Comments

1. italiasw

   
   Posted on: February 23, 2007 at 10:11PM  

   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
2. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: February 23, 2007 at 11:42PM  

   On the download page for Virtual PC 2007, it specifically says which SKU's of Windows Vista it supports: Business; Enterprise; and Ultimate.

   Also: when installing on a unsupported SKU like Home Premium, you will get a warning letting you know you are attempting to install on a unsupported SKU. See screenshot: http://www.mstechtoday.com/images/vpc-warning.jpg

   If you choose to proceed installing on a unsupported SKU, Microsoft or any other software company can't be held accountable. There is enough warnings in place to make you aware that Virtual PC 2007 is not supported on Home Premium. That being said, installing Virtual PC 2007 shouldn't crash your PC causing you to reinstall the OS. You may have other problems going on there.

   In regards to the fact that Virtual PC 2007 does not support installation on Home Premium, I suggest leaving that feedback on Virtual PC Guy's blog:

   http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/
3. acer

   
   Posted on: February 24, 2007 at 8:21AM  

   大家好,我来自中国,希望大家多多关照.
4. acer

   
   Posted on: February 24, 2007 at 8:29AM  

   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.
5. italiasw

   
   Posted on: February 24, 2007 at 4:23PM  

   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.... ;)
6. stephensaw

   
   Posted on: February 25, 2007 at 12:34PM  

   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.
7. dsharp9000

   
   Posted on: February 26, 2007 at 3:28PM  

   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.
8. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: February 26, 2007 at 4:09PM  

   Unfortunately what you are claiming as illegal is no more illegal than Apple not allowing the use of me running OS X in a Virtual PC on Windows Vista.

   Just remember, Microsoft isn't the only company that imposes restrictions in their licensing and EULA in regards to their operating system.
9. dsharp9000

   
   Posted on: February 26, 2007 at 5:40PM  

   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.  
10. Penance

    
    Posted on: February 27, 2007 at 2:53PM  

    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...