Microsoft finalizes Windows 7 'XP Mode'
Microsoft said on Thursday that it has finished development work on the virtualized version of Windows XP that Windows 7 users can use to run programs that won't work on the newer operating system.
In a statement, Microsoft said that it has finalized the code for the free "XP Mode" and that the software will be made available on October 22, the same day that Microsoft launches Windows 7.
Computer makers will also be able to offer Windows XP Mode with their systems, Microsoft said.
Microsoft said back in April that it would offer the XP Mode. Aimed primarily at small businesses, the virtualization layer is designed to help ease the transition for those still running programs that don't work properly with Windows 7 or Windows Vista.
To use the compatibility layer, users need to be running Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Enterprise, or Windows 7 Ultimate.
The other tricky point is that to use XP mode, consumers also need a machine that has chip level virtualization support and has that feature turned on, something that isn't always easy for consumers to determine.
At its core, XP Mode consists of two things, the Windows Virtual PC engine and a licensed copy of Windows XP Service Pack 3 as a packaged virtual machine, both of which Microsoft will make available for download.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
http://www.virtualbox.org/
Provided you have a legit version of Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows Vista, etc to install inside of it.
VirtualBox is a free program that works like Microsoft's VirtualPC but isn't limited to Windows 7 Pro and up, it can run on any version.
XP mode is for businesses and such that need XP compatibility in a VM. Windows ME isn't a domain supported/capable OS and would not be as useful.
Virtual Box can be downloaded for free and allows the running of virtual machines without
hardware virtualisation. All the user needs is a XP license (which microsoft could provide for them - but of course won't)
Actually , you can keep your XP machine and virtualise the Windows 7 machine rather.........
Windows 7 RC runs perfectly fine under XP :)
but why would yu do that? W windows 7 yu can boot into the OS yu use most while virtualizing windows xp to runs stuff that 7 doesn't support.
I actually think its better for most users. They won't notice the difference (apart from the first time delay starting).
They usually don't get the VM concept so the more hidden the better.
Keeping it all in house makes it a cleaner support solution.
Wow.
Seriously... just, wow. I mean, why would you bother buying a PC from Dell or HP? Why not just urge Microsoft to make one so you'd never have to worry about buck-passing ever again?
Is it a FREE download? The article only says it will be "available for download", nothing about free. I'd be surprised if they didn't charge *something* for it... with perhaps a discount if you already have a registered XP serial number.
I agree like the others. Just use Virtual Box, or even MS Virtual PC and run your old XP license in those.
I think you may have misunderstood the concept and the article here. XP mode for Windows 7 is for workstations that have Windows 7 installed. You have XP on a system, therefore nothing applies to your situation at all.
What are you doing using XP anyways? You should be using a *Macintosh*, you silly person. And if your company says you have to use XP, then show them your true convictions and quit. Refuse to work for any complany that doesn't use a Mac. That'll show 'em!
Businesses will likely be using Enterprise/Pro/Ultiimiate anyways as those offer domain support and that's the standard of the industry.
Keep in mind that Mr. Happy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
They're taken a leaf from the Apple handbook and reduced the amount legacy support...but given business users a way out (much like Parrallels in MAC).
Now... only if they removed ALL legacy support and went straight for new apps only.
If there was 100% API-parity/compatibility to Windows XP, there might be a case where developers (instead of making a Vista/7-only version or porting a version of their software to Vista/7) instead develop XP-only software, since they know it will run on both Windows XP and Windows 7.
Think of OS/2, where it had complete Windows compatibility. I have seen it argued that developers could develop for Windows only, knowing that their application would work on both systems. There are benefits, but also drawbacks to this, as it can make your newer technology irrelevant, since no one is using it.
I suppose.
Microsoft wants to satisfy people who need to run XP-only applications, but at the same time, they want there to be a benefit to developing native Windows 7 applications. That benefit would be the ability to run it natively on Windows 7.
It is to force developers to write apps that won't run on Xp easily, so users pony up for Win MEv3.
It is not like the new PAI's are any better or more secure.
Yes and no... depends on a couple of factors.
OSX had 'Classic' Mode (a VM for MacOS) for awhile. Apple managed to push a transition though because...
* Classic required that you had MacOS 9.2.2 installed separately on the machine
* It ran slower than native apps in OSX, and slower than OS9 apps in a native OS9 environment.
Making it this way gave developers the push they needed to go OSX all-in.
Now having tried "XP Mode", you do have a point. Why would a developer bother, if they can just write for XP and be done with it? OTOH, it isn't anywhere near as perfect as their marketing department would claim...for example, it still won't run VMWare's vSphere 4 client worth a damn (how convenient, eh?).
Tell me whats the real difference between Snow Leopard and Leopard or Ubuntu 8.04 and 8.10?
Good. I love Vista and I've never had problems running incredibly ancient software on Vista HP 64bit. I love how it never crashes, unlike the XP machine that it replaced.
Comparing releases of Ubuntu to releases to Windows or OS X isn't exactly fairly because it's not supposed to be a big leap. It's a 6 month development cycle (2 updates a year) that take less than an hour to install and give you the latest technologies and constant improvement to the system. Sure, there's nothing compelling that's different, but it doesn't have to be. You're slowly trying to reach a point of perfection through constant development.
Also, it's free, and like 2 clicks.
That said, I definitely agree a lot of development has gone into Windows, and I like how Windows 7 has turned out. It's snappier, and there really some improvement in the user interface. It's lighter than VIsta. It's faster then Vista. It's, in my experience, just as good as XP, with new technologies to boot. I don't know why, instead of properly refuting Jim's comment, you have to resort to a strawman argument downplaying his comment with "well look at everyone else." Your argument doesn't even make sense... it's very hard to mock a Linux system (or at least, it doesn't make much sense to do so) for making improvements every 6 months. I don't know why you would do it. Well, I can make a guess.
I dont know, should i trust you. after all you dont own them (OS X)
huh? I've been deploying Windows 7 in 30 minuties per PC, so is Ubuntu slow to install? Two clicks as well.
Plus driver support is awesome. I do like Ubuntu but windows 7 is great too.
Ps. Don't try to argue that shorter development cycles make better software...I don't agree with that (having been a development manager in the past). Timeframes and quality are only linked by size and number the 'features' (see the Iron triangle concept).
In-place upgrades take 30 minutes? O_O
In all seriousness, I wasn't trying to imply Windows was slow to install (there are pros and cons to both systems' installations/upgrades), or that a short development cycle is necessarily better (although in my opinion it has a great potential to be), I was trying to explain to Mr. Dee that having only a small set of differences between 2 versions of a Linux OS shouldn't be an insult, and I don't know why he'd bring it up, unless he was admitting that Windows Vista -> Windows 7 isn't a "real" upgrade (rather than refute the original poster). Having read some of his other posts, I don't believe that not to be the case, so I suppose he might just be tired of using logic in every CNET post he makes (which is on basically every article mentioning the term "Windows").
Read my comment in light of Mr. Dee's comment.
"Ps. Don't try to argue that shorter development cycles make better software."
I didn't actually say that, but I suppose that's what you read. "Fast-good-cheap." Is 6 months actually fast? If, in one version of Ubuntu, they decide to implement a certain number of technologies that would take them 3 or 4 months. I'm not a Ubuntu developer, but in my experience, there's not that much different between releases, but the system always has several small improvements over its predecessor. If that "6 month development time" isn't for writing a system from the ground up, but instead "continual development" and stuff like bug fixes or small additions, then "6 months" doesn't sound that fast at all.
"I've been deploying Windows 7 in 30 minuties per PC, so is Ubuntu slow to install?"
If Windows Vista took 6 years to develop, does that make a Ubuntu release a rushed cheap piece of software?
I was trying to say the two pieces of software were very different, and you're trying to tell me these two pieces of software are very different.
Let's agree to agree, here. Linux development and Windows development are two completely different animals, and they likely don't follow the same basic rules of thumb that normally go into developing a product. One is open source, the other is not. They both have ups and downs.
opensuse == 90 minutes and 1 reboot to a complete and fully confugured desktop or server.
"You can install 7 in 30 minutes, and then there are updates and tons of disks and downloads to go, not too mention countless reboots."
I suppose this could be true if you were an incompetent moron and did things like put the DVD in upside down in the drive. Anything is possible,, after all. But for normal people, 30 minutes is more than ample for the OS install. You might find this out for yourself it you actually try installing it yourself.
I'm sure you know which side up to put in the DVD.
I'm not so sure after what I've read.
GC
Um, it's the title of the article and states that Microsoft has finalized the XP compatiblity mode. You find this humorous? That's.... just... strange.
But then your comment does say volumes about your ability to have an open mind.
@viper396:
Just one of our resident trolls. Move along, nothing to see here. Wait until Oct 22 when they explode with their need to shout and rant about the sky falling.
And your response made my day! Nothing more satisfying than lighting a fire under a bug and watching it squirm.
Yes, they removed some of the most obvious nuisances, threw in some more eye-candy!
The DRM is the same. Even on an upmarket machine it runs like a dog. I tested it!
In short ... Win7 is an O/S for the technically challenged, the old moms and dads of computing, who don't mind the suffering. Fine with me.
You won't see many serious professionals, who have a choice, caught on it!
My 2cents.
Arthur
Here's your two cents back. I think we overpaid for your opinon's true value. :)
If you did indeed test it on an 'upscale' machine, please tell us what it was, the installation method, system resources, etc. I've installed this on more than a thousand systems to date and have not seen a single instance of 'dog' performance as you claimed. Let's see if there is a hardware, software, or user failure here that can better address the issue.
How is this not easy? I was lazy so I had my 8yr. old brother do it for me and he did fine. Are consumers really that stupid?
It's a non-issue.
Here's the link: http://ark.intel.com/Default.aspx
A bunch of little things, but one very big thing which is Exchange Support. That's the last major objection SMB users have had against Mac, besides the purchase price.
But back to the original point - I'm glad MS is including this capability in 7. It will be interesting to try a virtualized XP on an install of 7 within Parallels.
YES.. and so are most small business people as they seem to buy only Vista Home Premium because its cheaper or it what comes with the cheap BS system they buy at Cosco.
in the last year or so any system i put in for business has the right software but some how some one re-formats it with a cheaper version of Vista or has me install XP Pro over it.
I get calls from from companies asking if the need to get win 7 if all the programs that work on XP will work or if the Vista change over would be best . I get calls on the XP mode for Vista and many see it as too costly an upgrade as why they need to change if all is working well.
Some have system they just don't want to change out some have systems they would like to set on fire but with an upgrade in some hardware would make the system working faster and more up to date. People and business are looking at the over all cost of systems and they cut corners to get a system that works and get the job done but sometime don't see need to get the the top of the line system.
My question why does the Virtual programs need to be a chip level ? there are many ways to do that with out need some kind of hardware Virtual system. sounds like MS has some $$$ invested some place..
GC
- by thydavidcome October 6, 2009 7:45 AM PDT
- For people saying "Oh just use Virtual Box" "Oh just use VMware"
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(62 Comments)This is COMPLETELY diffrent. Unlike Virtual Box, or VM ware, which is just emulation Windows XP mode allows you to install a program in Windows XP. Once installed into Windows XP is converts it and installs the program into Windows 7.
So it allows programs that ONLY work on Windows XP to load on Windows 7. You simply boot up Windows XP mode, install the program, and BAM it installs it into Windows 7. You can close windows XP mode and never have to see it again.
While VMware etc etc You need to keep booting the virtual XP just to use your XP only programs.