F
fsviatko
I am using windows 7 ultimate, to run software I had on my XP machine
do I have to install the windows XP mode.
Frank
do I have to install the windows XP mode.
Frank
B
BillW50
In
have read and heard about XP Mode, it isn't a very good emulation of XP.
So I am curious why some even bother? Or is it more like you want to see
it for yourself? And if so, could you report your findings on it too?
Hi Frank! I dunno, but I do have a question for you. As everything II am using windows 7 ultimate, to run software I had on my XP machine
do I have to install the windows XP mode.
have read and heard about XP Mode, it isn't a very good emulation of XP.
So I am curious why some even bother? Or is it more like you want to see
it for yourself? And if so, could you report your findings on it too?
S
Seth
Depends on the software in question. If 16bit, then 100% yes.I am using windows 7 ultimate, to run software I had on my XP machine
do I have to install the windows XP mode.
S
Seth
How can it not be a good emulation of XP? It is genuine XP.BillW50 said:In
Hi Frank! I dunno, but I do have a question for you. As everything I have
read and heard about XP Mode, it isn't a very good emulation of XP. So I
am curious why some even bother? Or is it more like you want to see it for
yourself? And if so, could you report your findings on it too?
B
BillW50
In
as an emulator. As OS/2 had to stop Windows 3.1 from gaining full
control. And lots of things that ran under Windows 3.1 didn't run well
or not at all under OS/2. And OS/2 used a copy of Windows 3.1 to pull it
off .And IBM had to pay Microsoft for every licensed copy too. Which is
funny in a way, since IBM told Microsoft one low figure, while they
bragged a much higher number to the press. Of course, Microsoft had
taken IBM to court and won. The truth never came out. But Microsoft
collected on the amount that IBM bragged about.
And lots of emulators uses the same code as the original OS anyway. That
is a common practice. I played with emulators over the years and they
are all of the same. Even Commodore emulators steals the original OS to
pull it off. Without stealing the original OS, the job becomes so much
tougher.
Now what I have heard about XP mode (correct me if I am wrong), is that
it runs slower than running XP on the same machine (no surprise to me,
all emulators have the same problem). XP mode is also stuck with some
really odd resolution (that really surprised me and I didn't expect to
hear this). Not all XP drivers work (no surprised to me). Not all XP
software works (no surprise). And not all XP features work (again no
surprise).
So to me, it looks like an emulator, walks like an emulator, and talks
like an emulator. So I don't care what people call it, as I call it an
emulator. ;-)
Okay they said that about IBM's OS/2 Warp too. Although I still saw itSeth said:How can it not be a good emulation of XP? It is genuine XP.
as an emulator. As OS/2 had to stop Windows 3.1 from gaining full
control. And lots of things that ran under Windows 3.1 didn't run well
or not at all under OS/2. And OS/2 used a copy of Windows 3.1 to pull it
off .And IBM had to pay Microsoft for every licensed copy too. Which is
funny in a way, since IBM told Microsoft one low figure, while they
bragged a much higher number to the press. Of course, Microsoft had
taken IBM to court and won. The truth never came out. But Microsoft
collected on the amount that IBM bragged about.
And lots of emulators uses the same code as the original OS anyway. That
is a common practice. I played with emulators over the years and they
are all of the same. Even Commodore emulators steals the original OS to
pull it off. Without stealing the original OS, the job becomes so much
tougher.
Now what I have heard about XP mode (correct me if I am wrong), is that
it runs slower than running XP on the same machine (no surprise to me,
all emulators have the same problem). XP mode is also stuck with some
really odd resolution (that really surprised me and I didn't expect to
hear this). Not all XP drivers work (no surprised to me). Not all XP
software works (no surprise). And not all XP features work (again no
surprise).
So to me, it looks like an emulator, walks like an emulator, and talks
like an emulator. So I don't care what people call it, as I call it an
emulator. ;-)
S
Seth
It's not an emulator. The closest you might come (out of the box) onBillW50 said:In
Okay they said that about IBM's OS/2 Warp too. Although I still saw it as
an emulator. As OS/2 had to stop Windows 3.1 from gaining full control.
And lots of things that ran under Windows 3.1 didn't run well or not at
all under OS/2. And OS/2 used a copy of Windows 3.1 to pull it off .And
IBM had to pay Microsoft for every licensed copy too. Which is funny in a
way, since IBM told Microsoft one low figure, while they bragged a much
higher number to the press. Of course, Microsoft had taken IBM to court
and won. The truth never came out. But Microsoft collected on the amount
that IBM bragged about.
And lots of emulators uses the same code as the original OS anyway. That
is a common practice. I played with emulators over the years and they are
all of the same. Even Commodore emulators steals the original OS to pull
it off. Without stealing the original OS, the job becomes so much tougher.
Now what I have heard about XP mode (correct me if I am wrong), is that it
runs slower than running XP on the same machine (no surprise to me, all
emulators have the same problem). XP mode is also stuck with some really
odd resolution (that really surprised me and I didn't expect to hear
this). Not all XP drivers work (no surprised to me). Not all XP software
works (no surprise). And not all XP features work (again no surprise).
So to me, it looks like an emulator, walks like an emulator, and talks
like an emulator. So I don't care what people call it, as I call it an
emulator. ;-)
Windows 7 to something akin to an emulator would be like parsing a VBS file
through the CSCRIPT engine. XP Mode is "virtualized". It's like running XP
in a VMWare session. TO do that you setup a VMWare environment, create a
virtual machine that actually boots from a real XP CD (or an ISO of a XP)
and you actually install XP into the VM.
XP Mode is just a pre-configured and licensed (the above scenario requires
an XP license, XP Mode on Win7 the license is included at no additional
cost) that ones doesn't have to go through all the steps I mention above.
Yes it runs slower than XP installed on the same bare metal, that's because
now the hardware is essentially running 2 operating systems at once.
So, you can call it an emulator all you want, but you'll be wrong. An
emulator is a different beast entirely. Maybe you can loosely call what a
64b machine does to run 32b code (using WOW64) an emulator. Or what XP32
(and Win7 32) does to run 16 code (again, WOW, which stands for Windows on
Windows), but XP Mode is not an emulator.
What OS/2 did to run Windows application, that was emulation. What Linux
does to run Windows apps (WINE) is emulation.
F
fsviatko
In
Hi Frank! I dunno, but I do have a question for you. As everything I
have read and heard about XP Mode, it isn't a very good emulation of XP.
So I am curious why some even bother? Or is it more like you want to see
it for yourself? And if so, could you report your findings on it too?
Bill I would like to run Photoshop cs2 it won't run on Windows 7.
Bill I would like to run Photoshop cs2 it won't run on Windows 7.
B
BillW50
In
which doesn't. Although I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. As it
might run Photoshop CS2 under XP Mode, but there will be no doubt some
sacrifices.
Well okay. There are a few things I like to run under Windows 7 too,Bill I would like to run Photoshop cs2 it won't run on Windows 7.
which doesn't. Although I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. As it
might run Photoshop CS2 under XP Mode, but there will be no doubt some
sacrifices.
K
KCB
Don't listen to Bill about XP Mode. He is giving you bad information. GoBill I would like to run Photoshop cs2 it won't run on Windows 7.
to this link to learn about it and download it:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx
C
Chris S.
The rest of the world calls it what it is. A Virtual Machine, or just VM.Okay they said that about IBM's OS/2 Warp too. Although I still saw it as
an emulator. As OS/2 had to stop Windows 3.1 from gaining full control.
And lots of things that ran under Windows 3.1 didn't run well or not at
all under OS/2. And OS/2 used a copy of Windows 3.1 to pull it off .And
IBM had to pay Microsoft for every licensed copy too. Which is funny in a
way, since IBM told Microsoft one low figure, while they bragged a much
higher number to the press. Of course, Microsoft had taken IBM to court
and won. The truth never came out. But Microsoft collected on the amount
that IBM bragged about.
And lots of emulators uses the same code as the original OS anyway. That
is a common practice. I played with emulators over the years and they are
all of the same. Even Commodore emulators steals the original OS to pull
it off. Without stealing the original OS, the job becomes so much tougher.
Now what I have heard about XP mode (correct me if I am wrong), is that it
runs slower than running XP on the same machine (no surprise to me, all
emulators have the same problem). XP mode is also stuck with some really
odd resolution (that really surprised me and I didn't expect to hear
this). Not all XP drivers work (no surprised to me). Not all XP software
works (no surprise). And not all XP features work (again no surprise).
So to me, it looks like an emulator, walks like an emulator, and talks
like an emulator. So I don't care what people call it, as I call it an
emulator. ;-)
In this case it IS XP. It does NOT look like, walk like or talk like an
emulator!
Chris
B
BillW50
In
emulating. For example OS/2 Warp. You could buy it with OS/2 and Windows
3.1, or you can buy it without Windows and add your own licensed copy.
Exactly the same thing.
been around since the 70's at least. Heck Microsoft wrote Basic for the
Altair not on a real Altair itself, but on an emulator. This is what
kicked started Microsoft from a nobody into stardom. If it failed, that
could have ended Microsoft future right there.
Windows XP Mode also requires a real XP licensed copy. I see no
difference at all. And call it whatever you want, XP Mode, a virtual
machine, or an emulator. They all do the same thing and works exactly
the same way right down to the machine level. And this stuff has been
around for decades at least.
real licensed copy of Windows (or does it?). And if it doesn't, it was
reversed engineered which is the other way (and much harder) and usually
not as good as using a real copy of the OS (although if done well, it
could pass).
They don't call it an emulator, but that is what it is.Seth said:It's not an emulator.
Many emulators do exactly this. So what is the difference?The closest you might come (out of the box) on
Windows 7 to something akin to an emulator would be like parsing a
VBS file through the CSCRIPT engine. XP Mode is "virtualized". It's
like running XP in a VMWare session. TO do that you setup a VMWare
environment, create a virtual machine that actually boots from a real
XP CD (or an ISO of a XP) and you actually install XP into the VM.
Many emulators also requires a licensed copy of the OS you areXP Mode is just a pre-configured and licensed (the above scenario
requires an XP license, XP Mode on Win7 the license is included at no
additional cost) that ones doesn't have to go through all the steps I
mention above.
emulating. For example OS/2 Warp. You could buy it with OS/2 and Windows
3.1, or you can buy it without Windows and add your own licensed copy.
Exactly the same thing.
That is what emulators do. Run more than one OS at a time.Yes it runs slower than XP installed on the same bare metal, that's
because now the hardware is essentially running 2 operating systems
at once.
I just don't see it that way. Running more than one OS at a time hasSo, you can call it an emulator all you want, but you'll be wrong. An
emulator is a different beast entirely. Maybe you can loosely call
what a 64b machine does to run 32b code (using WOW64) an emulator. Or
what XP32 (and Win7 32) does to run 16 code (again, WOW, which stands
for Windows on Windows), but XP Mode is not an emulator.
been around since the 70's at least. Heck Microsoft wrote Basic for the
Altair not on a real Altair itself, but on an emulator. This is what
kicked started Microsoft from a nobody into stardom. If it failed, that
could have ended Microsoft future right there.
It needed a real licensed copy of Windows to pull it off. Just likeWhat OS/2 did to run Windows application, that was emulation.
Windows XP Mode also requires a real XP licensed copy. I see no
difference at all. And call it whatever you want, XP Mode, a virtual
machine, or an emulator. They all do the same thing and works exactly
the same way right down to the machine level. And this stuff has been
around for decades at least.
Well I know very little about WINE. But I believe it doesn't require aWhat Linux does to run Windows apps (WINE) is emulation.
real licensed copy of Windows (or does it?). And if it doesn't, it was
reversed engineered which is the other way (and much harder) and usually
not as good as using a real copy of the OS (although if done well, it
could pass).
S
Stan Brown
On the information given, the only possible answer is "maybe".I am using windows 7 ultimate, to run software I had on my XP machine
do I have to install the windows XP mode.
Do you have 32-bit or 64-bit Windows 7?
Which software?
What happens when you try to install it in Windows 7?
S
Stan Brown
Did you notice whom you're responding to? His mind is made up; don'tHow can it not be a good emulation of XP? It is genuine XP.
confuse him with facts.
B
BillW50
In
engineer and worked on the machine level. And it is all ones and zeroes
to me. And I see no difference whatsoever whatever you want to call it.
Virtual machine, XP Mode, or an emulator, it all works exactly the same
on the machine level. The only thing special about calling it XP Mode or
virtual machine is just some fancy terminology and marketing hype for
the old term we used to call an emulator.
I have used emulators for decades. I am also a retired electronicChris said:The rest of the world calls it what it is. A Virtual Machine, or just
VM. In this case it IS XP. It does NOT look like, walk like or talk
like an emulator!
engineer and worked on the machine level. And it is all ones and zeroes
to me. And I see no difference whatsoever whatever you want to call it.
Virtual machine, XP Mode, or an emulator, it all works exactly the same
on the machine level. The only thing special about calling it XP Mode or
virtual machine is just some fancy terminology and marketing hype for
the old term we used to call an emulator.
B
BillW50
In
Oh sorry, I lost it for a second. ;-)Stan said:Did you notice whom you're responding to? His mind is made up; don't
confuse him with facts.
B
BillW50
In
I sure would *love* to know about it. As I surely wouldn't want to
believe something that isn't true. As that isn't my way.
Really? I've been doing this for decades. If I am wrong about something,KCB said:Don't listen to Bill about XP Mode. He is giving you bad
information. Go to this link to learn about it and download it:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx
I sure would *love* to know about it. As I surely wouldn't want to
believe something that isn't true. As that isn't my way.
S
Seth
Yeah, I give up. He can call it what he wants.Stan Brown said:Did you notice whom you're responding to? His mind is made up; don't
confuse him with facts.
D
Dave \Crash\ Dummy
I'll add my "Maybe so, maybe not" to everybody else's. I have Windows 7I am using windows 7 ultimate, to run software I had on my XP machine
do I have to install the windows XP mode.
Ultimate x64 and thought I'd need XP Mode to run some of my old
programs, but so far, no. I am running programs that were written for
Windows 98 with no problem. Try the programs first. If you run into a
compatibility problem, run the Compatibility troubleshooter in the
context menu. Install XP Mode only as a last resort. The only programs I
have found that absolutely won't run are 16 bit (DOS) programs, or
programs that are internally hard wired to run on a specific version to
guarantee obsolescence and force you to buy an update. (Yes, really.)
C
Chris S.
But he's a "retired electronic engineer"Yeah, I give up. He can call it what he wants.
Hmm... my diploma on the wall here says:
Electrical Engineering
Purdue 1962
Chris
B
BillW50
In
class to learn about vacuum tubes (btw, I really miss tubes - not
perfect or anything but they did have a few advantages - see below). And
I would be really curious to learn what they taught about digital back
in '62? Not saying it was unheard of or anything. But programming by
punch cards (did they even exist in '62) or was it still stuck
programming by hardwiring back then?
And while the microprocessor was already invented when I went, I still
remember doing things the old way before microprocessors. That was
mostly TTL logic and the address and data lines connected to many TTL
logic chips and cycled through address one (aka zero in digital) through
whatever bit and repeated. Although only one TTL chip could talk (send
data) on a given address, but many could listen (the rest actually
listened but few cared what was there for a given address). Yes it
worked and required no microprocessor. But hopefully you were not in any
big hurry to do anything important. ;-)
Heck when did TTL come out? That was a tad bit before my time. But still
quite popular in the 70's. ;-)
A Side Note About Vacuum Tubes (or valves as some call them): They still
cannot be beat for raw power output. Still today anything that puts out
megawatts for power still uses tubes as a final at least. And the second
thing I like about them is the unique sound it does for audio. They
normally call it a warm sound (it is really tube distortion) and can be
quite pleasing to say the least. ;-)
Well mine says '76. And we learned analog, digital, and were the lastChris said:But he's a "retired electronic engineer"
Hmm... my diploma on the wall here says:
Electrical Engineering
Purdue 1962
class to learn about vacuum tubes (btw, I really miss tubes - not
perfect or anything but they did have a few advantages - see below). And
I would be really curious to learn what they taught about digital back
in '62? Not saying it was unheard of or anything. But programming by
punch cards (did they even exist in '62) or was it still stuck
programming by hardwiring back then?
And while the microprocessor was already invented when I went, I still
remember doing things the old way before microprocessors. That was
mostly TTL logic and the address and data lines connected to many TTL
logic chips and cycled through address one (aka zero in digital) through
whatever bit and repeated. Although only one TTL chip could talk (send
data) on a given address, but many could listen (the rest actually
listened but few cared what was there for a given address). Yes it
worked and required no microprocessor. But hopefully you were not in any
big hurry to do anything important. ;-)
Heck when did TTL come out? That was a tad bit before my time. But still
quite popular in the 70's. ;-)
A Side Note About Vacuum Tubes (or valves as some call them): They still
cannot be beat for raw power output. Still today anything that puts out
megawatts for power still uses tubes as a final at least. And the second
thing I like about them is the unique sound it does for audio. They
normally call it a warm sound (it is really tube distortion) and can be
quite pleasing to say the least. ;-)
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.