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!

HP Disables VT On Some Intel Laptops

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the fixed-soon dept.

HP 258

snoukka writes "I just bought a new HP nx9420 laptop in order to use it with Linux, XEN, and windows on XEN. I was very disappointed when I noticed that the processor had this feature but VT is disabled in BIOS by HP and cannot be enabled! Disabled!? It's like buying a car with turbo and finding out after buying it that this turbo 'feature' was disabled." The forum thread goes back to last August and is still live. The latest post from an HP rep indicates that new firmware for the nx9420 should be available later this week in which the ability to switch on VT is enabled. It's not clear whether other HP products, in which VT was also disabled, will also get new firmware.

cancel ×

258 comments

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

But will they charge $4.99? (5, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637642)

But will HP have to charge $4.99 for the VT compatible firmware in order to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [slashdot.org] ?

Re:But will they charge $4.99? (2, Funny)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638062)

No, no, just read the last posts in the thread... They will charge $499,- for it because they are waiting for Vista. Maybe they need to bundle it with the Bios?

Re:But will they charge $4.99? (1)

boarder (41071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638242)

Damn, you beat me to the joke.

Re:But will they charge $4.99? (1)

virtualthinker (872434) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638490)

Bet on it.

It'll be fixed... (2, Funny)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637648)

...just in time for you to play Duke Nukem Forever!

Re:It'll be fixed... (0)

XavierKing (1043374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638046)

Forever seems like an awfully long time to play Duke Nukem. I owned it for the Nintendo 64 and I must say, the gameplay seriously lacked excitement.

Re:It'll be fixed... (1)

carninja (792514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638176)

That's because the Duke Nukem you were playing on the N64 was a [bad] port of an already 5 year old (or was it older?) game. DNF is [supposed to be] a very different game.

Re:It'll be fixed... (0, Redundant)

Heembo (916647) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639052)

DNF is vaporware, dude.

Re:It'll be fixed... (1)

carninja (792514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639124)

Vaporware that's still being funded. I'm not getting my hopes up, be we heard more news about DNF last year than we have since 1997... It may see the light of day yet. Whether or not it's another Daikatana, however, will remain to be seen.

Re:It'll be fixed... (0, Offtopic)

Heembo (916647) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639254)

So they have been stringing you along by the cock for 9 years and you are still patiently waiting? This makes Microsoft product promises look like the word of god. Give in and give up man, your soul is at stake!

Re:It'll be fixed... (1)

carninja (792514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639430)

Hey, I don't have it now, and I'm not pre-ordering it... It doesn't affect me whatsoever if it ever makes it out or not, so I'm not particularly worried about it. If it comes out, cool, I'll probably pick it up, unless it gets horrible reviews. If it doesn't, well, I'll be doing the same thing I'm doing right now: Not playing Duke Nukem Forever. No biggie.

WTF is VT? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17637650)

and why should I care? HPs suck anyway. That computer is for gays.

Re:WTF is VT? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17637858)

Hey, I'm gay, you insensitive faggot!!

Re:WTF is VT? (1)

MS-06FZ (832329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638200)

"Victoria Terpsichore"

There, I'll take the big stack of money now...

Re:WTF is VT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17638698)

You confused HP for Apple Macintosh.

first post! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17637656)

Yay!

VT? (4, Insightful)

M0b1u5 (569472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637670)

What is VT? That'd be nice to know.

Re:VT? (1, Funny)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637704)

Agreed. Virtual Terminal? Viral Technology? Vindictive Tomato? Cuz if it was the tomato, I'm not sure I'd want that re-enabled.

Vaginal Trauma (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17637728)

I gave VT to my wife... ;)

Re:VT? (4, Informative)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637740)

Virtualization Technology

Re:VT? (1, Informative)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637834)

Wikipedia is pretty bad, but with a bit of common sense, you can work out things you didn't know before:

VT [wikipedia.org] !

Re:VT? (5, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638652)

Because, of course, it's better to send 5000 users to Wikipedia for a two-letter acronym search than for the author who already know the meaning to include it between parenthesis.

Re:VT? (0, Troll)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638720)

I wasn't trying to define VT - I was aiming to illustrate a method of learning that the OP had yet to utilise. Next time there's an acronym that s/he doesn't recognise, they'll at least have a quick and convenient way of working it out.

Re:VT? (4, Insightful)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638728)

In this particular case, the Wiki page you linked to is a list of 29 possible meanings, 13 just in the tech section, where the appropriate meaning is 7th of the 13. I'd personally say that a wiki seart on VT would just add more confusion.

I know it's fun to say RTFM when you're frustrated at poeople who chose not to read, but in this case a @two letter acronym would really be helped by a definition or a link.

Re:VT? (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638820)

In this particular case, the Wiki page you linked to is a list of 29 possible meanings, 13 just in the tech section, where the appropriate meaning is 7th of the 13. I'd personally say that a wiki seart on VT would just add more confusion.

But only 1 (one) of the possible meanings included the word "Intel". As the article headline includes the same word, I thought it would be a big hint.

Have a look at a reply I just posted above - my intention here was not to say a big RTFM, it was to highlight the possible educational benefits of Wikipedia.

Re:VT? (3, Informative)

Ironica (124657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637854)

What is VT? That'd be nice to know.
Yes, it would be nice for them to put it right in the /. post, since if you RTFA, you have to get all the way to the *fourth* post in the forum before it's spelled out for you!

(BTW, Virtualization Technology, for those whose browsers are incapable of leaving the slashdot domain.)

Re:VT? (3, Funny)

Darth Android (989471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638272)

There's domains beside slashdot's?!?

Re:VT? (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638792)

I figured it out as soon as I saw mention of the CPU and Xen, but yeah it could have been a lot clearer.

Oh and well done on getting modded troll... WTF's with that?! Any mod wanna cancel that out, it's a perfectly reasonable comment.

Re:VT? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638900)

Yes, it would be nice for them to put it right in the /. post, since if you RTFA, you have to get all the way to the *fourth* post in the forum before it's spelled out for you!

That post uses the words, but does not "spell it out" as a definition, only the relative rarity of words beginning with V might lead one to guess that. You obviously already knew that and were looking for it, but the uninitiated wouldn't.

(BTW, Virtualization Technology, for those whose browsers are incapable of leaving the slashdot domain.)

I assume you meant to put a link there.

Re:VT? (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639662)

You obviously already knew that and were looking for it, but the uninitiated wouldn't.
Actually, no, I've never heard of Virtualization Technology before this article was posted, and was as curious as the next person. But it didn't take me long to figure it out from context. No longer than it took to scan the posts for words beginning with the letter v, followed by words beginning with the letter t.

*shrug* maybe my pattern-matching skills are better than the average bear, but honestly, I hadn't the foggiest notion what "VT" might have been before following the link provided here.

Re:VT? (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639490)

"for those whose browsers are incapable of leaving the slashdot domain"

Thanks, because traffic from Slashdot readers has never been known to slow down or disable a web server, or else there would be a verb for it. Chode.

Re:VT? (1, Funny)

astrosmash (3561) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637892)

Very Terse.

Re:VT? (4, Funny)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638342)

Victoria Telpiscorei [aaanime.net]

Re:VT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17638406)

Quite a valid question. You know, I browse through sites like /. on a daily basis and I always come across these half-assed posts. Often the subject is clearly (and sometimes rediculously) hyped as though it is a life or death cause, but I often have no idea what the subject itself, is. And not because I've never run across the subject or because I know nothing about it, but because someone decides to abbreviate EFW (yes, you see, Every F***ing Word). From where I'm sitting you pretty much have to be the author to understand what is being said. Thats not the most effective way to convey a point (if you even have one). I know that these people think that by abbreviating everything they are saving time, but they are just wasting mine. I think "oh, that must be blah blah blah." So I read a few lines of the article only find that instead its about something totally out of my interest threshold. So the next time I see the poster's name I think, "oh, whatever you are selling, no thank you." Anyway, this probably won't make a difference since it is way outside said poster's attention span but I figured I'd throw it out there. And for the record, there is nothing wrong with abbreviations(from here on "ab."), as long as you introduce the ab. first, you only have to do it once. Come on, its not too much to ask is it?

Re:VT? (1)

AVIDJockey (816640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638570)

HP should be ashamed for causing such suffering to the proud citizens of Vermont.

Re:VT? (1)

bobwilkins (72864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639286)

Today Verizon leaves us in the Mud then HP won't enable us. Our IBM processors were too slow for the Macs so they went to Intel. Must be the lack of Snow. I know our maple syrup is still the best!

Re:VT? (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638766)

What is VT? That'd be nice to know.

It's the V-Twin [wikipedia.org] engine used in Harley Davidson motorcycles.

So does Lenovo... (3, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637780)

...on some of their newer Thinkpads [thinkwiki.org] . You'd think that when you're spending $2000 on a "business-class" laptop, you'd get it without any artificial limitations...

Re:So does Lenovo... (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637878)

Great.

Until now, I only had to find a laptop without Windows preinstalled.

Now I have to check I'm not buying crippleware, too.

Oh, joy.

Re:So does Lenovo... (4, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638108)

After having taken a closer look at the page I linked (because it's been changed since I read it last), I've discovered that my particular model (X60t) at least has a new BIOS out that fixes the problem. : )

This leads me to believe that, at least for Lenovo, it's just that they were presumably in a hurry to get the model released, not that it was intentional crippleware.

Re: Nothing new... (3, Informative)

Speed Pour (1051122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638392)

A little over a year ago I bought an HP laptop (I've forgotten the model) as a gift for my mother. First thing I did after getting it out of the box was wipe it clean of the pre-installed xp home edition and tons of advertising. With a new OS installed, I discovered that the processor, optical drive, and something else (I forget the 3rd item) were scaled down to barely functional speeds. After investigation, I discovered that those bits would not operate without specialized drivers that were not available for download. Further investigation suggests that the drivers may have existed for xp home only, even excluding pro.

Needless to say, the laptop was returned and I called alienware the next day.

Re:So does Lenovo... (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638542)

You already had to do that with IBM/Lenovo laptops. That's the company that creates a BIOS that refused to boot if an "unauthorised" card was in the minipci slot.

Re:So does Lenovo... (1)

CrankyOldFart (1052008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639102)

Now I have to check I'm not buying crippleware, too.


You mean like the oh so common ~3GHz P4 systems with a 16K L1 and 128K L2 cache that are outperformed by a PIII 1000MHz with a 32K L1 and 512K L2 cache?

Re:So does Lenovo... (4, Informative)

Utopia (149375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637930)

I brought a Lenovo T60p recently. VT was off by default but can be turned on in the BIOS.

Re:So does Lenovo... (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639022)

Thankfully my T60 appears to be unaffected. It shipped with VT off, but I toggled it on in the BIOS without issue.

Is this news or a whine? (-1, Troll)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637840)

Seriously, this sound more like a whine than a news story. I guess if the summary was written differently it might sound a little more important but as it stands it comes off as "I bought a new laptop to do x and x and x with it, but waaaahhh! it won't let me."

It's news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17637918)

Artificial restrictions on hardware is an asinine thing, and given the fact that many people on Slashdot may have dealings with HP for servers/equipment, it's effectively news and a warning.

Re:Is this news or a whine? (2, Informative)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637946)

Disabled!? It's like buying a car with turbo and finding out after buying it that this turbo 'feature' was disabled.
What's not clear about that? It's accurate, too, since VT is listed as a feature of the chip they were buying and was specifically disabled by HP. If you read the linked forum thread, you will see that the people who got screwed over by this did their research and knew what they wanted. Calling these complaints "whining" really trivializes HP's screw-up.

mandelbr0t

I know just how you feel (4, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637964)

I was born with two perfectly good nipples, each of which is perfectly capable of producing milk, but the feature was disabled with a few androgens.

If you ever have spare time and a strong stomach (4, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638180)

Try searching around for "male lactation"

It's actually not uncommon. If you feel cheated, there are drugs you can take to enable this feature. Some models autoenable this feature for no reason.

Re:I know just how you feel (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638512)

At least God provided the option of turning said feature back on with the estrogen patch.

I think he's still working out some bugs though. Seems the patch has a tendency to mess up the voice recognition software in humans and make them start to incorrectly hear things, then react violently based upon the misinterpretations.

Re:I know just how you feel (1)

mrsev (664367) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638868)

...well there are certain hormones that you can take to enable this feature and thus have a full feature set!

Re:I know just how you feel (4, Funny)

Cousin Scuzzy (754180) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639002)

I was born with two perfectly good nipples, each of which is perfectly capable of producing milk, but the feature was disabled with a few androgens.

Ah, I get it now. VT = Vestigial Teat, right?

Not surprised... (5, Insightful)

innosent (618233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637872)

Enabling VT is a huge security risk with no benefit for most of HP's customers. You probably should be able to turn it on, but having it on leaves open the possibility that a rootkit could be installed as the hypervisor/VMM/whatever, making it undetectable to the OS. Even having the option seems dangerous, as many "power users" will probably enable everything in the BIOS they can, regardless of risk/reward. On second thought, there are probably only a few hundred people that would run Xen on their laptop, so why have the "bug" available on the other few hundred thousand laptops? I suspect there may be many legal reasons why it is disabled by default, whether or not disabling the option to turn it on was intentional or not.

Re:Not surprised... (2, Interesting)

Ironica (124657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637926)

I suspect there may be many legal reasons why it is disabled by default, whether or not disabling the option to turn it on was intentional or not.
I get the impression, though, from the forum posts, that it is only on Intel-based laptops that VT cannot be enabled. It appears you do have the option on AMD laptops.

[Insert obligatory Intel/Microsoft conspiracy theory here]

Re:Not surprised... (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638560)

There's a very good reason. Only Intel uses VT. AMD uses a different, but similar tech called Pacifica. I'm not entirely sure of what software uses it.

Re:Not surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17638004)

There are at least a hundred people in our university in Ireland alone who would run Xen on their laptops. And as it happens, HP has the campus computer contract this cycle.

You're massively underestimating the popularity of Linux and Xen worldwide, especially outside the Corporate Reich of Americosoft.

Re:Not surprised... (2, Informative)

spotter (5662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638160)

serious risk? you are probably referring to the "Blue Pill", the Blue is way overblown, wikipedia has a short summary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Pill_(malware) [wikipedia.org]

No is not. (1)

Generic Player (1014797) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638494)

Just because people make up pretend security problems every time any "new" (in this case its actually quite old, just new to PCs) technology comes out to get attention for themselves, doesn't mean its true. There's nothing special about VT that creates any mythical security risk, nevermind a "huge" one. I guess HP should stop selling XP systems and go back to Me right? Damn those raw sockets destroying the internet.

Re:Not surprised... (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638796)

If there is, as you say, a significant security risk when this feature is enabled then it is probably best for HP to continue shipping the disabled BIOS as standard equipment while providing the firmware updates to those who want them and are savvy enough to download, install, and configure them. This should satisfy the few hundred HP laptop Xen users out there while at the same time limiting exposure for other 99% of HP laptop owners who have no idea what VT is and wouldn't use it anyway.

Re:Not surprised... (1)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638878)

> Enabling VT is a huge security risk with no benefit
> for most of HP's customers.

But please be strict and state that this is risk for running certain operating systems.

(...)

> You probably should be able to turn it on,

If you buy a car with AC (FIY not all cars are equiped with AC in Eurtope - just FYI) do you expect that you can turn it on? :)

(...)

> there are probably only a few hundred people that would run Xen on their
> laptop, so why have the "bug" available on the other few hundred thousand
> laptops?

Because te bug is not a bug - it is a design - the bug is in certain OS.

Re:Not surprised... (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638982)

If you buy a car with AC (FIY not all cars are equiped with AC in Eurtope - just FYI) do you expect that you can turn it on? :)

Why would I buy a car with Anonymous Coward? :-)

Re:Not surprised... (1)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639094)

To knock out the monkeys - simple. ;)

VT provides no perf advantage. (3, Informative)

Utopia (149375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637902)

I tried to compare the perf difference with VT enabled & disabled using Virtual PC 2007 RC2 & Vmware Latest Beta.
I was pretty disappointed to find that there is no perf. difference with VT enabled or disabled.

Re:VT provides no perf advantage. (4, Informative)

innosent (618233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638024)

This is not a performance issue. The only "performance" difference here is that with VT, you can run Windows under Xen. Without VT, you cannot, but can still run kernels (Linux/BSD/etc.) which are built to run on the Xen hypervisor. The OP wanted to use it to run Windows and Linux/BSD/etc. under Xen. As Virtual PC and VMWare both do full virtualization, VT will not make a difference, but with Xen's (faster) paravirtualization (which requires cooperation between the VMM and the guest OS), it means that VT can keep Windows in its own domain, so that interrupts and syscalls don't interfere with the hypervisor and other guest OS(s).

Re:VT provides no perf advantage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17638432)

But with Xen's (faster) paravirtualization (which requires cooperation between the VMM and the guest OS), it means that VT can keep Windows in its own domain, so that interrupts and syscalls don't interfere with the hypervisor and other guest OS(s)

I am not sure if you are implying Windows on Xen is faster or it has anything to do with paravirtualization. Xen uses VT to implement full virtualization. Since VT does not support memory virtualization, xen is slower than Virtual PC and VMWare for full virtualization.

Re:VT provides no perf advantage. (2)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638462)

I am not sure if you are implying Windows on Xen is faster

He's implying that without VT, windows does not perform on Xen.

Re:VT provides no perf advantage. (1)

BillAtHRST (848238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638918)

Actually, VT can be used to enable VMWare Server (the free version) to run 64-bit guest OS's on 32-bit hosts ( http://kb.vmware.com/KanisaPlatform/Publishing/73/ 1901_f.SAL_Public.html [vmware.com] ). Although, in my experience the performance can be somewhat iffy (http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?biz .5.437372.14 [joelonsoftware.com] ).

Re:VT provides no perf advantage. (1)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638116)

It might be like P4 hyperthreading, where if it is disabled when the OS is installed it is disabled until you reinstall the OS. Enabling it in BIOS looks nice, but the OS support isn't there until you reinstall.

I came across some people that didn't know this and deduced that hyperthreading was ineffective. Reinstalling the OS can double certain CPU-intensive tasks.

Re:VT provides no perf advantage. (4, Informative)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638132)

1. I'm not sure that VMWare other than the higher end versions (ie not the free 'server' edition) would be capable of using VT at all; it isn't exactly a hypervisor...

2. From the Xen mailing list re why disk IO (for one thing) *will* be slower in a HVM domain than in a paravirtualised domain:

The reason the emulated IDE controller is quite slow is a consequence of
the emulation. The way it works is that the driver in the HVM domain
writes to the same IO ports that the real device would use. These writes
are intercepted by the hardware support in the processor and a VMEXIT is
issued to "exit the virtual machine" back into the hypervisor. The HV
looks at the "exit reason", and sees that it's an IO WRITE operation.
This operation is then encoded into a small packet and sent to QEMU.
QEMU processes this packet and responds back to HV to say "OK, done
that, you may continue". HV then does a VMRUN (or VMRESUME in the Intel
case) to continue the guest execution, which is probably another IO
instruction to write to the IDE controller. There's a total of 5-6 bytes
written to the IDE controller per transaction, and whilst it's possible
to combine some of these writes into a single write, it's not always
done that way. Once all writes for one transaction are completed, the
QEMU ide emulation code will perform the requested operation (such as
reading or writing a sector). When that is complete, a virtual interrupt
is issued to the guest, and the guest will see this as a "disk done"
interrupt, just like real hardware.

All these steps of IO intercepts takes several thousand cycles, which is
a bit longer than a regular IO write operation would take on the real
hardware, and the system will still need to issue the real IO operations
to perform the REAL hardware read/write corresponding to the virtual
disk (such as reading a file, LVM or physical partition) at some point,
so this is IN ADDITION to the time used by the hypervisor.

Unfortunately, the only possible improvement on this scenario is the
type "virtual-aware" driver that is described below.

[Using a slightly more efficient model than IDE may also help, but
that's going to be marginal compared to the benefits of using a
virtual-aware driver].


(Credit goes to Mats Petersson).

Better then other companies (4, Insightful)

Target Drone (546651) | more than 7 years ago | (#17637906)

At least HP responded to the thread, acknowedged the problem and have said that a patch is comming on the 22nd. I guess it did take 6 months to get this fixed but I imagine BIOS updates aren't easy to push through.

At least they didn't just delete the post. *cough* apple [slashdot.org] *cough*

Re:Better then other companies (1)

LOTHAR, of the Hill (14645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638384)

Agreed. I'd guess it's more a case of VT not being enabled by the BIOS yet rather than VT actually being disabled. BIOS development is nasty business and takes awhile.

5 Bucks? (0, Redundant)

lcreech (1491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638084)

Does this mean that HP will have to charge you for it like Apple?

One Simple Solution (4, Informative)

Skewray (896393) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638118)

Perhaps not quite ready for prime time, but http://freebios.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] is a nice way to solve this problem. Then if VT doesn't work, you can fix it yourself.

My sony laptop has the same problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17638122)

Sony core 2 duo laptops, like my VGN-SZ340P, also do not have VT enabled in the BIOS. Supposedly the flag is still set in Linux, but windows needs the BIOS stuff for it to work right...

Sony will not comment on when this will be fixed.

Wasn't tested? (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638144)

> Our BIOS folks were instructed to lock it out without
> reason other than the fact that we don't test it.

Be like my company - just sell it, and the customers will tell you if anything's wrong.

Re:Wasn't tested? (1)

sehlat (180760) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638248)

"the HP way." (Revised)?

Bad Experiences with HP Laptops (4, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638230)

I've had bad experiences with HP laptops before. This was several years ago, so I may not remember everything correctly.

My HP Pavilion laptop had the USB controller on IRQ 11, but, according to 2 out of 3 BIOS tables, it was on IRQ 9. This caused USB not to work under Linux. HP and the BIOS vendor apparently weren't interested in fixing the issue, so, eventually, it was worked around with a patch to Linux. According to what I've heard, the USB controller worked under Windows, but would reset every 5 minutes.

Around the time the warranty expired (I don't recall if it was just before or just after), the cooling fan started to get stuck. This would result in it making an awful lot of noise, followed soon enough by the system shutting down, because of overheating. After several requests to various addresses and phone numbers at HP, they offered that I could send the laptop in for repair, and they'll put in a new fan and send it back to me. Unfortunately, the operation would have cost more money than it was worth to me.

Also, the socket where the power adapter connects to the laptop broke. I eventually figured out how to open the laptop, get everything out of the way to get to the socket, and put everything back together. However, I never really succeeded in fixing the socket. I tried everything from soldering to chewing gum, but it kept breaking again. Just before I decided to fix the adapter plug to the socket (thus hopefully keeping the two connected and in place), the hard disk finally got so many bad sectors that it couldn't be used anymore. I gave the laptop away to a friend who said he'd fix and sell it, but a week later I found it on the sidewalk, thrown out of the window.

All in all, I think I got about a year and a half out of the laptop. After that, I bought an iBook, which I just sold last summer, apparently still working perfectly after two years of heavy use (more than the HP was ever subjected to). Pleased with Apple, but not wanting to make the switch to the Macbook just yet, I got another iBook before they ran out. It will take quite some convincing to get me to buy HP again, and I have a lasting aversion of moving parts in computers.

Somewhat of a problem (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638246)

Disabling VT isn't as bad as it seems, but it isn't very good. The V isn't used very much, and words with V in them could be substituted. But T? T is used everywhere. They should have disabled QX instead, since almost nothing uses those letters.

Re:Somewhat of a problem (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638692)

I get very nervous about your claim that the V is not used very much. I don't know what the average number of uses is, but it's surely above the level of relevance, and it's absolutely obvious that if we would not have it any more, the effects would be not only observable, but even severe, if not devastating.

However, not having the Q would of course reduce the quality of texts (and also the quantity) :-)

Re:Somewhat of a problem (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638840)

I get bery nerbous about your claim that the B is not used bery much. I don't know what the aberage number of uses is, but it's surely abobe the lebel of relebance, and it's absolutely obious that if we would not habe it any more, the effects would be not only obserbable, but eben sebere, if not debastating.

      There, your statement has been corrected for the new "V"-less world, and it is quite readable in fact. Oh look, not a single "V" in these sentences, unless I quote it directly!

Re:Somewhat of a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17639114)

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose so let me simply add that its my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

paid upgrades (2, Interesting)

cpearson (809811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638372)

If HP released this upgrade in functionality with a firmware update, would the previous article on /. entitled "Apple Charges For 802.11n, Blames Accounting Law" link - http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/16/ 2127204 [slashdot.org] violate the same Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Does anyone else anticipate paying for updates to get features that were originally promised?

http://www.vistahelpforum.com/ [vistahelpforum.com]

WTF is VT? (2, Insightful)

Ignorant Aardvark (632408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638468)

This is yet another Slashdot article that assumes too much. I don't think the average reader is going to know what "VT" is. I certainly don't. It shouldn't be necessary to click through a link to understand the gist of what this story is about. VT should be explained in the synopsis.

Re:WTF is VT? (1)

CrankyOldFart (1052008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638800)

This is yet another Slashdot article that assumes too much. I don't think the average reader is going to know what "VT" is. I certainly don't. It shouldn't be necessary to click through a link to understand the gist of what this story is about. VT should be explained in the synopsis.


But then the submitter wouldn't sound so cool in his own mind! There is a proportional relationship between self-importance and overuse of obscure acronyms that could mean just about anything. We should bow to the illiterate inadequate communication skills of such people, it clearly indicates their superior intelligence.

I, for one, welcome our illiterate, obscure acronym overusing, hyper intelligent overlords.

My seven year old Asus mainboard with six year old Award bios runs VMWare images of all kinds just fine. (it can also natively run just about any OS you can throw at it)

Virtualisation software that has specific "virtualisation technology" hardware requirements is pretty retarded, kind of defeats the whole purpose of it if you ask me.

HP has been slaughtering Phoenix bios for ages. Buy real hardware and you will find you have no software limitations.

Re:WTF is VT? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639068)

I, for one, welcome our illiterate, obscure acronym overusing, hyper intelligent overlords.

That's:
IFOWO illiterate, OAO, HI overlords.

Re:WTF is VT? (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639188)

It shouldn't be necessary to click through a link to understand the gist of what this story is about.
Especially when the link is SlashDotted and I get 92,900,000 results in a Google search for "vt."

Re:WTF is VT? (1, Insightful)

vga_init (589198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639304)

I really don't think it assumes too much. This entire site is geared toward a demographic that has been following VT for some time.

Therefore, instead of complaining, you can...

  • Take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to learn something new and do some research. You've already got the Internet, which will tell you everything you want to know.
  • Stop reading Slashdot. If the stories aren't hitting home with you, then maybe you'd like to try another site. You've got the Internet for that too.
  • Skip it and focus on the stories that interest you. If you're not concerned enough to research it, and you're not alienated enough to quit Slashdot, it's time to move on. What, did you think you could get us to stop posting articles about VT just because you don't like it?

I don't want VT on my notebook too (1)

AnnuitCoeptis (1049058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638636)

I would laser-cut it on the silicon die if I could. VT actually brings nothing of value to the 99% of users, but it allows for the worst breed of viruses to virtualize themselves. I've heard last week on a Microsoft conference here in Europe about the issues here and I can say its all bad news from the security standpoint.

Re:I don't want VT on my notebook too (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638888)

But couldn't a virtualized anti virus program catch a virus which tries to virtualize itself?
I could even imagine a virtualized AV program to be more effective because it is independent from the host OS and therefore cannot be disabled by a virus from within the OS.

Re:I don't want VT on my notebook too (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638978)

``VT actually brings nothing of value to the 99% of users, but it allows for the worst breed of viruses to virtualize themselves.''

So how come this isn't a problem on other architectures, which have presumably supported this kind of virtualization for ages?

Re:I don't want VT on my notebook too (1)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639146)

I've heard last week on a Microsoft conference here in Europe about the issues here and I can say its all bad news from the security standpoint.

Microsoft is actually admitting how bad their security model is?

Not just HP, Dell does this as well. (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638714)

VT is not currently supported by Dell, either. There is no way to turn it on in any Dell system's BIOS, nor is there an ETA on a firmware update coming out to enable it.

To be honest though, it's one of those features you'd never notice is gone unless you were looking for it.

(Full disclosure for ethics: I work for Dell as a Gold Tech Support Agent. In my 5 months here at Dell, I've had only one call about Intel VT, which was -- in an odd quirk of fate -- just yesterday.)

Re:Not just HP, Dell does this as well. (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 7 years ago | (#17638986)

VT is not currently supported by Dell, either. There is no way to turn it on in any Dell system's BIOS, nor is there an ETA on a firmware update coming out to enable it.
That is not true. My Dell Inspiron E1505 has VT disabled by default, but it is definitely enable-able in the BIOS. If it wasn't I would not even know that it was disabled.

Re:Not just HP, Dell does this as well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17639220)

Dell PE1950 and PE2950 servers both support VT so I am not sure what systems with VT that have it disabled you are looking at.

YUO FAIQL IT. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17638834)

a conscious stand quarreled on that *BSD is These chaLlenges FreeBSD core team FreeBSD at about 80 The future holds The gay niggers my efforts were

Problem solved (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639004)

Just RTFA. Posts at the end:

Andy Fisher
Jan 11, 2007 16:22:40 GMT 8 pts
The BIOS was tied to Vista launch. I think I've got it seperated now and moving again through the process for XP. It should show up under BIOS for XP soon.

Andy Fisher
Jan 12, 2007 14:27:33 GMT 10 pts
I would start looking on the web at the end of next week, around 19th. Because of MLK day on Monday it might be early week of 22nd.

This should be for all VT capable platforms but of course I'm sure you'll all be posting here if yours doesn't show up. :)


Fisher is an HP employee.

I have the same problem. (1)

sirfunk (667309) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639080)

I have the same problem with my Gateway M255. Only gateway won't really give me any information about it. Here's a reply I got from them when i inquired if they planned on supporting it in the future: "Thank you for using Gateway's Online E-mail Support. If you want to know if when will the Intel Virtualization Technology be activated on your notebook, please note that we have no further information regarding this matter. If it is ready to be activated, Gateway will release information regarding it. For now, kindly wait for it to be released. If it is released, Gateway will support this feature." Very coherent grammar there eh?

Solution (1)

xrayspx (13127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639258)

Clearly HP should ship all their machines with a "Turbo" button, that should solve everything.

Dell did this too (1)

swbrown (584798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639320)

Dell pulled this crap with the XPS 700, their 'enthusiast' line of computer. It took months of furious customers to get them to publish a BIOS with the ability to turn VT back on. They also did a lot of other really evil stuff like selling a gutted version of the nForce 590 chip'set' despite not saying it was gutted, ditto for the X-Fi soundcard (they removed the library that lets anything but Dell's music player play DTS audio).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?