> Hey there,
>
> I'm just wondering why Hardware Assisted Virtualisation is now mandatory?=
> mean tbh, whether it was enabled or disabled in Virtual PC 2007 I didn't
> notice any difference in performance.
>
> Also isn't it a little ironic, a virtualisation technology that's meant t=
> cut down the cost of requiring the physical hardware, when actually allot=
> us are going to have to upgrade just so we can make use of the latest
> releases. =A0Wouldn't it have been good if it was an option just like it'=
> always been? =A0I've got 2 computers that can't run Virtual PC Beta and o=
> them is brand spanking new! lol!
>
> Nick.

> Hey there,
>=20
> I'm just wondering why Hardware Assisted Virtualisation is now
> mandatory? I mean tbh, whether it was enabled or disabled in Virtual P=
> 2007 I didn't notice any difference in performance.
>=20
> Also isn't it a little ironic, a virtualisation technology that's meant=
> to cut down the cost of requiring the physical hardware, when actually
> allot of us are going to have to upgrade just so we can make use of the=
> latest releases. Wouldn't it have been good if it was an option just
> like it's always been? I've got 2 computers that can't run Virtual PC
> Beta and one of them is brand spanking new! lol!
>=20

> It's only mandatory in the version of VPC for Windows 7. It remains to
> be seen if MS will release a complete new version of VPC with the
> option to enable/disable VT.
> I think they will because for full compatibility with old programs you
> cannot just have VT you need actual full emulation (which no Connectix/
> VPC/Vmware product has ever done) or dynamic recompilation.
>
> It's mandatory in VPC for Windows 7 because they wanted to make sure
> that the people running it had the hardware to run it and had a good
> experience running software inside of it. The people using these
> programs wouldn't have any idea of what Virtual PC is so they didn't
> want them to have a reason to complain about performance.

> Yes, it is stupid. Microsoft does not (officially at least) make any
> money from the sale of hardware upgrades (although they often use the
> sale of a new PC as an opportunity to sell another copy of Windows at
> the discounted OEM price).
>
> Technically, the deepest core function in any VPC product is the
> "hypervisor" which is responsible for making the Virtual machine think
> it owns its own CPU, even though it really doesn't. This hypervisor
> needs to be implemented differently (and in a more difficult way) on a
> CPU without enabled hardware VT, than when much of the work can be done
> by the VT feature of the CPU.
>
> So if Microsoft was starting from scratch with no older VPC product to
> upgrade, implementing VPC to run only with hardware VT would be the
> easiest/cheapest solution. But Microsoft is not starting from scratch,
> they have a functioning hypervisor for non-VT machines, which they could
> continue to maintain, with higher level code in VPC automatically
> loading either the VT or the non-VT hypervisor depending on machine
> capabilities.
> Note that large amounts of "auxiliary" code such as .vhd support, device
> simulation, virtual BIOS, user interface, VPC additions etc. etc. could
> be shared by the two hypervisor implementations, keeping the total cost
> down and allowing VPC images to be shared amongst different physical
> machines. It would also allow VPCs with saved state to survive a change
> in the VT BIOS setting on the Host PC.

> Hi Jakob,
> > > >
> > > Yes, it is stupid. Microsoft does not (officially at least) make any
> > > money from the sale of hardware upgrades (although they often use the
> > > sale of a new PC as an opportunity to sell another copy of Windows at
> > > the discounted OEM price).
> > >
> > > Technically, the deepest core function in any VPC product is the
> > > "hypervisor" which is responsible for making the Virtual machine
> > think
> > > it owns its own CPU, even though it really doesn't. This hypervisor
> > > needs to be implemented differently (and in a more difficult way) on
> > a
> > > CPU without enabled hardware VT, than when much of the work can be
> > done
> > > by the VT feature of the CPU.
> > >
> > > So if Microsoft was starting from scratch with no older VPC product
> > to
> > > upgrade, implementing VPC to run only with hardware VT would be the
> > > easiest/cheapest solution. But Microsoft is not starting from
> > scratch,
> > > they have a functioning hypervisor for non-VT machines, which they
> > could
> > > continue to maintain, with higher level code in VPC automatically
> > > loading either the VT or the non-VT hypervisor depending on machine
> > > capabilities. > >
>
> Well you certainly have allot of knowledge on the subject, and
> understand what's going on under the hood. So it seems that
> technically
> Microsoft are doing this abandon legacy code? Rather than just
> optimising it
> and bringing it up to new standards, same old same old.
>
> This is a big shame and I don't see how big companies will be able to
> adobt this technology without performing the upgrade. And durning a
> worldwide recession this is extremely blinkered of Microsoft.
> > > >
> > > Note that large amounts of "auxiliary" code such as .vhd support,
> > device
> > > simulation, virtual BIOS, user interface, VPC additions etc. etc.
> > could
> > > be shared by the two hypervisor implementations, keeping the total
> > cost
> > > down and allowing VPC images to be shared amongst different physical
> > > machines. It would also allow VPCs with saved state to survive a
> > change
> > > in the VT BIOS setting on the Host PC. > >
>
> Well I just hope one of the devs/pms might take these points on board
> and reconsider their architechture. Not meaning they abandon what
> they have
> done, just bring the legacy stuff back even stronger than it was
> before,
> knowing Microsoft I very much doubt the code was immaculate as it
> was.
>
> *fingers crossed*
>
> Nick.

> Hey there,
>
> I'm just wondering why Hardware Assisted Virtualisation is now mandatory?=
> mean tbh, whether it was enabled or disabled in Virtual PC 2007 I didn't
> notice any difference in performance.
>
> Also isn't it a little ironic, a virtualisation technology that's meant t=
> cut down the cost of requiring the physical hardware, when actually allot=
> us are going to have to upgrade just so we can make use of the latest
> releases. Wouldn't it have been good if it was an option just like it's
> always been? I've got 2 computers that can't run Virtual PC Beta and one=
> them is brand spanking new! lol!
>
> Nick.

> nak wrote:
> > Hey there,
> >
> > I'm just wondering why Hardware Assisted Virtualisation is now
> > mandatory? I mean tbh, whether it was enabled or disabled in Virtual PC
> > 2007 I didn't notice any difference in performance.
> >
> Maybe VPC 2007 didn't use the new technology at all, even if it was
> enabled in the BIOS on the physical computer.
>
> > Also isn't it a little ironic, a virtualisation technology that's meant
> > to cut down the cost of requiring the physical hardware, when actually
> > allot of us are going to have to upgrade just so we can make use of the
> > latest releases. Wouldn't it have been good if it was an option just
> > like it's always been? I've got 2 computers that can't run Virtual PC
> > Beta and one of them is brand spanking new! lol!
> >
>
> Yes, it is stupid. Microsoft does not (officially at least) make any
> money from the sale of hardware upgrades (although they often use the
> sale of a new PC as an opportunity to sell another copy of Windows at
> the discounted OEM price).
>
> Technically, the deepest core function in any VPC product is the
> "hypervisor" which is responsible for making the Virtual machine think
> it owns its own CPU, even though it really doesn't. This hypervisor
> needs to be implemented differently (and in a more difficult way) on a
> CPU without enabled hardware VT, than when much of the work can be done
> by the VT feature of the CPU.
>
> So if Microsoft was starting from scratch with no older VPC product to
> upgrade, implementing VPC to run only with hardware VT would be the
> easiest/cheapest solution. But Microsoft is not starting from scratch,
> they have a functioning hypervisor for non-VT machines, which they could
> continue to maintain, with higher level code in VPC automatically
> loading either the VT or the non-VT hypervisor depending on machine
> capabilities.
>
> Note that large amounts of "auxiliary" code such as .vhd support, device
> simulation, virtual BIOS, user interface, VPC additions etc. etc. could
> be shared by the two hypervisor implementations, keeping the total cost
> down and allowing VPC images to be shared amongst different physical
> machines. It would also allow VPCs with saved state to survive a change
> in the VT BIOS setting on the Host PC.
>
> --
> Jakob Bøhm, 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.
>
>

>
> while one the reasons you are needing Virtualization support is because
> less needs to be done by the program to run the vm....
>
> Virtualization support makes it possible to be able to run more "native
> commands" on the processor and not have to make the software do more
> work...
>
> i believe they are just testing this feature in the new VPC as most of
> the people running XPM mode are the people running 64 bit processors
> that are not able to run 16 bit process in a 64 bit system (and those
> cryptic applications that just refuse to run because of the author for
> what ever reason did not support it)
>
> i said most not all so while they will eventually support non AMD-v or
> Intel-VTx processors (when it goes the software suite goes "gold") or
> any that are motherboards that are "locked" in a sense and not be able
> to bring Virtualization Support on to the OS or software...
>
> and remember this is a beta not even a RC of the product...;)
>
>
> nak;1051798 Wrote:
>> Hi Jakob,
>> > > >
>> > > Yes, it is stupid. Microsoft does not (officially at least) make any
>> > > money from the sale of hardware upgrades (although they often use the
>> > > sale of a new PC as an opportunity to sell another copy of Windows at
>> > > the discounted OEM price).
>> > >
>> > > Technically, the deepest core function in any VPC product is the
>> > > "hypervisor" which is responsible for making the Virtual machine
>> > think
>> > > it owns its own CPU, even though it really doesn't. This hypervisor
>> > > needs to be implemented differently (and in a more difficult way) on
>> > a
>> > > CPU without enabled hardware VT, than when much of the work can be
>> > done
>> > > by the VT feature of the CPU.
>> > >
>> > > So if Microsoft was starting from scratch with no older VPC product
>> > to
>> > > upgrade, implementing VPC to run only with hardware VT would be the
>> > > easiest/cheapest solution. But Microsoft is not starting from
>> > scratch,
>> > > they have a functioning hypervisor for non-VT machines, which they
>> > could
>> > > continue to maintain, with higher level code in VPC automatically
>> > > loading either the VT or the non-VT hypervisor depending on machine
>> > > capabilities. > >
>>
>> Well you certainly have allot of knowledge on the subject, and
>> understand what's going on under the hood. So it seems that
>> technically
>> Microsoft are doing this abandon legacy code? Rather than just
>> optimising it
>> and bringing it up to new standards, same old same old.
>>
>> This is a big shame and I don't see how big companies will be able to
>> adobt this technology without performing the upgrade. And durning a
>> worldwide recession this is extremely blinkered of Microsoft.
>> > > >
>> > > Note that large amounts of "auxiliary" code such as .vhd support,
>> > device
>> > > simulation, virtual BIOS, user interface, VPC additions etc. etc.
>> > could
>> > > be shared by the two hypervisor implementations, keeping the total
>> > cost
>> > > down and allowing VPC images to be shared amongst different physical
>> > > machines. It would also allow VPCs with saved state to survive a
>> > change
>> > > in the VT BIOS setting on the Host PC. > >
>>
>> Well I just hope one of the devs/pms might take these points on board
>> and reconsider their architechture. Not meaning they abandon what
>> they have
>> done, just bring the legacy stuff back even stronger than it was
>> before,
>> knowing Microsoft I very much doubt the code was immaculate as it
>> was.
>>
>> *fingers crossed*
>>
>> Nick.
>
>
> --
> darkassain