none
VPC and 64-bit Guest support...

    Question

  • Will Windows Virtual PC support 64-bit guests?  VMware's Workstation product has supported 64-bit guests for quite a while.  Is this just a limitation of the Beta, or will the RTM offer 64-bit guest support?

    Friday, May 01, 2009 8:28 PM

Answers

All replies

  • Hi Chris,

    Windows Virtual PC will only be supporting 32-bit guests.

    Gaurav
    Friday, May 01, 2009 8:33 PM
  • I feel so disappointed about this answer....VMWare even allow 64bit guest on 32bit host....
    Do you know how VMWare guys laughing on me(I am supporting MS in my heart)? :-(

    I don't think every software tester want to install Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V for testing 64bit applications.
    For training, it means all the classroom computers need to install Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V......it's too trouble for a training center to do so........

    I hope MS can really explain why no 64bit guest OS support on client OS...
    Forum Moderator, Microsoft MVP for Windows Server-Networking, MCT, http://msmvps.com/blogs/richardwu
    Saturday, May 02, 2009 7:32 AM
  • Hi,

    really? In the readme for Windows Virtual PC they say that there is a XP 64bit version in the Windows 7 64bit Windows Virtual PC... Is that wrong? I didn't have time to play with it, yet...

    Thanks,


    Thomas
    Thomas Pagel - http://sqljunkies.com/weblog/tpagel/
    Monday, May 04, 2009 9:47 AM
  • There is a 64bit version of VPC, however x64 clients are not supported.
    Monday, May 04, 2009 9:56 AM
  • There is a 64bit version of VPC, however x64 clients are not supported.

    Windows VPC is 64bit. But 64bit guest not supported....
    Are you talking about "x64 guest client"?
    Forum Moderator, Microsoft MVP for Windows Server-Networking, MCT, http://msmvps.com/blogs/richardwu
    Monday, May 04, 2009 11:31 AM
  • Yep. :)
    Monday, May 04, 2009 11:42 AM
  • I feel so disappointed about this answer....VMWare even allow 64bit guest on 32bit host....
    Do you know how VMWare guys laughing on me(I am supporting MS in my heart)? :-(

    I don't think every software tester want to install Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V for testing 64bit applications.
    For training, it means all the classroom computers need to install Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V......it's too trouble for a training center to do so........

    I hope MS can really explain why no 64bit guest OS support on client OS...
    Forum Moderator, Microsoft MVP for Windows Server-Networking, MCT, http://msmvps.com/blogs/richardwu

    You have to look at the purpose of Virtual XP.  It's an effort to get businesses to adopy Win 7 quicker and Win XP support is provided with Virtual XP.
    Monday, May 04, 2009 7:55 PM
  • A lot of developers use Virtual PC too.   The sad thing is that all future server operating systems and software will only be 64bit.   This means soon a developer has a choice of running Windows Server 2008 R2 with hyper-v and lose out on the nice desktop experience or move to VMWare and keep their desktop.   Hate to say this but MS needs to get their butts moving and put out a version of VPC that supports 64 bit guests.   Very disappointing that they screwed this up.    I am already having a hard time beating back VMWare from every company I work at.   This just makes it even more eaiser for companies to say Microsoft doesn't get it, we are sticking with VMWare.
    Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:40 AM
  • You can, always, try VirtualBoxs, it is Open Source and free, and supports x64 guests, among other nice things.

    http://www.virtualbox.org
    Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:36 AM
  • Wednesday, May 06, 2009 2:37 PM
  • This is extremely disappointing. If I want to run Windows Server 2008 R2 or Exchange 2007/2010 or OCS 2007 R2 or any upcoming Microsoft server application that is 64-bit only in a lab environment for learning, testing, etc., and I don't have a Hyper-V system available, I'm forced to use VMWare Workstation or Sun VirtualBox. Sorry, but that is flat out poor planning. Trust me, I love Microsoft and most Microsoft products, I am a Microsoft only consultant that pushes Microsoft products constantly, but this is not just poor planning, its outright stupid.
    Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys
    Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:22 PM
  • The purpose of Windows XP mode and Windows Virtual PC is only to provide compatibility.
    Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:29 PM
  • This is not about XP mode, this is about VPC not suporting 64 bits guests.
    Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:31 PM
  • The problem is this is the only desktop virtualization option available (Virutal PC / Windows Virtual PC) from Microsoft.     64bit guest OS is a must for developers and those individuals trying to learn new technologies.

    Yes, XP Mode is for compatibility but Windows Virtual PC is for 32bit OS virtualization (not just XP).
    Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:32 PM
  • However Windows VPC is only run on W7 and I think it was born to serve XP Mode not more. :)
    Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:36 PM
  • ¿Why, don't you read a bit before posting?
    VPC is out for quite some time now and its the "out of the box" virtualization solution from Microsoft, i have to agree with Jason Sandys, i'm in the same situatio, and i want too a native solution from Microsoft, i can use VirtualBox as i said before but i will prefer VPC suporting 64 bits guests...

    Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:41 PM
  • Case in point, I'm presenting at TechEd next week and am using a couple of virtualized systems to demo a few things. I don't have Hyper-V on my laptop because I prefer to use a workstation OS on my laptop for a lot of different reasons. But, unless I use VirtualBox (which I do actually like), I can't use a 64-bit OS as a guest. So, should I use Windows Virtual PC because I'm presenting at the premiere Microsoft event and settle with 32-bit guests, or should I use a product from Sun to get the 64 guests. Good thing I'm not actually demoing anything that requires 64-bit, yet ...
    Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys
    Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:50 PM
  • Totally agree with StaticVoidMain and Jason Sandys. I am a Microsoft Certified Trainer and MVP. Does Microsoft really want us(MS supporter)to use Virtual box or even VMware workstation to demo 64bit Microsoft products in a Microsoft event or a Microsoft product training classes?

    Do you know more and more IT guys are switching to use and recommand VMware?
    Just because VMware allow them to run both 64bit and 32bit guest on 32bit/64bit host? They don't need to worry about installing Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V or Hyper-V to their daily used desktop.

    I understand Microsoft need to focus on the server market. But I really hope MS can explain why they have such decision for not supporting 64bit guest on Win7 or client OS.

    I have no stand point on using VPC/Windows VPC in my company now. Over 80% colleague switched to use VMWare already......even my boss blame me for not using VMWare.....

    If Microsoft want to win this Virtualization war. Please! Please! Don't forget the client experience! It can affect the decision on purchasing MS virtualization solution on server platform! That's why VMware is so aggressive now! Change the mind of IT guys starting from desktop and then to server...


    Forum Moderator, Microsoft MVP for Windows Server-Networking, MCT, http://msmvps.com/blogs/richardwu
    Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:49 PM
  • I agree. I'm presenting 64bit apps at TechEd and need to use VMware workstation. I wish I could use an MS product, but they don't seem to be taking a 360 approach to virtalization. This gives VMware an advantage, and MS doesn't need to hand VMware any advantages they don't have to. Hopefully they'll reconsider their workstation/dev side solution.

    tom
    Monday, May 11, 2009 2:02 PM
  • I can't believe WVPC is going to be the only virtualization solution from MS.   It is a really weak product.   As others have said, developers use VPC - me included.  I have XP SP2 and Server 2003 VMs that aren't supported (but they actually run OK) in WVPC.  

    We REALLY need a VPC2010 product that installs on Vista and 7, has the new core with threading and USB support, runs Linux and Server 2003 and Server 2008  and XP SP2 and Windows 2000 etc., and runs 64 bit clients.   This "integrated into Win 7" thing is OK for the XP support, but we need much more than this.   If this is really it, then MS is clearly ceding the market to VMWare.

    VMWare is looking better all the time..............
    Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:38 AM
  • However Windows VPC is only run on W7 and I think it was born to serve XP Mode not more. :)

    Why are you using a happy emoticon, this is a bad situation, and your like smiling about it. That frustrates people when they need help and your just smiling saying you can help to the point your going to say you cannot do it.

    First of all, Virtual PC is a product from Microsoft designed for desktop virtualization, and I'm assuming, along with other people, that Windows Virtual PC will now be the next Virtual PC product, and you cannot just say that it will not do anything more than run Windows XP mode. I was planning on testing Windows Virtual PC with also testing Windows Server 2008 R2 RC, but oh wait, your new product not only can't do it but it has no support for anything but the OMG Windows XP Mode. And you smile about it.

    We do not want alternatives, we are supporters of Microsoft, and now that Windows Virtual PC is a hypervisor and installs by integrating itself into Windows 7 instead of using a standard installer, I would believe that Windows Virtual PC is paid by purchasing an edition of Windows 7, along with Windows XP Mode. It may sound free of charge, but instead it is just we already paid for it by purchasing an edition of Windows 7, it comes with our license of Windows 7, so I would like to use what I'm given with the product I have, which is Windows 7 Ultimate x64 RC. It is perfectly possible, your developers are just being lazy.

    We assume that the next version of Virtual PC will not happen, and that Windows Virtual PC is the new Virtual PC product, so because you took Virtual PC away from us and gave us Windows Virtual PC, don't start acting like you will not support regular virtual machines and just Windows XP mode. Unless a new Virtual PC version is being released that fully supports Windows 7, then you should be expected to support other virtual machines, not smile and say it was born to serve Windows XP Mode.

    I am currently using VMWare Workstation to test Windows Server 2008 R2 RC, and I am very unhappy that I had to use it as it is not a hypervisor. I have an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and I wanted to take advantage of my Intel VT technology, but no, the nVidia driver for WIndows 7 pre-release sucks for Windows Server 2008 R2 RC, or at least Windows Server 2008 R2 RC sucks for Desktop Experience and needs it fixed badly. Closing a window was like freezing a server, so I felt like using the Windows 7 RC, and I see a boot error message about the install of Windows Server 2008 x64 impossible because of no x64 support. I am unhappy there is a hypervisor for Windows 7, but I have to resort to old technology and use a type 2 hypervisor which have been around for a long time.

    Support x64, the server product line has switched to x64, along with Exchange 2010, I cannot use any of this using Windows Virtual PC, thanks for a useless hypervisor, like your trying to reach 100% compatibility, why would we need Windows XP mode? Oh well, you just keep smiling...
    Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:40 PM
  • ElectricBolt,

    Your tone is a little harsh but I understand why.  I too have been waiting for a version of Virtual PC that supports x64 clients.  I use my workstation to test server OSes in a virtual environment.  Right now I cannot do so with Windows 2008 R2 because it is x64 only.  I have attempted to install Server 2008 on my desktop for testing however the desktop experience wasn't good at all.  It is a server OS and isn't tuned for desktop apps running on it.  If everything from Microsoft is going towards x64 in software and hardware why isn't Virtual PC going in that direction as well?  How else are we supposed to test new applications and OSes virtually without using a non-Microsoft product like VMware or using a server OS/HyperV?
    Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:27 PM
  • >>>This means soon a developer has a choice of running Windows Server 2008 R2 with hyper-v and lose out on the nice desktop experience<<<

    Actually I run Server 2008 R2 because I have to have 64 bit guest support for developement and testing.  You can make it look just like Win 7, you just have to enable all that stuff.  My performance has been fine on all my desktop apps, but I do have a really good new machine.

    However I totally agree that win7 virtual pc should support 64 bit guest, and am very disapointed it doesnt.
    Saturday, May 23, 2009 12:01 AM
  • You can get Windows Server 2008 R2 to look like Windows 7 but the problem is that as soon as you enable hyper-V your desktop performance will suffer unless you turn off all of the nice desktop experience items.    This is because all video calls get run through the hypervisor and it causes lags and slowdowns if you try running any of the nice visuals or things that require 3D.   
    Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:36 PM
  • In years past an 32-bit only would not have been a huge hurdle with customers/developers. However, with x64 becoming the norm, this is an HUGE oversite because developers now need to maintain two sets of VHDs (Hyper-V and VPC) or run Server 2008 on their workstations.

    For that reason, we are considering recommending VMWare Workstation for MOSS 2010 (64-bit only) which is more cost effective and less complex than Server 2008 on each workstation.
    Mr.T
    Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:21 PM
  • You can get Windows Server 2008 R2 to look like Windows 7 but the problem is that as soon as you enable hyper-V your desktop performance will suffer unless you turn off all of the nice desktop experience items.    This is because all video calls get run through the hypervisor and it causes lags and slowdowns if you try running any of the nice visuals or things that require 3D.   

    Wow!!! That explains why Photoshop and even Media Player lagged so bad!! Thanks for the info :)
    Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:30 AM
  • Gaurav,

    This is a great thread. I think it clearly defines the needs that MSFT partners have.

    I personnally have built a full Exchange and OCS 2007 R2 virtualized environment on Hyper-V. I use this for functional demonstrations for my customers. I also find this an extremely challenging solution as carrying around two laptops walking around NY City is a drag and largely impractical as most of the times I need to ask the customer for a power strip to support both laptops and my storage.

    I hear your answer, but am also interested in what plans MSFT has to produce a solution that doesn't steer the community away from a MSFT solution.

    Thanks for supporting this community...
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 1:15 AM
  • [Sigh]
    Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:54 AM
  • Ill admit I'm pretty disappointed to come across this thread with such recent dates. After playing around and getting very excitied with VPC included with Win7, I started searching for info on when we can expect 64-bit support.

    We too use VPC for product demonstrations, running our server environment in VPC and connect from our host just a client connects into a normal server.
    With Windows 2008 R2 quickly approaching we will be forced to stay on Windows 2008 as moving to another virtualization platform wont be an option as we swap our vhd's with ease between our in-house Hyper-V environments and our VPC demo laptops. We have tried running Win2008 with Hyper-V enabled and anyone who says there is no performance difference (and needs the desktop experience) is just plain wrong. Simply put, its unusable (in demonstration scenarios at least).

    VPC should not be considered a "compatibility" tool. It wasnt prior to Win7 and the competition (VMWare Workstation and VirtualBox - which as previously noted, both support x64 guests) dont treat it this way either. Take a look at the MED-V Advantages section and overview demo here , there are several other reasons - stated by Microsoft themselves - for client-side virtualization and utilizing 64-bit advantages fit in with these reasons.

    There is a definite need for client side virtualization and I truly hope Microsoft realizes this soon so that we can to continue utilize their products.
    • Edited by timofcourse Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:50 PM
    Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:46 PM
  • Does VPC 2007 run on Server 2008 R2?   Does Server 2008 R2 come with IE 8 and Media Player 12?   Is it essesentially Windows 7 Server?

    It sounds to me like the best path for my development needs is to run Server 2008 R2 as the base OS, set it up to look and run like Win 7, then use VPC 2007 to run my dev VMs.   I don't need 64 bit clients, but I do need XP and Vista and (eventually) Win 7 support.   Windows VPC in Win 7 blows for my needs.

    Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:56 AM
  • I'd like to register my complaint as well. After having used Virtual PC for years as a development environment, it looks like I'll be forced to go the VMWare route. Microsoft, you're successfully alienating a huge developer base as your products go all-x64.
    Visit my blog at blog.beckybertram.com or follow me on Twitter: @beckybertram
    Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:48 PM
  • Check out VirtualBox until Microsoft offers a 64bit solution.   VirtualBox is free,  can use VHD files and runs very well under Windows 7.

    http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

    Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:00 PM
  • ...any idea how much effort it is to move from Virtual Box to the MS environment? I.e. if you would build up a Win2K8 64bit server in Virtual box and decide later to go for Hyper-V, can you just exchange the "integration components" and you're done?

    Thanks,

    Thomas Pagel - http://sqljunkies.com/weblog/tpagel/
    Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:15 AM
  • I have gone from VPC to Virtual Box and Hyper-V to Virtual Box with no issues on Windows Server 2008 (32 and 64bit).    I haven't tried going from VirtualBox back to Hyper-V.    There are some hardware differences between the 2 virtualization environments so the OS will go through a bunch of detection of new hardware.   It may also cause the system to prompt for you to reactive the OS with Microsoft.

    I took a 64bit Hyper-V image of Windows Server 2008 and connected the VHD file to VirtualBox and it booted up and reinstalled all the drivers with no issue.  I then removed any previous integration components and installed the ones for VirtualBox.

    Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:45 PM
  • I have tried a 64-bit 2008 R2 Hyper-V guest VHD in VirtualBox 3.0.2 and it won't boot. 

    FATAL: No bootable medium found!  System halted.


    Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:17 AM
  • Microsoft doesn't seems consider too much for us developers as they move forward towards x64 architecture in their server product line, till now the x64-only server products include Win 2k8 R2, Exchange 2007/2010, SharePoint 2010, and the technical roadmap shows more and more server products will move to x64 arch, and it will become more and more difficult for us to develop/debug applications based on those products without the support of a good desktop virtualization solution.

    So MS didn't provide a desktop virtualization product supporting x64, and no plan for VPC to support x64 guest, thus left us two ways:

    1. Go with Win 2k8 or 2k8 R2, install it on your laptop, suffer the following plain points:

        a. Suspend to RAM not supported while Hyper-V is enabled, you won't be able to close the laptop and go, will have to shut it down completely.

        b. Moving a VM from one machine to another will be very time-consuming and not user-friendly, you can't just copy the folder to another machine and re-attach the .vmc, lots of steps have to be done.

        c. Heard of the 3D graphic card support problem but I have not experienced since the laptop is dedicated to work and it uses basic Windows scheme.

        d. Even you enabled Wireless support on Windows 2k8, VM cannot use it, you will have to create a network in Hyper-V and create a network bridge by combining the network in Hyper-V and the wireless network adapter, however the speed of getting IP addresses from DHCP slowed down dramatically since then.

        e. Share Folder feature, emmm...., I miss it.

    2. Use alternatives like VirtualBox or VMWare Workstation, I'm a big fan of Microsoft products, haven't tried that but will do sometime later, VirtualBox is definiately one direction to go.


    James Liang
    Friday, July 31, 2009 5:15 AM

  •     d. Even you enabled Wireless support on Windows 2k8, VM cannot use it, you will have to create a network in Hyper-V and create a network bridge by combining the network in Hyper-V and the wireless network adapter, however the speed of getting IP addresses from DHCP slowed down dramatically since then.

        e. Share Folder feature, emmm...., I miss it.


    There are three ways to enable wireless in Hyper-V: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/john_paul_cook/archive/2008/03/23/using-wireless-with-hyper-v.aspx. As the author of that post, I will state that based on my experience, a network bridge is the easiest but worst alternative. The best approach to Hyper-V wireless networking is RRAS. It's worth the 5 - 10 minutes to configure.

    For any virtual machine, Windows 7, Hyper-V, any virtualization platform, you always have the option to connect to the virtual machine using Remote Desktop Connection. Before making the connection, you can configure the connection to make your local drives available to the virtual machine. They will show up in Windows Explorer in the virtual machine enabling you to drag and drop between the physical machine and the virtual machine. It's not the same as Shared Folders, but it is pretty close.
    Friday, July 31, 2009 12:40 PM
  • Thanks John for pointing out another two alternatives for VMs running in Hyper-V to use wireless network adapters on hosts, however I don't think the network bridge is the worst among the three, actually it's the only option for some scenarios. ICS and RRAS cannot cover scenarios where some other machines in the network need to connect actively back to the VM, consider the situation: You are running a VM, developing an application using Visual Studio and want to remote debug the application running on a server in the network, ICS and RRAS options won't let you do this 'cause the remote debugging use DCOM and the server needs to connect back to the VM and will fail if NAT sits in the middel.

    I do think Hyper-V is very good at server virtualization scenario, and I never used other virtualization solution other than Hyper-V in the server virtualization field (before Hyper-V I adopted VS 2005 R2 SP1), however it really provides the bad desktop virtualization experiences, especially for laptop users, it's just because Microsoft positions it as it is and counts on lots of management software in System Center product line to manage it. Hope Microsoft will soon change the product roadmap to provide the desktop-version of Hyper-V.


    James Liang
    Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:58 PM
  • Just want to add my bit here....  MICROSOFT WAKE UP!!!

    perhaps we could stage a nice demo of Server 2008 on VM Ware for MSFT .....  and have a giant screen showing us using VMWARE to do the demo??
    and make sure that the MSFT execs see it......  possibly arrange to have balmer on stage and ask him why we could not do this demo with VPC ??

    I like Microsoft in general.... but sometimes they need to wake up!
    Friday, September 25, 2009 11:34 PM
  • I have to "pile on" here, too. I am a software dev and I need to do testing with Server 2008 R2, which if of course 64-bit only. I'm using 64-bit Windows 7 and Windows Virtual PC, and I'd like to be able to build a VM with Server that I can run here on my development box. But no...

    I think it was a big mistake to start offering server OSs and apps as 64-bit only before supporting 64-bit guest OSs in Virtual PC. Microsoft seems to have forgotten that a lot of us use Virtual PCs to test these types of configurations.
    Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:04 PM
  • The full-featured VirtualBox (USB support, RDP, and USB over RDP) is only free for personal and academic use and product evaluation.

    Specfically:
    http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/VirtualBox_PUEL
    "the VirtualBox PUEL allows you to use VirtualBox free of charge
    • for personal use or, alternatively,
    • for product evaluation.

    In addition, academic use of VirtualBox is also permitted free of charge by the PUEL.

    If you do not belong to either category, you will have to purchase a commercial license."

    The Open Source Edition (OSE) can be used commerically for free, but there is no USB support.

    Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:08 AM
  • Note the Lastest VisualStudio 2010 beta and upcoming SharePoint 2010 do run under Windows 7 (64-bit). However for IT Pros and Developers who are testing more complex environments, I would defer you to prior post VirtualBox recommendations.


    Mr.T
    Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:10 PM
  • I'm really really dissappointed to have found this answer :(    

    I was going to build a new PC with lots of memory so I could also use it as my Exchange 2010 testing machine.   I guess I could buy VMWare but it is a shame the technology obviously exisits as HyperV could probably run on Windows 7 as they are nearly identical - could even support more processors.   There is no way I wish to run Windows server as my main OS as I'll want to test Windows 7 for my clients most of the time so I'd want it to be my main boot OS.   I have to say MS really left us hanging.
    Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:22 PM
  • We finally made the switch to VMWare Workstation and certainly will never look back. 64-bit support aside, its so much more advanced than Virtual PC its almost a no brainer to switch. I say almost, because you still have to shell out a couple hundred bucks for it (which is very much worth it IMHO).

    Now, you know what is a no brainer? The recently released VMWare Player 3.0: http://www.vmware.com/products/player/

    Everyone here looking for a free alternative to Virtual PC that supports 64-bit guests should get this immediately. As far as I can tell its nearly identical to their Workstation edition, the big difference being you cant take snapshots or create clones (which VPC could never do anyway). Its superior to VPC in every other way possible (except perhaps the ability to launch "virtual apps" - although it does have "Unity" which is pretty much the same thing).

    Get this now and I promise you'll never look back to VPC. I really hope Microsoft is paying attention here.

    Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:42 PM
  • timofcourse,

    I'm a newbie to virtual PC, vmware etc.   I can't find a comparison chart between vmware workstation, server, and player.   Are you saying player is better than vmware workstation or that player is free.   I appreciate the info you've posted, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on the details.

    Thanks

    FYI my goal is to runn Windows 2008R2 with Exchange 2010 as a test platform (not production) from my windows 7 x64 workstation.   Preferably with support for more than one processor.
    Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:03 PM
  • timofcourse,

    I'm a newbie to virtual PC, vmware etc.   I can't find a comparison chart between vmware workstation, server, and player.   Are you saying player is better than vmware workstation or that player is free.   I appreciate the info you've posted, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on the details.

    Thanks

    FYI my goal is to runn Windows 2008R2 with Exchange 2010 as a test platform (not production) from my windows 7 x64 workstation.   Preferably with support for more than one processor.

    Here's a great comparison of VMWare Workstation, Player and Server, it doesnt include Workstation 7 (the most current release), but the basic functionality differences are pretty much the same on what you see there. http://vmfaq.com/entry/5/

    In short, Workstation is technically superior to Player (hence $200 vs free), however, as you can see in that chart there were many more (and more significant) differences b/t Workstation and Player 2.5. Player 3.0 is free and the few main features you dont get when compared to Workstation are snapshots, clones and some development functionality.

    If you can live without these features (which if youve been using VPC, you already have been), I see absolutely no reason to use VMWare Player (which will run your desired environment - including multiple CPU support!).

    Hope this helps.
    Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:08 PM
  • Thank you very much.   I managed to get a copy of VMWorkstation and sure is better than hyperV and light years ahead of Vitual PC.   It is a shame they gimped VirtualPC so much as obviously they could have run hyperV on windows 7 if they wanted to.  I'm sure someone will come out with a hack to fix that but it would be nice if MS just hadn't chopped it off at the knees to begin with.
    Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:39 PM
  • Thank you very much.   I managed to get a copy of VMWorkstation and sure is better than hyperV and light years ahead of Vitual PC.   It is a shame they gimped VirtualPC so much as obviously they could have run hyperV on windows 7 if they wanted to.  I'm sure someone will come out with a hack to fix that but it would be nice if MS just hadn't chopped it off at the knees to begin with.

    To anyone reading this and sharing the feeling we have been let down:

    write a good polite professional letter to steve balmer - email it to him @ microsoft.com

    while he may not personaly read and reply it will be seen. *if* enough of us repeat the message it just might get some attention.

    I sent one a while back, it did get a reply. it was read by the right folks.  but one letter is not enough.
    if we had one form each of us that might start to get them thinking....
    Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:44 AM
  • For those running Windows 7, I highly recommend VirtualBox. I have been using it for months and have built Windows 2008 R2 x64 VMs for Exchange 2010, SharePoint 2010 and OCS 2007 R2. It is free, stable and supports Windows, Linux and Solaris platorms.

    There are a growing number of Microsoft employees moving to it because VPC's lack of multi-processor and 64-bit guest support. The performance is nearly equal that Hyper-V and better than VMWare workstation running on a Core2 laptop or desktop. Note: you can spot them a mile away with their iPhone). 

    We kind of blew it here and please send Steve your constructive feedback (rants don't help) at steveb@microsoft.com


    Mr.T
    Friday, November 13, 2009 1:49 AM
  • "Only i686 system detected" - While attempting to install Ubuntu 64-bit. Good job, Microsoft. :/
    Sunday, November 15, 2009 4:41 AM
  • Well, Ubuntu 64bit will not run for the same reason Windows 2008 64bit will not run... 64bit guests are simply not supported...

    I had the chance to visit TechEd 2009 Europe and asked the MS guys there about a virtualization solution for Windows 7 supporting 64bit guests... They told me to run Windows 2008R2 as dual boot or use VirualBox...

    No comment...
    Thomas Pagel - http://sqljunkies.com/weblog/tpagel/
    Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:41 PM
  • I thinks it's sad that MS is betting on virtualization and not supporting x64 guests ... it outright blows my mind ......  this wouldn't have happened when Bill was at the helm. ....  MS is becoming this big elephant that doesn't seems to feel its own lems.

    anyhow; Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 are both great this beside.


    Helping people with computers in Maui Hawaii.
    Monday, November 23, 2009 9:10 AM
  • Another unhappy consultant  here. Dear MS, you can't push 64bit-only technologies and not allow us to build labs/demos them on our workstations without running a server OS. Being able to move VMs seemlesly (Export/Import) beteween Hyper-V and Win7 VirtualPC would be an awesome addition too. Come on Microsoft, VMM and Hyper-V are getting there, but VirtualPC still needs a bit of work.
    Monday, November 23, 2009 8:08 PM
  • smjain, just to be clear, the PUEL based version can be freely used in commercial scenarios, as long as you "manually" install the software. 

    taken from their FAQ:  http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ


    1. What exactly do you mean by personal use and academic use in the Personal Use and Evaluation License ?

    Personal use is when you install the product on one or more PCs yourself and you make use of it (or even your friend, sister and grandmother). It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use . Well, you could ask each of your 500 employees to install VirtualBox but don't you think we deserve some money in this case? We'd even assist you with any issue you might have.


    Vbox is great, if you need to run 64bit guests like ws08r2, i highly recommend it.  BTW, you may need to get the latest 3.1 Beta version in order to get hyper-v based vhd support to work properly.  

    Geoff
    Friday, November 27, 2009 8:00 PM
  • smjain, just to be clear, the PUEL based version can be freely used in commercial scenarios, as long as you "manually" install the software. 

    taken from their FAQ:  http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ


    1. What exactly do you mean by personal use and academic use in the Personal Use and Evaluation License ?

    Personal use is when you install the product on one or more PCs yourself and you make use of it (or even your friend, sister and grandmother). It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use . Well, you could ask each of your 500 employees to install VirtualBox but don't you think we deserve some money in this case? We'd even assist you with any issue you might have.


    Vbox is great, if you need to run 64bit guests like ws08r2, i highly recommend it.  BTW, you may need to get the latest 3.1 Beta version in order to get hyper-v based vhd support to work properly.  

    Geoff

    just to be clear IMHO and many others just want to tell microsoft that we are disapointed that they nhave failed to provide us with a Microsoft based solution that runs on the Microsoft client OS.
    yes there are options out there. and we are using them but only due to the FAILURE of MICROSOFT to handle this case.
    Saturday, November 28, 2009 4:25 AM
  • Every couple of weeks I trawl the net and Google to find out if perhaps more information has come to light that would make my life easier.  I live in constant hope that Microsoft has a bigger plan and that this whole episode is actually not a big deal.  And every couple of weeks I am dissapointed from scratch.

    We are a Project Server\SharePoint server shop.  In the past we have used Virtual PC extensively to develop and demo solutions based on these two products.  This worked absolutely fantastically, as we could host different configurations on the same machine without needing to:

    *Install a Server OS on a production workstation and all the issues that goes along with this (software incompatibilities, support mindfields, massive licensing implications)

    *Polute the underlying OS with the different configurations that are needed to develop and demo multiple configurations and thereby avoiding having to reinstall the laptops constantly to clean up these configurations. (For instance, in SharePoint its easy to overpollute the 12 hive - which is used system wide)

    We are Microsoft evangelists, and for the most part the value that Microsoft solutions provide for the relatively low TCO is among the most powerful angles we have when selling to customers.

    However, we are put in a very difficult situation with this whole debacle, by having to now move our virtualization stack over to VMWare and having to publicly admit defeat to our customers every time we have to demo Microsoft based solutions using a non-Microsoft virtualization product.

    The excuses that have been put forth is, to put it simply, useless.  We are told that Hyper-V is the product that should be used, but Hyper-V requires a server OS (licensing implications), and also is not suitably for most developers and sales persons for the reasons mentioned in multiple posts above.  We are told that Windows Virtual PC is now meant for backwards compatibility only, which is a complete 360 from what Virtual PC was pushed for in the past.  Case in point, Microsoft's very own Official Courseware uses Virtual PC images extensively for training purposes on Server software such as SharePoint, SQL and Exchange.  They also produce demo images for the current and past versions of Project Server and SharePoint to assist in the selling process - also in Virtual PC images.

    We have pushed this question on multiple fronts, including the recent Project and SharePoint conferences with absolutely no responses that encourages our confidence in Microsoft long term strategy where Virtual PC concerned.  I am almost horrified, giving my belief in Microsoft's strategy and product lineup, that Microsoft seems not to have realised what a massive disaster they are steering towards when they developed Windows Virtual PC - and specifically by being so obstinate and refusing to acknowledge that there even is a problem.

    My only hope is to make our collective (as partners and customers) voices of dissaproval as loud as possible with the faint hope that Microsoft is willing to listen to the sources of their revenue and at least acknowledge the problem.  As I can still not belief (against all odds) that Microsoft really has no plans for x64 guest support for Windows Virtual PC I am confident that they are working on something that we just don't know off.  If this is indeed the case at least tell us so, so that we might be able to put a strategy in place ourselves.

    Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:52 AM


  •   Despite all the inconvenice for not having x64 support for guest OS on Win7, using VPC which we developers are sure suffering from and hope is there that the support shall be added soon. ( BTW it's also becomming interesting to know as to what is causing this not to happen ? )

    But i think in the meanwhile one interesting solution from MS can be put in place that is boot from VHD. make up a virtual hard disk of Windows 2008 R2 hard disk and boot your host from it, enable hyperV and do your domos and move back by rebooting to original win7

     Now that's where Windows 7's feature is there to rescue if not giving full convenience. ( that's the idea to me as yet, that i would be doing soon to add to my convenice )

    PS: i have to run MS SBS 2008 training VMs that are built as snapshots for HyperV so i need HyperV either ways

    But i think MS should have very much transparency from windows7 virtual PC to HyperV not just in 64bit support but also in snapshots

    Monday, December 14, 2009 10:52 AM
  • I would rather use a Real virtualization solution like Virtual PC or even VMware Player (which I have now migrated to) than some off the wall Open Source solution that is buggy as all get out.
    Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:25 PM
  • I agree.  I tested Windows 2008 with Hyper-V R2 x64 and was not impressed.  The Hyper-V virtual machines could not take advange of the HD video, and there was absolutely no audio support.  Funny thing, but I couldn't build any 64 bit Hyper-V virtual machines, because the Microsoft installs didn't recognize my i7 processor as 64-bit.

    So I wiped the disk and installed Windows 7 Ultimate x64 as my host.  Then I found out that even though the XP Mode/Virtual Machine download page had me declare I was running x64, I ended up with XP Mode and Virtual Machine that only support x86 software.  I scrapped that and tried to install Virtual Machine 2007 x64 and a pop-up refused to install it claiming it was incompatible with Windows 7.  The same thing happed with Virtual Server.

    What is Microsoft thinking?  I got a big i7 powerhouse machine to test 64 bit software.  I can't afford a box for each test system.

    Microsoft:  You must resolve this problem.  You tell us that new systems will be x64 only, yet we are without a test platform to test 64 bit software.
    - Michael Faklis
    Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:03 PM
  • Trust me, Sun VirtualBox is the most stable (although not a full featured as VMWare Workstation) level-2 HyperVisor available. I have been running VirtualBox for about 6 months now and the stablity and performance has steady improved to a nearly that of an a level-1. My peers are surprised at the performance of 3.0.12 running on my Win7/x64 laptop. The current build/VMs are so stable, I ussually just freeze my VMs and hibernate to allow for quick start-up/shutdown.

    Don't get me wrong, as soon as Virtual Machine 2007 x64 supports 64-bit guests, I switch back to VPC but I this point I only have couple of choices.

    Tim
    Mr.T
    Friday, December 25, 2009 4:50 PM
  • Disappointing! I'm fun of all microsoft products, but  I need to use VMware workstattion to test SharePoint 2010(SP2010 is only 64bit) because I do not like Widnows Server 2008 on my laptop. It's my personal computer other than my server box. Microsoft, please take care of our heart, developers and IT Pro. If you like us to try your new products like SharePoint 2010, please provide us a good choice of desktop virtualization. do not force us to take the server components.


    Hope Helpful | Xiaofeng Wang | http://www.leoworks.net | Beijing P.R.C
    Saturday, January 23, 2010 7:24 AM
  • Everyone is missing the same (including me), the only question is why there's no x64 guest-os support and nobody wants to say why?

    It would be great to get a response from MS representative... But let me express my opinion: 

    There are no direct $ from it. There is a lot of free software. So simply they don’t believe in future of workstation virtualization. Of course they will realize it in 2 or 3 years, make a VirtualPC that support this configuration and spend lot of money to convert people from Vmware:)

    Saturday, January 23, 2010 8:03 PM
  • So this is a crazy long thread and I think everyone pretty much agrees.

    I had a chance to talk (one on one) with the Microsoft virtualization program manager at the beginning of December. His first question was why do want 64-bit virtualization support on the desktop. I think the main reason is what everyone has stated in this thread: testing, proof of concept, learning, etc. That was easy to justify.

    His only answer, at that time, was that they were exploring it. I wish that he had a deinfite answer, but I think/hope that I was able to nudge him into exploring it "harder". :-)


    Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys | http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/jsandys/default.aspx | Twitter @JasonSandys
    Saturday, January 23, 2010 9:08 PM
  • After trying to get Windows 2K8 R2 to run on my laptop, which worked eventually, and then finding out that there are quite a bit of things I would have to give up, I decided to give VMWare Workstation I try.

    Not only did it allow me to install the 64-bit guests OS's but it also supports Aero in the virtual machines! (Why can Microsoft not manage this?)

    Better yet, the Workstation installer also installed the VMWare Player.

    After some research and testing I figured out that VMWare Player is all I need.
    I am going to use the evaluation version of VMWare Workstation to import/convert the Windows 7 XP Mode and my Hyper-V machines, and I will likely never look back.

    Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:28 AM
  • So this is a crazy long thread and I think everyone pretty much agrees.

    I had a chance to talk (one on one) with the Microsoft virtualization program manager at the beginning of December. His first question was why do want 64-bit virtualization support on the desktop. I think the main reason is what everyone has stated in this thread: testing, proof of concept, learning, etc. That was easy to justify.

    His only answer, at that time, was that they were exploring it. I wish that he had a deinfite answer, but I think/hope that I was able to nudge him into exploring it "harder". :-)


    Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys | http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/jsandys/default.aspx | Twitter @JasonSandys

    Your info above is glaring proof that the people working in the Crystal Palace have lost touch with their customers and reality.  A program manager making such statements is just showing how ignorant he/she is of what's going on in the world outside the Crystal Palace!
    Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:52 PM
  • What I really don't understand is how MS people are working... Do they all have Win2k8R2 on their notebooks when they have to develop or demo anything like SharePoint 2010 or SQL Server 2008R2? And they don't need Bluetooth etc.? They should feel the pain by having the same experience we have! And I'm pretty much sure that they don't use VMWare or VirtualBox, otherwise somebody shoud go there and shoot them...

    Tomorrow there will be a Webcast for MS Partners how MS will distribute demos in the future... That will be interesting...


    Thomas Pagel
    Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:05 PM
  • Hi Thomas, where is the link of that webcast? I feel interest to join!

    Forum Moderator, Microsoft MVP for Windows Server-Networking, MCT, http://msmvps.com/blogs/richardwu
    Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:32 PM
  • Hi Richard,

    unfortunately I think this one is not public... If you are a Microsoft Partner you might find it in the PLC with this code: BI76AL


    Thomas Pagel
    Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:07 PM
  • thx! I will look for that!

    Forum Moderator, Microsoft MVP for Windows Server-Networking, MCT, http://msmvps.com/blogs/richardwu
    Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:17 PM
  • Hey Guys,

    I just noticed that the above webcast is done so I can't really join anymore. Can you post what MS said regarding how they plan to distribute the x64 only SQL 2008 R2 VMs to developers/testers who are not running 64bit Hyper-V instances (if that was discussed at all) ?

    Other than that I've had to swith to the free VMWare Server for local testing. Conversion from VMWare images to Hyper-V is not bad at all especially if using win2k8 and above.

    Max
    Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:58 PM
  • Hi,

    the webcast is tomorrow... So it can't be done... I guess there will be a recording as well.
    Thomas Pagel
    Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:11 PM
  • Hi,

    Well, I for one finally gave up hope that Microsoft would listen to its customers and release a build of Virtual PC capable of supporting 64-bit guest operating systems. I reluctantly made the switch to VMware Workstation a few weeks ago and I'm very impressed with what I've seen so far.

    In a way I was sad to say goodbye to Virtual PC because it has been a constant companion on my desktop for the last 6 years or so.

    The crazy thing is that even the Microsoft Sharepoint support engineer who was working onsite at my company admitted to me that MS employees had resorted to installing VirtualBox on their laptops so that they could run Sharepoint 2010 and other software which required 64-bit support !

    I hope someone from MS is listening to this (they always say they value feedback) but I have to say that it doesn't seem like they are.

    Oh well...

     


    http://www.iisadmin.co.uk
    Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:34 PM
  • They did listen to feedback. For years the biggest demand was USB support for VPC, not 64bit support.  I was at countless meetings with MS and the Virtualization product support team and the one thing everyone wanted, excluding myself, was USB support for VMs.

     

    Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:02 PM
  • They did listen to feedback. For years the biggest demand was USB support for VPC, not 64bit support.  I was at countless meetings with MS and the Virtualization product support team and the one thing everyone wanted, excluding myself, was USB support for VMs.

     


    Yeah, like in 2005/2006 we started asking for USB support.  so they go one thing out of at least 3 right.

    customer requests aside for just a minute  look at the roadmap, MS has been working on 64 bit server products for how long?

    and told developers to use VPC to run server images for how long?

    and then they failed to put 2 and 2 together ....

    see here is the thing, some folks have been asking for 64 bit for a very lonmg time cause we saw this day coming.

    but i guess we were not high enough on the ladder.

    I told MS duing the VPC beta on connect way back in 2005 or 2006.

    i know that the windows OS was moving to x64 and the day would arraive when we would need to have support.

    I guess MS is just going to start losing more and more customers.... I hate to say it but it's what I see more and more....

    folks getting Open Office in place of MS Office, buying the new Google app stuff and saying good by to Exchange.

    if MS can't sell Office and Exchnage then what do they lose next?

    oh and windows seats - i see a lot of SMB customers with WIndows Home and no domain in the office ...

    so MS better wake up if they want to keep Up.

    WIndows Phone - I do not know if it will take off, it's got an uphill fight against iPhones and Blackberries ...

     

    Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:23 PM
  • They did listen to feedback. For years the biggest demand was USB support for VPC, not 64bit support.  I was at countless meetings with MS and the Virtualization product support team and the one thing everyone wanted, excluding myself, was USB support for VMs.

     


    Yeah, like in 2005/2006 we started asking for USB support.  so they go one thing out of at least 3 right.

    customer requests aside for just a minute  look at the roadmap, MS has been working on 64 bit server products for how long?

    and told developers to use VPC to run server images for how long?

    and then they failed to put 2 and 2 together ....

    see here is the thing, some folks have been asking for 64 bit for a very lonmg time cause we saw this day coming.

    but i guess we were not high enough on the ladder.

    I told MS duing the VPC beta on connect way back in 2005 or 2006.

    i know that the windows OS was moving to x64 and the day would arraive when we would need to have support.

    I guess MS is just going to start losing more and more customers.... I hate to say it but it's what I see more and more....

    folks getting Open Office in place of MS Office, buying the new Google app stuff and saying good by to Exchange.

    if MS can't sell Office and Exchnage then what do they lose next?

    oh and windows seats - i see a lot of SMB customers with WIndows Home and no domain in the office ...

    so MS better wake up if they want to keep Up.

    WIndows Phone - I do not know if it will take off, it's got an uphill fight against iPhones and Blackberries ...

     

    Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:24 PM
  • i got it.
    Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:17 AM
  • I feel so disappointed about this answer....VMWare even allow 64bit guest on 32bit host....
    Do you know how VMWare guys laughing on me(I am supporting MS in my heart)? :-(

    I don't think every software tester want to install Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V for testing 64bit applications.
    For training, it means all the classroom computers need to install Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V......it's too trouble for a training center to do so........

    I hope MS can really explain why no 64bit guest OS support on client OS...
    Forum Moderator, Microsoft MVP for Windows Server-Networking, MCT, http://msmvps.com/blogs/richardwu

    You have to look at the purpose of Virtual XP.  It's an effort to get businesses to adopy Win 7 quicker and Win XP support is provided with Virtual XP.

    Regardless of the "purpose", Microsoft should know that the actual usage scenarios are much more vast and those needed to be considered when developing the product. It's obvious from the posts here that there is genuine need to be able to run 64 bit apps. (it really doesn't take an advanced degree to figure this out), yet they don't even consider including this functionality, forcing us to use another provider's product to get the capabilities we need. Surely Microsoft knows that there are labs out there that are used to train MS Professionals. If only for that reason, this should have been supported. I concur with all the others, this is poor planning at its worst and there doesn't seem to be much interest on the part of MS to do anything to correct things. It appears that perhaps somebody's been too busy enjoying the amenities at the MS campus and not enough time doing their job... Does the term "forward thinking" ring any bells?

    Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:37 AM
  • I feel so disappointed about this answer....VMWare even allow 64bit guest on 32bit host....
    Do you know how VMWare guys laughing on me(I am supporting MS in my heart)? :-(

    I don't think every software tester want to install Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V for testing 64bit applications.
    For training, it means all the classroom computers need to install Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V......it's too trouble for a training center to do so........

    I hope MS can really explain why no 64bit guest OS support on client OS...
    Forum Moderator, Microsoft MVP for Windows Server-Networking, MCT, http://msmvps.com/blogs/richardwu

    You have to look at the purpose of Virtual XP.  It's an effort to get businesses to adopy Win 7 quicker and Win XP support is provided with Virtual XP.

    Regardless of the "purpose", Microsoft should know that the actual usage scenarios are much more vast and those needed to be considered when developing the product. It's obvious from the posts here that there is genuine need to be able to run 64 bit apps. (it really doesn't take an advanced degree to figure this out), yet they don't even consider including this functionality, forcing us to use another provider's product to get the capabilities we need. Surely Microsoft knows that there are labs out there that are used to train MS Professionals. If only for that reason, this should have been supported. I concur with all the others, this is poor planning at its worst and there doesn't seem to be much interest on the part of MS to do anything to correct things. It appears that perhaps somebody's been too busy enjoying the amenities at the MS campus and not enough time doing their job... Does the term "forward thinking" ring any bells?


    Not sure where the quote came from but just to clarify a point:

    "You have to look at the purpose of Virtual XP.  It's an effort to get businesses to adopy Win 7 quicker and Win XP support is provided with Virtual XP."

    for anyone reading this thread ....

    Virtual PC is one product

    Virtual XP Mode is *A DIFFERENT PRODUCT*

    We are all here to talk about Virtual PC *NOT* XP-Mode

    Yes Virtual-XP is for moving a business to WIn 7 agreed and fine.

    but Virtual-PC was built long before XP-Mode and has MANY uses that have zero to do with a business user and XP.

     

    Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:22 AM
  • figuerres wrote:

    Not sure where the quote came from but just to clarify a point:

    "You have to look at the purpose of Virtual XP.  It's an effort to get businesses to adopy Win 7 quicker and Win XP support is provided with Virtual XP."

    for anyone reading this thread ....

    Virtual PC is one product

    Virtual XP Mode is *A DIFFERENT PRODUCT*

    We are all here to talk about Virtual PC *NOT* XP-Mode

    Yes Virtual-XP is for moving a business to WIn 7 agreed and fine.

    but Virtual-PC was built long before XP-Mode and has MANY uses that have zero to do with a business user and XP.

     

    You forgot to read the title heading of this particular forum:

    Windows 7 Virtualization

    Use this forum to discuss the virtualization technologies, tools, and techniques in Windows 7. Please do not use this forum to discuss Virtual PC 2007, Virtual Server 2005, or Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V technologies.

    So, this forum IS for XP MODE and NOT VIRTUAL PC!!!!

    Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:07 PM
  • To Rick Dee

    Are You uderstand difference Virtual PC 2007 and Windows Virtual PC (for Windows 7)????

    look that http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/support/faq.aspx 

    What is Windows XP Mode?

    Windows XP Mode is a new benefit of Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Ultimate and provides additional application compatibility. It allows you to install and run many of your productivity applications for Windows XP directly from your Windows 7-based PC. It utilizes virtualization technology, such as Windows Virtual PC, to provide a virtual Windows XP environment for Windows 7.

    What is Windows Virtual PC?

    Windows Virtual PC is the latest Microsoft virtualization technology designed for Windows 7. It is the runtime engine for Windows XP Mode to provide a virtual Windows environment for Windows 7. With Windows Virtual PC, Windows XP Mode applications can be seen and accessed from a Windows 7-based PC.

    We are about Windows Virtual PC , not about Virtual PC 2007 !!!

    Monday, April 12, 2010 6:13 AM
  • Windows Virtual PC  let you create your own virtual machine (not only XP mode) , supported guest OS is XP,Vista and 7 all 32 bit. Why not 64?????????
    Monday, April 12, 2010 6:27 AM
  • Windows XP Mode and Windows Virtual PC positioning as tool to provide additional application compatibility.

    So, My old x64 application work on Windows XP x64 but not directly run on Windows 7 x64.

     I want ugrade to Windows 7 x64. What can I do???

    Monday, April 12, 2010 6:37 AM
  • The current VirtualPC primary focus is backward compatibilty with Windows XP applications. Secondary, VirtualPC can be used for software demo's and light development. As far running Exchange Server 2010 or Office Communications Server 2007 R2, SharePoint Server 2010 and Windows Server 2008 R2 consider Sun VirtualBox or VMWare Workstation for Win7 environments.

    For many organizations running Windows Server 2008 as a desktop or dual-booted w/Win7 is unsupported. Interesting enough, Microsoft's new corporate IT policies do not allow either configuration due to the VPN and BitLocker requirements. These changes will force many MSFT employees to use virtulization software that supports 64-bit guests.

    Hopefully there will change soon because it is not only hurting (killing more likely) VPC adoption but Hyper-V adoption as well.

     


    Mr.T
    Monday, April 12, 2010 12:50 PM
  • +1 here for another frustrated Microsoft IT developer and consultant!!  I usually find myself in the lonely position of defending Microsoft's virtualization offerings against the VMWare people but this is really the last straw.  I need to setup a Windows Server 2008 R2 test environment and what choices do I have? VirtualBox or VMWare.  Well done, Microsoft!  If you think it doesn't matter because you're focusing on the "enterprise market" with Hyper-V well guess what, who do you think recommends which virtualization product goes in the datacenter?  It's consultants like us, so why ____ us off with stupid moves like this??  Last week I found out that my Windows Mobile 6.5 Phone won't sync with the Outlook 2010 x64 on my new laptop (and MS knows about the issue but has NO plans to fix it) and today I found out about this VPC issue.  Is it just me or does it seem like Microsoft recently has just completely lost its way??

     

     

    Friday, June 04, 2010 11:10 AM
  • If you read this entire thread, it's pretty clear that MS is "business as usual".  They have decided what it is we should get and are plain just not listening.  It's exactly this type of behavior on their part that has caused the various anti-microsoft cliques around the world.  The shame of it all is that we know they can do it technically, it's just that for some "marketing" reason they choose not to. That always a problem when marketing runs a technical company like Microsoft.

    So once again, they ARE NOT LISTENING.  Wake-up Microsoft...  at least try to keep the supporters you have.


    LSM
    Friday, June 25, 2010 11:34 PM
  • I asked someone at TechEd and he told me that the next version of Windows will have a solution...

     

    Well, can I wait so long?


    Thomas Pagel
    Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:40 AM
  • I asked someone at TechEd and he told me that the next version of Windows will have a solution...

     

    Well, can I wait so long?


    Thomas Pagel


    Yeah by then everyone who needs it will be using SUn or VMWare and only MS staff and a handfull of devs will even care.....

    like the new windows phone that is planned to release for this xmas - who cares ? everyone i know has an iPhone and no one wants a WIndows Phone anymore.

    so MS is spending money chasing a market they had a few years back and lost.

    I am not generally an "MS Basher" but this pattern will soon make me very much less inclined to promote MS .... that is the real issue here under the covers of which thing we are asking for.... that MS is ____ off large numbers of folks who in the past have sold MS products to large groups of buyers.

    that's a very very bad thing to see happening for any business.

    Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:49 PM
  • So, from my point of view, it all translates as:

    If you're a developer, throw away windows virtual pc and start using sun's virtualbox, because we don't really care that you try our new server vm's (or any other 64 bit environment). Or convince your system admin to set up virtual labs for any developer who needs to try something new.

    This killed windows virtual pc for me, and it's also a downside of windows 7 development machines.

    Who came up with this brilliant idea? Steve Jobs?

    Waiting for a new windows release isn't good enough.

     

    Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:23 PM
  • Pathetic. Please don't brag about something if it's not worth braging about. Virtual PC that is.  Looking for a test environment for windows PE 64 bit. I'll look elswhere.
    Friday, July 16, 2010 11:14 PM
  • Looks like Microsoft is no longer concerned about the end user market, they are focus exclusively on the large enterprise markets.
    Friday, September 10, 2010 10:41 AM
  • Why do you care? There are so many better products:

    VMWare Player, VirtualBox, VMLite which all support 64Bit Guests.

    André


    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code" CLIP- Stellvertreter http://www.winvistaside.de/
    Friday, September 10, 2010 10:51 AM
  • Because Virtual PC is a much better product than the rest. Conntectix did a great job of creating a virtualization product and did very well when they upgraded from the Macintosh OS to Windows.

    VMware Player could be ok, if VMware only knew how to correctly integrate with the Windows host.

    VirtualBox is a peice of junk code that should have generated a pink slip for the programmer who wrote it. Buggy as all get out.

    Never hear of VMLite, so it must not be very good at all.

    Friday, September 10, 2010 11:10 AM
  • LOL, only why you never heard about, the product is bad?

    Get VMLite here:

    http://www.vmlite.com/

    It is based on VirtualBox and offers XPMode suport for all Vista/7 Editions ;)

    VirtualPc is bad, slow, it doesn't offer any 3D acceleration for guests, no 64Bit Guest support and many more things. With VMWare Player you have real Aero Glass support in the VM ;)

     


    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code" CLIP- Stellvertreter http://www.winvistaside.de/
    Friday, September 10, 2010 11:29 AM
  • I do not troll around installing all bits of software out there. I also subscribe to lots of technical newsletters, so never hearing about it must mean one of two things, it is new and buggy, or it is terrible and buggy. So if it is based on the same buggy software known as VirtualBox, I would say that it is still buggy and does not warrant me checking them out.

    It is true that Microsoft has done nothing with Virtual PC since purchasing it, and 3D acceleration is a nice feature that Microsoft should have implemented as well as a proper GUI for attaching Floppy disk images. They should have also supported more older operating systems as guests, in addition to 64 bit guests. Virtual PC performs better than VMware Player. To be fair, Microsoft did add USB support finally, but have been wrongly focused on "cloud" ____.

    Unfortuately I have installed VMware Player to support installing 64 bit guest operating systems so that I could have a "server" for demostration purposes when I am not connected to my local network. I built a lab machine running Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 R2, and it works great.

    Friday, September 10, 2010 11:39 AM
  • Thanks. I had that doubt too.
    []'s Juliano Bassetto - [MCT/MCP/MCITP/MCTS] - Semper Fi! Carry On!
    Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:05 PM
  • I have the same issue on 4-24-11

    1. Virtual PC 2007 does not offer Win 2008 R2 as an virutal OS ;

    2. When addinig ISO, Virtual PC 2007 states x86

    3. system =AMD Athlon II 640 quad-core (64bit) ; 8GB 1066 Hyper-V ddr3 ; 2 (1 TB) HDD

    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itprovirt/thread/3a19370e-0d3c-45e1-9e1c-32f294d7704d

    Q: Does MS offer a fix, yet ?


    /itcworldwide.com/
    Sunday, April 24, 2011 8:05 PM
  • There is no fix.  VPC 2007 does not now nor ever will support 64bit guests and 2008 R2 does not have a 32bit version.
    Colin Barnhorst Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on DIY with 6GB ram.
    Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:14 PM
  • I am have replaced VPC2007 with Virtual Box 4.0.6 .  Will I be able to create

    A Virtual Machine to accommodate in the following order:

    Win 2008 r2  { development server }

    Visual Studio Team System 2008

    Visual Studio Team System 2008 _SP1

    Visual Studio Team System 2008 _SP1 Fwd Compatibility TFS 2010

    Visual Studio Team System 2008 Team Foundation Server

    SQL 2008 R2


    /itcworldwide.com/
    Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:07 AM
  • Yes. However your system must have capability to run X64 OS. Check in BIOS for that. If your system cannot, no solution can help.
    Shahid Roofi
    Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:34 AM
  • I was about to ask the same question, like 2 years later, and still the answer seems to be a plain NOPE. I'm a Microsoft enthusiast, I earn my money with developing enterprise scaled software for Microsoft environments on Microsoft systems using Microsoft developer tools. I'm even paying for my MSDN subscription.

    At the very moment I am writing this, Oracle's VirtualBox is downloading on the other screen.

    Redmond, say Hello to the Real World(TM) instead of wasting your and our (developers) time with stuff like LightSwitch, will you? Pretty please? *sigh*

    ... and in case you didn't notice yet, dear people from Redmond, VirtualBox is Open Source. Just do your copy&paste homework.

    Sunday, September 04, 2011 12:41 PM
  • WVPC if free.  Microsoft loses no money if you use a different product.  Microsoft did not make WVPC to sell to anyone.  Microsoft made WVPC to provide enterprise customers with a Microsoft solution for running legacy business software so that more enterprise customers would adopt Windows 7 sooner.  WVPC would thereby enhance cash flow speeding adoption of Windows 7 by enterprises

    Developers usually buy an MSDN subscription so making WVPC with developers in mind wouldn't produce any revenue to speak of because they would simply obtain it for free through their subscriptions. 

    The successor to WVPC may well support 64bit guests, but as of today I know of no 64bit business software titles for Windows that don't run on Windows 7 x64 natively, so no virtualization is needed.  It is 32bit legacy business software that delays adoption of Windows 7. 

    Other than someone's branding preferences or logical sensibilities being offended, no one is put out very much by using competitors' free products like VB or VMware Player. 

     


    Colin Barnhorst Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on DIY with 6GB ram.
    Sunday, September 04, 2011 2:12 PM
  • As far as I know Windows 8 will include HyperV... This will be the solution for the future for most usecases...
    Thomas Pagel
    Sunday, September 04, 2011 6:54 PM
  • That's why I can't get concerned about x64 guest support in WVPC. 
    Colin Barnhorst Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on DIY with 6GB ram.
    Sunday, September 04, 2011 7:00 PM
  • The problem is, gentlemen, that none of us 'normal folk' new about Hyper-V in Windows 8 until a couple of days ago.  This whole thing was extremely hush-hush, and none of the people that I know at Microsoft were able to talk about it.  So we were left to stew and fester, which of course brewed a lot of resentment.

     

    I am absolutely ecstatic, however, that we will have something to take us into the future in Windows 8.  Just can't wait for it now :)


    http://blogs.umtsa.co.za/nicoo
    Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:04 PM
  •   It has beeen officially announced in the Building Windows 8 blog that Hyper-V will be in the Windows 8 client OS and will support 64-bit guests. You can even watch the video.

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/ 


    Bill
    • Proposed as answer by CPosingies Saturday, September 10, 2011 7:04 AM
    Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:39 AM
  • Is this still true?  Ist been 2 years since this reply.
    Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:47 PM
  • Yes, Windows 8 has a client version of Hyper-V.  I don't forsee Microsoft providing anything more than security updates for Windows VPC for Windows 7.
    Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:24 PM
  • Yes, it is still an issue and Microsoft will never support 64 bit guest on Virtual PC. Most of us already moved to VMware or VirtualBox. A lot of folks keep saying to install Hyper-V but think about it, why even bother if there are other applications that can do it for free already? I have been disapointed for many years about Virtual PC... it is useless...

    Microsoft manager to programmer: You start coding. I'll go find out what they want ...


    • Proposed as answer by esteban2800 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:48 AM
    • Edited by esteban2800 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:49 AM edit sentences
    Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:48 AM
  • Hyper-V is also free.  And now Windows 8 Pro comes with Hyper-V built
    in, and it does support 64-bit OS's.
     

    Bob Comer - Microsoft MVP Virtual Machine
    • Proposed as answer by esteban2800 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:13 PM
    Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:59 AM
  • ...but your processor must support second level address translation.

    Colin Barnhorst Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on DIY with 8GB ram.

    • Proposed as answer by esteban2800 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:13 PM
    Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:07 AM
  • >...but your processor must support second level address translation.
     
    Yep.
     

    Bob Comer - Microsoft MVP Virtual Machine
    • Proposed as answer by esteban2800 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:13 PM
    Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:03 PM
  • For now, I am going to wait until Windows 8 is desirable to install. I have so much stuff on my Windows 7 PC that I don't even know where to start. I don't think Hyper-V can run on Windows 7 unless you create a guest image. Anyway, I found the easy solution which is using VMWare Player 7. Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise runs great under VMWare. I am still disappointed with Microsoft because it seems that every time customers complain, Microsoft has the solution which is to sell the "next product". Well, I guess that's why they are number one in the market... sell, sell, sell. No need for Hyper-V at this moment but it is in my agenda of to-do's. 


    Microsoft manager to programmer: You start coding. I'll go find out what they want ...

    • Proposed as answer by esteban2800 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:13 PM
    Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:12 PM