Camera Labs

What does everyone think of the decision to offer an XP mode running under virtual pc on windows 7?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27 ... 7_xp_mode/

Positive to me, even if it's slightly annoying they're only putting this into the business/high end versions and not making it a standard feature.

It gets rid of compatibility as a reason not to upgrade. So applications that behave well will get full benefit, while retaining ability to use less well behaved ones.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Hi Gordon,

When I read the reports this morning my first thought was "Brilliant" but there's a lot we don't know yet.

• Will it be faster than the current solution of installing XP as an OS in Virtual PC 2007?
• Will it have full access to existing graphics and sound hardware or just basic virtualised hardware?
• Will it be protected by the security suite running in Windows 7 or will it need its own security suite?
• Will it need it's own security updates and if so what happens when XP support is withdrawn?
• Will it be able to import a current XP Pro virtual machine or will we have to reinstall the software apps?

But on the face of it this will be a good move for those who currently only own an OEM XP licence as it should mean they can run legacy apps requiring XP in a virtualised environment under Windows 7 without paying for an additional copy of XP.

Now that Microsoft has 'fessed up that Windows 7 will likely be released to manufacturing in the fall for those of us contemplating a new PC it might well be worth trying to get hold of the newly announced Release Candidate.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Ultimately, will running XP natively on a PC be better or worse than running it virtually under Windows 7? I can't believe the latter will be superior for XP alone.

So it comes down to whether Windows 7 offers existing XP owners any advantages - I suspect not for the same reasons they stuck with XP in the first place - obviously they're not the kind of people who are tempted by user interface enhancements or having the latest versions.

I'm still using XP Media Center on my entertainment PC for example because it simply works and does everything I want.

I'm glad it's a virtual mode though and not some bizarre hack where both co-exist and the older one somehow compromises the newer one. Like DOS living behind Windows for years...

Putting aside the corporate side, I think this dual mode will particularly appeal to home power users. Personally I'm happy enough with XP, but the biggest limit I have with it is the 32-bit ram ceiling of just over 3GB. Ram is cheap, if it wasn't for that limit I'd be on 8GB by now. However, having a Vista box elsewhere at home, I wasn't ready to make that move yet.

If Win7-64 can do XP32 well, that's the best of both worlds even if the way it is implemented means the new interface style is what you see, with XP supposedly running seamlessly.

Having said all that, I'm not sure which applications I have are strictly 32-bit OS only, and which will run under 64. So there will be a pain associated with any move in trying to find out. Or, by the time Win7 does arrive all my apps may have caught up anyway leaving XP moot... we'll have to wait and see.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

I'm pretty sure most users will only use the feature for compatibility issues. Most programs will run fine in Windows 7. It's probably a nice thing to have though if you do have old programs!

_________________

Hi folks,

Some more "information" has come to light, courtesy of The Inquirer. No, not that one! According to the article XP Mode in Windows 7 is a scam:

XPM will only 'see' a generic 2D video card, and if you are really lucky, it will see some basic 3D features. Want games to run? Nope. Want hardware accelerated sound? Nope. TCP/IP acceleration? Nope. Anything cool? Nope. You will be stuck with the virtual equivalent of a Best Buy special from 5 years ago, a PC that looks up to the blistering graphics power of an Intel 965 chipset.

I don't always find the articles in The Inquirer exactly balanced but I think there may be more than a grain of truth in their views on this. It's looking very much like this is functionally exactly the same as bundling the already free Virtual PC 2007 with Windows 7 so the only give-away is a licence for XP. If you already have such a licence then XPM on it's own doesn't justify the extra expense of purchasing the Professional, Enterprise or Ultimate versions of Windows 7, though there may very well be other good reasons for opting for one of those versions.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

I've read elsewhere it's done fusion style, so you don't get another virtual desktop. Applications run within the main desktop. Lack of any 3D support is disappointing, but does any version of Virtual PC do that anyway?

Also, on XP at least, free versions of Virtual PC wont run on "home" edition OSes. Wouldn't be surprised to find they do the same on Vista. Damn MS crippleware...

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

It's great, I don't see my mom using VMware just yet to run incompatible apps, but this may make (embedded) virtualisation available to the masses!

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

Informative report on the XP Mode at The Register here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/01 ... de_review/

It's written by a former colleague of mine who I trust completely.

If you are not a hard core gamer (or 3d app developer), and simply like to try out the looks of 7, you can do so from xp itself. I think any other so called enhancements over xp are simply rubbish. As everybody now knows, DX10 is good enough for xp, but not for MS. Security? People don't use windows for that thing. Besides, with properly tweaked HIPS and firewall (+antivirus etc), xp runs fine enough. If they can't come up with something as small and as fast as xp, without requiring at least 5-10 times more powerful hardware to get the jobs done, xp will go on, even if Microshit itself releases viruses to kill it.

_________________
SX10IS
Flickr Picasa

So, how much did apple pay you again?

Come on, you keep complaining XP is way faster and Vista is slow as hell. Just wondering: do you complain if a newer game requires a faster PC?

That's what I thought.


And microsoft releasing viruses? Enlighten me please.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

I was praising XP, not Apple.


No, I don't complain if the game is good enough and genuinely, and reasonably requires the faster hardware. But I do complain, if that game, which is good enough for XP and, as a matter of fact, can run twice as fast in XP than in Vista, requires you to forcefully upgrade to Vista, because Microsoft WON'T let anybody use the new libraries of DX10 in XP even if they are perfectly compatible, just to satisfy their unfair marketing needs. From a company which can crash the entire flight sim team just because they don't need them anymore, it's naive to expect anything but more buggy grounds. An old weapon may not be as advanced in features, but it is tested. It's not for no reasons that experts still bet their life on the ancient AK47. Most people still prefer xp EVEN IF they have Vista and more-than-capable hardware to run it.


Do you have a database of who does? How do you know who doesn't? I'm not saying Microsoft does, but the motive is there. They have been trying hard to drown XP for quite some time, and I hope you know that's not a secret.

_________________
SX10IS
Flickr Picasa

Roy, that was a sensful response. I was thinking you are just a vista basher.
That being said, I like my vista install. The 64 bit version is miles ahead of XP "drivers plz" 64, and I feel no urge to go back.
You do need a fast computer for vista, I'll give you that, but I see it as innovation. Vista just has all those little things which make computing easier or more fun, and that's important for a piece of gear I use everyday.

About the viruses: That's quite a conspiracy theory you have going there. There indeed is no way to prove it's not microsoft, but most exploits harm both vista AND XP, apart the few blocked by kernel patch protection.

Microsoft is indeed killing XP, and why shouldn't they. They are a business, which wants to make money. And supporting 4 operating systems (full support for win2K just ended) costs a lot. So, they want you to switch to vista.

It's not very consumer friendly, I'll give you that, but, at the end, they are still a business which wants to make money. Microsoft just does it in a more nasty way.

If you don't like the way Microsoft does business, get a mac (where you will encounter similar problems), or switch to linux.
Freedom comes at a price though, you'll need to make a big change

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

I have an x86 system. The concept of x64 computing is splendid. But, before you expect too much from it, there are certain things which one should be aware of.
From Wikipedia:


In other words, 4GB is the ideal RAM size for 32-bit computers. For a 64-bit computer, that would be 16.8 million terabytes. (Wiki). Most manufacturers intentionally handicap their microprocessor architecture to avoid that impossible situation. And many applications which are not specifically written for the 64-bit architecture, run in a "compatibility" mode, which make them run at a comparable speed of their 32-bit counterparts. Also, in order to fully utilise your hardware (provided you do have the perfect components to supplement your ideal 64-bit processor), the applications must also be written with YOUR very processor in mind, even if written in a high level language. That, my friend, is a very difficult job for most programmers, and even today we don't have that ideal situation as far as software is concerned. So, no matter which 64-bit os you use, you're very unlikely to experience that optimal experience. Linux, being THE os for servers, is truly outstanding. Of course there are other unices, but linux is what most people prefer now-a-days. For the desktop environment though, where people want to do just about anything, comes the dreaded issue of drivers and hardware/software compatibility. Most multimedia apps (or their alternatives) in linux run sort of ok, but in a more slower-than-jogging fashion, and fixing such issues is a nightmare for even many RHCEs, not to speak of more "general" users. There are hundreds of flavours of linux, and you just don't know which one will make the most of your hardware and run all your software. Wine is sweet, but really can't catch up with the stability and performance when those apps run in the real windows. Also, the choice of software is too limited in linux than in windows. Given all these factors, I think XP (32-bit) is still miles ahead of all in terms of compatibility and usability. But of course, when it comes to having the highest possible speed in some very specific applications, such as video encoding or 3d rendering (for development purposes) or running a very busy server, hardware and OS do play a big role. But for the more general user who wants to run various servers, play all the games available, try out every cool new software, add new hardware like TV tuners, sound cards, PPU etc, do various types of development/reversing etc, XP (x86) is what most people would still bet on.

_________________
SX10IS
Flickr Picasa