can't wait xD

I agree that XP support or at least support for older XP applications is a good start. They should never have purposely stopped XP applications from working in the first place. They showed this was a fallacy when they said Visual Basic 6 didnt work under XP SP2 and then released a service pack for Visual Basic that made it work again.
Most people who were furious about their old applications not working under Vista have now migrated to Linux and swore never to be at the mercey of Microsofts upgrade treadmill ever again.
Apart from that, its a good move.

Two whole OSes with Citrix/W2K8TS-like seamless windows connecting them... awesome

Oh wait, hang on

Two whole OSes to patch?
Two whole OSes running, slowing down the machines?
Yet another reason for enterprise / in-house software developers not to modernise their code?
Another couple of hundred developers wasted on integration issues making two OSes appear as one?

Think i'm exaggerating? ok, let's do a hypothetical. Most non vista compliant software is old crufty enterprise in-house stuff. Most of that in turn integrates with office. Mostly they talk via com. Will the XPM have a shared COM registry with Windows 7? What about the registry as a whole? Will that be registry hive number 3? (64bit, 32bit, xp)

Is that what programming yourself into an evolutionary cul-de-sac looks like?

Microsoft has a secret technology? LOL!~

"Over a month ago, we were briefed about a secret Microsoft technology that we were told would be announced alongside the Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC) and would ship in final form simultaneously with the final version of Windows 7."

http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/04/24/secret-no-more-revealing-virtual-windows-xp-for-windows-7.aspx

I dont know if you need a whole XP operating system since you get that mostly already included in 7 but an XP compatibility layer so all those programs that have been excluded from Vista can run under 7 natively. The whold debate about COM and such needs to be redirected to Microsoft and why they just didnt support standards rather than to half bake lots of their own standards then end of life them again to cook up some new half baked standards. Microsoft are their own worst enemy, and their customers hate them for it.

@Whatever

Really not seeing your point.

You don't need a "shared" registry. Why not just install all applications that need legacy com support in the virtualized environment? It's not like office apps won't run in windows xp.

Personally I think this is promising. My only issue is memory requirements. This bears testing.
At least it show's that Microsoft isn't living in LaLa land. You just can't release an OS that has backwards compatibility issues of this nature and expect enterprises to just snap them up. I was lucky here. We'd already invested heavily in application presentation and server virtulization. Moving to any platform was a non issue. If XPM works well though we can proceed with new client installs and not even worry about citrix licensing. Excellent. I can't wait to see how this integrates with group policy.

@Whatever

Really not seeing your point.

You don't need a "shared" registry. Why not just install all applications that need legacy com support in the virtualized environment? It's not like office apps won't run in windows xp.

Personally I think this is promising. My only issue is memory requirements. This bears testing.
At least it show's that Microsoft isn't living in LaLa land. You just can't release an OS that has backwards compatibility issues of this nature and expect enterprises to just snap them up. I was lucky here. We'd already invested heavily in application presentation and server virtulization. Moving to any platform was a non issue. If XPM works well though we can proceed with new client installs and not even worry about citrix licensing. Excellent. I can't wait to see how this integrates with group policy.

This sort of feature would be much more useful for consumers rather than business. They are more likely to have the right processor and ram.

Companies are not likely to upgrade all their hardware so that they can get virtually the same experience but with more hardware, training and running costs. We all know it is not just upgrading your desktops, once you have 7 on the desktops you need to upgrade the servers. This means Windows Server, Exchange, SQL Server, Sharepoint, Visual Studio etc etc.

They are mostly running XP on fairly weak machines and if they work now there is no incentive to upgrade. As I have mentioned before, all the features of 7 are available as a bolt-on for XP and if companies need those features they will already have them. It is risky to upgrade and they will not do it unless there is some real benefit.

Lets face it, Microsoft is going to end up using the stick rather than the carrot to get businesses to upgrade. Support is ending soon and unless you want something bad to happen (like a 0-day exploit suddenly appearing out of the blue) then you should upgrade.

"I like my Windows 7 virus free, thank you."

Isn't it in Microsoft's best interest to post MD5 and SHA1 sums for these images? It would mean that nobody gets a bad user experience and we can keep the botnets down.

As per usual though, they will fail to provide the information people need to secure themselves and then just blame the user for doing something stupid.

Billybob your statement that you need to upgrade your servers because you installed windows 7 desktops puzzles me.

Care to post some documentation that supports that? Windows Vista plugged right into our Server 2003 domain, and works with all the current and earlier versions of SQl, Sharepoint, Etc.....Etc.... I didn't upgrade a single server just because we migrated to Vista. I seriously doubt there will be an absolute need to upgrade infrastructure just because you added Windows 7 to your network. There are some synergies between windows 7 and server 2008, but it's not like you can't add and manage windows 7 clients to 2003 or even 2000 domains.

@billybob

um, it's the users fault for downloading the torrented leaked files in the first place. so yes, I would blame the users for a lot of stupidity. what really is your train of thought? listen, don't be stupid or at least don't show it on the internet. why should microsoft release MD5 for the leaked copies floating around on the interweb? if they do that means they would be in support of software leaks, right?
who ever downloads the torrents do so at their own risk. they should be smart enough to install proper anti-virus and firewall that checks everything that goes in and out their system.

@shiloh norman

billybob is just talking out of his ass right now. because his mouth can't seem to get stupid out fast enough.

I am just talking out of my ass right now, because my mouth can't seem to get stupid out fast enough (whatever that means anyway).

From my experience there are lots of small problems when trying to mix features from new and old versions of Windows. In the end you have to upgrade 1 application and that leads to a cascading effect of upgrading everything.

The synergies between Server 2008 and 7 are probably the ones that are going to be sold to customers. For example the DirectAccess technology requires updated clients and servers and that is one of the big selling points of 7 for business. You call it extra synergy, I call it features as sold.

From what I can see most of the new business features of 7 will work best with an upgraded server stack. Technically you can run 7 on a 2000 domain but there is more to it than just AD and file sharing.

Tying Windows 7 features to the Server just lowers the ROI for businesses. Either they get less return or they have to invest more.

@krenshaw: "why should microsoft release MD5 for the leaked copies floating around on the interweb?"

The same reason they patch pirated copies of XP. That does not mean they support pirated software does it? You are obviously an intelligent person so you should be able to work it out.

@billybob :

Synergies are not must haves and are no bar to upgrading to windows 7.

If you already have 2008 servers and tech and want to take advantage of more advanced features then Windows7/Vista are definitely options for doing so. They are by no means mandatory. The reverse is also true.

If companies decide they need branch caching or direct access they'll buy into it just like any other tech. And nothin says they have to go and buy both at the same time. Slow phased in implementation over several quarters or even years is the normal path for most technology adoption. In either case I hardly see what those synergies have to do with forced upgrades of SQL, Sharepoint or Exchange.

@who ever just act as if they're krenshaw

at least act grown up, no one needs to know that you're a child. and at least try to be original, I can see it's kids like you who copies off the next guy's paper in class. do your own work for a change. however, that might be hard for you because your immaturity might just be too great.

@impersonator 1 & 2
whoever posted two previous posts under the name krenshaw is (are?) seriously disturbed person(s)

Officially you can upgrade only one component and run without problems but in my experience these things do not work well and the normal answer to tech questions is "just upgrade to X".

For example search for Outlook 2000 and Vista on Google and I found this.

http://forums.techguy.org/business-applications/544026-office-2000-vista.html

Some things work, some things don't, some things need workarounds. Maybe your experience is good but the risks to business are high.

Instead of going through the pain of checking each component you might as well just upgrade the entire stack at the start and start taking advantage of all the features your PHB was sold on.

I have not seen a compelling feature in 7 which would make businesses upgrade their operating system and software with all the problems that entails. Security is well covered by 3rd party solutions and there is not much left after that does not need replacing the server components.

If companies need disk encryption they can go with a 3rd party solution which can be added to their existing investment.

@billybob

I challenge you to download a pirated copy of xp and try to get updates. if the key doesn't pass WGA it wont install any updates.

the virtualized xp in the new OS is a good and promising move.

I know plenty of people that run pirated XP. The security updates do apply. You have to shutdown the machine and they install then (not through the normal way). I thought like you until I saw it with my own eyes.

Also you can choose to not install WGA and then set it not to try to install it again.

@billybob :

The risk to business is minimal, if they do their homework. That's why there are white papers. Knowlegebases, and consultants. keep his job.

And it's funny you mention Outlook 2000 compatibility with vista when XPM would obstensibly render the whole issue moot in Windows 7. Sounds more like an argument for switching to Windows 7 than against it.

@Krenshaw
virtualized xp in the new OS is a good and promising move.

Whole heartedly agree. They should have included this in Vista. Still I want a chance to test this before I sign off on it as a good thing. It has to be fairly seamless and for the most part invisible to my users. It also has to be memory conservative. XP will run in a fairly low memory space. And of course there is security to consider. Like I'd like to know if the underlying virtual machine has firewall capability? Or will windows firewall in windows 7 be able to protect it? For that matter what about Malware protection?
The question is I guess, if XPM fully intergrated or a full featured embedded Windows XP virtual machine. What about File systems? If I have Office installed in XPM and I save it where does it go? To the documents folder in the VM or the documents folder on the host? What about NFS shares. WIll XPM work with the network shares I have attached to the host?

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Id agree that "XP mode" is something that will be welcomed within the 7 OS. Although since there have been many that have blamed Vista's issues on 3rd party developers, what "features" are going to be included in 7 to ensure that it doesnt happen again and why were they not implemented better in Vista in the first place?
-
Quote Shiloh "It will be interesting to see how this develops."
-
Lets just hope that its not at the expense of the end user being used like a beta tester. It is my opinion that this was the way some Vista users felt, and the years of misery and issues they have had with it were for the benefit of a polished version (as in 7) later down the line. (IMO)

I was waiting for you to see this, Goblin. You've been challenging people for some time now to define for themselves precisely what personal benefits they see in upgrading from XP to Vista/Seven, and after that, it kinda amused me to see that one of Seven's big features is going to be "make it act like XP (by seamless virtualization)".

Of course, I agree that it's a good feature to have to help with compatibility. I just can't help thinking that XP is starting to look like the Duncan Idaho of operating systems. Microsoft just keeps bringing it back again and again.

The only downside is that, from the sound of the report, this feature won't be available in the "Seven Home" version.

Maybe the cheapest place to find XP functionality (if thats the selling point of 7) will be with Wine?
-
Theres an interesting performance comparison between Vista and 7 on four separate gfx cards over on:
-
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4228
-
The results are showing that theres no real difference in performance between the two versions (and infact in some of the results Vista is better than 7!?!?!?!) oh dear. Another reason to stick with XP?

Another point that needs to be considered is the following:
-
Given that the people praising 7 as a result of the free beta were as much in the dark about this new feature as we are, I wonder how this "new addition" is going to alter performance/experience? I remember a while back someone commenting on the "final fixing" Microsoft may do which will adversely change the Windows 7 experience. Could this be such a feature?
-
I dont believe there will be any Vista/7 compat issues and I think thats the problem. IMO Microsoft know that many people will be sticking with XP, with Vista they are flogging a dead horse (IMO) so that in my opinion has given MS concerns about compat between XP/7 and hence this new feature.
-
If readers here remember a month or so ago I did mention that certain Microsoft comments (IMO) suggested a problem between XP/7 and I remember questioning at the time what that was.
-
I think this shows that Microsoft are having concerns, not only about native 7 compat with XP, but the demand for it by its consumers. I think that this is an acknowledgement of sorts that Vista is not what users wanted and because of that Microsoft is left having to accomodate compat with an OS that will be 2 generations behind 7. (IMO) Afterall if Vista is the success story Microsoft (IMO) claim it to be, then there shouldnt be a need to accomodate XP should there?
-
As to what version the XP feature appears in is anyones guess, but one things for sure in my opinion, youll be paying extra for it.

I also wonder what kind of performance overhead the XP Mode will add to 7.

I'm not really worried about performance overhead.

Why? I use vista at work which has a much heavier memory footprint than Windows 7 beta.

I run Windows XP in a virtual machine because there are some management tools for our firewall and a few other 32 bit applets I need. I leave that VM on 24/7 and the performance hit isn't even noticeable. I have four monitors attached to my host system and I have 20 or more windows open at all times. I'm running on a two year old system with two gigs of memory. All of my helpdesk people and sysadmins also use VirtualPC on hardware less powerful than mine without issue. Our web developers have VM running on vista so they can test apps on legacy browsers... It's a none issue for me because It's a world I already live in. Besides VM's can be tuned to run in a very small memory space if you know what you're doing. There are tons of resources out there that tell you absolutely what services the OS needs to run, and which ones are extraneous. For that reason I'm able to simulate a windows 2008 domain with 2 servers and 3 Client machines on a laptop with 2 gigs of memory.

The only thing XPM adds to the picture is hiding the virtualized desktop from the user using integration services. As such it can be tuned to be even less resource intensive because you cut out the need to display a full desktop. All in all this is shaping up to look like VMWare's Fusion for OSX. Hardly revolutionary, and in my opinion a long time coming.

Shilo, so lack of this feature did not stop your company from upgrading to Vista? You could already add virtual machines so even for you there is no real need to upgrade to 7.

There is even less desire from companies who have 8+ years experience of administering XP. They have their machines locked down and running well so 7 offers no real benefit other than it is supported.

Which raises another point, will MS support XP for longer now? And will they only support if it is part of the 7 virtual machine? If so what is their justification for that (other than driving upgrades).

It would need extra training and deployment costs. Is it really such a great feature that would make you upgrade 1,000 machines? I wonder why your company upgraded at all, it looks like you had to go to a lot of work to make everything work. Wasn't XP already working? Or did your company have a glut of money they needed to get rid of? My guess is that your IT buyer and the Microsoft rep had a special friendship.

Joe says:
"XPM is built on the next generation Microsoft Virtual PC 7 product line, which requires processor-based virtualization support (Intel and AMD) to be present and enabled on the underlying PC, much like Hyper-V."
----------------------------------------------------
Windows 7 RC date, Classic-like XP mode official
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/04/25/windows.7.rc.may.5/

Quote from the link:
"The feature won't replace regular backwards compatibility in Windows 7 and will be available as a free but separate download only for Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate users."

This is from another link (sorry I am limited to posting one link) just a beta of a new Hyper-V. Although the menuing trick is nice, and will save one mouse click. Also, MS is planning to charge Home Premium users for this app/download as well. For those folks, and for those who already bought into Vista, go to virtualbox.org and download the free product from sun. Virtualbox is what Linux users use to run many other Operating systems and their apps/games the same way as Micro$oft is trying to fool everyone into thinking they are doing something "new and cool," and you should have to pay for it. Virtualbox also seems to be a more mature product as well over the MS product.

Wine offers an emulation layer which does not require an extra license and does not have the horrible XP title bars. It also interacts well with the underlying OS, it can save to the local drive and has menu entries.

Crossover Office offers a much better alternative to virtual machines for some people and has a very nice GUI for installing and running programs.

You can run IE6 and IE7 alongside each other with the new release. This is a great feature for web developers and you cannot get that functionality on Windows. You would have to have at least 2 VMs, each with their own license.

If your going run a Virtualization type product in order to run XP programs, why not instead go for the better, stable, free, alternative? Run GNU/Linux (download links at distrowatch.com) with Virtualbox from Sun. Linux users on this site have been talking about this for a long time now. Also, Wine is a another different way to run some windows apps as native in Linux. In that way you can truly shake the M$ Monkeyboy off your back and wallet.

BTW, those of you thinking to buy into Windows 7even, according to Mary Jo Foley, Windows 8 is supposed to be out in 2011. Another costly service pack upgrade cycle?

s/Sun/Oracle/

I dont know if someones already mentioned this, but on the grapevine its reported that the XP feature will be available in the Professional, Enterprise and Ultimate editions only.
-
Quote Chips "Run GNU/Linux (download links at distrowatch.com) with Virtualbox from Sun."
-
Very good point.

Well I can say I run PCLOS 2009 & XP in Virtualbox...you can put the virtualbox in full-screen and I can bet if you didn't tell them (either be it a user or employee) they wouldn't know the difference...therefore you have XP gui on the security of linux...win win for all...To me this is just another way for MS to squeeze your last nickel..

And better yet, with the multiple virtual desktops, you can have a full screen XP VM on one desktop, and a Linux desktop on another one.

Joe, please ban chips and goblin. Their posts are nothing but useless Linux spam drivel.

Thanks Joe

But, please don't ban the immature, vile, filthy, obscene language on this blog. After all, it is just so amazingly in perfect harmony with Microsoft's business practices and software.

I'm rather confused by this. All during the Vista promotion campaign, the mantra was that you needed Vista, so no XP code would be run, because XP code was inherently insecure and problem-prone. Now all of a sudden we are going to run XP on all new computers? Provide backwards compatibility for all virus's, trojans, spyware, etc.?

Is this an admission that all the security stuff in Vista didn't work, so we may as well run XP? Am I going to have to run an XP virus checker and a Win7 virus checker at once?

Hopefully I can turn this off for the most part.

Quote Ridley "Joe, please ban chips and goblin."
-
What is this?
-
It puts me in mind of a child seeking help from a parent "Mommy my lunch was stolen at school".
-
Ridley if my posts upset you, just ignore them. Unlike some of the MS faithful I dont create duplicate handles nor do I impersonate. Simply look for the goblin username and then ignore.
-
Giving out this type of advice to you Ridley is like when my lad came running to me complaining that he was being wound up by the child nextdoor. "Just ignore him" was my advice to him and to you Ridley.
-
Its quite silly that Ridley chose this particular thread to "tell tales" since I believe Ive been mostly talking about Microsoft, infact the post before the last one I didnt mention Linux at all. Doh, Ive just done it again.
-
Sorry all.

There you go Joe. More nonsense. It would make this site much more enjoyable, so yes, please ban chips and goblin. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.
R Gowran #305

LOL
-
Yes Ridley, because you offer this site so much. Let me jog your memory and remind you of one of your previous classics (one of the tamer I may add):
-
Quote Ridley"who are you now? friggin' miss cleo? idiot chips."
-
Well I dont know about anyone else, but Im convinced. With such an awesome display of intellect and relevance to this site I bet Joe Wilcox is worrying about his job.

"But, please don't ban the immature, vile, filthy, obscene language on this blog"

Well said Philosopher

----------
And Joe; please don't ban to Ridley since that the 'two Clowns' (Neil and Andre) don't post, this blog is not so funny as usually was , so we need a new clown and Ridley full fills this need completely.

Add, if somebody was looking for discredit those who use MS's products...well his dream come true.(Motto ; use MS' product and you can become RIDLEY)

Win 7 RC is quite nice, well worth the download.

Really interested in getting the XP mode download when it's available.

'Ridley :
Joe, please ban chips and goblin. Their posts are nothing but useless Linux spam drivel.

Thanks Joe'

Nice try but you can't ban anyone on the comments. They'll just take yours or someone else's nick and post that way. People here spam as someone else quite often. Joe needs to add log in accounts to comment.

Quote "Really interested in getting the XP mode download when it's available."
-
Providing that you purchase the Enterprise or Ultimate edition of 7.
-
Since Ridley took such offense at the mention of VM in Linux, Ill post the link to the article on my site. That says it all.
-
http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/windows-7-xp-modeat-a-price/
-
And for the record.
Quote "They'll just take yours or someone else's nick and post that way."
-
Not if he IP bans them (and taking others handles is strictly the remit of the MS supporter, they even did it to Joe Wilcox).
Joe has already posted here in person and said we are welcome. I suggest if you have a problem with that contact him directly.
Since the only non-vulgar regular posters come from a Linux angle, I say you should be please we come here, lest it becomes a world of MS PR statements courtesy of "he who cannot be named"
-
Regards.

Any news on the Server 2008 R2 RC1 release? Havn't seen any mention of it anywhere, but the release timeline for this and Windows 7 is supposedly about the same?

XP mode is all well and good, but where's the CP/M compatibility layer? ;-)

But seriously, I know tons of small businesses (and individuals, for that matter) that such a feature would be a big boon for. (The XP mode, not CP/M mode. :-))

Oh my - Joe Wilcox's pic at the top of the page looks like Karl Rove.

Now, that's creepy.