Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Lifts XP Mode Hardware Requirement

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the marketecture-in-action dept.

Intel 205

An anonymous reader writes "This week, Microsoft published a patch that allows Windows XP Mode to run on PCs without hardware-assisted virtualization. Which begs the question: Why the bizarro requirement in the first place? Was it an honest attempt to deliver an 'optimal' user experience? Or simply a concession to the company's jilted lover, Intel Corporation — 'a kind of apology for royally screwing up with the whole Windows Vista “too fat to fit” debacle,' as the blog post puts it."

cancel ×

205 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know what begs the question? (0, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538880)

Language evolves, like hardware requirements...

Re:You know what begs the question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538948)

So what happened when they dropped the requirement?

Re:You know what begs the question? (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539012)

Not only does this not 'beg the question' it's by our good friend Randal C. Kennedy [slashdot.org] of Devil Mountain Software fame. Come on guys, this is in the frigging Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] .

The problem with Slashdot these days is that has no taste, absolutely no taste.

Tag article as randalckennedy (1, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539108)

Tag the article as randalckennedy. At least we can identify obvious FUD for what it is.

Re:You know what begs the question? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539768)

Thanks for posting a link to a reputable site, not some assholes blog.

Re:You know what begs the question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31540320)

The problem with Slashdot these days is that has no taste, absolutely no taste.

Bitter?

What REALLY begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539040)

Is how we Linux hippies can somehow twist this story in a way that allows us to bash Microsoft. It doesn't matter how delusional the idea, how disconnected from reality, how devoid of fact or reason, WE MUST BASH MICROSOFT.

Re:What REALLY begs the question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539144)

No twisting required.

It appears Microsoft intentionally restricted this feature in an attempt to make customers purchase hardware they did not need.

Is that bashing Microsoft? No, it's just stating a fact. If the fact bashes Microsoft, that's their fault.

Re:What REALLY begs the question (2, Insightful)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539490)

Is it bashing Apple to point out that they do they same thing to OSX?

My best guess.... (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538974)

The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled. The fact that one of the major CPU manufacturers didn't, is most likely what bit Microsoft in the ass. Still, some OEMs also are at fault, I think: Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop (RAM module was broken...) and I looked in the BIOS. The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS. Why? I have no idea...

Re:My best guess.... (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539018)

Taking perfectly good hardware and disabling functionality and then selling it a discount isn't new. It certainly isn't new for Intel. Remember the SX series of 386s and 486s, with the FPU disabled, though still on the chip?

Re:My best guess.... (2, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539084)

Yes, I have known Intel for a long time *sigh*.

Just a minor correction... The SX series for the i386 was that the data bus was at half width (16-bit)... The SX for the i486 was indeed a disabled FPU. (Remember the Overdrives? Simply a i486 CPU that disabled the original i486SX)... Aaaah, going down the memory lane.

Re:My best guess.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539092)

I thought that was a way to make chips, spot some with fabrication flaws, and then cut out/disable those pieces which were flawed and still have a usable chip for sale?

Re:My best guess.... (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539384)

In the case of the 486, it was. Or at least initially. Once yields are up, they can either disable perfectly good chips and sell them for cheaper than what they're capable of, or design a new chip without the part. It seems like Intel and AMD generally go for the former.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539402)

Correct. It was a way to increase the yield of usable products from a fab plant.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539164)

Minor nitpick:

The 386SX didn't have an FPU. It was actually identical to the 80386, with a 32-bit CPU, but it was seated on a 16-bit bus to save costs. Like a Motorola 68000.

Re:My best guess.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539238)

The 386 didn't have the FPU.. that was based down to the 16bit/32bit bus connection..

the 386DX was 32 bit internally and also 32 bit over the bus.
the SX on the other had was 32bit internally and 16 bit through the bus..

Re:My best guess.... (4, Insightful)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539360)

It's very common for Intel to make 6 different CPU chips that are exactly the same, but use a laser to cut a single connection on the chip to make sure it runs at a certain speed. Sure, you can overclock the CPU, but it still has one of its throttles turned down. These chips are then sold for 10-50% less, depending on which connection is cut.

It costs them exactly the same amount to design and manufacture a 2.4 GHz model as a 3.0 GHz model. In fact, it ultimately costs more to gimp these chips, because they have to pay an engineer to design this mechanism, and buy/maintain the machine that does the gimping. Although, this does mean that I can get a gimped chip for slightly less than the cost to produce it by having someone else pay for the overpriced ungimped version. Still, I think I would rather pay $200 for a 3.0 GHz model, and not have the option of a slower model, than to pay $180 for a 2.4 GHz model while enthusiasts pay $900 for the 3.0 GHz model.

Not only are you right that this has been done for a long time, but it's also become common practice.

Re:My best guess.... (5, Informative)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539754)

It's quite likely that this is done due to manufacturing defects that prevent some chips from running at the maximum speed. Testing is done to find the highest stable speed, and it's altered fix that speed as the max.

Re:My best guess.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539882)

All chips in the same family come off the same die. Defects and such make each capable of running different maximum speeds. Yes, some are just gimped for the hell of it but they're all from the same die anyway. Which makes perfect sense, it's not always a scam, some chips just aren't capable of running at the higher speeds. It is pretty much always done this way, it's how CPU manufacturing works (one die, different speeds).

Re:My best guess.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31540312)

That used to be the most common scenario. Now they typically laser off units that don't pass all quality tests, and they don't typically do it to perfectly good units unless they're running short on the lower end. Yields as a percentage are not like they used to be, so there's always plenty of potential downgrades on any single wafer.

The only exception I can think of for this is the Cell in the PS3, but given that the blade servers haven't exactly taken the world by storm, that's probably where 90% of Cell CPUs are going in the first place.

Re:My best guess.... (4, Insightful)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539426)

These days a lot of that happens to keep yields higher. They take chips where one part doesn't meet their standards and disable then, then sell it for a discount. Reduce, reuse, recycle or something. Where do you think AMD tri-cores came from?

Re:My best guess.... (1, Funny)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540530)

Remember the SX series of 386s and 486s, with the FPU disabled, though still on the chip?

Grandpa, is that you?

Re:My best guess.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539050)

The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled.

I think its more a case of "If you want to use legacy apps you need to upgrade hardware".

Microsoft gets the hardware vendors to agree to all their crazy demands by promising a bump in sales when a new version of Windows is released.

Re:My best guess.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539100)

My best guess is security reasons. Why have a feature enabled by default if the vast majority of users aren't going to need it?

Re:My best guess.... (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539110)

The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled. The fact that one of the major CPU manufacturers didn't, is most likely what bit Microsoft in the ass. Still, some OEMs also are at fault, I think: Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop (RAM module was broken...) and I looked in the BIOS. The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS. Why? I have no idea...

AMD did. Intel just makes chips for whatever their customer wants. Like how all Intel Macs have VT support, but it's iffy elsewhere (if an OEM can get a discount over chips with no VT, they'll take it).

As for disabling VT support, it's probably to avoid "blue-pill" type malware from hitching a ride underneath the OS. At least, that's a reasonable explanation if you have the setting. Sonys don't (at least, they didn't use to), which was more of an OEM thing by trying to be more Apple-like in control. (After all, Apple doesn't give you any control in the matter. Except well, they see the need for VT and have it enabled).

Ironic, too, since Sony and Apple use EFI firmware from the same company (Insyde).

Re:My best guess.... (2, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539372)

As for disabling VT support, it's probably to avoid "blue-pill" type malware from hitching a ride underneath the OS. At least, that's a reasonable explanation if you have the setting

Yes, I heard that lame excuse before too. With so many higher end machines being sold having it enabled (heck, my el cheapo Turion X2 bought in January 2007 has it!) malware should be using it already. I haven't heard of a "blue-pill" type infection in the wild yet. Does it exist?

Re:My best guess.... (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540272)

How would you detect it if you were infected?

Re:My best guess.... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540462)

Weird behaviour is the prime symptom of anything "wrong" with your machine. I'd also expect weird device detections as the virtualized hardware is being detected by the now "guest" OS. Also, not sure, but running alternate operating systems might show something's wrong.

I think booting with an alternate OS from CD is pretty much the best was to find such software. To avoid that, the BIOS should be infected and I haven't heard of many (if any) BIOS viruses in the wild.

Heck, if the bad guys found out how to do that for every BIOS, I'd be interested to know how they did it: the BIOS of my laptop is limited to 2GB of RAM, while the chipset allows 4GB of RAM... If I'd be able to circumvent that limitation, I'd be a happy puppy...

Re:My best guess.... (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539146)

What about those 386 PCs that had a turbo button that would allow it to run at twice the speed (66 MHz instead of 33 MHz)? Nobody ever turned it off, so why have the button in the first place?

Re:My best guess.... (5, Informative)

LiENUS (207736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539228)

What about those 386 PCs that had a turbo button that would allow it to run at twice the speed (66 MHz instead of 33 MHz)? Nobody ever turned it off, so why have the button in the first place?

For older games built for 33MHz processors that utilized the clock rate for timing.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539468)

What about those 386 PCs that had a turbo button that would allow it to run at twice the speed (66 MHz instead of 33 MHz)? Nobody ever turned it off, so why have the button in the first place?

For older games built for 33MHz processors that utilized the clock rate for timing.

Yup. I had a bunch of games like that. Used to be fun when someone else was playing, to hit the turbo button on them... Instant GAME OVER.

Re:My best guess.... (2, Interesting)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539668)

Or to turn it off when it's already on... BULLET TIME

Re:My best guess.... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539758)

The funny thing is, I never saw any software like that for 386s or even 286s speeds - and I still had a turbo on my 486 I think. I did use the turbo on my 286 that would turn it down to 8086 speeds, because I had some games that depended on that. For all the other computers it was just a meaningless "reduced speed" mode that wasn't standard in any way.

Re:My best guess.... (2, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540042)

Wing Comander needed it on my friends computer (and maybe mine I forget).

When it started it asked you if your computer was fast or slow. allowing for 4 combinations of turbo and game speed.

one worked on my computer, another on my friends, and 3 other combinations failed to work for either of us.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539266)

I heard that was for some games, written for the 286/8088, that didn't work right at "turbo" speeds.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539278)

You don't realize what that was for? Some programs were designed for the 33mhz processor and were timed for it. By running a 66mhz processor, your program would run 2x as fast which in some cases was undesirable. Hence the Turbo button.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539288)

First off 386s ran at 8 or 16 MHz (typically). Second, the purpose was to play older games that were tied directly to the clock and expecting to see 8 megahertz. So if you didn't enjoy playing Turbo Pacman or Turbo Wing Commander, you could press the button and slow everything to normal speed.

Aside-

I found an old laptop with a 386. I was surprised how responsive the machine was even though it's only ~0.02 GHz and a mere 0.01 gigabytes of RAM. Why is it that we could run Microsoft Word on such low specs back then (pre-1995), but not today? Why have programs grown so bloated.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539738)

First off 386s ran at 8 or 16 MHz (typically).

While 8 and 16Mhz was all that was available initially, it certainly wasn't uncommon to see 25 and 33 Mhz models later. AMD even put out 386SX and 386DX chips intended to ran at 40MHz and it was claimed by some to run faster than a 486@25MHz for some tasks. I had one of said SXs in my machine at the time and the machine certainly didn't do badly compared to the 486s running at 25MHz at school at the time (though I never ran anything to scientifically test the relative performance).

Re:My best guess.... (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539966)

I think programs have generally grown bloated because
  • it's easier to code to high level libraries than to rewrite a stack,
  • once everyone's addicted to high levels libraries they want more of it and the libraries grow in functional scope,
  • in some environments, as library interfaces evolve, multiple versions of the same library are installed side-by-side in an environment rather than doing the harder work of preserving backward compatibility or updating the calling code

If mature software architectures (such as POSIX) have taught us one thing it's that libraries (aka APIs, aka Toolboxes, aka <insert widget nomenclature du jour here>) are best kept small with well (ie. tightly) scoped functionality that adhere to some IPC standard and can be mixed & matched (vice more monolithic or Kitchen Sinkish approaches).

Re:My best guess.... (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539376)

I stumbled across a copy of tank wars that I used to LOVE to play on my old 286...fired it up onmy current system and its bloody impossible to play - everything just goes too fast when adjusting tank settings! But...of course...I had to d'l the 3d enabled port that someone did.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539552)

DosBox, friend! DosBox + TankWars = W00t

Re:My best guess.... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539692)

DOSBOX will let you scale the CPU speed.

Re:My best guess.... (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539604)

Nobody ever turned [the speedup button] off, so why have the button in the first place?

Nowadays, CPU speed settings are most useful for battery-powered computers to let the user trade off performance against battery life.

Re:My best guess.... (2, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539176)

The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS. Why? I have no idea...

At least it could be turned on. Sony computers with processors that support virtualization have the feature disabled in the BIOS and there is no option to enable it.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539930)

Hmm... not sure how true that is. I think because of the fact MS forced virtualization for XP mode, sony released a firmware update which enables you to change the setting.

My Vaio laptop was like that initially. I bought it with Vista installed (w/free upgrade to 7 when it came out). I applied to bios update and switched on virtualization after I installed 7.

So I guess the moral of the story is to check your chip; if it supports it, then check sony's site for a bios update.

Re:My best guess.... (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540406)

Hmm... not sure how true that is.

Here's the article [gizmodo.com] discussing it.

It's supposed to be disabled by default (3, Informative)

CreamyG31337 (1084693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539716)

It's to prevent hypervisor based rootkit attacks

https://www.microsoft.com/taiwan/whdc/system/platform/virtual/CPUVirtExt.mspx [microsoft.com]

  For systems that are destined for a server role (and for only these systems), enable the virtualization extensions. The threat of running malicious code as an administrator on servers is reduced through Windows Server policies and organizational best practices.

  For systems that are destined for a client role, disable (and lock off) the virtualization extensions.

  For systems that might be deployed in either a server or client role (such as high-end workstations), it would be prudent to disable the extensions by default.

Re:It's supposed to be disabled by default (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540496)

See my post here [slashdot.org] . Also, this means Microsoft contradicts itself: on one hand the XP Mode required (okay, "required") the hardware virtualization to be enabled, but on the other hand it is recommended to disabled it on client machines... where, go figure, XP Mode is most likely to be used!

I still think it's a lame excuse... AMD chips have it enabled by default.

begs the question (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538982)

This doesn't mean what you think it means. Why do some people (mostly nerds) insist on using this term, when it is obvious they don't know what it means or how to use it?

This must end.

Re:begs the question (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539162)

So, this begs the question on how to use "this begs the question".

Re:begs the question (1)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539494)

Example of begging the question:

Q: Provide evidence that the Christian God exists.
A: The Bible proves that God exists. The Bible is a reliable source because it is the word of God.

Re:begs the question (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540110)

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...

the pic [komplexify.com]

the shirt [shirtaday.com]

Re:begs the question (1)

Bobb Sledd (307434) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540310)

Great example. I like it.

Question though. (Just for fun, let me play Devil's Advocate for a minute, I know it's just an example, and I see what you're trying to educate here.)

If the question is "Provide evidence that the Christian God exists", and one definition the dictionary provided for "proof" is "anything serving as such evidence", and then if I provide the Bible as evidence, have I not offered proof?

Let me only slightly change the answer though: "The Bible helps prove God exists. The Bible is a reliable source because it is evidence of the word of God."

Now you may argue that it is not sufficient enough to convince on its own, and I agree... but we're talking purely semantics.

(Why is it important? Because by the dictionary definition, I would then assert that I had not "begged the question.")

totally offtopic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539008)

I am glad that some things on /. haven't changed, despite the fact that it has become so much more corporate and saturated with useless comments (much like this one, so, I apologize for the nostalgia. I hope someone else takes to heart the essence of this post).

For some odd reason I hadn't really thought about it lately but that old graphic of Bill Gates as a borg is so awesome. It just really stood out in my mind just now. I'm so glad that wasn't removed when various advertisements (including MS) began to appear on the front page.

Your site still rocks taco. Thanks for giving me something awesome to read for so many years.

Re:totally offtopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539682)

"really stood out in my mind"

You lie. AC doesn't have a mind for anything to stand out in. Stand - out - in - Wow that makes a lot of sense. Did you listen to yourself as you mouthed those words, before you typed them? Probably not - mouth breathers don't listen to anything, in my experience. Maybe if you have any literate relatives, you should get them to listen to you, before you type stupid shitz on the intartubez.

Oh, BTW - if you're going to gay out on the Taco, maybe you should get a room somewhere. Or, at least take it to the barn.

seems a bit of a conspiracy theory to me (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539042)

could it not just be that they wrote the code initially to be reliant on the hardware functions, in order to (i assume) get decent performance relatively quickly and with (again making assumptions) less overheads, and now they have managed to write a software only version at a similar decent level of performance? it seems to be TFA is just assuming that anything microsoft does is cynical and evil, not just a practical decision

Re:seems a bit of a conspiracy theory to me (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539082)

On one hand, XP Mode in 7 actually uses Virtual PC, which has been around for a long time - but didn't require hardware virtualization support until the most recent version.

On the other hand, while I can't find that link now, I do recall seeing one of VPC guys explaining that they went hardware-only for the new release simply because it allowed them to cut out a lot of code, which then no longer needs to be supported. In which case it may be that they have realized that it's a bad idea from business perspective, and put that code back in (and brought it up to date) with that patch.

Re:seems a bit of a conspiracy theory to me (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539652)

On the other hand, while I can't find that link now, I do recall seeing one of VPC guys explaining that they went hardware-only for the new release simply because it allowed them to cut out a lot of code, which then no longer needs to be supported.

Well, yes. x86 "Software virtualization" is an awful hack. All that code examination and patching. Getting rid of that machinery is a big win from the developer perspective.

From a development perspective, you'd like to get rid of 16-bit mode, mixed 16/32 bit mode (very ugly), and software virtualization. Linux, after all, supports none of those legacy modes.

Re:seems a bit of a conspiracy theory to me (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539920)

Also, it's not like hardware virtualization is exceedingly rare, either. On current AMD processors, for example, only the Sempron line doesn't support it. You also don't need to turn it on in the BIOS on AMD processors either: It either has it or it doesn't. It was actually a safe bet. I'm deliberately pointing out AMD's processors here, too, to show that it really couldn't have been a concession to Intel.

Re:seems a bit of a conspiracy theory to me (4, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539170)

That was my initial thought as well. Yes, well-written software-only virtualization can perform at a similar level, but if they can get it out the door faster with hardware supported virtualization, they may have decided the software-only approach wasn't worth the resources at the time. It's called prioritization; if they put the resources into software-only virtualization, they neglect something else.

The bigger announcement from MS today (2, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539128)

The bigger announcement was that they were dropping the stupid VDI licensing thing. Paying an extra $23/year on top of the outrageous fees we already pay for Select and Open licenses just for the privileged of using the desktop OS licenses in a virtual environment was just stupid and I'm very glad it was dropped, might make it a bit easier to find a positive ROI on a VDI project now.

AMD was supported too (2, Informative)

Mekkah (1651935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539200)

Clearly it isn't Intel over AMD, it could support both Intel VT and AMD-V. Don't throw out the hate without justification!

ars technica [arstechnica.com]
Thanks for pointing that out ColdWetDog.

Re:AMD was supported too (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539828)

Clearly it isn't Intel over AMD, it could support both Intel VT and AMD-V. Don't throw out the hate without justification!

I think the claimed Intel/AMD distinction is not about which particular set of visualization helper modes were supported - it is about the differences in general availability of the features between the manufacturers. I think *all* recent AMD chips have the relevant support, whereas Intel are still segmenting their market by putting out chips both with and without - see http://news.cnet.com/some-intel-chips-dont-support-windows-7-xp-mode/ [cnet.com] for one example of this being discussed.

Randall C. Kennedy (5, Funny)

jwietelmann (1220240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539248)

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/21/2329249 [slashdot.org] Windows 7 Memory Usage Critic Outed As Fraud, Subsequently Given Front Page Story on Slashdot for Some Reason

Re: Randall C. Kennedy who got fired by InfoWorld? (2, Funny)

FrankPoole (1736680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539536)

WTF. Seriously? Slashdot is sourcing these jokers? This article is written by the same guy who was pretending to be the CTO of Devil Mountain Software and then got fired by InfoWorld after he was outed. What a tragedy....

Re:Randall C. Kennedy (5, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539592)

If the editors paid a tenth as much attention to the story as the commentators did, I'll be pissed that they're giving this bozo even more traffic as a reward for passing bullshit off as fact.

Since they don't, I'll instead just have to remain pissed that the editors don't pay a tenth as much attention as the commentators do.

Hint for Slashdotters: anything posted by the Exo Performance Network is pure bullshit. Don't believe a syllable without independent verification.

Re:Randall C. Kennedy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539618)

What makes you think Slashdot editors actually RTFA. They just got to the part were Microsoft was criticized and then hit the post button, who cares about the source of the information.

Re:Randall C. Kennedy (3, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539648)

It looks to me as if he's just got a sockpuppet he uses to troll people. Trolling means page views and page views means ad revenue. What's the problem really? He was writing for a bunch of IT trade rags, not the New York Times.

Re:Randall C. Kennedy (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539970)

I'm really amazed to see this joker being linked to as well.

Gee I dunno (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539322)

Maybe at the start they asked the Windows Virtual PC team what their minimum requirements were, and made those the minimum requirements for XP Mode.

Then after a big media dustup, they discover that some of those requirements probably only apply to guest OSes newer than XP. So they spend a lot of time verifying this, and then when they're confident enough that this is true, they make a patch that removes this requirement. But they are clear to point out that this change is only supported when XP is your guest OS. But the minimum requirements for Windows Virtual PC didn't change for other guest OSes.

Naw, couldn't be it. Gotta be some sort of i915 payola connection in there somewhere.

Re:Gee I dunno (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539850)

This has nothing to do with the Guest OS. Hardware virtualization acceleration is dependent on the host OS - specifically, the virtual machine software itself.

Slashdot begs the question (3, Funny)

blueskies (525815) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539370)

Why all the begging?

Re:Slashdot begs the question (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539456)

I know. Sometimes you wish that slashdot has a real editor for the homepage.

Re:Slashdot begs the question (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539518)

How die alone in 5 easy steps:
  1. Go to college.
  2. Major in math/engineering/CS.
  3. Take a logic class from the philosophy department so you can blow it off and get an A.
  4. Armed with your logic lingo, smugly correct everyone's technical misusage of the phrase "begs the question."
  5. This isn't really a step. This is just the part where you die alone.

Re:Slashdot begs the question (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539746)

Right on the money XD On the other hand, English isn't my native language and I already know I shouldn't use that expression in that way.

Re:Slashdot begs the question (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539610)

They're bad at cards. Didn't know how to raise.

non VT runs dog slow (2, Interesting)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539420)

i've run the desktop version of VMWare on my laptop and it's very slow compared to the VT version of Windows XP Mode on the same laptop.

it's the same old complaints. people want a feature but if it's not supported in hardware and runs extremely slow they will scream on the internets how stupid microsoft is for making it so slow on 6 year old hardware that otherwise runs Windows 7 very well

Ah, false dichotomies. (2, Insightful)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539478)

There are many, many other possibilities than the two derogative possibilities offered. The one which seems most likely to me is that Microsoft thought "well, it's in all new hardware, it probably isn't worth the time and cost of implementing a software solution," only to find out that market demand existed.

Another possibility is that it took them time to produce an implementation of sufficient quality.

Re:Ah, false dichotomies. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540016)

Unfortunately, the software only thing was the way Virtual PC (which is whats actually being used) until the most recent versions, where they went from software only to hardware only virtually over night for no readily apparent reason other than they could do it.

Makes sense too (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540326)

Really, I'd say if you don't have a chip that supports VT/AMD-V you don't really want to be using XP mode. It is going to be all kinds of slow. This is partially because VT speeds up virtualization but also because it implies an older CPU. After all, ALL Core 2s and up have VT, as do some Pentium Ds. You want a reasonable amount of hardware to run Windows 7 and then run XP on top of it. I don't think that this was an unreasonable requirement.

However, some people seem to think they should be able to do all the latest crap with old computers and bitched, so MS is giving them what they wanted. Now they'll just bitch that it is too slow.

For Windows 7 Home Premium? (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539674)

Right now I use VMware player to run an old XP install for some stuff that requires XP, and it works pretty well. Does this patch mean I won't need to do this anymore, or is this patch only available to the windows 7 professional or whatever licenses? Side note: I just recently bought windows 7 home premium and I gotta say, things have improved a lot since XP. I'm a mac user and I think I might actually like windows 7 better (shock, horror). Windows 7 works great on my imac (besides that weird audio stuttering thing that sometimes happens, what is that?)

Re:For Windows 7 Home Premium? (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539686)

Argh, forgot to format. Imagine there's a break before Side note.

Re:For Windows 7 Home Premium? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539912)

With Home Premium, you will still need to use VMWare or another 3rd party program for your virtualisation requirements. The full version of Virtual PC might work, but XP mode won't. The main difference I suppose is that the other programs don't ship with a copy of Windows XP, whereas XP Mode for Windows 7 Pro and above does. Also, I don't think you get the seamless mode, you have to run XP within the program window, or access it remotely using RDP or VNC.

Re:For Windows 7 Home Premium? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540152)

Well actually, XP Mode doesn't ship at all (probably to save space on the retail disk) but has to be downloaded. But the license to use it only comes with Pro and above. Seamless mode is indeed available, though Virtual PC's isn't as good as VMWare's Unity (ironically enough)

Re:For Windows 7 Home Premium? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539932)

Officially, it's only available for Windows 7 professional. But I think that's only on the honor system through the download page. It's not "supported" on home premium. Though I've never tried it, since I'm a Mac user too (running XP in VirtualBox and only for IE6,7,8).

Re:For Windows 7 Home Premium? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540092)

Hmm... I don't know if Windows VPC will run on 7 HP. If it does, you'll have to buy a copy of XP to run in it. Win7 Pro and higher come with a license to run XP, no extra cost there. Really, I don't see any reason not to just get 7 pro, has all the features of home + xp mode and other features (bitlocker).

Re:For Windows 7 Home Premium? (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540192)

Well, I got it just because I wanted to try it out (and I got a SC2 beta key invite that was windows only.. .curse you blizzard! lol)

I may end up just getting the 60$ upgrade from HP so I can have a better windows experience, but I'm going to see how HP does for a week or so first.

Re:For Windows 7 Home Premium? (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540244)

Btw, kind of a strange place to ask this, but thought you might know since you seem knowledgable: I think I missed the boat on all the features that are in Windows 7, but is there a more full-featured console available in windows 7? CMD feels so clunky after coming from the terminal app in Mac OS X.

Tag as improperuseofbeggingthequestion (1)

fortapocalypse (1231686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539694)

read: Begging the question [wikipedia.org]

Virtual PC blog (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539822)

Explanation of this decision [msdn.com] from Virtual PC blog:

Why is Microsoft making this change to Virtual PC now?

Because of you :-) We have heard loud and clear from customers that they need to be able to run Windows Virtual PC and Windows XP Mode on systems that do not have hardware virtualization support. So we are going to enable this.

Why did Microsoft release Windows Virtual PC without this in the first place?

There are two main reasons here.

The first is that we believe that customers will get the best virtualization experience on computers with hardware virtualization support. This has not changed – and even though we are releasing this update I would strongly encourage anyone who is looking at buying a new computer, and intends to use virtualization, to make sure that they get a system that is capable of supporting hardware virtualization.

The second is that we had hoped that by the time Windows Virtual PC released – hardware virtualization support would be prevalent enough that this would not be an issue. We were wrong on that. Bummer.

coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539868)

I have other news for you: Windows 7 works fine with non-fully acpi compailant bios'es! You just have to replace the "broken" bootloader with something that works after the install "fails". Even the install disk's repair mode fixes things ;] My own experiance. Just another M$ bullshit ;]

So, if they published a patch (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539894)

Is there a link to it anywhere ?

I actually rtfa and there's no sign of one. I really can't be bothered searching MS site to find one as the CPU on this machine has VT on CPU and enabled in BIOS

Link to update (KB977206) (1)

youngec (239360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540276)

Yes, it is the same KB that was leaked back around January, KB977206.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=977206

Re:Link to update (KB977206) (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540512)

The one that says this in it ?

"Important This update supports only Windows XP Service Pack 3 virtual machines."

Gah, politics (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539896)

One reason I'm glad I don't use Windows is because I don't have to get caught on the short end of the bullshit politics stick. Even if something shitty happens with my favorite distro/browser/app, there's others to choose from.

Hardware virtualization is simpler... (1)

Pr0xY (526811) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540128)

The answer is probably that hardware virtualization is simply easier to implement. MS wanted to get the feature out of the door and to customers. They probably expect that a large number of Windows 7 users are on newer hardware likely to have VT. Then later updated the software to support software based virtualization in order to allow it to function for more people.

Adding features (in this case software virtualization support) through updates is hardly newsworthy...

Ars has a much better write up (4, Informative)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540460)

With actual links so you can download the patch to enable XP mode on previously unsupported processors, for instance:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/03/microsoft-removes-vm-hardware-requirements-from-xp-mode.ars [arstechnica.com]
Why the hell is this Exo-Blog post being cited? The author of TFA doesn't cite a goddamn thing.

Begs != raises (3, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540464)

The phrase "begs the question" does not mean "raises the question", or "makes us ask the question", though lots of people are using it in that sense. Begs the question means, it assumes the as true what it intends to prove. The Latin phrase "petitio principii" means, the answer (or the answerer) begs (petitions) the questioner to be accepted as true, to concede what is being contested.

But this mistake is so common, so many people are using it this way, it is high time we start de linking "begs the question" from "petitio principii".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>