So there’s going to be an XP mode in Windows 7. What does that mean? For users of Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate – sorry, lower-end users! – you will get a full copy of Windows XP that will run under a virtual processor. However, instead of creating a new desktop environment, the XP mode will bring the application up as a window inside Windows 7. This means you can run applications like IE 6 “natively” without booting a virtual machine.
The virtual machine will also offer a desktop interface but applications you install under XP will show up in the Windows 7 start menu, an interesting move. The XP app will, in short, appear as a Windows 7 app with a bit more loading.
Why is this happening? Mostly because Vista has long been seen as a plaything and not a serious option for IT departments. By adding an XP mode the final argument – “It’s not XP!” – against Windows 7 is dead. I’ve played with Wn7 and am looking forward to it and, as a former IT guy, I can state unequivocally that this is a big deal.
Virtual machine software has been around for years. As a current IT guy, I can say that running Windows XP in a virtualized environment is not an IT guys wet dream. It’s almost a living hell trying to support Internet Explorer 6 on all the web applications I create.
To test on Internet Explorer 6, I’ve been using Linux with a virtualized Windows client through VirtualBox (http://www.virtualbox.org).
Why not just use ies4linux for ie6 and ie7? Works perfectly fine for testing websites.
This inclusion implies that MS are planning on dropping the shackle of backwards compatibility which would free them to make an OS that works properly rather than building from a base of a single-user OS that’s had networking bolted on the side.
They might not be free of it entirely this generation, but the next might be as major a shift as OS9 to OSX was and could eventually see the first new* OS in mainstream markets since, well, Unix.
“eventually see the first new* OS in mainstream markets since, well, Unix.”
Why not just base the next version of Windows—Windows Eight—on Unix?
Oh, on an entirely unrelated note, I would definitely buy a “My Homework” edition of “Windows Eight” as that would make it “Windows Eight My Homework”.
haha
Just wondering if you guys have tested USB and other hardware interoperabilty? It never works well previous Virtual windows apps…just wondering if you guys have had a look yet.
I catch ANYONE intentionally running IE6, for any reason, by any method, I will kick that ass.
What a stupid idea, as far as IE6 is concerned.
i intentionally run IE6 because i don’t want to waste the few megabytes of space to upgrade when i never use IE in the first place because firefox rules
@keikii,
Nooo… you are mistaken. Safari is currently ruling the browsers’ wars by any benchmarking standards. Why would anyone use a browser that doesn’t embrace open standards?
To the rest: wake up! Why are we talking about running an OS from 2003?! The fact that W7 can’t act as a stand-alone OS should be your first clue.
Hint: “Hello, I’m a Mac…”
I honestly can’t stand Safari. I tried to, when i first got my mac (i keep both a mac and a PC, and i would have a linux machine if my old dell laptop still worked) but i just couldn’t do it. I went and downloaded Firefox within two days of having my mac. And i have no clue what you mean by open standards, but i can’t see safari having them.
we are still running an OS from 2003 because it works. that and the fact that we have grown used to it. why should we move to a system that doesn’t work? and since we know how to work and how to make XP work, we’ll continue to use it.
I really have to say that you are missing the point since Apple’s big selling point when they switchedthat got tons of people to switch was that it could run windows XP. The difference is that with Windows 7 business class you get it for free.
We’re still talking about it because of the success it has been. Companies have Windows XP software and need to continue using it.
It’s a good sign that W7 is not going to support everything natively because it suggests they’re getting rid of legacy code, which usually results in huge improvements but obviously ends up with less compatibility with older software.
To suggest everyone in the business sector switch to OS X just because W7 is not supporting these apps natively is absolutely insane and shows that you have no idea what the reasoning behind this is.
Hint: hello, you’re an idiot. Enjoy your Mac fanboy.
Wow, that is MAJOR cool dude!
RT
http://www.anonymity.es.tc
using internet explorer 6 was a bad example, how about something like Quickbooks which wasn’t supported on Vista for almost a year after it’s release?
Yep, that’s a great point. Quickbooks is not alone in its inability to run right on the new OS. Screw IE6.
“using internet explorer 6 was a bad example”
Not for a web developer who needs to check ie6 support regularly during coding.
web devs should seriously move away from ie6. the more sites not supporting it the more people will switch.
That and Microsoft forcing people to update to ie7 or ie8 with obnoxious popups in ie6. No one should be using ie6 when there are 2 versions above it that are much better by comparison.
Come on, if IE 8 is in Windows 7, why would anyone care to open IE 6 in that “XP Mode”? If one wants to do that, MS has failed miserably with IE 8.
You guys seriously don’t understand the world of web development, the companies that make the websites don’t get to dictate what they support, the people who pay them to develop solutions are who get to dictate what we develop for, and IE 6 is still heavily used in corporate enviroments. Just because you at home, or in your small business office upgrade, doesn’t mean large corporations IT staff is willing to upgrade to somethign they’re not familiar with. You do realize banks still use mainframes that don’t support encryption, and transmit all data on their lans in plaintext? Why would we even care about a browser when we have other woes like that rampant in IT?
Well, it’s a moot point for my own website, which is scripted to block IE of any flavor.
Don’t like it? Use a damned standards compliant web browser. Every Acid test IE goes through fails miserably. I’d rather develop for standards, not for the monopoly dujour. Don’t like it? Tough. It’s typical Microsoft EEE.
I don’t understand, why would anyone still support IE6 compatibility? Just block them.
Why bother with this crap?
Microsoft already offers this for free so that web developers can check IE6.
But I guess this one won’t expire and require reinstallation, so that’s a plus.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=21eabb90-958f-4b64-b5f1-73d0a413c8ef&displaylang=en
# IE6-XPSP3.exe contains a Windows XP SP3 with IE6 VHD file. Expires April 30, 2009
# IE7-XPSP3.exe contains a Windows XP SP3 with IE7 VHD file. Expires April 30, 2009
# IE8-XPSP3.exe contains a Windows XP SP3 with IE8 VHD file. Expires April 30, 2009
# IE7-VIS1.exe+IE7-VIS2.rar+IE7-VIS3.rar contain a Vista Image with IE7 VHD file. Expires 120 days after first run.
Jeez, with all the bitching about app compatibility heard when Vista came out I would think people would be thankful for this awesome feature included in Windows 7.
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. But its great for people who still want to run older apps that don’t work anymore. I went to try and install an older game I like to play on my new Vista machine a few weeks ago, and it didn’t work. I’m psyched to know I’ll be able to go back and play older games on Windows 7. Kudos to Microsoft on this one.
Yes, I agree. When Vista came out, it was a huge debacle because of this. For 10 years, your software worked, then it didn’t.
The legacy support will hopefully convince us to join on with Windows 7, instead of looking at learning linux. Because, our users won’t want to switch from Microsoft. I don’t know what they were thinking by releasing something so different, like Vista.
Because Vista works much better than XP, if you give it another chance instead of bashing it. Seriously, I was saying the same things you were until I gave it another shot. Now I love it.
Give it another shot. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Vista is very solid now I have to concur. Honestly the loudest gripes about Vista always seem to come from Linux users ( Mac Users are pretty obnoxious also ) but logically if you aren’t a Vista user how do you know how crappy it is. I’m not knocking Linux or OSX. I also think it is strange for someone who doesn’t use linux or osx to complain so much. I think everyone loses perspective when they feel something threatens something they hold dear.
I also concur. I remember how much everyone hated XP when it launched and wanted to stick with 98 SE, then SP2 changed it all, slowly. The only difference is in the same time it took people to except XP SP2, Microsoft launched a whole new OS after Vista SP2. In reality, Vista SP2 is very solid and on my higher end machine I love it. My laptops however have gone on to Win7. I’ll eventually switch to Win7 on my desktop too, but honestly, I’m in no rush. Vista runs great on it and I’m not ready to toss VPC2007 or Dreamscene yet.
I will however also concur, with the BC capability I’ve noticed in Win7, you can poke XP with a fork, it’s dead. There’s not a piece of hardware in my house I’d insult by putting XP back on it now.
So why bother with Windows 7 at all ?
Just run XP, or much better 99se.
Because it works a thousand times better. I have been running the same installation for almost a year, and it has never slowed down or crashed. It blows Mac and Linux out of the water, and the only things that don’t work on it are outdated applications no one wants to update. Run Firefox on 7, and forget XP or IE ever existed. It’s time that dodo followed Netscape, AOL, et al.
I have been using Windows 7 as my main OSfor somewhere around a year now also. It blew my mind that I was using Pre Beta Software for my main machine with very few problems. Windows 7 will completely change the game. Microsoft understands that they could loose control and have acted accordingly. Also Windows 7 really is a streamlined and fine tuned version of Vista. Vista suffered some serious issues, alot that stemmed from 3rd party support, that were fixed and Vista has been pretty solid for a while. All of the repairs made Windows 7’s development quick. it makes me feel great to see MS get back on the ball.
This is bad ass.
For any program that just doesn’t want to work in Windows 7 environment that’s old…you can simply install it in XP Mode. That’s pretty bad ass. And you don’t need to install/boot a virtual OS app to do so since it’s already built into Windows 7. I like this idea.
(Thumbs up)
Unfortunately the “fortune 500″ company that I work for uses legacy applications like crazy. So keeping IE6 is a must. So I like having the flexibility of running XP for the crap that we have to support, while still being able to join the tech world of 2009
They mentioned this for being able to use onlive within the browser also http://onlivedream.com/?p=274
Running XP now? Why change?
Congrats on getting out of IT. Now THAT’s the IT guy’s wet dream.
Soon to be known as the Achille’s heel of 7, btw.
Come on you can’t expect companies to through away all its “legacy” application just for a an OS change. More over I have software for IBM mainframe development which was very expensive and it can’t be replace at this time, because the vendor isn’t capable. Should I stop work now, because of an OS change?
Vista gave us hard time, in order to install it through the network, because it’s incredible big XP was 700 MB inclusive applications, Vista 4 GB without application.
That is all gimmick. I can tell you I run a Linux and an OS/2 smoothly on an Pentium 3! Where is the progress in Vista? Is slowness the advantage?
Just look to Microsoft development like .net etc – it is ridiculous and does it get better and faster applications? No, but you get more trouble. Java, PHP, AJAX and the like are still the way to go. Corporate America still does Cobol, CICS, REXX and other stuff. Guess what? They still make more money than companies who use “advanced” technologies such as from MS or Oracle. Why? Ever tried to handle 1 Petabyte data with SQL Server or Oracle? I remember when it took us 10 hours to load 1 Gigabyte of data in an MS-OO Environment.
This is an awesome feature. I basically do this now with my Vista PC at work. I use virtual XP to run SMS because the version we use is not supported under Vista. Since I only use the virtual XP copy for one application, its great. I’m sure it would be a pain to try and use it for multiple applications.
So, if I want to run Windows 7 at 64-bit, will I be running “Virtual XP Mode” in 32-bit or 64bit?
I’m still not sure I get why this is so “awesome” or “great”. Why not just run the real thing (Windows XP) and get every bit of performance instead of wasting your resources (RAM, CPU, etc.)? I’m not sure that I’m impressed enough with Windows 7 to think it’ll be a worthwhile upgrade (even with this) if what your business or you personally need to run a legacy app is Windows XP. What’s the advantage to this? Will MS keep the virtualized XP patched, secure and supported? Will XP compatible hardware drivers work, if you install them? If they do, wouldn’t that also open up Windows 7 to the same rootkits that effected Windows XP? I’m just having a hard time understanding the true advantage here.
I was thrown of by the IE6 example at first, too. The thing is, there are a lot of applications, like custom made software that I have to use from time to time, which can’t run in Vista, mostly because the company who owns the software is to small to rewrite their software each time a new OS comes out. So I’m stuck with XP.
On the other hand, larger companies will start writing software that doesn’t support XP anymore, sooner or later.
If you need or want to use current software, you need a current OS, but not all software will run on this new OS, at least not for the first one or two years after the release.
So I think this is a great feature, which solves one of the three major problems I have with a new OS (the other ones being higher hardware requirements and having to adjust to a new interface)
Honestly, I don’t think this will open Win7 up to the same rootkits/viruses/etc that affected XP. This XP will be in a virtual environment, so most likely using a virtual HDD file as well… if it gets infected it will only infect the virtual machine, not the host OS. I might be way off base since I’m not 100% sure on how this is being implemented, but I guess we’ll see.
One of the reasons this could be truly great is also that this isn’t specifically just a virtual machine for XP. I haven’t gotten a copy of it to work with yet but apparently you can load other OS in the Virtual PC environment. That could be huge if it could allow you to access Unix, Linux, Old MS OSes etc. I’ve only heard about this recently and I imagine that features might be available with XP that aren’t usable with other oses but if MS could leverage this with businesses it could be a real boon.
This is good for me for one reason, and one reason only.
WORMS ARMAGEDDON.
Oh and of course all the other games which wont run on vista.
This mode is certainly hitting the right kind of newslines! Seems like MS has finally got something right after XP. Can’t wait to get this up and running! I am sure I will be able to persuade some of my customers to at least consider buying a laptop with Windows 7 on it when it launches!
Why the hell is everyone talking about Vista? This article has nothing to do with Vista. I am running W7 RC1 (Build 7100) and it, simply, kicks ass. I will be BUYING W7 when it comes out. If you haven’t tried the release candidate yet, do it. Like the other guy said, give it another shot. You’ll be pleasantly surprised.
They ended the releases a couple of months ago, for
God knows what reason. By the time I got people into the idea, Microsoft turned into a pumpkin and became Microsoft again…
Companies might as well just stick with XP for another decade, seeing as they are just now getting rid of Win NT. Why corporations use propriatary OS (or software for that matter) is beyond me. Linux will never find a home in the consumer market, why not put it in business where it’s advantages can be felt?
Regrettably my company also has a WinNT server we will be decommissioning whenever we can find the time. When really old outdated tech still works it’s hard to justify the spending to replace it sometimes. That’s just sad.
I and my wife have both used Linux.
You are mistaken … there is DEFINITELY room for Linux in the home.
We also use Vista (she glares at it, I give it life support) and XP (which I think is one of the very few OS’s that MSFT has gotten right, the others being MS-DOS 3.x and 5.x and Win 98 SE).
I spend most of my time in Ubuntu Linux. I like that it AND its application programs (office, graphics, multi-media and so on) automatically offer both security and feature upgrades. Moreover, if I am involved in something and need a software function not already present on my computer, I can download it in just a few minutes and get back to work almost immediately.
The problem with Linux on the desktop that I have always had is the lack of adherence to basic ideas that users have had as the basis of the computer user experience. Things like standardization of installers that you double click the file and get a wizard that walks you through setting up an app, and being able to completely configure your system without interacting with the CLI. Honestly, the moment a user has to use the CLI all the logic and help files are out the window. Every lay person i’ve met that used linux was fine until they want to use an app that wasn’t installed. The moment you tell someone to goto CLI and type SUDO aptget etc… they are done with linux. Until Linux developers decide to make the CLI completely optional like OSX, or Windows then Linux and will never become a desktop OS no matter how great it is for the knowledgeable computer user.
I agree stick with XP for another decade possibly by then they (MS) will have worked out all the bugs from W7 or there will be 10 more MS OS’s on the market. MS does not fix problems they just rename the old one and put a new face on it and resell the OS under the new name. Every time you turn around MS is putting out another OS so they (MS) can gank you for another $100.00 – $400.00 dollars.
People need to really start considering Linux as viable OS that is and has always been more stable than MS.
I’m sorry but Vista fixed alot of problems in XP, just like Win 7 fixes a ton of problems in Vista. Just take a look at a release log for a version of ubuntu and see how many bugs get fixed. Linux is very stable, but it has just as many (but different) problems as MS OSes.
Linux is open source, open source scares the crap out of excutives who know little about security. Marketing and name brand will always rule the business world, so most companies will most likely stick with Microsoft OS. As far as putting out more OS, I think Mac has the market on that, and more so than none, a new Mac OS means you need to buy a whole new Mac.
I’m coursious, if I have a Linux server setup and it crashes, what is the company’s tech support call center like?
They are probably very similar to the tech support specialists at cardinal health’s ‘technical support center’, who on a regular basis respond to our calls from the to them for help and/or support with “hold on, let me Google that and call you back…”
Does this mean I can install my printer under virtual xp?
I am in the track of Anti-IE6 Campaign.
My Question is….
Why one need to use an application that is not all safe to use and has some better updates like IE7, IE8 etc., with the latest MS-OS version ?
- Robin
I tried to install Windows 7 RC on my home computer running XP Pro using an old EIDE 40 Gig hard drive I had laying around (not willing to waste a good hard drive for windows 7 testing), but it would not finish installing. It got to setting up registry and then said it had and error and to restart to try again. It wouldn’t ever finish installing Windows 7. It may be that old hard drive doesn’t work right anymore, but it may also be that my computer isn’t good enough for Windows 7. At any rate I love my computer it does everything I ever want to do with no problems, so i will be using XP Pro until I build a new computer (which will not happen in the next 2-3 years at least). I love XP Pro and I don’t see the point in spending money I dont have to waste on a new OS when I have one that works already. my system is:
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe Mobo
AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 OC to 2.9 Ghz (stable with Prime95 for 48 hour test)
4 Gigs of Corsair RAM in dual channel
750 GM SATA Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM Hard drive
ATI Radon 4850 OC’d
Whoop-de-do. Now give me a real reason why Windows 7 is any good? (I tried the RC, and I still see nothing there that’s give Linux a run for its money, above or below the hood.)
Oh, and any serious IT guy wouldn’t waste time with Windows. Unless they’re one of those A+tards.
Give me a good reason aside from “games” that I should consider Windows over Linux. (And I’m a hardcore power user, so you’ll have to dig deep to find anything Windows is better than Linux at doing, of which I doubt there is anything.)
Time for the network engineers point of view from the laptop…
XP Pro rocks. Serial cable support means no dicking around with USB adapters and then restarting Vista to release unsigned drivers to the kernel. Vista doesn’t have hyper terminal installed by default and installed third party terminal emulators regularly freeze up, or start behaving in a way that makes them unusable, usually requiring a reboot of the machine. I have seen this behaviour repeated on over 50 Vista machines so far and fully expect to see it over and over again. XP Pro machines NEVER have these issues.
As for IE6 Vs IE7/8 etc, most of the corporates I work for (in the UK, and all of them top 500 companies) use IE6 and have NO plans to move to IE7 or 8 due to very real application and security concerns which proper patching of IE6 sems to resolve.
I am going to try Windows 7 as it seems from the develpement blogs I read that it has serial port support as a part of the XP virtual machine. I can test it on my laptop as it has a serial port that is so necessary for us networking and comms guys. I tried Linux once… my Linux mad friend talking me through the driver install for the serial port/USB converter said it would take 8 hours to compile and be ready. Now as a Cisco engineer I like a CLI, but that hardly seems like the behaviour of an advanced, viable operating system…
Well, this is good news for all those folks who are reluctant to upgrade because of some software they may have. I know many parents will be happy to know they will be able to runs this kids jumpstart games without a hitch.
Does this mean I can install my printer under virtual xp?
Virtual desktops aren’t that exciting, and it’s sad that there are things that XP can do that Windows 7 can’t, but it is good that they realized the need and did something about it.
This is so you can run old programs that are broken because old programming API’s and functions aren’t used or are obselete. Alot of the posts here were about old web apps that only work in IE6. That is why this exists. It is not because Windows 7 can’t do things that XP can. it is all about old stuff.
Virtual PC… nice to have, but not THAT exciting, to my mind… plenty of people already do it.
Just in time! OS-X is getting rid of Classic, and I was looking to get my virtual pc fix. Seriously, I’ll miss the strange, smiling Mac face from OS-9.
Im getting a laptop this weekend and I have found a way to convert xp to windows 7 without losing all of your info and you can switch back and forth with out using the virtual side
Nelson,
To get your questions answered on the most common challenges around application compatibility when coming from a legacy operating system, why changes were made along the way, compatibility technologies inside the OS and methods for getting incompatible applications to run on Windows 7, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/yfa2yyz
Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team