Intel playing virtual silly buggers
Potential 'Vista Capable' disaster all over again
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Opinion You're supposed to be able to run an x86 app on any Intel x86 (or AMD x86) processor. That's what x86 compatibility means, right? Wrong: Windows 7 XP Mode won't run on many multi-core Intel processors because Intel is arsing about with its Intel VT feature.
For a PC to run Windows 7's XP Mode, the system must support either Intel Virtualisation Technology (Intel VT) or AMD Virtualisation (AMD-V) and have such support enabled in the BIOS. Several, in fact many, Intel multi-core CPUs don't support Intel VT despite other CPUs in the same family supporting it.
So a key Windows 7 operating system feature is not consistently supported across all Intel's X86 processors because Intel VT is not part of the x86 instruction set.
It darn well should be and Intel should stop messing about.
The Core 2 Quad Q8200 does not support Intel VT, although other Core 2 Quad CPUs, such as the Q9400, Q9550 and Q9650, do. If you go ahead a buy a Windows 7-supported PC, there is no way you can be sure that Windows 7's XP Mode is supported unless you research Intel's CPU web pages or the manufacturer specifically says so.
This could be reminiscent of the Vista Capable fiasco where PCs running Intel graphics chips could not use use Vista's then new Aero interface because they weren't capable enough, although the PCs were branded Vista Capable. Microsoft didn't want to irritate Intel by including Aero support as a key requirement for being Vista Capable.
We need to be told by manufacturers whether specific PCs are XP Mode-capable or not, as millions, tens of millions or more, of desktop and laptop users are still using XP and need their XP applications supported if they move to Windows 7. If Microsoft is serious about supporting legacy applications then it needs to define Windows 7 support for any PC as including XP Mode support.
If Intel complains then Redmond should tell it to take a hike and fix processors in its range that are missing Intel VT support. What's more important; end-user quality and loyalty or keeping processor suppliers with inconsistent Windows 7 XP Mode support sweet and happy?
Supporting Intel with the Vista Capable brand weakened Vista's brand image and caused ongoing law suits. Here's a question for Steve Ballmer: "Does Redmond listen to its ultimate customers and take their concerns seriously or not?" ®
COMMENTS
Intel's problem ?
As microsoft's own Virtual PC 2007 runs fine on windows 7 (even additions works well) it is surprising that XP mode *requires* VT support on the CPU. One would assume it must be a new feature such as USB support (to allow direct printing presumably) not in VPC 2007 that needs it.
Whatever the reason it would seem more sensible to allow a cut-down XP Mode to work on hardware with no VT support (just as VPC 2007 does) but without those features that require it, which makes this a microsoft problem / solution. Stopping the install completely seems rather lazy on microsoft's part.
On the other hand, given the way the WDM memory footprint 'enhancment' over Vista only works if you have DX10 hardware & WDDM 1.1 drivers, it seems microsoft aren't interested in fixing core problems (ie. removing the read-back dependency in WDM) - they would rather throw new hardware at problems to solve them. So not much new there, really.
Blaming Intel is to follow microsoft's lead in ignoring the core issues; Microsoft's coding requires a non-standard feature of modern CPU's, compounded by Intel's patchy support for said feature. Which could/should be fixed ?
Intel are more to blame here than MS
I think the article and a lot of the comments miss the point. Intel have basically disabled VT on a lot of chips that otherwise are capable of it. The policy is not at all transparent and seems to exist for no other reason than to make punters who need the feature part with more money.
I've been a happy AMD customer for years and they are much more straightforward about this. The rule there is that VT is enabled on pretty much all chips, except maybe single core semprons.
I've been stung by this Intel policy once and it will be a long time before I buy another Intel processor.
Intel: WTF?
It's 2009 and Intel is shipping QUAD-CORE PROCESSORS without VT? Are you kidding me? Here's a tip for HR, find out what idiot made that decision and can their ass. Moron.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
