Where Microsoft is heading with Virtualization

Mike Neil just posted a very good summary of our Virtualization strategy. Mike Neil is General Manager Virtualization Strategy at Microsoft. He's responsible for planning, development and strategy of our Virtualization technology.

In his recent post Mike talks about

  • Product Strategy
  • SoftGrid
  • KVM
  • Novell
  • XenSource
  • Licensing

Mike concludes with "Does this mean everything will be virtualized in 5 years? Not likely due to continuing innovation at the hardware and software level, and the fact that no solution applies to everyone. That said, virtualization will become the default setting in the operating system – whether that’s Windows or other OSes in the market."

Comments (4)

  1. I know the title is a bit weird, but it sounds better tan the boring "Microsoft Virtualization Roadmap".

  2. tony roth says:

    ok here’s my issue with virtualization, why do it?  My first impressions was dang I can have 2+ instances of unstable os/app and if one tanks it does not take down the good os/app. I can also drive the utilization towards 75%+ which should be a good thing.

     But I started to think about the 100’s of servers that we have and I started to think about the failure modes that I’ve seen in the last year and guess what? Your os has gotten much more realiable (thank you ms) so most of the failures seem to be once again hardware related (and this is even on high end dell and ibm hardware)

    Don’t ask for specifics on hardware issues (mostly raid controller prob’s) But if you have this type of failure the host os goes down and so do the hosted os/app’s.

    so now the question is how do I get the cpu ute above 75%? well I’m just starting to stack more apps on a given server since both os and app’s have become more reliable, hmm solves that problem.

    I like the concept of softgrid and I’m currently working the trial version but I’m having a hard time getting my head around the advantages of using vserver.

    my .0000000002 cent worth

  3. Jack Bond says:

    The ability to move a virtual server from one physical server to another in a matter of minutes is one of my favorite features. Team Foundation Server is just about the most complex product I’ve ever had to setup. Tying TFS to a physical server, as opposed to a virtual one, will ultimately require a server rebuild when it comes time for a system upgrade. Not so for a virtual TFS server. Stop the virtual machine, copy, paste, grab cup of coffee, start virtual machine, and my upgrade is complete.

  4. tony roth says:


    Yes I thought that would be an obvious answer, and it is a good one! In my environment applications like tfs (which we don’t use), I have migration paths that allows me to copy configs from one server to another with little more then a quick restore from an iscsi backend (the apps do not exist in c:program files) and quick import of application settings, yes the vm way is faster and can be more reliable but I’ve not experienced problems with my methodology.

Skip to main content