Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Apr 2009 23:44 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Windows It's something lots of people here on OSNews have been waiting for. It's something we've talked about, something we've theorised about, and something we've declared as the future for Windows' backwards compatibility - and now it's here, and official. Over a month ago, Microsoft bloggers Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrott have been briefed by Microsoft on a technology for Windows 7 called Windows XP Mode. Available as a free download for Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate users, it's a fully integrated and licensed copy of Windows XP SP3 in a VirtualPC-based environment, with full "coherence" support. In other words, it's Microsoft's variant of Apple's Classic environment, and it's coming to Windows 7, for free. Near-instant update: The Windows 7 RC will indeed be available publicly on May 5. TechNet/MSDN will get it April 30.
Thread beginning with comment 360509
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Hummmm.
by Windows Sucks on Sat 25th Apr 2009 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Hummmm. "
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

"Sounds good IF you have the hardware for it as always.

Meaning you have to have a VT processor in your PC. If you dont you can't take advantage of it.

As always, something cool from MS that is just not quite there. :-( Too bad so sad for most.


If you read the fabulously friendly article it states:

However, XPM is not Hyper-V for the client.


So you can run it on hardware that doesn't have hypervisor - it might not run as fast but it'll work. With that being said, most hardware in the last 3 or so years have some form of hypervisor included.

I wish they would scrap all compatibility (shims and other stuff) in favour of having XPM - where compatibility is provided by the actual operating system it was intended to run on rather than trying to provide a compatibility layer.
"

Well if you read outside of the fabulously friendly "Lacking in details" article then you see:

"XPM is built on the next generation Microsoft Virtual PC 7 product line, which requires processor-based virtualization support (Intel and AMD) to be present and enabled on the underlying PC, much like Hyper-V, Microsoft’s server-side virtualization platform. However, XPM is not Hyper-V for the client. It is instead a host-based virtualization solution like Virtual PC; the hardware assistance requirement suggests this will be the logical conclusion of this product line from a technological standpoint. That is, we fully expect future client versions of Windows to include a Hyper-V-based hypervisor."

That covers most (But not all)

* Intel® Core™2 Quad Processors
* Intel® Core™2 Duo Processors
* Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processors
* Intel® Pentium® D Processors
* Intel® Pentium® Processors Extreme Edition
* New Intel® Pentium® 4 Processors

But that leaves out almost all Mobile M processors, almost all Celeron and Atom processors etc. Basically almost everything on the low end.

Speaking of which XPM will also only be available for Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate. But Home users are left out.

So as always they have to find a way to get you to spend more. I understand that they are in the business to make money but at the same time they don't have to nickel and dime people.

Edit:

MS is going to have a hard way to get from under the shadow of XP. I don't see why people would pay more to get Windows 7 and then run XP apps in a virtual layer when you can just run XP. I don't see why people would flow with Windows 7 starter when (If companies can get and resell it) companies will sell XP on netbooks and nettops.

Edited 2009-04-25 12:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Hummmm.
by kaiwai on Sun 26th Apr 2009 01:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Hummmm. "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well if you read outside of the fabulously friendly "Lacking in details" article then you see:

"XPM is built on the next generation Microsoft Virtual PC 7 product line, which requires processor-based virtualization support (Intel and AMD) to be present and enabled on the underlying PC, much like Hyper-V, Microsoft’s server-side virtualization platform. However, XPM is not Hyper-V for the client. It is instead a host-based virtualization solution like Virtual PC; the hardware assistance requirement suggests this will be the logical conclusion of this product line from a technological standpoint. That is, we fully expect future client versions of Windows to include a Hyper-V-based hypervisor.


Thank you for the correction; I would have corrected my post (realised the error around 30 minutes after I had posted it - too bad OSNews has this ridiculous 20 minute limit).

That covers most (But not all)

* Intel® Core™2 Quad Processors
* Intel® Core™2 Duo Processors
* Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processors
* Intel® Pentium® D Processors
* Intel® Pentium® Processors Extreme Edition
* New Intel® Pentium® 4 Processors

But that leaves out almost all Mobile M processors, almost all Celeron and Atom processors etc. Basically almost everything on the low end.


According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization#Intel_Virtualizatio...

Some Core and Atom chips have VT. What ever the case maybe most companies are on three years cycles where the depreciate their computers over a 3 year period and keeping them beyond that basically becomes a cost burden. Also, once you upgrade to Core 2, the need to upgrade on the three year cycle will be reduced given that Core 2 pretty much provides all the features that a business would require when it comes to virtualisation, speed, reliability and future proofing.

Speaking of which XPM will also only be available for Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate. But Home users are left out.

So as always they have to find a way to get you to spend more. I understand that they are in the business to make money but at the same time they don't have to nickel and dime people.


I'm surprised they just didn't offer it to all customers and finally remove all the backwards compatibility out of Windows; it would have been a cleaner way of sorting out alot of the problems in Windows - and provide backwards compatibility that can be assured because one is actually running it in a real session of Windows rather than relying on shims which are an attempt to replicate Windows XP but many times fail.

Edit: MS is going to have a hard way to get from under the shadow of XP. I don't see why people would pay more to get Windows 7 and then run XP apps in a virtual layer when you can just run XP. I don't see why people would flow with Windows 7 starter when (If companies can get and resell it) companies will sell XP on netbooks and nettops.


It'll be interesting how they address that quandary - then again I've always maintained that Microsoft needs to move away from their dependence on Windows and Office so that they can pull down the price, have server and desktop edition (and differentiate based on the level of support rather than features) - and put all the focus when it comes to profit on the middleware.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Hummmm.
by Windows Sucks on Sun 26th Apr 2009 13:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Hummmm. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

[q]

According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization#Intel_Virtualizatio...

Some Core and Atom chips have VT. What ever the case maybe most companies are on three years cycles where the depreciate their computers over a 3 year period and keeping them beyond that basically becomes a cost burden. Also, once you upgrade to Core 2, the need to upgrade on the three year cycle will be reduced given that Core 2 pretty much provides all the features that a business would require when it comes to virtualisation, speed, reliability and future proofing.
[q/]

You are right. Companies wont have a problem with this as XPM is really aimed at companies they know will already have enterprise licenses for Windows XP. Which is why they are pushing it as a "feature" on their pro products. The average user will miss this train though.


[q]It will be interesting how they address that quandary - then again I've always maintained that Microsoft needs to move away from their dependence on Windows and Office so that they can pull down the price, have server and desktop edition (and differentiate based on the level of support rather than features) - and put all the focus when it comes to profit on the middleware.


I think the problem with going the middleware direction is that MS can't lock you in as easy that way. Right now their lock in is Office on Windows. Office on Mac is one of the things that has grown the Mac as of late. People don't feel so scared to switch. And MS is making money off Office on Mac knowing that Apple will never get but so big in the "PC" market because of their price point.

Middleware from MS will get hammered by Oracle, RedHat and IBM. There is no "Must Need" product made by MS besides Windows and Office.

When you look at:

Exchange
Share point
IIS
SQL server
etc.

All those things can be replaced in an environment (Not to say MS is not making money off them) pretty easy with sometimes better products.

Reply Parent Score: 1