ASP Developer Network - Brought to you by Steve Radich and BitShop, Inc. - http://www.bitshop.com

ASPDeveloper

ASPDeveloper.Net / VirtualServerFAQ.COM

Make sure you go to our home page for:

* Virtual Server 2005 FAQ
* ASP.Net 2.0 Information
* ASP.Net 2.0 Streaming Tutorials
* ASP.Net 2.0 HTML based Tutorials

Made possible by Business Internet Technology Shop (BitShop)

Virtual PC

Recent Virtual PC posts

* www.sellingoogle.com Cheap wholesale Prada shoes supra shoes adidas shoes puma shoes nike blazer shoes
* Successor of Virtual PC 2007
* Reboot a Remote Desktop connection in Windows Virtual PC
* Mini newsgroup FAQ for the week of 5/3/2009
* WinXP Guest under WinXP Host VPC2007 Sound missing
* Moving Guests
* Win3.1 wont regconize cd drive.
* Thank you.
* Vista 64 and virtual pc 2007
* Running VGA Test under DOS
* Windows Virtual PC Beta
* Can"t VirtualServerFaq be blocked from this NG?
* hello! Want to buy software Retail or OEM, Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, Corel Symantec
* hello! WTB SELL ME YOUR software OEM or Retail LARGE and SMALL QTY
* Virtual PC question
* connectivity via Wireless
* Running a sniffer on VPC guest and only seeing "incoming" to VPC host
* Exciting comment about future USB support in a recent interview.
* internet downloads very slow
* A Small Question.

Add Solution

Ed Bott Blog on Windows XP Mode

Source: microsoft.public.virtualpc
Sent: 05/06/2009
From: David Wilkinson <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

Maybe it was technically necessary in order to move forward, but this need for
hardware virtualization for Windows XP mode (and VPC 7) is going to cause a lot
of trouble.

See Ed Bott's blog at

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=946>

We are not just talking about old hardware here.

Part of the problem is that hardware virtualization is not a well-known feature.
Indeed I bought a 64-bit dual core machine 3 years ago (before I got into
virtualization) and I never gave it any thought. So of course my machine does
not have it (Athlon64 X2 on socket 939), though I know there were chipsets
available at that time that did support it.

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

Post Reply | This is Spam! | Mark as Spam

Related Messages

Re: Ed Bott Blog on Windows XP Mode

Sent: 05/06/2009
From: David Wilkinson <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

Jakob Bohm wrote:

Jakob:

Oh yes. If I could replace just the CPU to get hardware virtualization, I would
do it in a heartbeat.

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

Show quoted text

> And back then, the pre-announcements of hardware virtualization made by
> AMD and Intel looked like the feature would become available as a
> CPU stepping or microcode update for existing CPU designs, ready to
> be plugged into existing socket 939 and Xeon based computers.
>
> But both AMD and Intel have decided to break backward compatibility with
> motherboards/computers whenever they make even the smallest CPU
> improvements. So users cannot simply buy a processor upgrade and pop it
> into their existing computer, they have to replace a lot of non-outdated
> hardware (sometimes the whole machine), just to get about 5 extra CPU
> instructions and a few extra control registers.

Re: Ed Bott Blog on Windows XP Mode

Sent: 05/06/2009
From: David Wilkinson <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

jorgensen wrote:

I don't think so. Athlon64 X2 for socket 939 does not support virtualization,
but for socket AM2 it does.

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

Show quoted text

>> So of course my machine does not have it (Athlon64 X2 on socket 939),
>> though I know there were chipsets available at that time that did support
>> it.
>
> As I understand, it's CPU and BIOS related, and not a matter of chipset.

Re: Ed Bott Blog on Windows XP Mode

Sent: 05/06/2009
From: David Wilkinson <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

Jakob Bohm wrote:

So technically, hardware virtualization could work on socket 939? It's just that
AMD have chosen not to include it on Athlon64 X2 CPU's for socket 939?

Very annoying. Any chance they could reverse this decision? They would get a CPU
sale out of me if they did.

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

Show quoted text

> Yes, and the only reason for that is that AMD Corp decided not to
> include the feature on the chip they sell in a package with 939
> pins, but do include it in a similar chip they sell in a package
> with balls on it and slightly different electrical specifications.
>
> The BIOS issue is just a matter of how it initializes the CPU etc.
> and could be fixed with a routine BIOS update if a socket 939 CPU
> with virtualization was on the market.
>
> CPU-assisted virtualization does not require any special chipset
> features, although it may happen to be in the same CPU versions
> that support use with a TPM chip (that feature currently DOES
> require chipset support, if used).

Re: Ed Bott Blog on Windows XP Mode

Sent: 05/06/2009
From: Jakob Bohm <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

David Wilkinson wrote:
=20
=20
e=20

And back then, the pre-announcements of hardware virtualization made by=20
AMD and Intel looked like the feature would become available as a
CPU stepping or microcode update for existing CPU designs, ready to
be plugged into existing socket 939 and Xeon based computers.

But both AMD and Intel have decided to break backward compatibility with =

motherboards/computers whenever they make even the smallest CPU=20
improvements. So users cannot simply buy a processor upgrade and pop it =

into their existing computer, they have to replace a lot of non-outdated =

hardware (sometimes the whole machine), just to get about 5 extra CPU=20
instructions and a few extra control registers.

It was much nicer during the transitions from 286 to 386, from 386 to=20
486, and from 486 to Pentium. In each case the chipmakers offered=20
"upgrade" or "overdrive" processors which had the latest hardware inside =

but would fit in the old sockets on the old motherboards. (386SX was a=20
386 that would fit in a 286 motherboard design, there were=20
daughterboards for putting a 486DX in a 386 motherboard,=20
486DX2-OverDrive and 486DX4-OverDrive would fit in most 486DX boards and =

there were a few Pentium 1 generation chips that would fit in a 486=20
motherboard).

--=20
Jakob B=F8hm, M.Sc.Eng. * (email address - cut out) * direct tel:+45-45-90-25-33
Netop Solutions A/S * Bregnerodvej 127 * DK-3460 Birkerod * DENMARK
http://www.netop.com * tel:+45-45-90-25-25 * fax:+45-45-90-25-26
Information in this mail is hasty, not binding and may not be right.
Information in this posting may not be the official position of Netop
Solutions A/S, only the personal opinions of the author.

Show quoted text

> Maybe it was technically necessary in order to move forward, but this=20
> need for hardware virtualization for Windows XP mode (and VPC 7) is=20
> going to cause a lot of trouble.
>=20
> See Ed Bott's blog at
>=20
> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=3D946>
>=20
> We are not just talking about old hardware here.
>=20
> Part of the problem is that hardware virtualization is not a well-known=
> feature. Indeed I bought a 64-bit dual core machine 3 years ago (before=
> I got into virtualization) and I never gave it any thought. So of cours=
> my machine does not have it (Athlon64 X2 on socket 939), though I know =
> there were chipsets available at that time that did support it.
>=20

Re: Ed Bott Blog on Windows XP Mode

Sent: 05/06/2009
From: "jorgensen" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

> So of course my machine does not have it (Athlon64 X2 on socket 939),

As I understand, it's CPU and BIOS related, and not a matter of chipset.

Have read that even if a CPU have Intel Virtualization Technology or AMD-V
on the paper, it might have been disabled by various reasons.

Believe Microsoft will run into some (Vista like) problems with this
solution.

Show quoted text

> though I know there were chipsets available at that time that did support
> it.

Re: Ed Bott Blog on Windows XP Mode

Sent: 05/06/2009
From: Jakob Bohm <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

David Wilkinson wrote:
=20
t.

Yes, and the only reason for that is that AMD Corp decided not to=20
include the feature on the chip they sell in a package with 939
pins, but do include it in a similar chip they sell in a package
with balls on it and slightly different electrical specifications.

The BIOS issue is just a matter of how it initializes the CPU etc.
and could be fixed with a routine BIOS update if a socket 939 CPU
with virtualization was on the market.

CPU-assisted virtualization does not require any special chipset
features, although it may happen to be in the same CPU versions
that support use with a TPM chip (that feature currently DOES
require chipset support, if used).

--=20
Jakob B=F8hm, M.Sc.Eng. * (email address - cut out) * direct tel:+45-45-90-25-33
Netop Solutions A/S * Bregnerodvej 127 * DK-3460 Birkerod * DENMARK
http://www.netop.com * tel:+45-45-90-25-25 * fax:+45-45-90-25-26
Information in this mail is hasty, not binding and may not be right.
Information in this posting may not be the official position of Netop
Solutions A/S, only the personal opinions of the author.

Show quoted text

> jorgensen wrote:
>>> So of course my machine does not have it (Athlon64 X2 on socket 939),=
>>> though I know there were chipsets available at that time that did=20
>>> support it.
>>
>> As I understand, it's CPU and BIOS related, and not a matter of chipse=
>=20
> I don't think so. Athlon64 X2 for socket 939 does not support=20
> virtualization, but for socket AM2 it does.
>=20

Re: Ed Bott Blog on Windows XP Mode

Sent: 05/06/2009
From: "jorgensen" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

> So technically, hardware virtualization could work on socket 939? It's

I have an Dual Opteron 939 CPU and it's not supported either, so no change
here.

Another problem with my somewhat outdated (however, fully optimized and
overclocked) system is the AGP 6800 graphic card. When running the Win 7
performance test, I get a pretty high score around 5 - except the graphic
system which comes out with a score of 1 and telling it's unacceptable.

Show quoted text

> just that AMD have chosen not to include it on Athlon64 X2 CPU's for
> socket 939?
> Very annoying. Any chance they could reverse this decision? They would get
> a CPU sale out of me if they did.

Post Reply | This is Spam! | Mark as Spam

Other groups

Virtual PC (Mac)(3592)	Virtual PC(12844)	Virtual PC (French)(496)
Virtual Server 2005(6245)

Our Sponsors

Virtual Server 2005 Info Here!
http://www.aspdeveloper.net

Wiki

Blogs

Articles

Image galleries

File galleries

Forums

Maps

Directories

ASP Developer Network (since 1996) - Brought to you by Steve Radich and BitShop, Inc. - http://www.bitshop.com
Copyright © 1997-2005 by BitShop, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No content may be reproduced in any form without written permission from BitShop, Inc.
We will be honored to assist with reproduction rights on our material if you contact us.
We also can provide print articles for your magazine, private training seminars at your site, and conference presentations.
Thank you for visiting. Please bookmark our site if you found it useful!
If you wish to make a donation it will help further the development of these free resources: