XP Mode: AMD-V & Intel VT no longer needed

Gigabyte / 965p-ds3
March 19, 2010 at 20:22:56
Specs: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate, 1.809 GHz / 1534 MB
"Microsoft made a slew of virtualization announcements today, affecting both current and future products. Arguably the most important tidbit is that the company has removed the virtualization layer's hardware requirements for the XP Mode available in Windows 7. Those already running XP Mode don't need to bother updating since they already have it working, but users who were unsure of their PC hardware can grab the update and try out XP Mode on Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Enterprise, or Windows 7 Ultimate. The update is available for Windows 7 32-bit (3.7MB) and Windows 7 64-bit (4.1MB)."

There's More...

The above has kept me from being able to try this out on my end & I'm glad to see M$ do away with the VM hardware requirement.

Windows 7 News!


See More: XP Mode: AMD-V & Intel VT no longer needed

Report •

#1
March 21, 2010 at 15:33:31
You did have alternate free versions to try that were maybe just as good or better than MS's product. Only thing with the MS deal is it basically gives you a free copy of xp. That being what I suspect you found to be an advantage over all others.

That whole deal was meant for technical users and not home users. Company and corporate system admins should have been smart enough to figure out what was supported I'd think.

They did it to prevent slow VM performance from unsupported systems. They tried to make their product look it's best. Same as a car dealer washing cars.

I do notice the speed difference between supported systems. Fully supported VT systems tend to run at native speeds.

Playing to the angels
Les Paul (1915-2009)


Report •

#2
March 21, 2010 at 19:47:22
"You did have alternate free versions to try that were maybe just as good or better than MS's product. Only thing with the MS deal is it basically gives you a free copy of xp. Thant being what I suspect you found to be an advantage over all others."

You missed the whole point to the post: It wasn't so much about alternatives to Virtual PC, but, being able to run XP Mode (XPM) in Windows 7 without necessarily having to go out & buy a new CPU just to do that.

Sure, I could have installed VMWare or VirtualBox -- At the present time, I actually have VirtualBox installed on the Windows 7 machine. I also tried, but, ditched VMWare because it just didn't quite work for me. While you are right about the benefit of being able to run XP without needing to purchase a separate license; that didn't matter to me. I have at least a dozen legally acquired XP licenses at my disposal. The main advantage, to me, was the optimized desktop solution to the "old" technology. I like that installed apps on the client OS can be launched directly from their published shortcut on the host OS' desktop. Other features like clipboard sharing, folder integration & so on are added bonuses to XPM.

"That whole deal was meant for technical users and not home users. Company and corporate system admins should have been smart enough to figure out what was supported I'd think."

Depending on your definition of a technical user, there are more than a few home users out there that are equally technical users. And the part about users knowing what was supported prior is largely irrelevant, since many machines affected by the hardware virtualization requirement pre-dates Windows 7 & in most cases even Vista; which was the case on my end as well.

"They did it to prevent slow VM performance from unsupported systems. They tried to make their product look it's best. Same as a car dealer washing cars."

That again is not quite the case. There are several pretty fast C2D & C2Q processors that didn't meet the implicit hardware virtualization requirement from M$.

Windows 7 News!


Report •

#3
March 22, 2010 at 15:04:51
I remember when I paid over $100 for VirtualPC 2004 so you can imagine how upset I was when they started to give it away. Worse yet was it was published that it would only work on Pro and later found out any home xp could run it. I liked it back then even on Pentium 2's and K5's.

Shame you didn't like VMplayer. I an quite fond of the latest version 3.0.1.

AMD has supported VM's for years. Don't know why Intel seems to be hit and miss. Some people are kind of stunned that their cpu is not capable of full VM support.

That was kind of a neat trick to launch a vm app from a link but you are paying a price since the vm has to be up before you get the desktop I think. Might be wrong on that.

Qemu can do a similar trick that makes the vm appear to be a program, think they call it windows less or something like that.

Playing to the angels
Les Paul (1915-2009)


Report •
Related Solutions


Ask Question