Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, May 7, 2009.
No, it doesn't support AMD-V.
Ah, no. you dont get 3D acceleration in virtual machines.
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.
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.
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
Its because the article focuses on talking to AMD about it. Tho the title would have probably been better sans the word AMD.
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.
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.
Windows 7 XP mode will not run on some Intel laptops
What has the world become if Fud is more accurate than TPU! :shadedshu
(copy-pasting isn't news!)
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.
I'm still sad that my new proccy wont be able to support this technology
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I refer you to the VMware Workstation website
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......
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.
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.
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?
Separate names with a comma.