Virtual PC 2007, downloadable now, supports Vista as host and guest

Virtual PC 2007, downloadable now, supports Vista as host and guest

Summary: About three weeks after launching Windows Vista, Microsoft is on a roll with new and updated versions of its own products that are compatible with Windows Vista. Microsoft made available on February 19 not only a Vista-compatible version of SQL Server 2005, but also the final version of Microsoft's Virtual PC 2007 product, which supports Windows Vista as both a host and guest operating system (OS).

TOPICS: Windows

About three weeks after launching Windows Vista, Microsoft is on a roll with new and updated versions of its own products that are compatible with Windows Vista.

Microsoft made available on February 19 not only a Vista-compatible version of SQL Server 2005, but also the final version of Microsoft's Virtual PC 2007 product, which supports Windows Vista as both a host and guest operating system (OS). Virtual PC 2007 is downloadable from here.

Virtual PC 2007 supports the following versions of Windows as a host OS:

* Vista Business

* Vista Enterprise

* Vista Ultimate

* Windows Server 2003 Standard

* Windows Server 2003 Stardard x64

* XP Professional

* XP Professional x64

* XP Tablet PC Edition

It supports the following Windows variants as guests:

* Vista Business

* Vista Enterprise

* Vista Ultimate

* XP Tablet PC

* Windows 2000 Professional

* Windows 98 Second Edition

* IBM Os/2 Warp 4 Fixpack 15, Convenience Pack 1 and Convenience Pack 2 (How about that?)

Then there is the category of operating systems "that were supported in Virtual PC 2004 SP (Service Pack) 1 that are compatible with this release, but they are not supported." Those include: MS DOS 6.22, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition and Windows NT 4.0 Workstation.

According to the Virtual PC 2007 release notes, the new version of Virtual PC also adds support for the followingnew features:

* 64-bit host operating systems (but not 64-bit guest OSes)

* Hardware-assisted virtualization

* Network-based installation of a guest operating system

* Virtual machines running on multiple monitors

Now that SQL Server 2005 and Virtual PC are Vista-compatible, are there any other Microsoft apps that you want/need to get a Vista facelift but still haven't?

Topic: Windows


Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for 30 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Although Linux is not listed as a "supported" guest

    I've heard reports that it does work, as well as most other x86 compatible operating systems (Yes, NonZealot, I'm leaving myself wide open for ya, so have fun!!!).
    Michael Kelly
    • Sorry, can't chat

      I'm in the middle of installing SuSE 10.2. :)
      • Out of interest

        Why do you have both Windows and SuSE at home? I used to be 100% Linux, and this was fine for literary afforts, email, creating and running my website, managing my digital camera's pics, scanning and retouching my original artwork, but, in the end, it wasn't possible to work with video multimedia in the way that I wanted. So I moved to Mac and while I find Apple to be quite 'in your face' with their corporate presence, I can now work fully with multimedia. The Linux box is no longer connected to the net and serves as a safe back up for all my work.

        Why do you need Windows and Linux? What do you do that requires both? WHat are you doing on WIndows that you can't do on Linux, or vice versa? I don't code at home anymore, when I did, I used the Linux box because as you know (!) code should be portable across platforms.

        Just wondering, why you run Linux && WIndows in tandem, and yet bash Apple mercilessly.
        • Always happy to answer!

          Windows is for the desktop. I did try Linux on the desktop for a while (it was either Gentoo or Ubuntu, can't remember which now) but I found myself constantly rebooting into Windows to do work (I am a Windows programmer), play games and use a couple peripherals that didn't have Linux drivers at the time. I would then reboot into Linux to do everything else which basically consisted of surfing, reading email, word processing, and doing my bookkeeping. Eventually I realized how silly it was since I can do all of those things without any problems on Windows so I stopped using Linux on my desktop. For me, Linux on the desktop at home wasn't a great solution. I think it would work well for my wife but whenever I bring it up, she says that Windows works just fine for her.

          Linux works really well for me on my media PC though. It is free and MythTV works really well. I also have an old Pentium with 128MB of RAM that I use as my email and file server. Again, Linux is free and Gentoo with no GUI is incredibly good for machines with limited memory. I recently found another 128MB of RAM lying around so I'm thinking of putting SuSE on that server and throw VPN, LDAP, and maybe even PDC functionality onto it. For me, Linux on the server(s) at home is the perfect option.

          [i]Just wondering, why you run Linux && WIndows in tandem, and yet bash Apple mercilessly.[/i]

          Hope that answered your question. BTW, I don't bash Apple to bash Apple (that would be silly, Jobs doesn't read these talkbacks!), I bash Apple mostly to make fun of what the Mac zealots sound like when they bash Windows!
          • You do understand

            that your over-the-top (and often times off-subject) statements make them look good in comparison, don't you?

            It's fine to point out the flaws in Apple products, and it's fine to point out Apple's hypocrisy in bashing the competition's flaws when they have the same flaws themselves. And hey it's even fine to say you don't like their products (I tend to like their hardware but not their software myself). But the over-the-top conclusions you draw make you look even worse than Apple does in its Windows-bashing commercials.
            Michael Kelly
          • NAw, I think he

            is spot on most of the time.
    • yes, it does work

      I've run that numerous times.
    • yes it works....

      and if you download the linux extentions for virtual server (these are compatible with Virtual PC) they work even better.
  • It isn't the 'vista' apps that stop me.

    It's Vista's resource requirements and what you get in return. Vista just doesn't bring anything to the table to justify the upgrade, XP works fine for me. When my PC eventually rolls over and dies then I guess I will have Vista installed on the new PC because it comes that way, but I am not going to pay for something that requires that I dump more money into a better video card and more ram when it will run slower and some of my accessories may not have driver support.
    • XP was fixed by thrid parties

      Novell, Citrix and others provide in XP what Microsoft provides and promises in Vista.

      This is why Microsoft's management should be viewed as of poor quality. For example, Citrix provides gotomypc and other solutions which provide what Premium and Business Vista might now provide. IE mobility and the opportunity to connect to home computers with media libraries wherever you are on the planet. Novell provides Zenworks which allows you to remote control a PC as well as run the equivalant of Microsoft Office (Open Office) . There are numerous Security enhancement providers.

      But Virtualization is the most important security. In the age of automatic updates where the user has little or no control over when and what gets updated, virtualization is the only security solution.

      My objections to running XP as the base operating system from a security standpoint are limited to single Intel X86 processors. On those high clock speed Machines Linux (Microsoft promotes SUSE Linux) should be used because Intel contributed a bunch of code as open source related to security problems associated with those processors and that code (AFAIK) never made it into XP.

      In fact it is my understanding that Intel was so frustrated that Microsoft wasn't updating the security issue related code in XP associated with single Intel X86 technology that Intel pushed forward quicker the dual processor computers which do not have the problems.

      More poor management at Microsoft is my perspective. In any case today we have a situation where new PCs in general will run XP slower than last year's pcs and an upgrade to Vista likely will not help until patch 2, which I think will be a big deal and will mostly be about making Vista truly thread capable of using more than one processor. The days of the single processor computers are over.

      Frank L. Mighetto CCP
    • 100%

      Installed vista on my machine as a test run, (3800 am2 x2 1gig ram) flies with XP and 2k, Vista was a real dog. Hated the interface, hated the waits for anything to happen. Games that ran fine under XP dragged in vista. Ended up giving it to my buddy, who tried it and ended up switching back to XP.

      same problems with Vista keep most people away from linux, hard to find drivers, hard to find progs, why pay $$$ for the same issues? if it was better, I'd have kept it, it's not, so I'll stick with 2k/xp and suse till you can't get anything for the 2k varients, then hopefully wine will run what few games I play.

  • XP upgrade Not needed for Vista Virtual?

    Preloaded with XP but coupons for Vista

    I will not be upgrading my XP loaded machine this year to Vista, this owing to business IT plans which do not even include Vista in the 5 year horizon and my desire to use at home what I use at the office. However, if I could use the Vista upgrade coupon, I would be inclined to load Vista Virtual on top of XP on my home computer. Does the license allow this? Nice article.

    Virtual PC allows you to run another operating system in an explorer page from within the host system.You would boot your computer with XP and with Virtual PC,Vista would be running in an explorer page.You would go through all the steps of the Vista install while you are in XP.(Vista must be installed in Virtual PC)The reboots are just within the explorer page.(the computer itself does not reboot)The problem is Vista,in Virtual PC,runs very slow.
    • Virtual PC should be fast on dual core XP base

      Microsoft's Virtual PC should run at clock speed on multi processing machines.

      The problem of speed is owing to clock speed of the processors. Last year's PCs were single processors with high clock speeds and high power consumption. This year's PCs are clocked slower but have multiple processors and are low power consumers.

      Well designed modern operating systems and Virtual Machine hypervisors are capable of load balancing between processors and shutting down a processor when the load is low to conserve power. So..

      If Microsoft computing professionals were allowed to do their jobs and design as Intel and AMD teach them to, then the new Virtual PC provided by Microsoft should utilize the not utilized processor on an Intel duo chip machine with XP as the base operating system.

      XP on its own can only use one processor. That is my understanding from Intel. Intel has been pushing Microsoft for years to get ready for today. If Microsoft hasn't addressed the second processor on the duo core machines with this Virtual PC software download then shame on Microsoft management. It could not have happened without a top down directive. The computing professionals working at and for Microsoft would have been guided to a different path by Intel and AMD. A path of multiprocessor utilization, and not avoidance. BTW, it is likely that Vista can not fully utilize multi processors. This is likely why the world waits for a service pack before planning anything Vista related.

      Of course there is another option to what Microsoft provides. Vmware, long pushed by ZDnet, whould do the trick. The issue here is Microsoft marketing (read legal department). Is there a restriction on taking a duo core multi processor machine and loading Vmware on top of XP and then loading Vista. Can folks like myself who got Vista upgrade coupons with a vista ready duo core machine pre loaded with XP, load VmWare or Virtual PC and then use the coupon to load Vista in a virtual machine. If so then Microsoft has me as an early adopter. If not then I do not upgrade to Vista because none of the organizations I work with have Vista even in their 5 year IT plans. I suspect most computing professionals are equally frustrated.

      Frank L. Mighetto CCP
  • No USB support

    Once I upgrade to Vista Ultimate, I 'lost' my scanner and my USB-bluetooth key, due to no drivers support. I thought VirtualPC would be the answer to my prayers, but I found that USB devices weren't supported in VirtualPC 2007... well done M$!!!
    • What's your setup?

      It sounds like you're trying for a Vista Ultimate host and XP guest. That setup SHOULD work, assuming you install the XP drivers on the XP guest.

      I've used a VPC 2004 setup with an XP host and Win98 in which you can install the Win98 drivers for the USB device and no XP driver and it worked. And now I do the same for VMWare. Try going to a newsgroup full of MVPs and see if they can walk you through it, I'll bet it will work.

      I must say, though, I'm shocked about the bluetooth key. Although that's a real inconvenience, those are so cheap that I don't think it qualifies as something worth running two concurrent operating systems as a workaround, at least not on its own. A scanner might qualify though.
      Michael Kelly
      • VPC Does not support USB

        Any guest OS that runs under Virtual PC 2004 or 2007 cannot use USB devices, even if you install the drivers for them. VPC does not pass through the USB ports like it does for serial and parallel. VMServer as well as some other VMWare Virtual products are able to use USB devices but only USB 1.1
  • ME?

    Personally I use VMWare but interesting to see that even MS recognise that ME was a mistake with support for 98SE but not ME on this Virtual release.
  • VPC with Vista 64 as host

    Thanks for the Advice, Michael.
    You are right, my setup is Vista Ultimate as host and XP Pro SP2 as guest (I don't know if it is me or VPC2007) but I dindn't find the USB device control as easy as in VMwware Workstation.

    I tried the VMware Workstarion 6 beta instead, since everythnig worked ok and I can scan stuff again. I haven't try the blutooth key though.
  • VPC07 requires uninstall of older versions

    I tried to upgrade to VPC beta 07, did all the right stuff to login and get it, then
    found out that you apparently *must* uninstall any and all older versions. Given that
    I have a fine working version of Windows Server 2003 running in a VPC on my
    machine, I didn't want to uninstall for a beta version of the product. Why can't they
    do a side by side install?