Taking Stock: Microsoft's Virtual Power Play
Now that Microsoft Corp.'s Hyper-V technology is available
(and a standalone Hyper-V Server is said to be imminent), it might be a good
time to take stock of Redmond's virtualization portfolio.
Just how favorably does Hyper-V compare to established products from VMware
Inc., Virtual Iron Inc. and Citrix Systems Inc., to name a few? How serious
is Microsoft about competing in the virtual space?
Both are complicated questions. When it comes to virtualization, Microsoft
isn't exactly viewed as a thought leader. There's an inescapable sense, after
all, in which virtualization -- because it abstracts both operating system and
application assets -- actually displaces the OS. Given Redmond's OS-centric
business model, a disruption of this kind seems like a clear conflict.
That might account for Microsoft's protracted hedging of its bets with respect
to virtualization: It was against it, in other words, before it was for it;
it accommodated it, but it also wanted to pigeonhole it -- as anterior to the
OS itself. By making several virtualization-specific acquisitions, Microsoft
spent a sizeable amount of money precisely to pigeonhole it.
Late last year, Redmond bit the proverbial bullet, announcing
an upcoming hypervisor offering (the eventual Hyper-V) that -- to a surprising
degree -- looked a lot like everyone else's.
Redmond had plenty to be afraid of. Virtualization technologies are disruptive
because they're more fundamental than the OS. In the virtual space, the OS --
the former bedrock of one's application assets -- becomes just another asset
Microsoft, not surprisingly, initially viewed this as a threat to the dominance
of its Windows brand. For the better part of 48 months, it struggled to embrace
-- and co-opt -- virtualization on its own, Windows-friendly terms. Even though
competitors VMware, Virtual Iron and Citrix were selling hypervisors that functioned
independently of any specific operating environment, Microsoft seemed determined
to push an operating system (i.e., Windows Server 2008) that is the hypervisor.
That didn't work out so well, so Redmond adjusted course last November, and
announced a standalone hypervisor -- its Hyper-V Server (derived from Hyper-V,
the official brand for the former Viridian technology) -- that would allow customers
to virtualize heterogeneous workloads onto a single server.
In this regard, experts said, Hyper-V isn't all that different from VMware's
ESX Server or any of a dozen other prominent hypervisors.
"Microsoft's decision to offer a hypervisor that's not part of the operating
system [is] striking, given that they have been the most vocal proponents of
the 'virtualization-as-a-feature-of-the-OS' point of view," said industry
veteran Gordon Haff, a senior IT advisor with consultancy Illuminata, at the
Since then, Haff has had a lot of time to think about Microsoft's virtualization
strategy. An idea can do a lot of gestating in nine months, and Haff -- who
was initially high on Redmond's Hyper-V about-face -- sounds even more optimistic
(and more pragmatic, too) these days.
That's in spite of the fact, Haff insisted, that Microsoft can't really compete
with the big players, at least when it comes to features, performance and technology.
Redmond's edge, he stressed, is the ubiquity of its Windows brand.
"If it were some arbitrary company, Microsoft's virtualization product
portfolio wouldn't be mature and broad enough to deserve discussion in the same
vein as Citrix and VMware," Haff said. "Microsoft has clearly been
playing catch-up, especially in the hot area of server virtualization."
For a long time, according to Haff, Microsoft was content to trade blows with
VMware, mainly to check that company's success and to blunt the potentially
disruptive impact of virtualization itself. This meant accommodating virtualization
on Microsoft's own terms, or -- in a now-familiar feat of triangulation -- "embracing
and extending" that technology.
Redmond's acquisition of the former Connectix (with its still-gestating Virtual
Server product) was an exercise in kind, according to Haff.
"[Virtual Server] gave Microsoft customers a server virtualization option
that didn't involve heading over to VMware and thereby kept them more fully
in Microsoft's fold. If Virtual Server wasn't up to the full virtual infrastructure
play that VMware was increasingly running, it was sufficient for the basic slicing/dicing
or test/dev provisioning that still represented how a lot of folks were using
virtualization in practice," Haff said.
Virtual Server was far from a wash-out, he maintained. "If it ended up
being largely a bridge for Microsoft customers while they waited for Microsoft
to add integrated, native virtualization -- well, bridges can be awfully useful,"
It isn't as if Microsoft is playing catch-up with VMware and other competitors
in vain. Haff cited Redmond's bleeding-edge take on application virtualization,
which (admittedly) plays to its client-side strengths.
Application Virtualization -- called App-V -- is the fruit of Microsoft's 2006
acquisition of Boston-based Softricity (developer of Softgrid), so it has demonstrable
best-of-breed roots. It also does away with one of the most onerous (and increasingly
bloated) requirements of the Windows desktop model: the need for locally installed
"Applications are packaged and stored on a server, then 'streamed' down
to the client system when requested. The application executes on the client
using local hardware resources in the usual manner, but without the need to
actually install it. Application virtualization isn't unique to Microsoft, but
Microsoft's technology here is quite sophisticated," Haff said.
App-V, as implemented by Microsoft, is a Big Idea, inasmuch as it brings improved
manageability, reliability and (putatively, at least) scalability to Windows
applications. "This type of application virtualization also introduces
the idea of application containers. These bundle together an application's files,
along with other components, such as shared libraries and custom configuration
settings, which are needed to run the application properly," Haff said.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, of course. "In addition to providing
a management structure to keep all the necessary parts together, application
containers also deal with some of the conflicts that can keep two applications
-- or two versions of the same application -- from co-existing on a single system,"
he said. "A common problem is that applications require different versions
of the same library [e.g., a Windows DLL file]. Containers encapsulate and isolate
those libraries and applications in a way that lets them co-exist on a single
Softricity wasn't Microsoft's only App-V-related acquisition. As Haff noted,
Redmond is still incorporating technology from related acquisitions, such as
the former Kidaro and Calista.
Far From Virtual Authenticity
In light of its about-face with Hyper-V and its arguable innovation with App-V,
Haff thinks Microsoft is dead-serious about virtualization. What's striking,
he argues, is that Redmond now conceives of virtualization as a technology that
can help it sell more Windows licenses, not fewer.
"Microsoft has largely gotten past these concerns or, at any rate, decided
that they're manageable in a world that's heading pell-mell toward virtualization
with or without it," he said. "Part of this was getting license plans
in place that include the licensing of Windows guests as part of premium versions
of Windows Server. In other words, Microsoft has discovered that virtualization
makes a nice carrot to upsell Windows licenses."
Haff added, "As for virtual appliances, they're still used mostly for
demo software; Microsoft is pushing application virtualization as an alternative
to simplify software installation without forcing 'one size fits many' choices
as the appliance model tends to."
So what kind of force will Microsoft amount to in an already teeming virtual
space? A potent -- if not quite dominant -- one, according to Haff.
"If a company is largely a Windows shop today, and isn't looking to implement
a particularly complicated virtualized infrastructure, Microsoft's products
are probably the most natural, lowest-cost, best-integrated, easiest to acquire
and install path to server virtualization," Haff said.
On the downside, Microsoft's VM management tooling won't ship until later this
year, and other VM management scenarios such as "live migration" (i.e.,
the shifting of a running VM from one system to another) aren't yet as straightforward
in Hyper-V as they are in VMware or Xen.
"Microsoft has said that adding such 'live migration' is a development
priority," Haff said. "Also on deck are performance enhancements --
such as taking further advantage of on-chip virtualization accelerators -- and
making VM memory use more dynamic."
Does this mean that Hyper-V is a laggard -- at least, compared to its established
competitors? Not necessarily, Haff said: "It's not that Hyper-V is unusually
incapable, but it's a first pass and its features, level of tuning, and consequent
adoption rate will all reflect that."
What's most surprising, Haff said, is that virtualization -- far from harming
Microsoft's bottom line -- seems to have boosted it. "For all the fuss
that Microsoft has made about getting Hyper-V into play, this has never been
as important as Microsoft thought it was. The reality is that Microsoft has
sold lots of licenses -- operating system, application and middleware -- in
and around VMware virtualization," he said.
"The bulk of VMware's business is in and around those same products. For
all the animosity between the two companies, I see them as more complementary