Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Lifts XP Mode Hardware Requirement

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."

6 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 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.

    2. 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.

  2. 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!
  3. 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.