilla kernel, or an alternative. Or if you like KDE, but hate the Linux kernel, use a BSD kernel and run KDE on that.

Attempting to trivialize that point, and make it look like Windows and Linux have similar modularity and customizability, all outside the central true "Linux" developers is disingenuous. It is Microsoft's own past actions (particularly pre-XP) that got them in the legal situation they are in now.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!