Another advantage of using Virtual XP is the ability to use hardware through
the USB such as a scanner when there are no 64 bit drivers but there are 32
bit drivers. I can use my old scanner that has 32 bit drivers only while I
am running Windows 7 x64.
"darkassain" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
news:92e7dd5700a2ba3cc1f017f264300f7a@xxxxxx-gateway.com...
Quote:
>
> while one the reasons you are needing Virtualization support is because
> less needs to be done by the program to run the vm....
>
> Virtualization support makes it possible to be able to run more "native
> commands" on the processor and not have to make the software do more
> work...
>
> i believe they are just testing this feature in the new VPC as most of
> the people running XPM mode are the people running 64 bit processors
> that are not able to run 16 bit process in a 64 bit system (and those
> cryptic applications that just refuse to run because of the author for
> what ever reason did not support it)
>
> i said most not all so while they will eventually support non AMD-v or
> Intel-VTx processors (when it goes the software suite goes "gold") or
> any that are motherboards that are "locked" in a sense and not be able
> to bring Virtualization Support on to the OS or software...
>
> and remember this is a beta not even a RC of the product...
>
>
> nak;1051798 Wrote: Quote:
>> Hi Jakob, Quote:
>> > > >
>> > > Yes, it is stupid. Microsoft does not (officially at least) make any
>> > > money from the sale of hardware upgrades (although they often use the
>> > > sale of a new PC as an opportunity to sell another copy of Windows at
>> > > the discounted OEM price).
>> > >
>> > > Technically, the deepest core function in any VPC product is the
>> > > "hypervisor" which is responsible for making the Virtual machine
>> > think
>> > > it owns its own CPU, even though it really doesn't. This hypervisor
>> > > needs to be implemented differently (and in a more difficult way) on
>> > a
>> > > CPU without enabled hardware VT, than when much of the work can be
>> > done
>> > > by the VT feature of the CPU.
>> > >
>> > > So if Microsoft was starting from scratch with no older VPC product
>> > to
>> > > upgrade, implementing VPC to run only with hardware VT would be the
>> > > easiest/cheapest solution. But Microsoft is not starting from
>> > scratch,
>> > > they have a functioning hypervisor for non-VT machines, which they
>> > could
>> > > continue to maintain, with higher level code in VPC automatically
>> > > loading either the VT or the non-VT hypervisor depending on machine
>> > > capabilities. > >
>>
>> Well you certainly have allot of knowledge on the subject, and
>> understand what's going on under the hood. So it seems that
>> technically
>> Microsoft are doing this abandon legacy code? Rather than just
>> optimising it
>> and bringing it up to new standards, same old same old.
>>
>> This is a big shame and I don't see how big companies will be able to
>> adobt this technology without performing the upgrade. And durning a
>> worldwide recession this is extremely blinkered of Microsoft. Quote:
>> > > >
>> > > Note that large amounts of "auxiliary" code such as .vhd support,
>> > device
>> > > simulation, virtual BIOS, user interface, VPC additions etc. etc.
>> > could
>> > > be shared by the two hypervisor implementations, keeping the total
>> > cost
>> > > down and allowing VPC images to be shared amongst different physical
>> > > machines. It would also allow VPCs with saved state to survive a
>> > change
>> > > in the VT BIOS setting on the Host PC. > >
>>
>> Well I just hope one of the devs/pms might take these points on board
>> and reconsider their architechture. Not meaning they abandon what
>> they have
>> done, just bring the legacy stuff back even stronger than it was
>> before,
>> knowing Microsoft I very much doubt the code was immaculate as it
>> was.
>>
>> *fingers crossed*
>>
>> Nick. >
>
> --
> darkassain