SuperSite Blog

Intel=bastards.

The good news is that businesses typically don't upgrade CPU's, so there should be no confusion there.

The lists are really quite fascinating. Ed did an excellent job. I'm with Ed--the gaps in support for the technology seem very strange.  Those who need XP Mode should check out Ed's tables (or run one of the tools which reports support or not for the hardware feature).

Fortunately, although my newish Dell (Q8200 processor) won't support XP Mode, that doesn't matter because I have no dark ages (requires XP) software to run.

It actually might matter at Windows 8 time, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it (if I'm still alive).

I'll still play, but over on the iMac before I remove the Bootcamp partition, which will happen soon.  I would have removed it already, but I realized that I could exercise a Vista to Win 7 upgrade install before doing so.

Yeah blame it on Intel, good one.  VPC should use it if its in the CPU and not use it if its not, with a performance hit if its not available.  You know like VMware does.

Last thursday I was at a VMware users group meeting and Intel put on a presentation, and paid for the beer, anyhow the Nahalem (spelling) is a VM lovin CPU.  Combined with the new chipset and NIC's that support queueing for multiple VM's they are light years ahead of AMD.

MS blew this big time.  Especially when you consider that business desktops computers usually use the low end CPU's for the rank and file employee, which in most cases does not have the VT technology.

Pingback from  » List of AMD Phenom microprocessors Montessori-Based Dementia Programming

Figuring out if the processor supports hardware virtualisation is quite straightforward in comparison to figuring out whether the mainboard supports it - that's been the limiting factor in all the Hyper-V testing I've done.

Sometimes it's listed on the spec sheet or manufacturer's website, sometimes you have to download the manual and hope it shows a screenshot of the "Enable VT" option in the BIOS, and sometimes you just can't tell until you try.

Hopefully the introduction of XP Mode will encourage the manufacturers to at least be much clearer in whether a board supports VT, or (even better) introduce support across the, uh, board.

Pingback from  XP Mode requires hardware-assisted virtualization. Which … | Windows (7) Affinity

Of course people prefer quality laptops. Not cheap PC laptops; like the tasteless people on the Microsoft ads.

gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/.../consumer-reports-takes-a-shine-to-apple

I do enjoy this passive-aggressive thing that's going on between Bott and Thurrott.

"I do enjoy this passive-aggressive thing that's going on between Bott and Thurrott."

I can't understand why lindy (slimshadey) is getting passive aggressive about this.  No one blamed Intel for this. Ed simply came up with a list of Intel processors on which XP Mode will work.

weedmonk. There's nothing going on between Ed and I. We're both highly opinated people, but I really like Ed quite a bit. He's a smart guy, a good guy, and a true Windows expert.

And shark47, for whatever it's worth, I do blame Intel for this mess. Just ship the virtualization support in every processor for crying out loud.

Problem = "A heavily hyped new Windows 7 feature, XP Mode, won’t work on some Intel-based products?"

Root Cause (According to Ed) = "The problem is caused by the Byzantine way Intel packages its CPU technology."

Yeah Intel messed up the version of VPC or um the "Heavily hyped new Windows 7 Feature".  Hyped being the key word there.

Fact = Other Virtual products, um ALL OF THEM, will work with Intel CPU's with our without VT technology.

Reality = MS screwed the pooch on this one.

From Ed's list it does look pretty arbitrary. I thought the lower end processors wouldn't support VT, but this is kind of interesting. And after what happened with the 'Vista Capable' issue, I doubt that Microsoft is going to bend over backwards to help Intel with this.  

Just curious how many of these processors meet the requirements for Windows 7 Professional.

"I doubt that Microsoft is going to bend over backwards to help Intel with this. "

How or why does Intel need help?  Intel did not write the new version of VPC.

Historically Intel has always sold cheaper CPU's that are just stripped down versions of more expensive CPU's.  Slower clock speeds, less cache, and missing features.  I have read that their FABS are so good (quality) that at times they cripple good CPU's that have the cache or features in the die, but they turn them off/break them to sell them as lower end parts.  The Celeron series has always been this way.

Is the product line confusing, oh hell yes.  Then again MS sells 8 (?) versions of SQL 2008, 7 versions of Office and 5 versions of Vista?  I mean only 3 of the 5 versions of 7 can even run this new feature, which is confusing as well.

OK all you Borg drones. The Windows 7 RC is now openly available for anyone that wants to suffer. Go forth and pay the Microsoft taxes.

in the real world:

when I first read the news about XP Mode I immediately thought about upgrading the PCs at the agency I work at from XP. 5600+ systems have Vista logos, enough RAM, large HDD, DX9 VGA. XP is needed for compatibility reasons with a centralized ERP type application.

the systems are Fujitsu Siemens Celsius workstations.

when a found out the Intel VT requirement all my hopes went out the "windows". The dual core CPUs just missed the compatibility by a "number". They are Pentium D 945, not 940 or 950.

unless MS delivers a $249 copy of Windows 7 with a CPU in the box, XP wil remain the main OS on all those systems.

Pingback from  Windows 7 Blog » XP Mode requires hardware-assisted virtualization. Which processors work?

@kadarzsolt, for that number of PCs I would highly recommend considering MED-V which is part of MDOP.  It will do all of this and much more, including work on non-hardware assisted CPUs, and greatly ease the deployment of the VMs and changes.  For a larger organization, there are many reasons to look at MED-V rather than this XP mode solution that is really geared toward smaller organizations.  Yes, there is a cost (but modest, if you already are on volume licensing for Windows), but it will end up being well worth it in most cases.  Good luck.

@billwil:

the systems are geographically scattered, no Active Directory, no Group Policies, no centralized management.

XP came with the machines by OEM licenses, there is no corporate agreement with MS. The servers are not MS based (HP+Oracle). MED-V is OUT!

"Reality = MS screwed the pooch on this one."

Tsk, tsk. Why aren't you following the WinJihadist handbook? Better to blame Intel than, you know, the people that actually write the software.

Pingback from  Hardware Windows Release Computer | World News

clever move by MS i feel, kind of keeps the hardware industry moving a bit by having this restriction as the option for businesses will be a) finally adapt XP legacy apps for 7 or b) upgrade processors / in business more likely whole PCs, (which will no doubt ship with 7!)

win win for MS and Intel/AMD.

(obviously only applies for corp's with older tech that doesnt support VT)

OT...the Win 7 RC is available now, early I guess and is downloading pretty quick.  www.activewin.com/.../comments.asp

So could this work with the Nehalem chips in a Mac [Pro Tower]? What about the older Xeon CPU's ? My Mac Pro Tower is 2.5 yrs old [3GHz quad more, or actually two 3GHz dual core].

"OK all you Borg drones. The Windows 7 RC is now openly available for anyone that wants to suffer. Go forth and pay the Microsoft taxes."

Thanks man.

"How or why does Intel need help?  Intel did not write the new version of VPC."

That's funny. Intel didn't write Windows Vista either, as far as I know, but they did need Microsoft's help at that time.

"I mean only 3 of the 5 versions of 7 can even run this new feature, which is confusing as well."

Sure. Home versions cannot run this feature? How confusing. Considering that Home Basic is not even available in the US and that Starter won't be adopted by businesses, that leaves one version that doesn't really support it- Home Premium. I'd like to see how many businesses adopt Home Premium. Sorry, but you're just making up things now to defend Intel. It's not like only the lower end chips do not support VT. From Ed's list, it seems entirely arbitrary.

Pingback from  What processors work with Windows 7 XP Mode? | OS Attack

If you look at Intel's processor releases, the first models in a series will carry extra features like VT.  When they re-release processors with lower speeds under different model numbers, they usually drop features.

If you look at the E6x00 series, the first models started at E6300 and went to E6700.  Those have VT.  The E6300 and E6400 only have 2MB of cache.  There was no E6500.  Then they jumped to the E6600 which doubled the cache to 4MB.

The E6x20 have double the cache of their E6x00 brethren to bring the low end chips up to 4MB, like their higher-speed siblings.  Nothing more.  

The E6x50 improved the FSB to 1333MHz and added Intel TXT (Trusted Execustion Technology).

The E6x40's were the same as the E6x50's except for TXT, that is, they increased clock speeds to 1333MHz and had 4MB of cache.

The E8x00 series all have VT, except for the low-cost E8190.  It's the same as the E8200 but lacks VT.

The E6xx0 series and E8xx0 series are the mainstream versions of the Core 2 Duo.

The E4000 and E7000 are low-end versions.  They don't feature VT.

The Core 2 Quad was released initially in the Q6000 series.  They have VT.  Then it was re-released with a 1333MHz FSB under the Q9000 series.  The Q8000 is just the low-cost version of the Q9000 but without VT.

Anyway, all of the information is on the Intel website.

There is something to be said for simplicty when it comes to things like this. Hopefully MS and the OEMs are smarter than they were with Vista and once consumer and enterprise versions of 7 ships, they make it clear exactly which models support XPM. I am pretty sure that outside of the enterprise world and us geeks, there are not too many that even know what XPM is and will have no interest in using it(as it should be).

--tayme

@tayme:

It's something I plan on focusing on when releasing new Windows 7-era PC's.

It'll make for good marketing options when targeting specific price points.  Generally speaking, the "mainstream" chips are usually the ones that businesses bypass to save a buck when the feature-replete versions will still do most of what they want for less money.  If they're going with the low-end chips they'll have to understand the consequences of buying on the cheap.

I guess this is another argument where compatibility with old technologies can cost you.

It's a mess, and yes, while Microsoft could have (and probably should have) enabled "legacy" mode in case CPU doesn't support it, it's still blame Intel as well. Most of those CPUs DO support virtualization, it's just been disabled. Like Paul and Ed say - they just go chip-chop removing some features to make artificial market(ing) points and ranges.

And while I'm OK with performance features like speed of FSB, cache, number of cores and core clocks being one of those things that separate "best from the rest", compatibility and functionality features like type of memory controller, chipset/socket compatibility, and other things like VT, x64, NX bit, SSE** instructions - they should all be the same across the whole family of processors that belong to the same generation.

And this is where AMD does things differently, as I haven't really noticed that AMD intentionaly cuts oh let's say.. x64 instruction set from their lower end processors. OK, I could be wrong, I haven't compared check-sheets for a long time, but as much as I can see AMD does things more..well.. "user friendly".

"I haven't really noticed that AMD intentionaly cuts oh let's say.. x64 instruction set from their lower end processors."

No, they just disable entire defective cores, ie. Phenom X3.

Yes, they disable entire DEFECTIVE CORES. They don't just go "hmm.. we could make a new line called E7xxx that would be cheaper than E8xxx.. but what would we do.. cutting cache ain't enough, so let's just remove few checkboxes so E8xxx looks better"

If Intel is selling E7xxx with disabled VT because that part of chip is defective, I'd say fine.. But somehow I doubt that Intel has that many defective chips with VT functionality broken and everything else functioning just peachy..

And like I've said, lower cache or cores or clock speed won't give you any hardware or software compatibility problems.

While lack of x64, SSE*, and now VT can cause you a lot of troubles.

For example, you won't be able to install Windows Server 2008 R2 on non-x64 systems, ok that's server, but we're just lucky that MS didn't do the same with desktop (Win7) as well. Having one core less won't be a problem in the same (or similar) scenario

Pingback from  Hardware Cooler Windows Review | World News

@Lux:

The only Intel processors that don't have x64 are Atom processors designed for netbooks and MID's.  The desktop processors (the 230 and 330) both have x64 though.

All Intel processors have SSE and have for years now.

VT is still considered a niche feature on desktops though, because until now, there has been no software designed exclusively for it.  Intel will likely push marketing for Windows 7-era business PC's with VT after 7's launch.

VT is something you'll find in every server out there, as well as x64.

I kind of wonder if it's the new USB redirect option that requires VT....

Here we have the double stadnard! (again...).

So, let me recap:

1. In Vista, MS did Intel a favor in suporting older graphic chipsets my marketing an SKU without Aero support. Result: bad, Microsoft, bad! Class action suit, anyone...?

2. In Windows 7, MS decides that an important feature (XPM) should be properly supported by the hardware (news flash: older MS VPC versions can also run without CPU VT support), even if no every CPU supports it. Result: bad Microsoft, bad! You should be ashamed of yourself, for not letting everyone enjoy XPM even in a crappy CPU...

Fearless prediction: in a future iteration (Win 8? 9? ...), MS will support hardware without virtualization support, or Intel and board makers will have awakened.

Why?  It will matter much more in the Windows version which does drop 32-bit support, relying on virtualization to support archaic software.

I would hope that people would realize that Microsoft is doing you a favour here by not allowing you to run a VM on hardware that's not equipped to deal with it.  And yes, I've seen systems with hardware VT turned off or unsupported running numerous VM softwares and can say with confidence that you should save yourself the trouble and just buy proper hardware for it in the first place.  If you don't know, become informed.

Pingback from  XP Mode requires hardware-assisted virtualization. Which processors work? «  Windows 7 Help - Tutorials, News, Software & More!

Pingback from  Hardware Windows Leads Banquet | World News

Pingback from  Hardware Windows Haul T-birds | World News

"I would hope that people would realize that Microsoft is doing you a favour here by not allowing you to run a VM on hardware that's not equipped to deal with it.  And yes, I've seen systems with hardware VT turned off or unsupported running numerous VM softwares and can say with confidence that you should save yourself the trouble and just buy proper hardware for it in the first place.  If you don't know, become informed."

???  VT technology first came out in 2006?  VPC and VMware have been around since 2000?  if not before that.  Corporations have been using NON - VT technology VM solutions (Vritual Server and VMware products) on production systems before VT technology or AMD's equivalent for some time now.

This is what VPC 8?  So VPC 1-7 worked fine if you DID NOT have VT tech, but VPC 8 wont?  Virtual PC 7 SP1 worked with both types of CPU's.  For running a single VM, and probably a single app in that VM that cant run under 7, NO VT support would be fine.  We are not talking 3D games here we are talking stuff like old versions of Quickbooks or some other business app that can run fine in a VM that does not have ring 0 access.

I can see the Intel MS connection as in the video card deal.  Intel asked MS to change the status of "Vista Ready".  Has Intel asked MS to go back to the way the previous version of VPC worked, where it supported VT if it was available but worked if it was not?  If anything Intel probably wants this to happen, so they can sell more expensive CPU's.