Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrott reveal a new Windows 7 application compatibility feature called Windows XP Mode. Yes, it’s that "secret new feature" you’ve been hearing about…
Over a month ago, we were briefed about a secret Microsoft technology that we were told would be announced alongside the Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC) and would ship in final form simultaneously with the final version of Windows 7. This technology, dubbed Windows XP Mode (XPM, formerly Virtual Windows XP or Virtual XP, VXP), dramatically changes the compatibility story for Windows 7 and, we believe, has serious implications for Windows development going forward. Here’s what’s happening.
XPM is built on the next generation Microsoft Virtual PC 7 product line, which requires processor-based virtualization support (Intel and AMD) to be present and enabled on the underlying PC, much like Hyper-V, Microsoft’s server-side virtualization platform. However, XPM is not Hyper-V for the client. It is instead a host-based virtualization solution like Virtual PC; the hardware assistance requirement suggests this will be the logical conclusion of this product line from a technological standpoint. That is, we fully expect future client versions of Windows to include a Hyper-V-based hypervisor.
Figure 1 – Windows XP Mode running Microsoft Word 2003 under Windows XP and Word 2007 under Windows 7.
XP Mode consists of the Virtual PC-based virtual environment and a fully licensed copy of Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (SP3). It will be made available, for free, to users of Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate editions via a download from the Microsoft web site. (That is, it will not be included in the box with Windows 7, but is considered an out-of-band update, like Windows Live Essentials.) XPM works much like today’s Virtual PC products, but with one important exception: As with the enterprise-based MED-V (Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization) product, XPM does not require you to run the virtual environment as a separate Windows desktop. Instead, as you install applications inside the virtual XP environment, they are published to the host (Windows 7) OS as well. (With shortcuts placed in the Start Menu.) That way, users can run Windows XP-based applications (like IE 6) alongside Windows 7 applications under a single desktop. (Data management solutions based around Windows XP Mode can give your business an edge over competitors.)
Obviously, XPM has huge ramifications for Windows going forward. By removing the onus of legacy application compatibility from the OS, Microsoft can strip away deadwood technology from future versions of Windows at a speedier clip, because customers who need to run older applications can simply do so with XPM. For Windows 7 specifically, XPM is a huge convenience, especially for Microsoft’s corporate customers, who can of course control XPM behavior via standard Microsoft administration and management technologies like Active Directory (AD) and Group Policy (GP). And it significantly recasts the Windows 7 compatibility picture. Before, Microsoft could claim that Windows 7 would be at least as compatible as Windows Vista. Now, they can claim almost complete Windows XP compatibility, or almost 100 percent compatibility with all currently running Windows applications.
We’ve both been using and testing Virtual XP for over a month and we we’ve been dying to communicate what we’ve discovered, as you might imagine. So here’s what you can expect. Paul will publish a high-level screenshot gallery on the SuperSite for Windows showing off Windows XP Mode and what it’s like to run Windows XP and Windows 7 applications side-by-side. On Within Windows, Rafael will provide a deep technical dive into Windows XP Mode and explain how it works and how you can make it work the way you want. Later, Paul will add a Windows XP Mode article to his Windows 7 Feature Focus series as well. And of course we’ll be covering this feature in-depth in "Windows 7 Secrets," which will be published by Wiley & Sons later this year.
Thanks for reading!
Paul and Rafael
1) Looks a lot like Parallels’ Exposé (2007?) or VMWare’s Fusion (2008?) mode of just cutting out the background, thus making windows [cap. intentional] from other operating systems appear in the same space as native windows.
2) Clever? This isn’t clever at all. Apple has done this at least twice before: Once when moving from System 7 to OS X (a COMPLETELY new core *and* UI) and once when switching processor designs (PPC to i386, meaning no binary could possibly run without virtualization).
Unless I am mistaken, this isn’t an entirely new core. Clever? Elegant? No, run-of-the-mill.
Even better: Their “clever” solution is built on the Virtual PC technology that Microsot purchased from Connectix in 2003.
When you hear Microsoft, you shouldn’t assume *anything* original.
3) Also, let’s not forget virtualized apps run slower, with more memory.
4) Why is this even necessary, if Vista runs XP programs, and 7 runs Vista crap?
Wow, can someone restore my faith in humanity by pointing out an anti-Apple comment here that doesn’t use the word “fag”? Grow up, boys.
Do you have any idea how ugly this font is that you use on this site.
What I still wonder is if 3d games and such will run on this XPM .. That is a big question ..
@Shane Phillips
“I am sure they have a way to isolate the VM and stop it damaging your physical installation”
VMs are already very isolated. (There is the occasional bug where malware in a VM can “break out” but they are rare and it’s even more rare for anything to bother exploiting them.)
BUT, if you do anything useful in your VM — i.e. write documents or whatever — then the VM has to either contain or have access to (some of) your documents/files/data.
If you get a virus in the VM then those documents/files/data are vulnerable, the same as on a real machine. You are no more or less protected by the fact that it is a VM.
“but at the end of the day if you have antivirus protection, anything trying to spread itself onto your physical installation should be caught”
Yes. It’s the same as if a machine on your network gets infected and touches files that are shared with/from your own machine.
“and that is assuming it gets past UAC for those who have it enabled.”
UAC isn’t much/any protection against malware which aims to damage or take your files (unless you permission them so that only admins can read/write them, which I do do with some of my more sensitive stuff, but then you have to run all programs that use those files as admin as well).
When it comes to malware the most important thing that UAC does, IMO, is make it harder for malware to install itself as a rootkit so that anti-virus won’t be able to find it even after a signature update.
(And that’s why I still think it’s important that Windows 7′s default UAC mode is so easy for malware to bypass the moment it wants to, with zero user interaction, without even having to wait for the user to do something it knows how to piggyback on like it had to on Vista.)
@Tom
“Leo, Virtual PC 2007 has supported 32-bit XP on 64-bit VPC ever since it came out (February 2007).”
Ah, cool. That’s good to know, and I imagine running 64-bit Win7, with 32-bit XP inside of it will be the most common scenario. At least, I hope so. It’s time to ditch 32-bit Windows (as the physical-hardware OS)!
“It’s 64-bit guests that don’t work (requires Hyper-V). Since 64-bit XP was a niche product, it is quite likely that this product will be based on 32-bit XP. Vista was the big step up for everyday 64-bit.”
That’s a really good point which had escaped me. Since this for running XP it doesn’t really matter if it lets you run 64-bit guests on 32-bit hosts.
Being able to do that in VMWare has been great for me, but only because it allowed me to test my code on a 64-bit Vista VM when my real machine was 32-bit Vista. It’s not particularly relevant to XP, you’re right.
(If I reinstalled Vista today it’d be 64-bit for sure, and I plan to move to 64-bit Windows 7… but back in January 2007 when I installed Vista on my main machine, 64-bit was still a big unknown with even more driver issues than early 32-bit Vista so I didn’t risk it. 64-bit Vista works great now, though, and I use it on my recent laptop.)
@DJ:
“What I still wonder is if 3d games and such will run on this XPM .. That is a big question ..”
It’s highly unlikely, unless MS’s Virtual PC team have something incredible that they have not yet announced. As someone said earlier in the comments, AFAIK the only VM for Windows that has any (announced) 3D support is VMWare and the state of that is very limited so far. It sounds like they plan to improve it, and hopefully Virtual PC will move in the same direction, but it’s very early days for 3D in VMs.
I’m looking forward to the day when Aero/glass can run in VMs as not having it makes it difficult to test parts of applications on different versions of Vista/Win7 without installing them on physical hardware.
Is this some kind of joke?… I can do the same or better using VirtualBox… and not only running windows, but almost anything I want
Yes, it’s a good idea… no, it’s not a new invention
When will the Apple/Linux apologists learn that it’s not about who did it first, it’s about who does it better.
Will the virtual XP PC only emulate a crappy video card or give virtual XP under Win7 full access to the real card/GPU and its features, to be fully recognized as such by XP 3D apps? That’s my problem with the current Virtual PC 2007 under Win7: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=21eabb90-958f-4b64-b5f1-73d0a413c8ef&displaylang=en
how did this post end up to be a mac vs pc fight
this is about being able to run xp on 7 right i dont know where mac or aple comes in
Microsoft has an history of “pushing” and “tying” features for free to their operating system to try to gain market share and customer acceptance after another company has already came up with the technology and is threatening their monopoly.
Some examples:
Internet Explorer (browser tie-in / against Netscape)
Windows Media Player (multimedia player tie in / against Real and AOL)
Desktop Search (tie-in / against Google)
I guess virtualization is the next thing…
That does look interesting.
I had to read it several times to figure out what was actually on the table.
Just to make sure I have it straight:
XPM (XP Mode) works by running an actual copy of XP inside a Virtual Machine suported by Win7. That measn that the code of all the application interfaces supplied to applications running within XPM will be the same code as would be running an a native XP system. ?
By contrast, the normal method of providing a 32bit environment is to put API entry points within the 32bit Application Virtual Machine ( a somewhat different sort of Virtual machine) which would then in turn call the new 64bit OS procedures to implement the relevant functions. ?
The difference is that though the design/intent is the same in the latter case, the fact that it’s all new code means that subtle differences in behaviour can arise…
Have I correctly understood?
One key question immediately comes to mind:
Can XPM, since it’s a genuine OS (despite the fact that it’s running inside a Virtual Machine under another OS) use the old 32bit XP device drivers for hardware where the 64bit drivers are unavailable or unstable.
That would be (more than just) nice. In fact, the absence of this feature was argueably the biggest single factor in the poor take up of Vista in some makket sectors. There seems to be some confusion on this point:
Quote:
——————————————————————————–
they can claim almost complete Windows XP compatibility, or almost 100 percent compatibility with all currently running Windows applications.
——————————————————————————–
The confusion arises because “complete Windows XP compatability” would have to include the option to use XP 32bit drivers for hardware devices, whereas “compatability with … applications” is a pale shadow in comparison.
I’d also be intereted to see whether each running 32bit application is running inside its own XPM Virtual machine, or whether there is one XPM Virtual Machine inside which each 32bit application runs, in its own (XP provided) Virtual Machine, and I’d also like to see how much Virtual Address Space is availalbe to applications running in XPM.
And I’m sure there will be many more questions… a long journey… but it does look like we might at last be on the right road this time.
Peter
@Phobos:
”
Is this some kind of joke?… I can do the same or better using VirtualBox… and not only running windows, but almost anything I want
Yes, it’s a good idea… no, it’s not a new invention”
I use VB as well… last I checked it did not put the guest’s applications in the hosts start-menu and *not* have to run in a separate instance.
Seamless mode is nice, but buggy as hell (Especially the farther away you move from Windows). This looks to be more a free version of “unity”, only better (though limited to XP guests).
Don’t really care after I read about the vbootkit
http://www.softsailor.com/news/1654-build.html
This is simply the next version of Virtual PC which adds native host OS integration (removes the desktop and start menu/taskbar from the guest OS). This should in an ideal scenario work with any OS, esp Vista, but Microsoft is trying to sell if off as an exclusive Windows 7 feature for business reasons. VMWare Workstation 6.5 released in September 2008 aleady does this (called Unity mode instead of XP Mode) and isn’t locked for Windows 7 hosts and Windows XP guests. Sadly, THIS WON’T GIVE ME BACK THE FEATURES REMOVED FROM WINDOWS VISTA OR WINDOWS 7 WITH NATIVE INTEGRATION. Users will still have to manage and patch this “Virtual XP”.
@JohnB
“VBootKit 2.0 exploits a security issue and needs physical access to the computer, not being able to take control of it remotely”
So what this exploit needs is physical access to your computer, in other words no BFD.
Show me a OS that remains invulnerable to someone with access to the keyboard. Maybe read the article you’re quoting before shooting your mouth/ keyboard off.
This is fake.
7100 build is RC and there is no such “secret” inside.
@Sekas:
“This is fake.
7100 build is RC and there is no such “secret” inside.”
Read the article instead of making yourself look like an idiot. In particular, pay attention to the following:
“It will be made available, for free, /—/ via a download from the Microsoft web site. (That is, it will not be included in the box with Windows 7, but is considered an out-of-band update, like Windows Live Essentials.)”
Comprendez now?
“Daniel
April 24, 2009 at 5:22 pm
100% compatibility, does that include 3D acceleration? AKA games.”
I would expect it NOT to, if I were you. But if it did, there’s no chance it would support OpenGL (OpenGL would be stuck using its software renderer) only Microsoft DirectX. Which would work for most games nowadays but it’s still worth noting. Plenty of classic games you’d need to run in a VM for compatibility anyway would be OpenGL. For OpenGL you could try VirtualBox which has experimental and temperamental but promising OpenGL acceleration in Windows 2000+ guests (I haven’t tried it in a Linux guest yet).
Still the level of integration MS claims to have achieved is better than what any virtualization solution I’ve seen before has, although that’s partly because it’s targeted at a specific combination of host and guest OSs. However this integration might also render security applications somewhat useless (ie using the VM as a sandbox to execute questionable files to avoid contaminating the host OS… a virus may be programmed to look for and escape the sandbox using the integration).
VirtualBox comes close to this level of integration with their seamless desktop. In addition using a WinVNC fork called MetaVNC can provided a similar effect for VMs or any MetaVNC server.
But this seems to go a step further and provide shortcuts in the start menu for launching individual programs on the guest OS. I’d expect that the guest OS has also been tweaked to do stuff like autologon and keeping a guest profile for each host profile, and maybe we’ll see standard Open/Save dialog calls intercepted and redisplayed on the host OS. Still I can see users easily getting confused when saving files in the host/guest and not being able to access them on the other.
I can’t wait to try this out, just to see how good they can get it.
I’m not a big fan of Microsoft – neither their products nor their policies. Even though I think that some of their products, such as the .NET platform, are actually very well engineered. That being said, I thing that this “WinXP Mode” thing is a very good and very sensible move. It brings benefits to all involved parties: It takes some of the burden of backward compatibility off the MS developer’s shoulders, and thus giving them the opportunity of a clean break with lots of outdated aspects of Windows. This way, MS will save a lot of money in the long run, AND it contributes to a better, more secure and reliable product. So everyone can be happy. :-)
@Captain Spicard
My comment was directed towards kL
@Captain Spicard
Sure is full of 4chan in here. I don’t even own a Mac, no need to attack people, alright?
@Indrek
The Mac and Linux “apologists” have nothing to apologize for. As for doing it better rather than first, that’s usually Apple’s approach.
Sure, almost 100% compatibility with XP and Vista applications. Just depends on how well the programs run inside a virtualized enviroment; I tried installing Windows XP as a guest OS in Windows 7 and performance was horrible, to say the least. Hey, I have a Q6600 with Intel VT enabled!
Great feature!
@Johnny Appleseed: I was referring to how every article about a new feature in Windows is flooded by Linux/Mac fanboys blabbering on about how their OS of choice has done something similar for years.
Who cares? Let’s bury that axe already and just feel happy that computing as a whole is moving forward.
All this so the corporate world can continue to run IE6. This could mean web developers will have to support IE6 for a long, long time. This will leave people happy or sad, depending on which side of the fence they are on.
For the mac fanboys, shut the hell up. You’re all idiots.
“Whats the point when I can use VMWare?”
This feature is for corporations – Buisness, Enterprise, Ultimate. Enterprises won’t go out deploying VMs and purchasing ANOTHER license. This is free, I assume there will be a method to directly integrate in onto the Windows 7 install disk using WIM.
@Splat
VMs are sandboxed; whatever you do inside it, including virus infections, stays there. And the moment virtualized xp is turned off, those viruses are back to scratch, if not gone, so xp viruses are not exactly an issue. If you’re worried that an xp-compatible virus attached to a file may jump from the virtualized xp to windows 7, then you can have a good night sleep – virus simply wont work.
@Me
VMWare isn’t free. You have to purchase a separate license for that on top of the OS you will run on it. Yet it wouldn’t run as seamless as XPM does. This is an additional feature to Windows, so I don’t see why anyone would be “disappointed” having it there, let alone it’s for free. Only microsoft-hating fanboys do that. I bet you weren’t so much disappointed when Mac’s BootCamp was touted as a “compelling” Leopard feature, only to demonstrate what Parallels and VM Fusion have already been doing for so many years. Not worth the equally-fabricated hype either now, is it?
@Kevin
You probably need to go out a little ;)
How do applications running in the host and the VM communicate with eachother?
Do they, for instance see teh other OS as a separte machine – something like \\XP and \\Win7.
CVan you set up a virtual network, with a number of XP VMs running as if they were separate machines on a network
Peter
I think the news here is not you’re going to be able to emulate XP software (that’s no news)… rather is that Microsoft is going to break with the past (i.e. Windows is evolving).
I would never buy 7 to play XP software but I’m curious to see what they’re going to accomplish being free to cut outdated pieces of software.
@Alan Hogan
If you don’t want to be called a Macfag, then stop being one.
God, you people don’t get it. MS is releasing this software to be seamlessly used INSIDE Win 7, not an app such as VirtualBox or VPC. where you have to have an additional box open and then the app open inside of that. Let’s learn how to read, folks
@split good 1
Hey i just added the 2003 iso inside the xpmode and am installing 2003. If it works i will see if i can add more vms that way. Just for fun.
Brilliant. Yeah, right. It’s like building a car that has two engines. One for regular fuel, one for diesel.
Why not build it so that it’s compatible right away. Taking the car example again… why not build one engine for both fuels.
MS at work. Lovely.
And remember, it’s still not a gold version. MS might get the brilliant idea of canning it.
I mean, just take this part: “Now, they can claim almost complete Windows XP compatibility, or almost 100 percent compatibility with all currently running Windows applications.”
Impossible.
MS has tested this with ALL currently running Windows applications? All of them? a couple of hundred, thousand software applications?
Yeah. Right. In their dreams. They’ve tested it with MS products. If you use non-MS you’ll get shafted. It’s MS after all.
More and more I’m beginning to think to move 100% away from MS.
And if it’s about who does it better, then MS is already crawling across the finisihng line last after Linux and after Apple.
@Haimin, because so many companies update their Windows OS every time a new appears. Yes. Sure. You know what that would cost if they’d do it? They run with what they need, not with what is new.
And honestly, personally I don’t see a reason to get Windows 7. It’s going to be the same like it was with Vista. I had absolutely no reason to get Vista. Directx 10? I’m not going to buy a new OS only for a new Directx. And that is be all there is. Vista isn’t any faster for my workflow than XP. Same will be for Vista.
Applications?
Not really an issue.
So XP will be outdated? Boohoo! Doesn’t matter. Handsome is what handsome does, kids. As long as it gets the job done the way I want it, the way I need it, I’m fine with it.
And at least XP doesn’t eat up resources like crazy. Any news on how much resources will be eaten up by 7 for no reason at all? Like in Vista? Ridiculous.
> Why not build it so that it’s compatible right away. Taking the car example again… why not build one engine for both fuels.
Wow, you must not be an engineer. Otherwise you’d realize that it’s impossible to build an engine that works efficiently for both fuel. It would be better to have two engines that work efficiently than one engine that doesn’t work at all.
@Takekaze
If you had read any of the above comments, you would see why this is a brilliant move. By doing this, they can start moving away from all of the outdated cruft necessary to maintain backwards compatibility (i.e. old, useless APIs). When everyone eventually releases software compatible with Windows 7, Microsoft can finally drop support for all of the useless code that it kept around for compatibility reasons.
You might not realize it as a consumer, but this is pretty smart from a software engineering standpoint.
Apple did the exact same thing when they switched from OS 9 to OS X. They emulated OS 9 in order to provide backwards compatibility as everyone slowly upgraded to OS X. Then when everyone migrated, they dropped support for OS 9. I’m not sure why you show support for Apple when you fail to see that Microsoft is doing the exact same thing.
> I mean, just take this part: “Now, they can claim almost complete Windows XP compatibility, or almost 100 percent compatibility with all currently running Windows applications.”
> Impossible.
Do you have any understanding for how a virtual machine works? I’m pretty sure you don’t. Otherwise you would immediately see why there is almost 100 percent compatibility. They’re running Windows XP within Windows 7. How the hell could you *not* get near 100 percent compatibility when you’re executing the target operating system itself?
> MS has tested this with ALL currently running Windows applications? All of them? a couple of hundred, thousand software applications?
> Yeah. Right. In their dreams. They’ve tested it with MS products. If you use non-MS you’ll get shafted. It’s MS after all.
This just shows that you have no idea what a virtual machine is.
> And at least XP doesn’t eat up resources like crazy. Any news on how much resources will be eaten up by 7 for no reason at all? Like in Vista? Ridiculous.
You’re attacking Windows 7, but you don’t know the answers yourself? What grounds do you have for attacking Windows 7 then?
> And remember, it’s still not a gold version. MS might get the brilliant idea of canning it.
Furthermore, XP Mode is already out. Are they going to can something that’s mostly done and already downloadable from their website?
“Microsoft has an history of “pushing” and “tying” features for free to their operating system to try to gain market share and customer acceptance after another company has already came up with the technology and is threatening their monopoly.”
Well from what I can see here, Apple was never in a position to steal market share away from MS cause OSX wont run on my PC, they will never include support for 90% of the hardware out here. I run core i7, and windows 7.0RC works pretty well.and actually runs smoother and faster than vista. On my CPU, it scores 1.5 higher on CPU and RAM. Same hardware, different OS
And if I remember rightly, I know a few mac people who have printers that now theyve bought a new intel mac. they cant get their old APPLE PRINTER to work natively, would only work in classic mode, which didnt work well.
Shame on you MAC people for touting that OSX is better than windows. If mac was really better, would apple have decided to officially release a compatiubility laver to run XP or vista on an intel mac? Didnt think so. And when can I get my common off the shelf hardware to run OS 10.5? Never, would I even want to?
And as for driver support, it depends on if the guest OS has access to the actual hardware. I am currently installing the VM and will see if it lets me install the XP driver for anything.
And as for x86 and x64 support, you will be able to run x64 windows only with Hyper-V and a x64 HOST OS, any other way of running x64 wont work (at least well)
XP mode will most likely be XP 32bit as there aren’t any xp64 apps that I know that don’t have vista/w7.0 support
“Apple has done this at least twice before: Once when moving from System 7 to OS X (a COMPLETELY new core *and* UI) and once when switching processor designs (PPC to i386, meaning no binary could possibly run without virtualization).”
Well actually when apple released OS X on Intel they had to recompile all binaries from ppc to i386, there are no PPC binaries that run on i386 macs. and as i mentioned earlier classic doesn’t run well on early OS X machines.
what MS really wants to do, is to have a really small, but stable new base OS and not build all these compatibility feauters into the OS. This will go a long way towards keeping the OS secure. and to allow games and apps to run on their own with integration into the OS limited to avoid corruption and conflict
Why “upgrade” to windows 7 (vista SPx)? Virtual XP in Windows 7?
XP itself can already address enough ram to fully function.
Microsoft realizes the value of continuing to offer Windows XP…. here’s a thought… continue to support XP as an OS and not a VM
sell the people what they’ll buy…. or lose CIO *homes* to OSX… and soon the office to *nix
I cannot believe the comments on this article – bare faced astroturfing of ‘news’ sites.
“OMG THIS IS AMAZING NOW I CAN USE XP BUT PAY FOR VISTA 2!!11″
Pathetic – the truth is probably far more sinister, windows 7 is still the XP with hacks upon hacks, still Vista fail, with more hacks to fix, so 7 is Vista 2, but now they’ve opened up the old shell for XP as a ‘new’ feature, they had a skip a version so people wouldn’t think they were paying three times for the same crap, worse each time.
i got a free copy from my school but it seems that i can’t get older hardware and drivers to install. maybe it’s just for programs after all.
Oops, posted this under Pivot by mistake.
Is it possible to run two or more instances of XP concurrently under Windows 7 Ultimate 64? That might help me get around the RAM limitations of XP.
What would the implications be on performance? Possible “OS confusion?” Can I link the icons to specific instances?
I do, of course, have licensed copies of XP to spare… may as well use them if I can.
BTW, my Windows 7 box has 12 gb of RAM, so that shouldn’t be an issue.
Marc
the xp mode does not work at all i have the radeon 4650 1 gig video and 8 gig off memory and it does not work it is a lie again
Ive got a hp compaq cq60 laptop with nvidia8200. I can run red alert2 yuris revenge on windows 7 but cant play lan games. as it uses ipx protcol. (xp still runs ipx)
tried installing xp on laptop but no drivers for wifi , graphics etc available for xp, unless someone knows where i can get them from.
Cant use westwood ipx to tcp patch as I run the game with no cd patch, ( I own the full game but use deamon tools iso of game in virtual cd drive – no carrying lots of cd’s.)
due to the graphics card lack of drivers you can hear the game but can see it.
Tried running game in compatability mode and even changing the resolution in the ra.ini files. no change
loaded virtual xp on windows 7 and exactly the same happens.
Even tried program 3D analyze but i may have settings wrong.
are there drivers for virtual graphics card? or ipx to tcp programs for windows 7(ipx not natively supported on vista/7).
I have also just tried to run c&c generals in virtual xp but comes up with dx error or not 3d compatable graphics card. I know my card works because it plays other 3d games on win 7.so any way of linking virtual vdu to win 7 drivers?
if i upgraded to win7 pro would the virtual xp have the driver support for my widescreen nvidea?
help!!!!!!!!!!1
this is excellent information.I wonder how this secret got revealed.
what a joke i have windows 7 pro and it sucks the games microsoft says run don’t the app’s they will run don’t and i have more then what it takes to run them in windows 7 microsoft says so now do you all know there is nsa software in vista and windows 7 (vista 2) and do you know they force you to take updates you don’t want and with out you knowing it they know that is on your computer with out you knowing it and when you install windows 7 or vista did you read the install no so now microsoft owns your computer. you give it to them when you install windows vista or windows 7 and no web cam or sound cards work right in windows 7 you will have to pay new hardware and software again hope you have the money you are going to need it and if microsoft comes out each year with a new windows god help us all and if they do then they need to drop the price to 49.95 or 59.95 plus taxs and when are they going to fix the windows 7 will you got it they are not