|
|
Windows 7 XP Mode won’t work on some Core 2 CPUs
Author: Ben HardwidgePublished: 6th May 2009
Windows 7's XP Mode requires hardware virtualisation, which isn't supported by 18 Core 2 Duo CPUs.
Ed Bott’s Microsoft Report revealed the findings after trying out a new BETA of Windows Virtual PC for Windows 7 Release Candidate 1. “For your PC to run XP Mode in Windows 7,” says Bott, “the CPU has to support Intel Virtualization Technology (Intel VT) or AMD Virtualization (AMD-V), and this support has to be enabled in the BIOS.”
On the one hand, this is good, as it means that XP Mode will at least run pretty quickly. On the other hand, though, a number of current CPUs don’t support hardware virtualisation, and you won’t get any clues from the CPU model number or logo too. According to Intel, 18 Core 2 Duo CPUs don’t support the technology, including the E7500, E8190, E4700 and T5550. Meanwhile, three Core 2 Quad chips are also lacking Intel VT support, including the Q8300 and Q8200.
A handful of NetBurst chips also support the technology, including the 900-series Pentium Extreme CPUs, and a few Pentium D chips too. Owners of current AMD chips appear to have been a bit luckier here, as all the current Phenom and Phenom II chips support AMD-V, as well as AM2-based Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 chips of the F and G families. However, no Socket 939 CPUs or Sempron chips support the technology.
Bott likens this situation to the recent “Vista Capable” debacle, in which machines with Intel integrated graphics systems that couldn’t run Aero were still labelled as “Vista Capable”. He asks “how much positive Windows 7 buzz will be wiped out in coming weeks and months when consumers and business buyers discover that a heavily hyped new Windows 7 feature, XP Mode, won’t work on some Intel-based products?”
Do you own a CPU without hardware virtualisation technology, and would you feel compelled to upgrade in order to get access to Windows 7’s XP Mode? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.
Via CNET.
Related
Comments (36)
Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!
Compare over 100 broadband & mobile broadband deals online!
- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2009
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
My first thoughts exactly. When I read about Windows XP compatability mode for Windows 7 last week, I had hoped it was going to be a complete, universal solution to Windows Vista compatability problems. Now I know my PC can't even use it.
Just when I thought Windows 7 was going to do us all a favour and break the trends started with Vista...
I might need to keep XP alive for a while yet. Although Vista plays better with Diablo than my install of XP ever did >:)
Andy
In reality 99% of businesses are going to stick with Windows XP and 2000 anyway because they can't be bothered to upgrade - its seen as an unnecessary cost.
I hope this is sarcasm, because this tech is nothing new and can be done right now on your vista install with virtualbox and an XP license.
I would point the finger of blame more at Intel than MS, look at AMD, all their newest CPU's have hardware-assisted virtualisation technology.....
I understand what people are getting at. My position is that we have some legacy software here that we already know doesn't run correctly on Vista, that we will require for another few years or so. (It was actually written for Win 95 )
When I heard about Microsoft intentionally incorporating XP compatability into Windows 7, I believed that it was about to provide a handy solution to many of the problems being faced by XPs upcoming obscelecence.
Yes, we know about virtual PCs. The point still stands that they require an XP license on top of the Vista / Windows 7 license, and you have to buy the virtual PC software too (granted some are free). Even so, buying two OS licenses makes it a fairly costly solution, and also an unviable one for new PCs once Microsoft stop selling XP discs. Plus it isn't as elegant as the solution apparently being presented in Windows 7.
What I was getting at is that as usual, Microsoft appeared to put a simple upgrade path in place, only to immediately add caveats and complications to it.
Running an E6600 @ 3.6 GHz 24/7 I'm looking forward to using that. :)
And if I got it right, the XP license comes with the virtualization tool anyways, so that won't cost you anything on top.
"All you have to do when you want to use this program is fire up that 2nd PC over there, turn the switch on this box... wtf? The third person whose head just exploded today... nice."
or
"Why don't you dual-boot XP and 7? You just have to... HOLY ****! What a mess!"
I wonder why IT departments get a bad rep:p
I've seen a dual machine KVM used perfectly easily by a regular employee, they were in accounts / finance though, so perhaps were a tad more logical than your avg peep.
Actually most people can cope with 2 PC's and a switchbox fairly well.
Though i can see your point with a virtual OS, just last week i really struggled to explain the concept of remote desktop to one of the more clueless users here, took a while but got there in the end. a virtual OS is going to appear the same to them, so it is do-able :)
Yes
Sometimes being a nerd/geek can be very frustrating. :( ;)
Why the hell would anyone blame MS for this issue? Why has no one in this forum damned Intel for being retarded for mixing up the virtualisation on its processors?
I praise AMD for keeping their CPU lineup fully featured!
I really hope Intel is the one to get the black eye for this one.. not MS.
:edit:
PT88 pointed a finger at intel
I have Windows 7, XP Pro, and Ubuntu installed on the same computer. It was just as easy to install one as it was three OS. :|
Maybe I expect to much from this site I'm so addicted to and it's people. :D
I've had no problems with all three, and I love it. You just need your main HD to be of adequate size.
I googled "Install XP and Windows 7" to get you all on the right track that would like to do this. This was the first page on the list:
http://lifehacker.com/5126781/how-to-dual-boot-windows-7-with-xp-or-vista
I can get from one OS to the other quickly, my computer shuts down and boots up in about 26 seconds. I don't like the virtualisation, there has always been bugs with it. Plus I love the benefits to having 3 systems if one screws up.
I believe this is a better way and I've been doing it for a few years. All is not lost, you still can have both. ;)
virtualisation is a must have, it makes Folding as fast as running natively, it makes Vmware run very fast and it's a must have.
that was my first thought but it wasn't really MS bashing, just random complaints
Sweet.
Currently she's been overclocked to 3.2 Ghz, up from a stock 2.4 Ghz, air cooled to 33°C. :)
"Virtualization is disabled in your BIOS, enable to continue"
So i restarted, enabled and yay i was back on my way. Got to love lenovo for sticking a real cpu in the x60. Awesome, I didn't remember that it had virtualization.
That seems likely to me.
I suspect they want the virtualised version of XP that's built into 7 to have the best performance it can, so that it doesn't get a bad rap in reviews or from joe public.
It's not like anyone who doesn't have a compatible CPU can't just install VirtualPC and virtualise their own copy of XP if they need to anyway.
Most people who've tested 7 so far will probably tell you that you aren't going to have too much trouble with XP software running on it, and when you do you can either load up this XP compatibility-mode if your CPU supports it, or just Virtualise XP yourself.
Not the end of the world, nor really a big deal.
We've been dual-booting for decades now when we need to, this is a step in the right direction for backwards-compatibility no matter how you look at it.
Intel released 2 versions of their Core2's since the beginning
The good ones and the Cripples.
The cripples are basicly the good ones minus cache and advanced technology.
So basicly, this is Intel's way of keeping their **** affordable going wrong.
AMD's cripples (tri-cores and stuff) can do it all :-)
The other advantage is that the program has direct access to the CPU rather than an emulated one. This makes things a lot faster
Thats just crazy.. why should MS have to make up for an Intel SNAFU?
AMD has a long line of processors that support visualization... its a base feature, not a hunt and peck..