First, I'd like to say something about this before anyone accuses the wrong group here. This is in no way Microsofts fault. You'll understand why it's not their fault this time.
But, it seems that many current intel cpus even dating back to the Pentium D series cannot run XP mode in Windows 7. This is because Intel decided to not include Virtualization Technology(VT for short) into most of their conroe based cpus, to keep cost down of the processors. This was the wrong move to make Intel, many programs for businesses are optimized and supported by XP fully, and without this VT planted inside the processors, Windows 7 cannot address the program in the correct manner. Here is a list of some cpus that do not support Intel VT.
Q8XXX, E8190, E7XXX, E5XXX, E4XXX, E2XXX, E1XXX, 9X5, 8XX
There are some intel cpus which entire line supports it, all of the e6, i7, atom, and pentium d 9X0 series support VT. However, due to restrictions of the pentium D series, VT is almost useless in an environment like 7. This is bad news for both Intel and Microsoft, businesses can't upgrade to Windows 7 and expect better performance results if they can't run their programs they need to run, and Intel will slowly start to lose the budget business battle, seeing that all modern AMD cpus dating back almost to most 939 processors and even some 754 processors support VT in their own fashion.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=946
http://www.amdzone.com/index.php/news/wind...ndows-7-xp-mode
Full Version: Most Intel CPUs can't use XP mode in Windows 7.
QUOTE (vbetts @ May 7 2009, 05:54 AM) 
First, I'd like to say something about this before anyone accuses the wrong group here. This is in no way Microsofts fault. You'll understand why it's not their fault this time.
Ha ha ha! Nice try lol.
Certainly the industry don't mind when folks have to upgrade their machines:)
Also: one more reason for doing XP it in VM on a mac
Also: one more reason for doing XP it in VM on a mac
QUOTE (XLR @ May 7 2009, 12:16 AM)
Ha ha ha!
Nice try lol.
Nice try lol.
Nice try about what? Intel/AMD are the ones that chose not to include virtualization technology on all their chips. Sure, Microsoft could chose to enable it without it (a la Virtual PC 2007), but it would be slow as hell. Besides, most people that need this, should have systems that support it. This isn't something your average user will be using
Well, if Microsoft bases a necessary feature on a hardware feat that is not mainstream, they ARE to blame. I mean, they already knew that when they started to develop...
QUOTE (cain. @ May 7 2009, 11:23 AM)
Well, if Microsoft bases a necessary feature on a hardware feat that is not mainstream, they ARE to blame. I mean, they already knew that when they started to develop...
You really have no idea about how Virtualisation works do you?
I'm not entirely sure I follow this.
I have my Dual Boot OSx/Windows 7 box at home with a Core2Duo E7400 in it, and in Windows 7 I have XP running in Virtualbox, at full speed. Previously I had it running in windows 7 with VMware.
Am I doing it wrong?
I have my Dual Boot OSx/Windows 7 box at home with a Core2Duo E7400 in it, and in Windows 7 I have XP running in Virtualbox, at full speed. Previously I had it running in windows 7 with VMware.
Am I doing it wrong?
QUOTE (underball @ May 7 2009, 07:43 PM)
I'm not entirely sure I follow this.
I have my Dual Boot OSx/Windows 7 box at home with a Core2Duo E7400 in it, and in Windows 7 I have XP running in Virtualbox, at full speed. Previously I had it running in windows 7 with VMware.
Am I doing it wrong?
I have my Dual Boot OSx/Windows 7 box at home with a Core2Duo E7400 in it, and in Windows 7 I have XP running in Virtualbox, at full speed. Previously I had it running in windows 7 with VMware.
Am I doing it wrong?
VMWare and virtualbox are different. This is for complete compatibility with Windows XP programs, and files. VMware and virtualbox emulate, which is kind of the same path.
QUOTE (vbetts @ May 7 2009, 12:54 AM)
it seems that many current intel cpus even dating back to the Pentium D series cannot run XP mode in Windows 7.
If you have a CPU without VT-x, you can just install XP in an older version of Virtual PC (free download) that doesn't require VT-x.
Of course it won't be as tightly integrated with the host OS.
Assuming older versions of Virtual PC actually work on Windows 7...
Something like that should be something the OS can do with any modern computer. Even Pentium D cpus have VT.
Only some of them. A few high-end P4 CPUs had VT-x too I think.
It's not up to the OS, it's up to the emulator that's running your virtual machine.
If your CPU doesn't have VT-x you can just use VM software that doesn't require it.
It's not up to the OS, it's up to the emulator that's running your virtual machine.
If your CPU doesn't have VT-x you can just use VM software that doesn't require it.
QUOTE (vbetts @ May 7 2009, 03:54 AM)
Here is a list of some cpus that do not support Intel VT.
Q8XXX, E8190, E7XXX, E5XXX, E4XXX, E2XXX, E1XXX, 9X5, 8XX
Q8XXX, E8190, E7XXX, E5XXX, E4XXX, E2XXX, E1XXX, 9X5, 8XX
The Q8XXX are crap. I bought a Q9550, 45 days ago, and it didn't cost me a fortune.
I decided not to go for the Nehalems yet, because that would have meant spending 60% more!!! (Mobo + CPU + 6GB RAM).
So if you buy crappy hardware, what can you expect?
It's not crap hardware though. You're not getting the whole point of it. The Q8 isn't crappy, the e7 isn't crappy, nor is the lower core 2 duo models. The Q9550 is easily over $250! The Q8200 is only $170. Not everyone has money like you. Intel was stupid for not including such a basic feature in their hardware, like they should have.
Again, you didn't understand the whole point of it. Just because you don't like the Q8 series, doesn't make it crap. Businesses also need a cheap alternative. The way it's looking now, AMD is going to get more business because of that.
I'm not saying it is up to the OS. What I'm saying, is intel should include the features that the OS supports for better performance, and overall a better product. If they really wanted to keep costs down, they should have limited the number of products they have.
Again, you didn't understand the whole point of it. Just because you don't like the Q8 series, doesn't make it crap. Businesses also need a cheap alternative. The way it's looking now, AMD is going to get more business because of that.
QUOTE
Only some of them. A few high-end P4 CPUs had VT-x too I think.
It's not up to the OS, it's up to the emulator that's running your virtual machine.
If your CPU doesn't have VT-x you can just use VM software that doesn't require it.
It's not up to the OS, it's up to the emulator that's running your virtual machine.
If your CPU doesn't have VT-x you can just use VM software that doesn't require it.
I'm not saying it is up to the OS. What I'm saying, is intel should include the features that the OS supports for better performance, and overall a better product. If they really wanted to keep costs down, they should have limited the number of products they have.
QUOTE (vbetts @ May 12 2009, 10:03 PM)
It's not crap hardware though. You're not getting the whole point of it. The Q8 isn't crappy, the e7 isn't crappy, nor is the lower core 2 duo models. The Q9550 is easily over $250! The Q8200 is only $170. Not everyone has money like you. Intel was stupid for not including such a basic feature in their hardware, like they should have.
Again, you didn't understand the whole point of it. Just because you don't like the Q8 series, doesn't make it crap. Businesses also need a cheap alternative. The way it's looking now, AMD is going to get more business because of that.
I'm not saying it is up to the OS. What I'm saying, is intel should include the features that the OS supports for better performance, and overall a better product. If they really wanted to keep costs down, they should have limited the number of products they have.
Again, you didn't understand the whole point of it. Just because you don't like the Q8 series, doesn't make it crap. Businesses also need a cheap alternative. The way it's looking now, AMD is going to get more business because of that.
I'm not saying it is up to the OS. What I'm saying, is intel should include the features that the OS supports for better performance, and overall a better product. If they really wanted to keep costs down, they should have limited the number of products they have.
If I were running a business I would be using AMD's without a second thought. They have cheaper hardware and more features at the lower price range.
QUOTE (Alessandro17 @ May 12 2009, 06:18 PM)
The Q8XXX are crap. I bought a Q9550, 45 days ago, and it didn't cost me a fortune.
I decided not to go for the Nehalems yet, because that would have meant spending 60% more!!! (Mobo + CPU + 6GB RAM).
So if you buy crappy hardware, what can you expect?
I decided not to go for the Nehalems yet, because that would have meant spending 60% more!!! (Mobo + CPU + 6GB RAM).
So if you buy crappy hardware, what can you expect?
Sure it took a little work to sort out the deal with the Q8200 but it is running 10.5.6 Server Retail Install just fine now. I'm quite pleased with it. I guess I don't know wtf I'm talking about though since I bought crappy hardware...
OK, maybe I shouldnt have said crappy, but cheap and cheerful.
Come on, a modern Intel CPU with 4MB cache?
You get what you pay for.
As I said, a Core i7 setup would have cost me 60% more, 260 Euro more.
So I found my setup reasonably priced. Of course YMMV, but Intel isn't a charity, if they sell something cheaper it will have fewer features, as sure as hell.
Come on, a modern Intel CPU with 4MB cache?
You get what you pay for.
As I said, a Core i7 setup would have cost me 60% more, 260 Euro more.
So I found my setup reasonably priced. Of course YMMV, but Intel isn't a charity, if they sell something cheaper it will have fewer features, as sure as hell.
It seems that the list of VT enabled Intel and AMD cpus are sort-of unlikely to be in your average business computer, as they are mostly of the more expensive high-end lot of cpus. Kinda like the cpus that Apple puts in their Macs now, ironically.
So the end result is most basic business boxes whose owners upgrade to Windows 7 thinking that all will be fine since the magical "XP mode" is there to save the day will be disappointed. To me, this sounds like a blunder on the part of Microsoft.
On a side note, I was pretty pissed after the first time I tried installing the new Win7 RC - it erased my WinXP install from a completely different hard drive than I was installing 7 onto. Then the Win7 install on the separate hard drive didn't even work! Big fat BSOD, just like the old days. It even erased the bootloader from my Mac hard drive, and I had to reinstall it to get back on Leo.
I finally got Win7 working today, after unplugging the other hard drives it fuçked up last time, and running the installer TWICE. It just froze up halfway thru the first try today, then the second attempt went all the way and booted up. I notice that Google Chrome doesn't work.
So then I reattached my other hard drives, and using the superior lizard bootloader I can boot any of the operating systems now.
Way to go Microsoft.
So the end result is most basic business boxes whose owners upgrade to Windows 7 thinking that all will be fine since the magical "XP mode" is there to save the day will be disappointed. To me, this sounds like a blunder on the part of Microsoft.
On a side note, I was pretty pissed after the first time I tried installing the new Win7 RC - it erased my WinXP install from a completely different hard drive than I was installing 7 onto. Then the Win7 install on the separate hard drive didn't even work! Big fat BSOD, just like the old days. It even erased the bootloader from my Mac hard drive, and I had to reinstall it to get back on Leo.
I finally got Win7 working today, after unplugging the other hard drives it fuçked up last time, and running the installer TWICE. It just froze up halfway thru the first try today, then the second attempt went all the way and booted up. I notice that Google Chrome doesn't work.
So then I reattached my other hard drives, and using the superior lizard bootloader I can boot any of the operating systems now.
Way to go Microsoft.
QUOTE (Alessandro17 @ May 12 2009, 08:53 PM)
OK, maybe I shouldnt have said crappy, but cheap and cheerful.
Come on, a modern Intel CPU with 4MB cache?
You get what you pay for.
As I said, a Core i7 setup would have cost me 60% more, 260 Euro more.
So I found my setup reasonably priced. Of course YMMV, but Intel isn't a charity, if they sell something cheaper it will have fewer features, as sure as hell.
Come on, a modern Intel CPU with 4MB cache?
You get what you pay for.
As I said, a Core i7 setup would have cost me 60% more, 260 Euro more.
So I found my setup reasonably priced. Of course YMMV, but Intel isn't a charity, if they sell something cheaper it will have fewer features, as sure as hell.
I can totally accept "cheap and cheerful" I absolutely got what I paid for and nothing more. :-) I wasn't looking for the latest greatest either. I just wanted a bit more guts than the core 2 duo that was in my server box. Oh and correction 10.5.7 Server retail install since my previous post... :-)
@ DukeRaoul
How did you manage to put yourself in so much trouble is a mystery to me. I have been installing Windows 7 on 2 (very different) computers, since the early betas: never an issue.
How did you manage to put yourself in so much trouble is a mystery to me. I have been installing Windows 7 on 2 (very different) computers, since the early betas: never an issue.
I don't understand what the problem is. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but:
Anyone can run XP or even Windows 98 under Windows 7. Just use a virtual machine that doesn't require VT-x.
/conspiracy theory mode
Since Windows 7 is now widely known to run well on older hardware that is too slow for Vista, the industry has to find other ways to make people upgrade their hardware.
Anyone can run XP or even Windows 98 under Windows 7. Just use a virtual machine that doesn't require VT-x.
/conspiracy theory mode
Since Windows 7 is now widely known to run well on older hardware that is too slow for Vista, the industry has to find other ways to make people upgrade their hardware.
QUOTE (Beerkex'd @ May 14 2009, 05:31 AM)
/conspiracy theory mode
Since Windows 7 is now widely known to run well on older hardware that is too slow for Vista, the industry has to find other ways to make people upgrade their hardware.
Since Windows 7 is now widely known to run well on older hardware that is too slow for Vista, the industry has to find other ways to make people upgrade their hardware.
QUOTE (Alessandro17 @ May 13 2009, 03:53 AM)
OK, maybe I shouldnt have said crappy, but cheap and cheerful.
Come on, a modern Intel CPU with 4MB cache?
You get what you pay for.
As I said, a Core i7 setup would have cost me 60% more, 260 Euro more.
So I found my setup reasonably priced. Of course YMMV, but Intel isn't a charity, if they sell something cheaper it will have fewer features, as sure as hell.
Come on, a modern Intel CPU with 4MB cache?
You get what you pay for.
As I said, a Core i7 setup would have cost me 60% more, 260 Euro more.
So I found my setup reasonably priced. Of course YMMV, but Intel isn't a charity, if they sell something cheaper it will have fewer features, as sure as hell.
A Pentium D doesn't even have 2mb of cache, and is not even a real dual core cpu, and has VT.
Wrong and wrong.
Pentium D is a real dual core CPU, as in "it has two CPU cores". Even the one in your signature.
And all Pentium Ds in the 9xx series have 2x 2048MB cache.
Also, VT-x is supported on all 9x0 models and the 955 and 956 Extreme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel...microprocessors
Pentium D is a real dual core CPU, as in "it has two CPU cores". Even the one in your signature.
And all Pentium Ds in the 9xx series have 2x 2048MB cache.
Also, VT-x is supported on all 9x0 models and the 955 and 956 Extreme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel...microprocessors
QUOTE (Beerkex'd @ May 16 2009, 04:36 PM)
Wrong and wrong.
Pentium D is a real dual core CPU, as in "it has two CPU cores". Even the one in your signature.
And all Pentium Ds in the 9xx series have 2x 2048MB cache.
Also, VT-x is supported on all 9x0 models and the 955 and 956 Extreme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel...microprocessors
Pentium D is a real dual core CPU, as in "it has two CPU cores". Even the one in your signature.
And all Pentium Ds in the 9xx series have 2x 2048MB cache.
Also, VT-x is supported on all 9x0 models and the 955 and 956 Extreme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel...microprocessors
Pentium Ds are just 2 netburst cores either stacked, or put in side by side. That's not a real dual core. A dual core is optimized to work and load in an efficient way. Just putting 2 cores down doesn't make it a real dual core. An e5200 is an example of a real dual core. And not all pentium D's have 2mb of cache.
The point I'm making here, is if you're gonna try to sell and market a cpu as a high end cpu for over $150, and it's not going to have a basic feature in it, then you're not doing so great at your job. $60 amd cpus have visualization inside of them.
So will my AMD Phenom 9850 Black Edition work with the XP mode? Since I have AMD Virtualization?
QUOTE (DukeRaoul @ May 12 2009, 07:56 PM)
It seems that the list of VT enabled Intel and AMD cpus are sort-of unlikely to be in your average business computer, as they are mostly of the more expensive high-end lot of cpus. Kinda like the cpus that Apple puts in their Macs now, ironically.
So the end result is most basic business boxes whose owners upgrade to Windows 7 thinking that all will be fine since the magical "XP mode" is there to save the day will be disappointed. To me, this sounds like a blunder on the part of Microsoft.
On a side note, I was pretty pissed after the first time I tried installing the new Win7 RC - it erased my WinXP install from a completely different hard drive than I was installing 7 onto. Then the Win7 install on the separate hard drive didn't even work! Big fat BSOD, just like the old days. It even erased the bootloader from my Mac hard drive, and I had to reinstall it to get back on Leo.
I finally got Win7 working today, after unplugging the other hard drives it fuçked up last time, and running the installer TWICE. It just froze up halfway thru the first try today, then the second attempt went all the way and booted up. I notice that Google Chrome doesn't work.
So then I reattached my other hard drives, and using the superior lizard bootloader I can boot any of the operating systems now.
Way to go Microsoft.
So the end result is most basic business boxes whose owners upgrade to Windows 7 thinking that all will be fine since the magical "XP mode" is there to save the day will be disappointed. To me, this sounds like a blunder on the part of Microsoft.
On a side note, I was pretty pissed after the first time I tried installing the new Win7 RC - it erased my WinXP install from a completely different hard drive than I was installing 7 onto. Then the Win7 install on the separate hard drive didn't even work! Big fat BSOD, just like the old days. It even erased the bootloader from my Mac hard drive, and I had to reinstall it to get back on Leo.
I finally got Win7 working today, after unplugging the other hard drives it fuçked up last time, and running the installer TWICE. It just froze up halfway thru the first try today, then the second attempt went all the way and booted up. I notice that Google Chrome doesn't work.
So then I reattached my other hard drives, and using the superior lizard bootloader I can boot any of the operating systems now.
Way to go Microsoft.
I experienced similar issues with Win 7 RC7100. First install attempt froze about halfway through - no BSOD, just stopped responding completely... gave it a good 20 minutes just to be sure it wasn't working in the background. 2nd install must have taken well over an hour (Vista installed in <20 minutes). I unplugged my OSX drive so it was unaffected, but it also jacked up my VISTA bootloader, so now chain0 doesn't work, despite removing the OSX entry and retrying following same steps that got it working the first time around.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.