Some Intel chips don't support Windows 7 'XP mode'
Updated on May 6 at 6:35 p.m. PDT with additional comments from Intel.
A small brouhaha is erupting over Windows 7 and Intel processors. The hubbub is centered on which Intel processors will not support "XP mode" in Windows 7 and, by extension, which PCs will not support XP mode. Retail laptops may be one of the most prominent segments affected.
Sony Vaio laptops sold at retail stores are among a number of models from a variety of PC makers that have processors that don't support Windows 7 XP mode
(Credit: Best Buy)What is XP Mode? Here's how Ina Fried of CNET News describes it: "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. Although neither piece will be included in the Windows 7 box, XP Mode will be a free download for those who have a license to Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Enterprise, or Windows 7 Ultimate."
XP Mode (XPM) is aimed at businesses that have Windows XP-specific applications that they need to run on Windows 7. XPM allows XP applications to run seamlessly on Windows 7, according to Microsoft. The catch: Intel processors must have Virtualization Technology, or "Intel VT," in order to run XPM. (I won't cover Advanced Micro Devices processors here but will address AMD in a later post.)
Ed Bott's Microsoft Report says that "some of the most popular PCs on the market today...won't be able to use the vaunted Windows XP mode in Windows 7."
Bott lists Intel desktop and mobile processors that will and will not support XP Mode here and here, respectively.
Intel mobile processors may be the most problematic in supporting XP mode; not because of the raw numbers--most newer Intel mobile processors do, in fact, support Intel Virtualization Technology--but because a disproportionate number of those that do not have VT (and therefore don't support XP mode) are laptops sold at retail. (And, undoubtedly, some small businesses purchase laptops at retail.)
In the Core 2 mobile camp, the P7350/7450, the T5200/5250/5270/5300/5450/5470 series, and the T6400/6570 do not support VT, according to Bott's blog. And this can be confirmed on Intel's Web site.
A quick glance at Best Buy shows a somewhat lengthy list of laptop SKUs (models) with, for instance, the T6400 (non-VT) processor. The list includes Dell Studio, Toshiba Satellite, HP Pavilion, Sony Vaio, Asus, and Gateway laptops.
In the $600 to $899 laptop range, I found about 30 different SKUs with T6400 processors, though it should be noted that some of these SKUs are simply models with slightly different configurations.
And a quick search on CNET Shopper turns up a number of consumer models with the T5270. The point? To state the obvious, consumers will have to verify which processor their laptop has.
In an Intel blog, Nick Knupffer asserts this won't be a big issue. "Having VT on these consumer laptops is not going to be an issue--because the consumer versions of Windows 7 (Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium) do not include Windows XP Mode," he writes.
And Intel, in a statement, had this to say. "Intel introduced its Virtualization Technology in 2005 and has shipped over 100 Million chips with the feature. Windows XP Mode is targeted for business customers. It is available on the mid to higher end versions of Windows 7 and is supported in hardware by many Intel processors."
Intel continued: "Intel vPro technology PCs are required to have an Intel VT capable CPU and Intel VT capable BIOS. They are the best platforms for testing and deploying Microsoft Windows Virtual PC and Windows XP Mode."
Brooke Crothers has been an editor at large at CNET News, an analyst at IDC Japan, and an editor at The Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, among other endeavors, including co-manager of an after-school math-and-reading center. He writes for the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
I don't see the problem. Business is what this is targeted for and they aren't going to be using sub-$1000 consumer level laptops in the first place.
Agreed. If you're buying a machine for business from a big-box, you deserve what you get. There are millions of competent, service-oriented local PC business providers that can steer around this problem very easily for small businesses.
I have no sympathy for people who pay $499 at Best Buy and then complain that a laptop can't do something.
Contrast that with Apple who 9 years ago introduced OS X with a similar capability of being able to run programs from the older OS (they called it Classic mode) and more recently the move to Intel processors fueled a growth in virtualization to run Linux and Windows within OS X. None of this has caused any problems of any consequence at least partially due to the simplified hardware line up (currently around 9 models) and the ability of Apple to make certain that hardware issues do not compromise software usage in the same way that it does for Microsoft.
There are both strengths and weaknesses in both the Apple and Microsoft business models and this is an example of a weakness in the Microsoft approach.
Most PowerPC powered Macintoshes are nearing the limit of their useful life, sadly. Apple hasn't produced a PowerPC Macintosh in over 4 years. Disabling PowerPC support in 10.6 will not have any effect except that people with PowerPC Macintoshes won't be able to upgrade to 10.6. Vendors will undoubtedly continue to develop Universal Binaries for quite some time. I keep my old PowerBook G4 around with 10.4 on it, and it works splendidly running old games and other "classic" software that was originally written for Mac OS 8.
(By the way, I looked up my T8300 powered MacBook (early 2008) and it supports VT.)
If you are a business user aka Enterprise user, and xp mode is your so called "solution" then fire your it team. Microsoft and it's partners offer App-v and Med-V for that purpose. So please lets stop all this bs about a feature microsoft is offering to end home consumers and calling it a business features. Yes the fact that is there is a feature but it's not the full intent of microsoft for enterprise consumers to jump in and use this when they have a better working solution for it's "business" consumers.
Damn.
Just because they are a business, does not make them viable for an Enterprise platform.
BTW, I have not meet many SMB CFOs or controllers who do not take issue w/ being told that, after purchasing a new PC w/ Windows on it, they still have to spend the $35-50/yr per pc (5pc minimum) for MS Vista Business Upg w/ MDOP under an Open Value license for the "enhancements" to the OS - which is what MS requires for them to run MED-V since they are not large enough to get the 500 points for a MS Select License to cover their desktops.
@cwilour: You've obviously never set up VMware, or you are deliberately trying to make this more confusing for people. VMware Player will run on an existing PC - Linux is installed side by side with Windows, and VMware is run to host Windows within Linux. Linux can already run Windows within a VM quite easily, so what the hell is so hard about this, MS?
"...has an extra server just sitting around to handle distribution of the VMs for a MED-V environment."
Go open source. Or, stop using an operating system that is 8 years old! Seriously, 8 years old?
XP-mode in Windows 7 is a great solution... although the problem seems to be Windows 7 itself.
MED-V provides deployment and maintenance of images across the enterprise--comparable to VMWare vSphere/vCenter, which are targeted at the enterprise just like MED-V is.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/business/archive/2009/04/28/how-med-v-v2-helps-you-manage-windows-xp-mode.aspx
Explains part of that "Apple Tax" and illustrates that even at the same clock speed, all Core2Duo's are not the same.
It's just funny, Mac hardware would be capable of running WIN7 and XP in visualization but not many of the Win hardware, go figure.
That's why soon Apple made also there own Chips.
The Software and the Hardware will fit together even better, NO one else will watch this for a long time.
They also might build a better security into the chips, viruses will have less effect!
Most Apple computers do utilise processors that support VT though, even my early 2008 MacBook's T8300 does.
I really don't understand the issue here. Yes, Best Buy has a whole bunch of SKU's with non-capable CPU's and the soccer moms and dads that will be buying those will more than likely not care and even more likely not even know of the existence of that feature that DOES NOT EVEN COME STANDARD WITH WINDOWS 7 - IT IS A SEPARATE DOWNLOAD!!!
<sarcasm>I just love it when people write articles like this one to make it sound like the end of the world is coming when in fact it's just BUSINESS as usual.</sarcasm>
I was disappointed at first that I am going to miss out on this feature if I upgrade to Win7, but once I realized that I've never needed XP for something specific in the 2 years I've been running Vista, I don't care.
I think the number of people that will actually need this is going to be very small, however the number of people that will want this will be large.
I have talked to a lot of people about virtualization in recent years as a solution to compatibility for legacy applications as opposed to dual boot setups and despite having been in business for a decade and being a rather familiar name to many people in the enterprise market a lot of people still have never heard of virtualization and even some of the people who have heard of it sometimes have misconceptions about it.
@obry2000
XP ode will run XP programs. But XP can run DOS programs as it still has all the junk left over that everyone wanted MS to keep. So it will be extremely useful if you have 16bit or older 32bit software. And you wouldn't believe the amount of ppl who crack it because they can't use their pre 2000 software.. So it will be useful for a lot of ppl. Not just businesses.
The main purpose behind this XP virtual machine is to run applications that ran on XP, but won't run under Windows 7 natively. Sure, there is some older pre-2000 software that you can run with XP, but honestly one would be better off downloading Virtual PC 2007 or VirtualBox and dusting off your old Windows 98 discs and create a Windows 98 VM for your truly ancient applications. Even if one didn't have a Windows 98 CD you could buy one off ebay for $5-10. The overhead of running XP in a VM would be much greater than running 98 and wouldn't seem rational unless your application wouldn't run under Windows 98.
OK. You speak of the CPU, but then what about the MoBo? How is that addressed? Does that mean that VT capable BIOS can be found in newer MOBOs, or that getting an Update to the BIOS will address/insert instructions for Enabling VT capability, if one either has a VT capable CPU already installed, or upgrade to one?
Seems like talking about the CPU, we're left with the issue of the MOBO. What a shame
Suny
Maybe that's something to put in an advert.
Also XP Mode only supports a single app.
So go download it now - it's free! And it works really well also. Just because software gets pulled in the future doesn't mean you can't hold on to old copies that still work. Tech support is for cowards anyway. Be brave and Google your own solutions!
Cheers!
We aren't talking Core i7s here to get this feature or even just new models in the last year to get this feature. There are a lot more machines over a year old that offer Intel VT than you think. I agree with you that it certainly still isn't a standard feature on Intel processors, but most of the processors that don't have the extensions aren't the type of processors where virtualizing XP under Windows 7 probably wouldn't run well with or without Intel VT support. The Core Solo T1200 for example has Intel VT support, but Windows 7 doesn't run well on such hardware nevermind running XP in a VM.
I think that the author should check his sources.
Virtual PC has never required hardware virtualization. In fact the product did not even support it until VPC 2007. You do get a slight performance boost with Virtualization enabled but the average user would probably not even notice it. I find it hard to belive that MS would require this to run XP mode.
The author, who is probably non-technical, may have heard that Intel VT is recommended and that XP mode will not run as fast on older laptops or laptops with low end ADOM processors. She most likley either confused this as "not supporting" or tried to make her story more "juicy" by extrapolating.
In either case the author should check her sources, then retract the story.
The sad fact is that most of the big boxes do NOT sell business PCs. They sell cheap hardware-based, low-priced "business" PCs.
The bottom line is, if you want a true business PC talk to people who know, i.e. a local service provider or consultant that focuses on helping small business avoid these kind of problems.
That being said, it was stated above that lots of people will WANT this feature and very few will actually NEED this feature. Completely agreed.
Most business owners who know what they are doing directly order business machines through HP, Dell, or Lenovo and only stop by retail stores for the occasional well priced sale item or when they need something now (eg. our 24 port switch died this morning and we need to get back to work now.) Small OEMs pick up much of the remaining marketshare. Intel's retail training pretty much focuses entirely towards the home consumer because they realize that retail makes up a small percentage of business sales.
I agree with you on finding a competent local service provider or consultant for small businesses that can't afford to maintain a full time IT department.
- by warpsix May 6, 2009 4:06 PM PDT
- Funny it worked great in the beta of 7 but the new rc1 doesn't work . i had almost a dozen vm's working with the beta win 95,98, win2k , xp home and pro.and a few flavors of linux . Never had a single problem. Microsoft it wasn't broken why did you fix it?
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (51 Comments)