emulating XP in 7

[Anderson2]

I know that XP mode requires both a processor capable of it and 7 professional or better.
I discovered a utility called Zinstall that will transfer your entire XP environment "as is" to XP without these requirements. It apparently transfers your XP desktop with all apps installed with their settings, etc.
The utility sells for about $80 - and may be worth it. Is there a way to do the same thing with a free emulation utility from Microsoft? I can't remember the MS utility's name for this and whether it will also transfer your installed XP apps like Zinstall. Does anyone know?
Thanks.

 

[Coolness]

I know that XP mode requires both a processor capable of it and 7 professional or better.
I discovered a utility called Zinstall that will transfer your entire XP environment "as is" to XP without these requirements. It apparently transfers your XP desktop with all apps installed with their settings, etc.
The utility sells for about $80 - and may be worth it. Is there a way to do the same thing with a free emulation utility from Microsoft? I can't remember the MS utility's name for this and whether it will also transfer your installed XP apps like Zinstall. Does anyone know?
Thanks.

The emulator that comes with windows makes its own virtual machine, which you can run from within windows 7. You cannot make a XP OS from it. If you software says it can do that, its illegal since you havent paid for the OS. Also, i wouldnt spend 80 big ones on it. The emulator that comes with win 7 pro -> requires a specific processor. check the tread on the forum: http://www.sevenforums.com/virtualization/8488-list-intel-processors-support-xpmode.html
Hope this helps.

 

[Anderson2]

The software I mentioned uses my own desktop from the PC that has a legit XP and just transfers the entire mish-mash to the Windows 7 laptop, apps and all. So it is my own XP which I will no longer be using except now in the Windows 7 emulation. The emulator that comes with Windows 7 requires both a special processor AND 7 Professional, both of which coast more than this utility which is why I was considering it.

 

[Mercurial]

if you're pc is not capable of xpmode dont force it... you'll be having performance issues if you try anyway... thats why microsoft decided to check if cpu is capable of doing it. if not then it wont install to avoid performance issue...

 

[DanP]

There's no way to move apps with MS's tool.
Also, XP mode requires hardware virtualization in the CPU not for better performance - but because it's harder to use virtualization without it, and M$ didn't want to work hard. And not allowing it in Home Premium? Come on, that's just plain cruel.

Anyway, if you need your apps, seems like Zinstall would do the job.

 

[Mercurial]

XP mode requires hardware virtualization in the CPU not for better performance - but because it's harder to use virtualization without it,

WRONG!

hard to use ????? please elaborate.

AND READ THIS

The x86 processor architecture did not originally meet the "Formal Requirements for Virtualizable Third Generation Architectures", a specification for virtualization created in 1974 by Gerald J. Popek and Robert P. Goldberg. Thus developers found it difficult to implement a virtual machine platform on the x86 architecture without significant overhead on the host machine.

x86 virtualization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kthnxbai. and shhh...

 

[DanP]

WRONG!
hard to use ????? please elaborate.

AND READ THIS x86 virtualization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kthnxbai. and shhh...

Oh, way to go. Way to promote intelligent discussion. Maybe we'll just speak lolcat from now on.

If you want the very technical explanation (and have at least some experience in virtualization which does not come from reading Wikipedia), take a look at this whitepaper. It explains that hardware-assisted x86 virtualization is often actually slower than software-assisted virtualization.

Also, take a look here.

In a nutshell, the problem is that hardware-assisted virtualization uses traps to catch privileged instructions (this is expensive) while software-assisted virtualization uses software substitutions (this is not).

In the future, don't assume that someone is an idiot if he is trying to explain something in an understandable way.

 

[huisinro]

performance is not the issue. Hardware assisted virtualization is easy and better to implement, usaully only 10k lines of code for a very good execution engine. However, software virtualization is a magnitude of more code. Software virtualization could be faster than hardware assisted virtualization.

You can use our VirtualBox based VMLite to run the same XP mode VHD file downloaded from Microsoft, on any Windows machines, regardless of VT-x or AMD-V, and it's faster than Microsoft XP Mode.

Free download is available here:

http://www.vmlite.com

There is also a thread in the top sticky area, you can read for more info.

 

[Mercurial]

Software virtualization could be faster than hardware assisted virtualization.

boom lets see the numbers

Also, take a look here.

WIKI VS some random forum ^.^?

on wiki

Although the actual implementation of processor extensions differ between AMD and Intel, both achieve the same goal. They both allow a virtual machine hypervisor to run an unmodified operating system without incurring significant emulation performance penalties.

An input/output memory management unit (IOMMU) enables guest virtual machines to directly use peripheral devices, such as ethernet, accelerated graphics cards, and hard-drive controllers, through DMA and interrupt remapping. Both AMD and Intel have released specifications:

• the AMD specification, "AMD-Vi" (previously just IOMMU)
• "Intel's Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O" (VT-d)

means virtual machine to hardware. = faster
and that means no VT feaure= virtual machine to VMsoftware to hardware = slower

. Hardware assisted virtualization is easy and better to implement, usaully only 10k lines of code for a very good execution engine.

less code = better performance(not in all cases).. you killed your self there. XD

@on topic I do use VirtualBox to run XP with a pentium 4 processor though lol!

 

[huisinro]

You can easily test the performance if you use VirtualBox or VMLite. Run the same apps, turn on/off VT-x, and compare. I never noted any significant changes either way.

I agree that as VT-x/AMD-v matures over time, it will have better and better performance, with virt-io, especially.

 

[Mercurial]

yep +1 to u