Microsoft Removes Hardware Virtualization Requirement from XP Mode

Good move it was a lame requirement anyways. VPC prior to this version did not require it in the past (on far less capable systems).

Virtual box is pretty darn good for free. Especially considering the install file is 70meg for windows.

@Paul: The update is only optimized for XP Mode. They still recommend hardware VT for Vista or 7 VM's. Existing customers that are using XP Mode won't see any change since they're already using hardware VT support. Without hardware VT, it won't be nearly as fast so although it won't be an optimal platform to run it on, Microsoft is just removing barriers for upgrading to Windows 7. "VPC prior to this version did not require it in the past (on far less capable systems)." VPC didn't have nearly the same capabilities, nor did it work the same way in the background. The codebase of Windows Virtual PC is as different from Virtual PC 2007 as was Windows Vista from XP. There were major generational leaps in technology changes between the two. BTW: You can blame all of this on Intel, who still continues to make varying processor feature sets instead of focussing only on a few performance options. AMD differentiates processors by power usage, performance, existance of L3 cache (on Phenom's), and number of cores. All of these differences are transparent to the user as far as software compatibility goes though, and the only noticeable difference is in performance and power requirements. Their product lineup is much simpler to categorize. Intel just doesn't communicate enough of the feature set with a few numbers. They're oversimplifying, and it's confusing customers. I was hoping that Microsoft would stand their ground on the original decision and force Intel to simplify their product lineup. Unfortunately, they couldn't win unless Intel changed, and that didn't happen.

I agree with your Intel comments. When I was building a box recently to use as a ESXi server for testing at home, I had to double check the which Intel quad core I purchased. There are a few newer, low end ones that dont have VT support. I was surprised that Intel would sell any quad core with out VT tech. I can see low end dual cores but a quad core?

I was hoping that Microsoft would stand their ground on the original decision and force Intel to simplify their product lineup. Unfortunately, they couldn't win unless Intel changed, and that didn't happen. Agreed its an easy out for Intel. Its one of the reason's I find AMD chips more appealing. The pricing in another big factor.

The link below is live. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx

Waethorn even AMD's last single core/sempron had amd-v support With the 4 or so AMD systems I got to use or have, they all had support for hardware virtualization From my parents 939 singlecore My grandmothers am2+ quadcore My am3 tricore But I run into a Pentium 4 at 3 Ghz and no VT support seriously a processor running around the days of 939 were here that is fast couldn't support VT. While a 939 running at 2.4 ghz could.

OT: Paul how many dogs have you ran over just looking at all the highly negative posters it is quite surprising I mean I expect a couple of people to hate you for no reason but as that number increases I have to suspect your nightly hobby is going out and finding dogs running them over and then spraypainting your website on there house. I mean your win info short takes has already gathered the quota for a regular blog post.