No offense but MS hasn't done anything to VPC since acquiring connectix.  VMWare on the other hand, has done exceptionally with the VMWare worstation products.  Their WS6 beta (release version coming in probably 2months) works faster under Vista, more stable, better networking options, support usb2 connectivity, and enhanced P2V (converting ghost images and vhd images to vmware formats),...... etc.

Why bother with VPC7?  Oh, yes you may say VMWare WS costs money.  But there is always VMWare server and Vmware player.......

MS has the opportunity with VPC and they killed it.......

Microsoft this week has released a series of downloads designed to help deploy and manage Windows Vista

Sidebar Geek,

Yes, I am sure VPC2007 is miles ahead of VPC2004.  However, VPC2007 still lacks features that the somewhat recent machines lack, for example, all the current cpus are identified (or emulated as) a P-III machines with the old 8XX series chipsets.  The video card emulated is very outdated.  No USB support.  Poor networking options..... etc.  These cannot happen with mere updates.  It needs fundamental changes in the core.  Now that VPC2007 is out the door, implementing those changes are even more of a really remote possibility.

Vmware WS6 not only has USB support, it also has USB2 support, and your can even attached a usb bluetooth dongle and have it functional.  beat that for a start.  And you can have a virtual network (VLAN) among the machines with the interface itself as a routing adapter.  Let's see VPC2007 implement that.  And virtual machines in WS6 can now be running in the background.  Not going to be possible with the current VPC2007 architecture.

As I said, yes VPC2007 is probably a major upgrade to VPC2004.  But it is miles behind its competitors nowadays.  And I am not even discussing support for other non-MS OSes in a vm........

sal information on off site about virtual ps =(

Hey I've looked over this blog and most of your comments are beyond me in computer speak.  My basic issue with Vista is that it does not support many of my older programs.  I have spoke to people at HP and AutoCad and they do not have patches to allow Vista to operate these programs.

So why should I try and use Vista?  It's just more crap to deal with for the average computer user.  Now my choices for an OS is slim to none.

"My basic issue with Vista is that it does not support many of my older programs." HP and Autodesk have had more than enough time to fix compatibility issues. I would get on their cases and not Microsofts. The media loves to bash Microsoft and blame them for everything.

marshall: To each his own.  I've tried VMWare's free server offering and I prefer Virtual PC.

1) VMWare installs two network connections which clutter up my Network Connections control panel.  Virtual PC just adds a protocol to existing connections.

2) I have not had a problem with Virtual PC's networking.  I find the choices it gives me are satisfactory.

3) The sound card emulated is both old enough to work with older DOS games and new enough to have Windows drivers.

4) VMWare has the annoying habit of not allowing you to access the BIOS for the VM to change the boot order, which inexplicably defaults to putting priority to the HD over the CD.  I have to boot the VM 10 times while jamming on the F2 key (or whichever key it is) and maybe I'll make it into the BIOS once.  Maybe.

Admittedly the lack of USB support and the lack of a tabbed interface are both minuses...

...but the conversation is pretty moot since they're both free!  Just try both and use whichever one you like, or even both.

The MAZZTer

You should go sign up for the VM WS6 beta now on going.  I agree, VMWare installs a few virtual nic into your system but under vista, they can be further grouped into a virtual network so as not to clutter your normal network config.

VPC's soundcard has been a SB16 for ages and I think nothing has changed in VPC2007?  It will really suck with Vista.  VMWare has native x64 drivers for Vista and XP for the sound and supports OpenAL under linux as well.  VPC is no where close.

I never had any trouble going into the BIOS of the VMs in VM workstation.  Just make sure your keyboard and mouse focus in in the VM by clicking on the VM screen as soon as you start and press whatever key to go into bios.

No USB support is a HUGE minus.  For example, how do you test BT in VPC if you cannot connect a USB BT dongle?  How do you test all sorts of external hardwares?

VPC2007 is nice but only for a toy.....

I still don't understand why Virtual PC 2007 isn't Windows Vista Home Premium compatible.

I tried VMWARE 6 beta and it's ok with Vista Home Premium, i tried Virtual PC 2007 and..... i needed to reinstall the whole OS. OS Crashed and i didn't solve the problem, even in safe mode...

I hope that Windows Vista Home Premium will be one of the next supported Vista Versions....

There are so much users like me that need IE6 to test their css and templates...

Best Regards, Matteo - www.italiasw.com

大家好,我来自中国,希望大家多多关照.

hello,everybaby!i come from Jinan,Shandong P.R.C Of China.i have rich knowtechnigh dezair,but i don not know how to use this space.i hope everybaby can help me.thanks.

Thans for reply.

I know that installing Virtual PC 2007 on a unsupported SKU like Home Premium gives you enough warnings saying that your OS is unsupported :)

I tried Virtual PC 2007 on my home PC and i can swear that my PC was stable since i tried to install it.... (Ram, HD and processor are perfect and worked well with Windows XP..)

I know too that supporting tablet pc and not SKU like Home Premium it's a joke: tablet pc (99%) have so poor performances that Virtualization becomes almost impossible or with poor performances.... ;)

Ran VPC 2004 on Vista before, although did not support Aero, but 2GB of RAM did not make me 'happy' in assigning the RAM to my VPC's OS, which I then setup VS.NET on my XP inside VPC, it does not responding always, unless I keep focusing on the VPC.

I had recently posted this concern in another area of the microsoft site; however, now that there is a specific blog section related to virtual pc, I felt this concern should be posted here.  There has also been new information that has come to me related to this concern so I have included it here.     The following are my concerns:  

I recently just bought two new computers with a free upgrade path to the home version of vista;however, I just learned that I cannot use the home versions of vista to run in a vitual environment unless I buy the most expensive version (the business edition) for each computer. I do not have the financial resources to upgrade to the most expensive vista product.

I cannot run vista as a host as much of the software I use will not work or would be severly hindered by vista (I perform high volume scanning and ocr). Some people have just said --- well just dont use vista --- problem is that I need to begin to learn and test how certain applications intereact with vista as some of my customers will be going to vista independent of my views. However, I cant use vista in a vm per microsoft eula agreement. This makes my free upgrade to vista completely invalid and on top of that I have to buy the most expensive version of vista for each of the two computers. For those of you saying that the business version is slightly cheaper than most expensive --- to me its the same as it is only "slightly cheaper" than the most expensive- further, I should not have to buy any version --- I should be able to use the version that came with my two computers on a vm.

Further complicating matters is that the eula states "After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from" thus making a dual boot system illegal under the eula agreement. This would also not allow me to go back to xp in event I decided to "try vista" as a host just to see if it might work with some of my software.  A dual boot system is also not an option for me as it wastes computer resources and I sometimes need to undo drives when testing applications in the vista environment.

Microsoft also has eliminated using any protected content when using vista in a vm. While not allowing the use of protected content on a vm may seem harmless, the result is not, as it gives microsoft a complete monopoly in the protected content market - unless you have vista as your host operating system - you cant view protected content. Further, the limitations of not having access to protected content applies to software and not just movies (it appears to me that digitally signed documents would not be able to be used (amongst other thinks) -- this could effect my business as perform document manages services). Further, I am not allowed to use bit locker drive encryption when using a vm --- this poses a security threat. I do not believe it is appropriate for microsoft not to allow me to secure my data using encryption software such as bit locker just because i'm using a vm. Third Party encryption software might be an alternative but currently does not exist for vista (true crypt will not currently work in vista); - further what about if some my customers require bit locker to secure there data for security reasons.

Microsoft advertises on its website the cost savings and benefits of using virtual machines when transitioning to a new operating system environments. In this blog microsoft states "Virtual PC 2007 can be a huge asset to business users.  Many businesses have custom applications that are designed to run in a specific environment, and upgrading a PC to Windows Vista may break those custom applications.  With VPC2007, business users can enjoy the upgrade to Windows Vista without to having to give up access to those custom or proprietary applications.  Instead, custom apps are accessible in their native (albeit virtual) environment, exactly as you remember them" - end quote.   These benefits and costs savings are equally applicable to the small guy who may be using the less expensive home versions for business.  Further, microsoft fails to state that there are many applications for home use that vista may also "break".  

There are also benefits of using virtual machines that can benefit the tech savvy home user. For example, I use virtual machines to surf the internet as it provides a secondary means of protecting my host computer from virus's, spyware, etc --- Microsoft has now eliminated my most cost effective options of ensuring my computer is cleaned of internet threats.

This requirement is also unprecedented in that it will require existing mac and linux users to buy the most expensive; and even for those that can afford it, there are limitations which might severly hinder or stop its usefulness in a virtual machine; thereby forcing them to use vista as a host should these users need access to ms applications.  

It should also be of concern that microsoft is placing limitations on any third party virtualization software (ie: vmware, parrells, etc).  The result of these limitations could put competitive third party virtualization companies out of business leaving microsoft with yet another monopoly further restricting consumers choice.   Examples of these limitations can be found here:

http://www.vmware.com/solutions/whitepapers/msoft_licensing_wp.html  

I think that the current policy of imposing high cost and limitations for use of vista on a vm is illegal as it only serves to further reduce or eliminate all consumer alternatives thereby giving microsoft a complete monopoly in the operating system and protected content market. It would also seem to me that this policy violates fair use laws.

sidebar,

I hear what you are saying; but apple does not control the pc market --- microsoft does --- users of microsoft dont have to access apple applications.  However, many apple and linux users are required to have access to ms applications so as to have some type of interoperability between systems.  The current policy of microsoft eliminates the use of any alternative os (through high cost and limitations) thereby forcing users to use vista as the host.  Apple's policy does not result in apple having a monopoly; however, microsofts policy further reduces users alternatives thereby increasing microsofts monopoly. Apple's policy does not have this type of anticompetitive impact on the market.      Further, your comment does not answer the question as to why microsoft is penalizing those not using vista as a host.  

Can you please explain this piece below. I use VPC for development purposes primarily however, I also  use it at home for the purpose stated below. What did 2007 break in this regards?

....For example, I use virtual machines to surf the internet as it provides a secondary means of protecting my host computer from virus's, spyware, etc --- Microsoft has now eliminated my most cost effective options of ensuring my computer is cleaned of internet threats...

hai guys i have ma suse linux live cd(which i can easily run it (bootable) from dos) but the problem is i tried 2 get it 2 work on virtual pc 2007 ,,, it loads and evrything but interface doesnt start y do u think da problem is so:

my system: vista ultimate

3400 ht intelp4 intel mb 1gb ram 256video card

btw all drivers are digitaly signed and evrythin is workin as cool as it should b (just like da adrenaline stimulator...ned 4 speed most wanted) so i dnt thin it has anythin 2 do with drivers

Sidebar Geek and dsharp9000 wouldnt it be great if Apple did allow OSX on a standard PC.  Then we all wouldnt be forced to buy their expensive pretty boxes.  Sure Apple makes nice hardware, but it would be nice to have OSX on a home built machine.  The competition would improve Vista and OSX, as people could make comparisions on identical home built harware.

Also maybe some of the license terms in Vista are anticompetitive, if thats the case then Microsoft will get sued at some point by vmware, parrells or whoever else thinks this is the case.  That company can stop selling products and sue for damages, or sell their products with features that may infringe on a Microsoft EULA telling consumers that they will accept liability for license violations and eventually everything will be settled by the mature people who settle these things and the lawyers will be richer.

In any event best to download Virtual PC 2007 now before any legal issues form, while it is free and enjoy it.

The way the industry is headed, virtualisation is the future and thus EULA's will change as companies decide how to word their agreements so as to give consumers fair rights, businesses fair rights, while protecting their own software and not infringing the rights of the competition.  Sounds like a hard job writing an EULA, bet it pays well, since its really the agreement that ultimately protects your bottom line as a software company.

I just started using Vista Home Premium on my laptop. Still working my way through all the Vista features. One thing I have tried is installing Virtual PC 2007 then creating a VM for Server 2003. Everything seemed to work well, but I can get the VP/Srvr to connect to the network. I  understand VP 2007 is not "officially" supported on Vista Home Premium, but I cannot believe I got this far to be foiled. Any help would be appreciated.

newsscientist,

Unsure what you mean "wouldnt it be great if apple did allow osx on a standard Pc. Then we wouldnt be  "forced" to by their expensive pretty boxes".  

I can only assume that you mean that apple is not making there operating system available to pc's so microsoft has every right to also "force" apple users to also use windows as their host", thereby, eliminating apple.

You also state maybe the license terms in vista are anticompetitive and thus microsoft will be sued in court.  

First, as to you saying apple not "forcing" us to buy there expensive alternative, microsoft is "forcing" us to buy there "expensive" alternative and eliminating apple as an option as a host.  Further, your comment does not address linux users who commonly use vm's to run windows applications so as to ensure interoperability between systems.  Now linux users will be "forced" also to use windows as there host.   Essentially, every pc that exist in the future will be "forced" to have windows as its host operating system --- to me, something is wrong with that.

Second, I hope it does not come down to a court thing as we all saw what happened with netscape at it was essentially eliminated and nothing happened to microsoft other than "explorer" became a required part of the operating system according to microsoft --- something i still question and still something I wish they would seperate from the operating system as I think it creates a bunch of security problems.  

I agree with you that virtualization is the future; however, am concerned that microsoft's current policy is tied into other concerns with the protected content industry (mpaa) that make it an impossibility for virtualization to continue to exist in the present sense.  There was no reason to place high costs and limitations for use of vista other than to eliminate all compitition or to address the content providers concern -- which has the same effect of eliminating all compitition.  There should be concern that mpaa is now dictating what technologies can or cannot exist only on basis that the technology represents a mere threat to protected content even though such technology really has nothing to do with the protection of content.

P. S. Dare2try --- love your name as you are using vista home premium --- my concern is that in future somehow my "vista home premium in a vm" could suddenly be disabled through software by microsoft as it would be there right to do so under license agreement.    

Dare2try-

misread your comment --- believe you are trying to run server 2003 in a vm using vista home premium as a host --- thought you were trying to run vista home premium in vm ----unsure as to support issue with server 2003 in vm under vista home premium???? --- perhaps nick can help with this

I would very much appreciate it if Microsoft could explain why there is no USB support in Virtual PC 2007. I hadn't bothered reading the comments on this post and have had no real reason to join in until today; I just spent almost 2 hours installing XP to virtual PC to use a USB device that isn't yet supported on Vista, then I discovered that USB doesn't work. I wish I'd known that before I started!!

I'm off to try VMWare....

Hey paulfp:  I'd suggest you pose this question to Ben Armstrong on his blog, found at http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/ -- he ought to be able to provide a better answer than I could.

when I try to install virtual PC on my vista business 64bit, it has an error saying unsupported 16bit installer?????, I have download the 64 bit version. any one know what is going on?

Virtual PC 2007 added a new sound system specifically for using Vista as a guest and host OS . But when

I've always used Virtual PC on my previous windows versions, but as you said, when I've installed virtual PC 2004 on Vista there was some problems appeared. I haven't jet obtained virtual PC 2007 but it seems very useful, so I'm going to download right now.

Everybody needs to realize that intellectual property law doesn't come from an implicit divine right to having a monopoly over things based on your own ideas.  Instead, it is a social device used to encourage innovation and progress. The justification goes like this: "If the writers of books could not be paid for the fruits of their efforts, there would be no writers of books."

So, in an effort to see that the innovators, inventors, and tinkerers get rewarded for their efforts, the governments of several countries have agreed to sanctioning each of them a monopoly. Often we must succumb to one evil in order to overcome another. That is what is going on here. Which of the two is the greater evil, shall be determined by us, the general populace of the world.

From the looks of this thread, I think the general populace is beginning to question the wisdom of granting monopolies for the sake of "encouraging innovation."

I am not quite sure if any of you guys tried to install a W2K pro as a guest onto a Vista Business as host. I always got "Invalid Product Key" error at stage to enter those 25 characters.  I know the key is valid, it's a legal copy and I could install it onto an XP pro as host. There is no problem to install XP as guest, but for W2K, it simply not working. Any suggestion?

Hey Gustav2020:  technical questions of this type are best directed to the Microsoft public newsgroups, as that's the best place for you to seek product support outside of calling our Support team directly:  http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

I use VPC for development purposes primarily however, also I use it at home for the purpose stated below. What did 2007 break in this regards?

-----------

http://www.dl4all.com

Hey hrdn:  I'm thinking you'll want to check out the white paper located here for details:  http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/appcompat.mspx.

My apologies in advance if this is not the place to post this question. I would greatly appreciate a redirect if that's the case.

I'm a VirtualPC 7.0.1 for Mac user (Windows 2000 Professional), running on a PowerMac G5 DP 2.5GHz (OS X 10.4.10). As far as I have been able to tell, VirtualPC for Mac does not support Vista, so there is no upgrade path to Vista within VirtualPC for Mac. Additionally, it appears that I'm locked out of an upgrade path on my MacBook Pro (Intel Core 2 Duo) because Virtual PC for Mac is not supported on that hardware.

My question is this: Is there any other upgrade path from my install of Windows 2000 Professional to Vista if I run alternative virtualization software...say, Parallels Desktop (or VMware Fusion on a MacBook Pro w/Intel processor, which I also own)?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

Vito

Hey fizzicist:  you might check out Apple's Boot Camp, which will allow you to actually install Windows Vista on Macs with Intel processors, thus getting around the need for any virtualization software.

Hi,

I have installed Windows Vista Home Premium Edition. I want to run Windows XP on it using Virtual PC 2007. Do I have to install full pack of XP, or update version could do the job?

Thanks

Hi,

I tried to run 98 and XP in virtual PC and they keep coming up with the same error:

first it loads saying:

client MAC ADDR: [numbers] GUID: [more numbers]

DHCP..-

then after a while it comes up with a boot error message:

Reboot and Select proper Boot device

or Insert Boot Media in selected Boot device_

do you have any solutions?

I need help! Why would my Windows 2003 Server running in V. PC 2007 on a Windows Vista Ultimate ot allow Internet access???

I ran VPC 2007 using Home Premium as the host and had no problems until I tried to update my XP install. The only thing that happened was a freeze, I just rebooted opened my VM and turned off auto update (which sucks because Having an up to date XP SP2 or 3 would really let me examine apps and tools realtime) as of now I just uninstalled VPC 2007 and am waiting for someone like linux to create their own lol, they do everything nowadays, other than the no updates I had no problem using the VM in Home. Too bad I couldn't download an ISO of all the current MS updates then install manually.

Apple has good reason not to allow OSX on other hardware, The reason Apple manages to make their software run so well and be optimized is they control the hardware. Simply put OSX theoretically would not run as well on other hardware and could cause system instability.

As far as VM goes I was really hoping XEN would emerge as a winner on the linux platform, but it appears that this will not be the case. But VM is the future and the number of virtualization offerings just shows what a competitive market this will end up being. The one on top will be the first to offer really excellent 3D performance in a VM.