Slashdot Mirror
MS, Intel "Goofed Up" Win 7 XP Virtualization
clang_jangle writes "Ars Technica has a short article up describing how Microsoft and Intel have 'goofed up' Windows 7's XP Mode by ensuring many PCs will not be able to use it. (And it won't be easy to figure out in advance if your PC is one of them.) Meanwhile, over at Infoworld, Redmond is criticized for having the 'right idea, wrong technology' with their latest compatibility scheme, and PC World says 'great idea, on paper.' With Windows 7 due to be released in 2010, and Redmond apparently eager to move on from XP, perhaps this is not really a 'goof' at all?"
The solution Microsoft is adding to Windows 7 is the same solution Apple used for the OS 9 - X transition. Classic was a second operating system that ran essentially as a virtual machine.
When running Linux, open up a terminal and run this: /proc/cpuinfo | grep -q svm || cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -q vmx`; then echo Yes; else echo No; fi
echo -n "Does my cpu support virtualizaiton? "; if `cat
Another issue you may have is if your system has the virtualization functions disabled in BIOS. Some laptops do this, and have no way to turn them on. My Dell D820 works fine.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
Also, with Intel, it's not enough that the CPU and chipset supports VT-x, it also has to be enabled in the BIOS. Some manufacturers disable it, and some (most notably Sony) often won't even show the option in the BIOS set-up, making it permanently turned off. All to save a few bucks in support costs.
The parent isn't insightful, because he erroneously believes that a new machine guarantees that virtualization will be available. Not so.
Buy a $3000 Sony Vaio-Z, for example, and despite it having a chipset and a brand spanking new Core 2 Duo CPU that both supports VT-x, the manufacturer has chosen not to give the users the ability to turn it on in the BIOS, so it doesn't help one bit.
That suite of applications that you're testing doesn't accurately represent the target population for XP emulation.
XP Emulation is primarily geared towards businesses with legacy/custom business applications which have not been re-written for Windows Vista/7.
We run an ancient version of Televantage here.
The Televantage server itself is still running NT4. The client software refuses to run on anything newer than Windows XP SP1.
The solution has been to go ahead and update our machines to SP2/SP3/Vista/whatever and run Televantage inside a small virtual machine running Windows 2000 SP4 - it works great.
This is the kind of problem the XP-mode is intended to address.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Indeed they don't. Apart from the BZ-series, all Sony Vaio PCs have VT-x disabled, and no way to turn it on in the BIOS setup. Even if you buy a brand new Core 2 Duo P9600 Vaio Z with 4 GB RAM for 2-3000 bucks, it won't be an option.
AC obviously didn't read the article, which states clearly that Intel uses VT availbility as a market segregation tool.
A recent example would be the new Core 2 Quad Q8400, now with less VT!
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I would say that the single biggest reason that Windows is as prevalent as it is today is that to a very large extent, MS has maintained backwards compatibility at almost any cost.
I have one pgm from OS X 10.0 that no longer worked at some point (10.2? Not sure.) It was freeware. I had to update OroborOSX a few times with my OS X update. I have a platform running Tiger (10.4 - current rev now is 10.5, Leopard) - and it is running my Microsoft Office X that I bought when that was a 10.1 machine. At some point, IE wouldn't run and MS said they would no longer support it under OS X (I'm just rounding out the list - I could care less if that was Apple's or MS's doing.)
None of my user files are affected by upgrades.
Like you, I can point to a few - very few - examples of OS X not bending over for backwards compatibility.
I can't say what backwards compatibility OS X has with OS 9 and prior (supported via Classic mode for a while on OS X) - other than to say - pretty much none.
By the time OS X came out, Apple had lost all sorts of market share - are you suggesting that that was because they weren't providing backwards compatibilities?
I just cannot believe that a large extent of the reason for MS's market share is their over-the-years backwards compatibility.
You are correct in that they did have that, and I've seen Win users over the years tout it as important, and then brag to me that OS X didn't have that (info source: see flying monkeys). Then those same users would get slammed when technology moved on and not complain, because whatever it was had a good run before being obsolesced.
My take on it is much simpler: MS saved money over the years by not upgrading fundamental parts of their OS until/unless absolutely forced to do so (see: Win32) or sometimes never. Now, their own technical inertia may kill them.
OS X is gaining market share. I'd like to believe that Linux is as well, but I don't know (maybe it's dropping). But quite simply, that has nothing to do with backwards compatibility.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.