As far as the desktops (not portable computers) go, on the Intel side, upgrade to a C2D E8400 (or better) or C2Q Q9400 or better; then you are *assured* VT-x support as long as you have any Intel chipset at least as new as G31 (Bear Lake), or nVidia chipset at least as new as 630i.

The Intel article you are referring to is concerning VT-d (a subset of VT-x), not VT-x itself. VT-d requires support not just at the CPU/chipset level, but at the GPU level as well (Parallels Workstation 4.0 Extreme, the only virtualization product on the Windows side to support VT-d, has certified a grand total of *one* workstation (a high-end HP model) to work with this technology.). VT-x only requires CPU/chipset/BIOS support (VT-d support is an option, not a requirement).

I did some google and found that only a few Intel chipsets have support for Vt. Anyone has more info about this?. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_chipsets

http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/virtualization-software-development/topic/56802/

Windows 7 an attempt at a bug fixed version of Vista.

But underneath all that window dressing and turd polishing its still shit.

Shit that I really don't need, as I watch my Vista Ultimate Machine reboot randomly again for the 5th time today. The same machine that runs Ubuntu from another partition on the same drive for days at a time with no bother.

I am of course writing this from my other ubuntu machine...

So Windows 7 really is just dull, and expensive dullness at that no doubt.

Regulas, microsoft never said anywhere that it was meant for gaming. None of their virtualization products support hardware acceleration of 3D. Period. So the assumption that it WOULD is your fault, not Microsofts.

When you check their product information page it doesn't state anywhere that it supports 3D either, neither does it in the information everyone has been publishing.

It wasn't targeted at Consumers or Gamers, it was targeted at Enthusiasts who understand the limitations of current virtualization tech. If you REALLY want that ability, you can pick up the new Parallels which will apparently support 3D acceleration (but who knows how well it will perform.)

The underlying fact in all of this is, 3D hardware vendors (last I checked) don't have drivers written to support 3D acceleration in virtual machines. Heck, I don't even know if there is a standard for how you would divide GPU time among VMs.

And right now I AM kinda miffed that Intel chose to disable VT on the lower end Core 2 Duos that are used in most laptops available in the consumer retail space. My laptop which I've been using to test 7 doesn't support it and it would have been really handy.

who in their right mind would have a high end version of Windows 7 on a crappy mid-low end laptop?
the os would be nearly half the cost of the system.
i expect half of those named chips to probably be obsolete once windows 7 becomes mainstream
However for other cpu's in many oem buisnesses which rely on xp programs, not having VT on thier cpu's would cause a problem when upgrading the OS, so how to do it? not upgrade :D
btw im no intel fan nor windows 7 bagger

AMD Athlon 64 x2 based HP business desktops (DC5750) don't support AMD's hardware virtualization. HP has it disabled out of the box with no way to enable it. A support call to HP revealed "If you want hardware virtualization, you have to buy a more expensive HP with an Intel VT CPU". I have almost 100 of these DC5750s deployed already. :(

P7350 is supporting the virtualization, somehow ... at least some subsets.

http://communities.vmware.com/message/1227963

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=9373022

The key is to use the right OS !

I was excited for my gaming rig (Linux on my Laptop) but soon found out, correct me if I am wrong, the VT of XP will not support gaming, just old Data bases and such. I think Microbloat is doing it on purpose so game developers have to write for 7. I game squeeze like MS pulled with DX 10 and Vista, not putting DX 10 in XP and at the beginning buying off some companies to produce DX 10 only games, trying to force us gamers to Vista, F*Ck You Microsoft! That didn't last long and the Game Studios woke up real fast to that trick.
No problem I will keep my Q9650 rig on XP until there is a game out there (in a couple years) that requires 7. Then I will set up a dual boot setup.

XPM only works in business versions of the Windows 7 SKUs, Professional, Ultimate and Enterprise.

None of the retail SKUs include any of those OS's. End of story.

Large businesses don't typically buy notebooks with Home Premium, like ever. So, saying that a feature won't run on an OS they don't have is a non-story.

People who buy CPUs sans VT probably aren't likely to be running XP VM in Win7 in the first place.

Regarding Birkoff, it's not wholly good news for AMD, would bet it requires Pacifica. Although does seem all non-Sempron chips have Pacifica, giving AMD a slight legup in the corporate market, perhaps.

Yep it's annoying not having the Intel visualization technology on some of the chips. All my Intel based systems (my 2 notebooks, server and desktop) don't have Intel-VT whereas my basic Athlon X2 HTPC does have it.

Not to worry though, I mean if all else fails, just run something like VirtualBox on top of Windows 7.

I've got Windows 7 RC 1 running on VirtualBox which is running on Ubuntu 32-bit (using Server kernel so I can use the 4GB in my notebook). Although it isn't as quick as it would be on the hardware natively, it isn't that bad, even with only 2GB allocated to it.

Ubuntu still runs snappy too.

Rob

As 7 Use Increases, People Run Strangest Software, its inevitable that much Is NOT of 7 Likeing, Just Too New, Reason OLD Was KaPut AnyWay.

On this one 7 build, added Winter Fun pack xp 2004. It worked, SnoMan Wiggled about. Yet It Won't Uninstall & seems to be basis for 7 Install Hanging. along with few other usual suspects, ALL From xp. Wakr Up, xp is Gone.STeWie drashek

For those of you that can't use google -

http://levicki.net/articles/tips/2009/02/20/HOWTO_Enable_Intel_VT_on_Sony_VAIO_notebook_with_AMI_Aptio_EFI_BIOS.php

The link itself is self explanitory :-)

Enjoy!

Being one the suckers who spent £1300 on a VAIO with an Intel Core2 Duo T9550 (Which Intel rightly claim it supports VT), I was EXTREMELY pissed off to learn that as Sony haven't even BOTHERED to enable it, nor give me the option to enable it in the BIOS, I too am one of the people that couldn't use Microsoft's "latest technology" at its' full speed.
I am looking at a BIOS patch for VAIO's which some guy made all by himself, but I'm deciding whether to try it or not incase it bricks my new magnesium alloy toy.
Could Sony and other manufacturers be prompted to release BIOS updates to enable this PAID FOR feature within the hardware???
Fingers crossed!

are we not?! XP mode isn't even final yet. If this mode is based on VirtualPC tech - which runs XP just fine - then it's quite possibly just a feature that M$ is either working on or has left out until it's ready.

A little thought before advertising this as a "major" issue wouldn't go amiss.

XP Mode was an act of desperation, stuck in at the last minute without adequate testing. Now the bugs are coming home to bite. When will Microsoft learn? Between this and Starter Edition for netbooks, 7 is shaping up to be as big a fiasco as Visaster...

Hmmmmmm I wonder if this has anything to do with Intel rushing VT into its lower end CPUs (all the way down to the Pentium Dual Core E5200)??? I'm sure that PCN only came through a week or so ago.

...if Microsoft want to. Previous versions of VirtualPC (the software on which XP Mode is based) could run a virtual XP box perfectly easily on hardware without virtualisation features (Intel VT/AMD-V).

So there's no reason it should be impossible, and MS really need to make XP Mode work: many enterprises aren't using Vista because of app incompatibility, especially dreadful web-based apps that rely on IE6 (unavailable on Vista). If XP Mode and IE6 are not widely available, Windows 7 will see the same sluggish corporate uptake.

Still, at least this should stop Intel pointlessly stripping out the VT feature on its cheaper chips. It's not as if it saves them any die area to speak of; it's primarily an artificial price differentiator.

They don't need VT features to emulate a pc. Using VT is just an easy way od doing emulation.

VirtualPC and Virtual Server run fine.

If VT is present they run better.

So Microsoft has the means to make XPM work on the chips missing VT features.

In most cases the cpu is fine but the bios fails to enable the features. And mobo makers are too lazy to update the bios (i have this problem with my mobo)

How is this news at all? It has been commonplace since the launch of the Core 2 line not to include VT in low-end processors. Clearly most people didn't think it was important then, and I bet most of them still won't now. If you're a business who doesn't have an upgrade budget at the moment, well then I guess right about now you're hoping you had a little forethought in your purchasing decisions. Other than that...nothing to see here folks, move along.

Sounds like yet more good news for AMD.