Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Lifts XP Mode Hardware Requirement

Posted by kdawson on from the marketecture-in-action dept.

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."

42 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. My best guess.... by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:My best guess.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:My best guess.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:My best guess.... by jawtheshark · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    4. Re:My best guess.... by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

    5. Re:My best guess.... by mister_playboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    6. Re:My best guess.... by LiENUS · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:My best guess.... by zero_out · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:My best guess.... by jawtheshark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    9. Re:My best guess.... by TrancePhreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    10. Re:My best guess.... by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:My best guess.... by operagost · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:My best guess.... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:My best guess.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

    14. Re:My best guess.... by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re:My best guess.... by StuartHankins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why have programs grown so bloated.

      My guess is these factors all play a role:

      • the "higher level" style of programming -- where you lose some control but can supposedly create more apps in the same unit time. I'm not convinced that this is a win for anyone. I'm a bit of a control freak though.
      • the insistence of cramming every conceivable options into a program. Yes, most software allows you to check and uncheck options but it's a tedious process and most people just do the "typical" install, resulting in GB of extra crap they will never use.
      • Programmers today have vastly improved storage, processors, bandwidth, etc and they aren't from the generation where you had to be crafty to shave time off the compilation / execution / memory requirements. I blame many of the current IDEs for this, see 1st point.
      • Programmers today don't regard their jobs as engineers -- and before I start a flame war let me say that I consider software engineers different from the programmers you see at the majority of places today. Software engineers thoroughly understand the implications of their decisions and aren't tapping in code chunks they found on the web.
      • The industry as a whole (not real-time OS's or some portable / embedded device programming -- most of them still "get it") has adopted the view that programmer time is expensive and hardware is cheap.

      <rant>
      What's the solution? I say to start, give the programmers a VM with very limited CPU / memory and let them feel the pain. They will understand better because their top-of-the line machine helps hides so much information including timing bugs. They will spend more time tweaking performance and this will prompt them to make some different programming decisions. I still see people coding all communications in XML because they can't imagine why you'd want the data in a compact format... if it's in-house and you control all interfaces, my view is to make things compact even if it sacrifices the tool- or language- or communication protocol-of-the-day. If you're an Amazon and many people need to communicate with you in an open way, XML makes more sense.
      </rant>

    16. Re:My best guess.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

      Even worse, I have a Gateway "netbook" (it's a 12") with an Athlon 64 processor, marketed and sold as such, and with AMD-V in the hardware, but it's disabled in the BIOS and there is no option to enable it. I knew Gateway was lame, but damn. Never again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:My best guess.... by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Informative

      The screening process lowers the cost of all their processors because it allows Intel to salvage a saleable product that would otherwise have to be tossed out at %100 loss if marginal processors couldn't be restricted to operating conditions where their reliability is guaranteed. There is no nefarious plotting involved here. It's a natural response to the difficulty of making high-performance devices with small feature sizes.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  2. begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  3. Re:You know what begs the question? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. Re:seems a bit of a conspiracy theory to me by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. The bigger announcement from MS today by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  6. Re:seems a bit of a conspiracy theory to me by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  7. AMD was supported too by Mekkah · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
    Thanks for pointing that out ColdWetDog.

    --
    ~Mekkah
  8. Randall C. Kennedy by jwietelmann · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Randall C. Kennedy by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Comment of the year
    2. Re:Randall C. Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:Randall C. Kennedy by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  9. Slashdot begs the question by blueskies · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why all the begging?

    1. Re:Slashdot begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      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.
  10. non VT runs dog slow by alen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  11. Ah, false dichotomies. by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  12. Re:What REALLY begs the question by amliebsch · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  13. Re: Randall C. Kennedy who got fired by InfoWorld? by FrankPoole · · Score: 2, Funny

    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....

  14. It's supposed to be disabled by default by CreamyG31337 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's to prevent hypervisor based rootkit attacks

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

      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.

  15. Virtual PC blog by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

    Explanation of this decision 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.

  16. Re:seems a bit of a conspiracy theory to me by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    My blog
  17. Re:You know what begs the question? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe I've found the source of the taste drain.

    --
    "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  18. Ars has a much better write up by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    Why the hell is this Exo-Blog post being cited? The author of TFA doesn't cite a goddamn thing.

  19. Begs != raises by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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".

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. Aren't You the Pedant by ratboy666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    In common English, as practiced by most people "begs the question" no longer means "petitio principii". It now means "this information begs that a question be asked, that wasn't".

    Of course, we are in a transition. "Begs the question" in taken as logical fallacy by some, and as colloquial expression by others.

    There is a perfectly reasonable expression used to replace "Begs the question" -- circular reasoning.

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061