Thursday, May 7th 2009

Not all AMD Processors Support 'XP Mode' in Windows 7

A new feature of Microsoft's Windows 7 operating system that created a stir is its "XP mode" feature, where the operating system provides the user with a sandbox Windows XP desktop environment, complete with all its features, and application support. What makes the feature even more interesting that documents, settings, and XP-affine applications installed in the environment could be seamlessly integrated with the host Windows 7 environment.

It turns out now that the feature explicitly requires hardware-level virtualization support. AMD and Intel, both have their proprietary virtualization features, although the two chose to make it available only to a few CPU models. Generally, entry-level desktop/mobile CPUs don't carry the feature. For consumer client desktop variants of Windows 7, the "XP mode" feature would require AMD-V feature by the processor. Currently all processors by AMD support this, except those from the Sempron series, according to an AMD spokesperson. For enterprise variants of the OS, Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization (MED-V) MED-V 2.0 builds on top of Windows Virtual PC and provides centralized management of Windows XP Mode. MED-V is a virtualization management platform. It will be made available within 90 days of the commercial availability of Windows 7.Source: CNET
Add your own comment

58 Comments on Not all AMD Processors Support 'XP Mode' in Windows 7

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
FordGT90Concept said:
Saaaaawheeeeet! That means there should be zero backwards compatibility problems with trying to play XP games in Windows 7
Ah, no. you dont get 3D acceleration in virtual machines.
Posted on Reply
#2
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
Mussels said:
Ah, no. you dont get 3D acceleration in virtual machines.
I thought you could but it was more complicated.
Posted on Reply
#3
Mussels
Moderprator
DrPepper said:
I thought you could but it was more complicated.
with VMware, the most you can get is DX8.1 and its slower than the host machines. With Vmware fusion on macs you can get full acceleration, but tahts because they only have a very small amount of video cards and drivers to maintain compatibility with.


This virtual XP is for businesses - a good example is custom made database or accounting software, that they have no hope in hell of getting updated.
Posted on Reply
#4
lemonadesoda
Mussels said:
to those complaining about the title, saying that it should say "amd and intel" or the like... its CNET's title. complain to them.
Ah, thanks for explaining the COPY+PASTE nature of news reporting.

Perhaps quote symbols "" would be a good idea to implement when C+P verbatim. It will help avoid users thinking that news posters have missed their morning coffee.
Posted on Reply
#5
tkpenalty
Someone should slam CNET for pumping out this crap. Intel is quite possibly behind this =_=

I cant even register there, dodgy coding there. Proves how crappy they are
Posted on Reply
#6
alexp999
Staff
Its because the article focuses on talking to AMD about it. Tho the title would have probably been better sans the word AMD.
Posted on Reply
#7
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Mussels said:
with VMware, the most you can get is DX8.1 and its slower than the host machines. With Vmware fusion on macs you can get full acceleration, but tahts because they only have a very small amount of video cards and drivers to maintain compatibility with.


This virtual XP is for businesses - a good example is custom made database or accounting software, that they have no hope in hell of getting updated.
We'll see. The only reason why accelerated graphics don't work very well on hypervisor is because of graphic cards constantly messing with the TLB. Once drivers are written to properly work in a virtualized environment, that bug will go away.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/961661
Posted on Reply
#8
iStink
I've read articles that mentioned all the intel chips that wouldn't work without a word of AMD. There's nothing biased about reporting which AMD chips won't work without mentioning intel, because the info on intel is out there in the same light.

I can see the mac fanboys using this as another reason why "windows sucks". I hope I don't find myself constantly repeating why some chips will do it while others won't.
Posted on Reply
#10
FatForester
Terrible title. When I bought my e2180 I thought I would never need to use hardware virtualization, and that bit me when I tried installing Windows 7 x64 in VirtualBox. The T7300 in my laptop has VT-x and it works just fine, however. You would think that virtualization would be more prominent in Intel's lineup by now.
Posted on Reply
#11
h3llb3nd4
I'm still sad that my new proccy wont be able to support this technology:(
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Imsochobo said:
OMFG!!!!!!!!!

Bad headline.

Theese dont support it either... i guess theyre from pretty much the same time.

Pentium D?
E7xxx
E4xxx
Pentium4
e2x `?

amd havnt done anything wrong, semprons are hard to find lol.
Pentium D 9X0 series chips support VT as do the P4 Prescott 2M cores. not that i am an intel fan. now just like everyone else is wondering why is the thread name some AMD chips don't support it when the only AMD series not to support it since athlon XP was the sempron series which is the absolute lowest line they sell in which the cpu's do not exceed $40. Intel however offers cpu's that exceed $150 that still do not offer VTand this is an AMD problem?
Posted on Reply
#13
suraswami
cdawall said:
Pentium D 9X0 series chips support VT as do the P4 Prescott 2M cores. not that i am an intel fan. now just like everyone else is wondering why is the thread name some AMD chips don't support it when the only AMD series not to support it since athlon XP was the sempron series which is the absolute lowest line they sell in which the cpu's do not exceed $40. Intel however offers cpu's that exceed $150 that still do not offer VTand this is an AMD problem?
well said
:toast:

Anything good AMD does is inferior to what crap Intel gives - thats the belief of the ignorants here.

Don't know why this is even a topic here, can't VMware be used in W7 and run whatever OS you want?
Posted on Reply
#14
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
suraswami said:
well said
:toast:

Anything good AMD does is inferior to what crap Intel gives - thats the belief of the ignorants here.

Don't know why this is even a topic here, can't VMware be used in W7 and run whatever OS you want?
oh and if anyone wants proof VT works on PD930's i'm on one right now posting from linux while running revit in XP
Posted on Reply
#15
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
To make things clear, this is a news post on AMD making clear which of its chips don't support XP Mode, rather than a general issue description. "neutrality" to the post by mentioning that not all CPUs in general support XP mode was only complimentary from my side. If you know which chip doesn't support virtualization, that's all you really need to care about.
Posted on Reply
#16
PCpraiser100
Virtualization is a somewhat limited idea in the first place, since here in Canada it only costs $75 CAN to get a 500GB hard drive.
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
What I want to know is WHY Virtualization is even required? The current Virtual PC does not require it, having it just improves performance. Put for the intended purpose of the Virtual PC included with Win7, I don't see why Virtualization would be a requirement, it should run without it.
Posted on Reply
#18
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
PCpraiser100 said:
Virtualization is a somewhat limited idea in the first place, since here in Canada it only costs $75 CAN to get a 500GB hard drive.
Thing is some people don't want to boot between two differen OS's and dont want to pay £75 just to use xp and win7.
Posted on Reply
#19
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Microsoft
In addition, Windows Virtual PC requires a PC with Intel-VT or AMD-V enabled in the CPU, as it takes advantage of the latest advancements in hardware virtualization.
I find this interesting, and have a funny feeling "requires" is the wrong word, as Virtual PC alone does not require either Intel-VT or AMD-V to actually run. Makes me wonder if someone at Microsoft just wrote it wrong, anyone actually use it with a non-supported processor?
Posted on Reply
#20
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
newtekie1 said:
I find this interesting, and have a funny feeling "requires" is the wrong word, as Virtual PC alone does not require either Intel-VT or AMD-V to actually run. Makes me wonder if someone at Microsoft just wrote it wrong, anyone actually use it with a non-supported processor?
but this is microsoft ;)
Posted on Reply
#21
Slessum
Mussels said:
Ah, no. you dont get 3D acceleration in virtual machines.
and

Mussels said:
with VMware, the most you can get is DX8.1 and its slower than the host machines. With Vmware fusion on macs you can get full acceleration, but tahts because they only have a very small amount of video cards and drivers to maintain compatibility with.


This virtual XP is for businesses - a good example is custom made database or accounting software, that they have no hope in hell of getting updated.
I refer you to the VMware Workstation website
http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/new.html
Richest Desktop Experience
Access applications within virtual machines as if they were part of the host operating system desktop with “Unity” view
Support for DirectX 9.0c with Shader Model 2 3D graphics
Configure a virtual machine to span multiple monitors, or multiple virtual machines to each display on separate monitors.
Create shared folders and drag-and-drop, and copy-paste data between guest and host OSes
Connect high-speed USB 2.0 devices, including webcams and iPods
Resize the guest’s screen resolution automatically to fit the size of a window or full screen, or run virtual machines in the background without using the Workstation user interface
Map a virtual disk to a drive letter on Windows host
Capture all screen activity in a running virtual machine with movie record and playback feature
maby you need to check your facts before you post things, that way you dont give out FALSE INFORMATION to people, kind of like the Poster of this news topic.......

Im sorry but posting false, misleading information as news as if it where FACT is pretty low, and people complain about the inq and fudzilla......
Posted on Reply
#22
Slessum
Richest Desktop Experience
Access applications within virtual machines as if they were part of the host operating system desktop with “Unity” view
Support for DirectX 9.0c with Shader Model 2 3D graphics
Configure a virtual machine to span multiple monitors, or multiple virtual machines to each display on separate monitors.
Create shared folders and drag-and-drop, and copy-paste data between guest and host OSes
Connect high-speed USB 2.0 devices, including webcams and iPods
Resize the guest’s screen resolution automatically to fit the size of a window or full screen, or run virtual machines in the background without using the Workstation user interface
Map a virtual disk to a drive letter on Windows host
Capture all screen activity in a running virtual machine with movie record and playback feature
vmware supports dx9.........

I also like Virtual Box(free) it works VERY well for basic virtual machien work :)

ms virtual pc had to go free, nobody was going to buy it after they messed it up.
Posted on Reply
#23
lemonadesoda
OK WAIT.

Isnt virtualisation possible even on a CPU that doesnt have VT feature set? Yes. The whole idea IIRC of VT chipset features was INSTANT bank switching of CPU register sets. That means you can virtualise without performance penalty due to register housekeeping. Whereas without VT feature set, you can implement VT but dont have the hardware acceleration, so it adds latency to the process.

Are we SURE than XP doesnt work on Win 7? Or is it just suboptimal and not going to run without causing a bit of performance loss.
Posted on Reply
#24
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
newtekie1 said:
I find this interesting, and have a funny feeling "requires" is the wrong word, as Virtual PC alone does not require either Intel-VT or AMD-V to actually run. Makes me wonder if someone at Microsoft just wrote it wrong, anyone actually use it with a non-supported processor?
This i believe supports the hardware Directly and doesnt require you to buy additional software, Most Companies are still on Windows XP and this should make the transition a little easier, Now how efficient it will be all depends on how much the developers care about it, which i highly doubt they do as they want you to get the newest version of Office Etc anyway, office 2010 anyone?
Posted on Reply
#25
Polarman
Why on earth do you want to run a virtual XP inside Windows 7 ???

I tought that 7 would be more compatible than that.

I'd rather see a Virtual DOS that runs my legacy dos games.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment