> Hi,
>
> I've been doing quite a bit of troubleshooting and have come across a
> serious problem with running Virtual PC on laptops with the Pentium M
> chipset.
>
> The syptom is that the Virtual PC will lock for two or three seconds
> after periods of more than two or three seconds of inactivity. For
> example, I start typing text and after a couple of seconds what I've
> typed actually comes through.
>
> The cause of this is SpeedStep which is built into Intels latest
> Pentium M chips. Basically during periods of inactivity is slows down
> the processor speed to generate less heat and revs it back up again
> when load is put on it. The problem however comes as there is a lag of
> a couple of seconds and it seems that Virtual PC does not like this
> changing of the CPU speed dynamically.
>
> My laptop has a bios setting to turn off this dynamic frequency mode,
> however the only alternative in the menu is to set it to "always slow"
> which essentially runs my 2.13 Ghz chip at about 1.5 Ghz. It does
> however allow Virtual PC to run fine.
>
> It would be great if MS released a patch to fix this as I'm sure I'm
> not alone and the scary thing is that most people wouldn't have worked
> out the cause, they would just think that Virtual PC is always
> "bursty".
>
> Any MVPs wish to tackle this?
>
> Stewart Button
> Technical Director
> Imagine Interactive
>

> Thank you for your response.
>
> Unfortunately in this case (Toshiba M60 2.13 GHz) running XP sp2 the
> control of the processor speed is NOT being controlled by the HAL
> successfully. I've tried two products - SpeedStepXP 1.4 and Toshiba's
> own recommended power control suite. Both have similar functionality.
> In both cases, even though I've used settings for always on, no CPU
> slowing, it still chooses to slow. This can be seen in SpeedStepXP
> which graphs the changes in the processor performance vs load. You can
> clearly see the lag effect as it plots load and speed. Additional
> confirmation is that when I use the BIOS to force "always slow" it
> resolves the issue with VPC (however makes my machine slow).
>
> This aside the point is that Virtual PC should actually be able to
> handle dynamic changes to CPU speed properly. The speed is only
> dropped to about 70% but as VPC is probably trying to adapt to this
> change is causes a lockup 2-3 seconds.
>
> I believe this is something that MS should try to put out a patch for.
> Do you know of any MS MVPs who could suggest this change do the
> programme manager for Virtual PC? I'm sure there are a lot of people
> affected by it.
>
> If you would like I will can try VMWare and let you know if it suffers
> from the same limitations.
>
> Will be interested in your throughts.
>
> Stewart
>

> Benjamin,
>
> Thanks, I tried all of these options with the exception of running a
> CPU utiliser such as Seti@home. Basically Seti@home forces your CPU to
> stay high by giving the CPU lots of work (mathematical computations) to
> do which doesn't seem an acceptable fix as it will slow everything else
> down.
>
> Stewart
>

> do which doesn't seem an acceptable fix as it will slow everything else
> down.
> Benjamin,
>
> Thanks, I tried all of these options with the exception of running a
> CPU utiliser such as Seti@home. Basically Seti@home forces your CPU to
> stay high by giving the CPU lots of work (mathematical computations) to
> do which doesn't seem an acceptable fix as it will slow everything else
> down.
>
> Stewart
>

> Benjamin,
>
> Do you think that the new Virtual Server product will be able to handle
> dynamic CPU speed changes?
>
> Also, do you think there is any chance that future releases of Virtual
> PC will be able to? Or will there be an update or SP that deals with
> this?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Stewart
>

> Benjamin,
>
> Do you think that the new Virtual Server product will be able to handle
> dynamic CPU speed changes?
>
> Also, do you think there is any chance that future releases of Virtual
> PC will be able to? Or will there be an update or SP that deals with
> this?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Stewart
>

> Ben,
>
> Thanks for your time on this issue. I think Scott has pointed out a
> really relevant article. It's exactly me - The 915 chipset with VPC
> 2004.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899525
>
> My reading is that Microsoft is acknowledging this issue and will be
> fixing it in the next service pack. The alternative to waiting for the
> next service pack is to contact Microsoft for the patch. I generally
> find these two solutions much more appealing than giving a third party
> piece of software (seti@home) control over my computer and bandwidth.
>
> Could I ask three quesitons related to this article -
>
> 1) Will this fix be in Service Pack 2 as the article suggests?
>
> 2) If so when do you expect Service Pack 2 to be released? (ie is it
> worth waiting or shall I patch now)
>
> 3) Is there any chance of emailing me the patch files to stewart _
> button at hotmail dot com? I can let you know how it goes.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Stewart
>

> Hi Stewart,
>
> Your best option is to contact Microsoft product support and ask for this
> patch (there will be no charge).

> Hi Robert,
>
> Thank you for your response. As an example:
>
> Without Virtual PC running it takes less than 1 second to switch
> between emails in Outlook 2003. If I then close outlook, start a
> Virtual PC, start outlook and recieve an email, and try switching from
> one email to another it takes well over 60 seconds to switch! I'm sure
> that you will agree that this is not a small change nor acceptable.
>
> Perhaps Outlook is trying to run at an even lower priority thought I
> doubt it.
>
> If you would like me to try anything else that would be appreciated.
> I've contacted MS support in Australia and was advised that even though
> we are ISV partners we can only get support by paying $300 to get a
> support technician to "help us troubleshoot" over the phone. As we are
> development company that tends to work nearly exclusively with MS
> products I'd prefer to keep with Virtual PC but it's worth pointing out
> that you can buy a licence for VMWare Workstation for less than the
> cost of this proposed support call!
>
> Hope you can shed some light on this.
>
> Stewart
>

>I was speaking of the Seti@home workaround for speedstep problems. I never
>had Seti cause slowdowns like that

> Thanks Bob. I'm really keen to be able to use email at the same time
> as use virtual pcs. Often work requests come in as email and involve
> testing or development in a vpc.
>
> Any ideas on how I should go about getting this fixed?
>

> Do you have experience with the process to get MS to fix this patch?
>I'm convinced that this issue with VPC (ie not being able
> to deal with speed changes) is more widespread than MS realises and
> while an adequate patch doesn't exist MS are not only doing their
> customers a disservice, but also themselves.
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I have tried two different power management products (one from Intel,
> one from Toshiba designed specifically for my laptop). No success with
> either.
>
> My machine is patched. What the patch appears to do is force the
> host's cpu utilisation up to 100% which is pretty much what Seti does
> but without surrendering your cpu and bandwidth to a third party. I'm
> not sure if it is this that is causing Outlook to lock up or if it is
> something at a deeper OS level that VPC is doing.
>
> Do you have experience with the process to get MS to fix this patch?
> It is worth pointing out that the VMWare team have obviously got this
> one figured. I'm convinced that this issue with VPC (ie not being able
> to deal with speed changes) is more widespread than MS realises and
> while an adequate patch doesn't exist MS are not only doing their
> customers a disservice, but also themselves.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Stewart
>