Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th May 2009 18:01 UTC
Windows Windows XP Mode, the virtualisation tool currently in beta for Windows 7, only works on processors with virtualisation extensions, known as AMD-V and Intel VT-x. Microsoft made this clear from the get-go, but still various news websites regurgitated it as "news" yesterday that some Intel processors do not support XPM. Twenty-four hours down the road, and Intel had a few things to say about this.
Permalink for comment 362390
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
As I said...
by deathshadow on Fri 8th May 2009 02:23 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

... in the previous Windows 7 Thread, I'm just annoyed at it being overhyped when it is absolutely NOTHING NEW. It's just Virtual PC and a pre-built disk image... In which case legacy versions of Virtual PC didn't even need HT and were FASTER than this new version, so what gives?

I did FINALLY get the desktop integration to work, turns out for some reason the XP application directory for the start menu items was created as hidden... Once I opened the actual folder the links were there (bug report filed)

... and the implementation needs some real polish. Takes two or three times longer to start XP than it does under Sun Virtual Box, you cannot have the full screen VM running the same time as the virtual desktop meaning you have to close your XP applications that are desktop integrated to install a new one.

Did I mention how slow it is? We're talking agonizing starts, saving the state takes longer for a 256 meg VM than it does for VPC or VMWare to even boot a clean XP install.

One of the best features of Virtual PC is now gone - drag and drop between desktops... Making moving data between the two a pain in the ass of actual navigation of the piss slow networked drives they auto-mount. (It literally makes links to all the local hard drives in the guest OS with full access rights - WTF? So much for security)

It's also relatively useless for one of the biggest target audiences since much like previous incarnations of Microsofts Virtual PC, the tredosoft standalone versions of IE are non functional - Typically one upgrades to 7, then runs the tredosoft IE's for testing 5.5 and 6 (7 under XP does have some rendering differences from 8's IE7 'mode' and from 7 under vista)... The standalones crash outright for god knows what reason - just like many other legacy applications I tried... and it certainly had nothing to do with the version of XP since, well...

The only good thing I found from it was that if you copy the .vhd out of "/program files" and into /Users/username/.virtualBox/HardDisks, remove it's read only status, you can use it under Sun Virtual Box so you have a USEFUL 'seamless' mode. Just boot up, cancel when it bitches about unknown hardware, configure XP as normal. Anyone who needs access to XP applications in Windows 7 that's my advice - download the virtualWindowsXP.msi, run "msiexec /a virtualWindowsXP.msi TARGETDIR=C:\temp /qb", then take the VHD file and run it with Sun Virtal Box instead. No crashes using the tredosoft standalones either.

Of course that VHD file could be a hackers dream. Just make a program that writes the VHD out as a partition, resize the partition, throw in a MBR on the drive and boom - free pirate XP with a key they are unlikely to invalidate.

It's really sad how with each new version of Virtual PC we have functionality DOWNGRADES from previous incarnations... I'd still rather run the old Connectix 5.2 than the current VPC - it's actually FASTER and it's not like the hardware support is any different... Not that we have to anymore since Sun VirtualBox is free, as robust as any of the VM's, fast, has 3d accelleration you can turn on by clicking one checkbox - It's like a parallels fusion that works on all major platforms (lin/win/osx/solaris). (Speaking of companies that have let the windows version of their products rot on the vine - when did Parallels last update thier windows version, four years ago give or take?)

Edited 2009-05-08 02:39 UTC

Reply Score: 4