Microsoft tickled our meta-OS fancies last week by talking up the
virtualized version of Windows XP included with Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate Edition. However, the company has now revealed that ponying up for one of the top tiers of the OS will not be the only requirement. 2GB of RAM will be needed, which isn't such a big deal, but more troubling is the requirement of a CPU that sports chip-level virtualization support. Both AMD and Intel have been quick to add features to support enterprises turning to virtualized hosting environments, but rather annoyingly neither of those companies make it particularly easy to tell which of their chips provide such support. On the AMD side it looks like the tech was introduced with the
Athlon 64 and has continued in most newer chips, while Intel's waters are a little muddier, with all
Core i7 processors being suitably endowed, but only
some of its
Pentium,
Core 2, and
Atom chips made the grade. How to know if you're included? We'd expect an upgrade advisor from Microsoft to hit the internets any time now.
Update: Christopher commented to let us know of a
little app that'll tell you
right now whether you're in our out of the faux-OS party. That's great, because we hate hasty last-minute upgrades.
posted April 29th 2009 8:11AM
Another reason I like AMD over Intel
Why???
Wait, you actually found one reason before this?
Cool, even tho you know... there are more Intel cpus in the market that support this than AMD cpus.
I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+...with that said, I ran the app (included with the story update) and don't have 'hardware virtualization.' Can anyone explain why? It would seem that not all Athlon 64 chips support this feature.
Last i knew Intel was the first to put virtualization on almost all of it's chips. My Core 2.0gh laptop has it, few year old laptop has it, Core 2 desktop has it, some atom processors have it. The biggest issue will be if your mobo supports it in the bios, but that's nothing compared to needing a new chip.
Sigh, leave it to Engadget to leave out important information =P
@blindfromthesun
If your system does not detect as having hardware virtualization it could mean that it is disabled in the BIOS. Go into your BIOS setup and double-check that it is enabled. You may also require a BIOS firmware update if that feature is missing but your CPU manufacturer says your processor supports hardware virtualization.
@blindfromthesun
it needs to be socket AM2 or better
i'm guessing yours is socket 939, like my x2 4200+
Glad I chose core i7.
Buttery smooth power, people.
If I would have built my computer a few months after I actually did, I would have chosen the i7 as well. But it would be a whole big thing to change it now, new mobo and ram as well as the processor.
Not like those Core2Duo chips which have a super hot cam, giving them lumpy idle, with most of the power at the top end of the rev range.
@UnixSystemsEngineer
Just increase your vac advance and dial in a richer mix on the carb for the choppy idle, maybe re-gear to increase torque on the low end.
Pfft. You want Virtualization Technology Enhanced Chips? I call that VTEC.
See, I said so, here.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/24/virtualized-windows-xp-coming-to-windows-7-professional-and-ulti/comments/18498811/
Frankly, what's the big deal, almost all chips now can suppor virtualization.
deal? bashing microsoft
Though I generally agree that it's not that big a deal, consider a large corporate environment where you have a wide range of computers and where there would be benefit to having XP emulation for some corporate software. Most of the newer computers will be fine, but some of the older models may cause issues, even if they have been upgraded to 2 gig of ram. It only takes a few hundred machines in a 10,000-person company to cause problems, but replacing those computers can seem pretty expensive when they are otherwise more than adequate for their intended use.
Nice. You burned "why not the LS2LS7?" in that little argument. That dude thinks he knows everything.
Why is it that most seem to think that when windows 7 arrives, companies are going to be forced to switch? A company, or consumer for that matter, who has a cpu so old it does not support VT will most likely not even upgrade to windows 7. Windows xp will still work in 2010. I guarantee.
@Jorvay
A large corporate environment isn't likely to upgrade to Windows 7 in the first place, as there is no Windows 7 specific software yet. And even if there was, large corporation are the slowest to upgrade, often skipping OS generations, if there is no compelling reason not to.
And why would they need emulation when they can run the real thing? Doesn't make even a tiny fraction of sense.
@FNG:
Ah, I see I'm not the only one to hold that opinion.
@ giuliop
You're right, large corps do lag in upgrading. In fact, I am writing this on my lunch from my XP-equipped office machine. But I can think of some specific, custom made software we use that will not run properly in anything but XP, and cannot be upgraded easily or, in some cases, at all. Meanwhile, at some point The corporate world will have to start upgrading. Vista didn't bring it about, but 7 might. There are only so many generations you can skip before it starts to become a hinderance. And if that happens, many corps will want to upgrade everything at once (or pretty close to it). Making sure that their commonly used, highly customized (aka hard/impossible to rebuild for new OS) software still works is going to be important to some organizations.
It might not be an issue for all businesses, but I speak based on the knowledge that if the company I work for decided it was time to go Win7, our department would have much use for a true XP emulator.
Most of the chips from the last 2 years have these things, unless you went absolutely bargain-basement.
With Intel stuff, anything that says "Core2" should have at least some VT. With AMD Stuff, it goes back even further-- my quick check of wikipedia shows that they launched their stuff to support this in May of 2006.
At this point, the Intel Atom does not support this, but you have to take a moment and remember that Virtualization can take a lot of extra cycles to run, and processors that are marketed as cheap and low-power are not likely to be optimized for it yet.
As for the complaints about why microsoft makes such limitations, the simple explaination is that they are unable to make it work well until they got the processor manufacturers help them out.
If you want to the "XP Functionality" on a lower-tier version of Windows 7, or want to run it hardware without Intel VT or AMD-V, get a copy of VMware, Not only will it run on hardware without the virtualization tech, but the software-mode actually runs *faster* than the hardware mode on the older-models.
* Full Discolsure, I work in R&D at VMware, so I may have some bias.
Seriously, this was even in the fucking original press release that was posted on engadget. Honestly, if you're too stupid to figure out whether your processor supports hardware assisted virtualization, then maybe virtualization isn't for you. This post reeks of a pathetic attempt to bash Microsoft for no good reason, anyone who has seriously used virtualization software before should know what AMD-V and VT-x are, and whether their CPU supports it. Hint: It's not quite all Athlon 64s, in fact it's only in Family G or later Socket AM2 chips. And I'm not sure on the Intel side, but if you take two minutes to look it up on Wikipedia you'll get the answer instantly. Or, you could easily run CPU-z or this program here, whatever it is.
"We'd expect an upgrade advisor from Microsoft to hit the internets any time now."
This is Microsoft, you know they will probably have some archaic logo program to certify the supported processors...
you're right. MS is so lame. they prove this all the time by not being successful. That's why they don't make any money as a company. they just don't know what they are doing... if they were successful, we could change MS to M$. wouldn't that be clever?!
@FNG:
I was alluding to the Vista Capable fiasco and other "logo" programs where it seams to be more about selling a product than the product's actual capabilities. I really don't see how your comment is even relevant...
@FNG oh stop, you know well enough just like everyone else about the nightmare that was the Vista Capable sticker debaucle, I mean one of the team leads for vista got burned, man you ms fanboys are ridiculous.
@Dillinger MS fanboy? Hey Engadget, is it possible for you to show what OS I was on when posting that? so you know, I was at home on my Macbook. Now I'm at work on XP. Fanboys suck. I have both PC and Mac and like both. It's a F'n computer OS, not a child, unless your name is Bill or Steve, it's not your child.
@FNG
I seriously want to frame your quote and put it next to my computer.
Most modern processors released by AMD and Intel have virtualization extension, named AMD-V or Intel VT-x respectively.
Intel has started pulling VT support from some of their (cheaper) newer chips.
To my surprise my new Dell Vostro came with an Intel Core2 Q8200 Quad Processor which does NOT support VT.
Particular annoying since I cannot run 64-bit VM-Ware guest operating systems on a 32-bit host.
"dude you got a dell" - what do you expect...
Actually on a reality side note, most people using a virtual environment are keen enough to know they need a virtualization enabled cpu, I think it's smarter for Microsoft to come out and let people know now instead of consumers (like normally) going crazy and complaining their computers won't run something - probably due to the fact they are trying to run software from 10 years ago ::cough cough::
@mhc: Yes that's true, but from what I can tell, if a specific OEM wants a chip that normally has VT-x disabled, Intel will have it enabled. Some examples are MacBooks with the P7350 processor which normally doesn't support VT-x.
Looks like i've been able to do this for the past FOUR YEARS!
AMD FTW!
You've been able to use a nascent OS for the past 4 years?
What about the Q6600?
Classic chip, being rocking with one of those for 2 years. though I think I'm gonna jump to i7 on next upgrade.
yes, it does.
It looks like my Dell Inspiron 1520 supports it!
For Core2Duo chart:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2duo.htm
For Core2Quad chart:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2quad.htm
Doesn't W7 have a compatibility mode for XP and Vista apps? Is an entire virtual XP really needed?
The compatibility mode only fakes XP though. and Vista is supported out the box, their almost exactly the same.
It's like the old PS3's had a full PS2 shoved in their n played all PS2 games, but the newer ones had software emulation n only played 80% of games. And it'll probably be the specialist app's that businesses need that'll be in the 20% that don't work, and ass MS get most their sales form business 20% is a fair chunk of the market.
I imagine it'd word very similar to VirtualBox under linux running in "Seamless Mode". It's an entire virtual virtualized install of WinXP, but it integrates seamlessly with Windows 7. And since they're only supporting it on chips with advanced hypervisor support, I imagine most people won't be able to tell the difference performance wise -- especially on a 4+ gig machine running a newer AMD or corei7.
Well this XP virtualizer only comes with enterprise/ultimate/business and most machines in that class should have VT on the chip. Still, it was petty of Intel to cut on VT on some of their Core 2 Quad chips. Reminds me of the old days when they would leave out math coprocessors.
Win XP support is pretty cool, though apart form a few older games I had to leave behind when Vista came out I've not really had any issue's with compatibility.
Though as it's mainly businesses that'll want this if they had software that was XP only then I understand it, but most workstation CPU's support virtulization and WinXP mode is only in business n Ultimate.
It's another "Win 7 complexity" that only business n enthusiast have to bother with, and they know what there doing.
What complexity? Bohooo if you cannot run ancient Win 98 software on your $6,000 Alienware machine. This is very kind gesture from MS and is really not a requirement as most lazy software developers should update their software to be compatible with the latest hardware and OS. Only a tiny percentage of the population need this feature as those who do are already running XP while the others are running updated software.
So there is no need to get all whiney over this.
I was getting at it not being complex at all.
The average Joe consumer who would find the task of figuring out if their CPU supports VT will be the ones who have the 'complex' task of figuring out to buy a PC with Premium on or a netbook the Starter on.
The people who will be getting business or Ultimate will be the folks who know what their doing and can easily figure out if they have VT.
I was getting at the people who thought that 6 version of Win7 would be too complex.
Win7 is probably the least complex version of Windows ever to upgrade to. If your PC runs Vista it run's Win7, if your PC is less than 3 years old it'll run Win7. If your PC is older than 3 years old then an update to the land of now is in order.
The support is not aimed at games, as lack of D3d etc.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2duo.htm
"On the AMD side it looks like the tech was introduced with the Athlon 64 and has continued in most newer chips..."
No, not by a long shot, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD-V#AMD_virtualization_.28AMD-V.29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_64_microprocessors. It was first introduced with the Socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2s, and there are still plenty of socket 754 and 939 CPUs around that don't support it. I have two.
Why is MS making it so difficult to pay for and run two of its OSes? Apple just went ahead and let people do it, very shortly after switching to Intel...