How Much Will It Suck When Your Intel Machine Won’t Run the Win7 XP Mode?

I had seen a blurb about this on one of those nondescript websites where a lot of knowledge is passed, but sometimes a lot of FUD as well. I hadn’t read much online today, as I was completing a term paper, and  a few other non-computer related tasks (it was a good time to rest my eyes, as well). I came upon an article by Ed Bott, on ZDNet, that confirmed what I had seen on the nondescript website.

There are a lot of Windows users that think that they have a capable Intel processor, but due to the fact that Intel plays ‘Flavor of the Month’ and ‘Let’s Make a Deal!’ with OEMs, many who think that there proc is capable of chip-hosted virtualization (the kind that Microsoft wrote the XP Mode to use), simply don’t have it, as they received one of those processors that was a few cents cheaper because that was either not included, disabled because it was not deemed necessary, or disabled because that part of the chip was defective.

The surprise will not be a nice one, because the difference (of pennies) in cost is going to mean a processor replacement now, if XP Mode is desired.

Whoops! And you thought that the Vista capable flap was a big one.

The nice thing about AMD (and I’ll say it loud and proud!) is that if you have any dual core or better processor, that fits into a socket AM2 or newer, you’ve got it! AMD doesn’t play the same tricks as Intel.

So not only have we found that the i7 is overpriced for what most people will be doing with their computers, and the game performance difference between those chips and Core 2 Quads is practically nil, we also find out that it takes a roadmap to see if you were sold all of what the chip main moniker promises.

from ZDNet

Some of the most popular PCs on the market today, equipped with fast and powerful dual- and quad-core CPUs, won’t be able to use the vaunted Windows XP Mode in Windows 7.

When Windows Vista launched, Intel and Microsoft both got a black eye over the infamous “Vista Capable” logo. That sticker was slapped on PCs running some of Intel’s most popular graphics chips, even though they wouldn’t run the new Aero graphics. Microsoft is still battling in court with angry customers (and their lawyers) who felt betrayed by that marketing campaign.

Now, three years later, it appears to be time for the “Vista Capable” sequel. How much positive Windows 7 buzz will be wiped out in coming weeks and months when consumers and business buyers discover that a heavily hyped new Windows 7 feature, XP Mode, won’t work on some Intel-based products? The problem is caused by the Byzantine way Intel packages its CPU technology—adding, removing, and tweaking features like bus speed and cache size to hit the widest variety of price points for PC makers.

The new Windows Virtual PC (now available as a beta release for the Windows 7 Release Candidate) requires hardware-assisted virtualization. For your PC to run XP Mode in Windows 7, the CPU has to support Intel Virtualization Technology (Intel VT) or AMD Virtualization (AMD-V), and this support has to be enabled in the BIOS.

In the case of Intel’s phenomenally confusing product matrix, VT support is added and removed from CPU models for reasons that have more to do with marketing than technology. You can’t necessarily tell from the model number whether VT support is present or not. If you buy a brand-new PC and pick the wrong CPU, Windows Virtual PC won’t be able to host the virtual machine that powers XP Mode. And spending more money can actually hurt you in some configurations.

then he gives a few examples of problematic chips

If you stay with the entry-level CPU, XP Mode won’t run on this PC. So you decide to upgrade the E7400 to an E8500 for $90. Problem solved! Although both are members of the Core 2 Duo family, the E8500 supports Intel VT, whereas the E7400 doesn’t.

But then you realize that for a measly $40 more you can go from a dual-core processor to the Core 2 Quad Q8200. Great idea! Unless you want to use any of those four CPU cores to run Windows Virtual PC, that is. The Q8200, you see, lacks VT support. For that, you need the Q9400, Q9550, or Q9650.

If you go to the site, hyperlinked above, you can see a semi-complete list of the offending chips.

Does anyone else think that a simple, 1 character designator, might have been helpful? You know, one of those mnemonic devices…like a V at the end of the chip’s name?

What a concept!

whitespace

whitespace

whitespace

whitespace

If something goes wrong, blame the guy who can’t speak English.Homer Simpson

How true!

`