> I fired up the lastest copy of Vista (5536) today in anticipation of testing
> how well Virtual PC runs on it. (not vista in a virtual pc, but rather vista
> being the HOST os and virtual PC running on vista). I was a little
> disappointed when I installed Virtual PC and it reported that there Virtual
> PC was incompatible with Vista. An attempt to "search for a solution" just
> lead to an ever spinning wheel.
>
> So, can anyone provide some light here as to why Virtual PC is not Vista
> friendly, or is the message just the result of being overly cautious? If I
> actually start firing a few guests into VPC on vista, should I expect it to
> work or to crash and burn, taking the guest images with it?
>
> I do most of my real work inside VPCs and just use the host OS for things
> that aren't VPC friendly like gaming, so VPC is really important for my to
> work under Vista. Now, for testing, and the day it is released for day to
> day work.
>
> I would hate to not be able to migrate when Vista was ready just because VPC
> has some wierd issue.

> You expect a 3 year product (I'm being generous here) to install on a
> BETA (From the looks of it even the RC's are still "betas") operating
> system?

> From the FAQ ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/evaluation/faq.mspx )
>

>
> "Vinny35" wrote:
>
>> From the FAQ ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/evaluation/faq.mspx )
>>
>
> Thanks. Sounds like my suspicions were correct. Sad. It appears that MS is
> starting to collapse under its own weight. I wonder if they can turn that
> trend around. Ah well, at least I don't own MS stock.
>
> I'll you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go swear for a while about not being able
> to move to vista as soon as it comes out. If anyone has any good non-english
> suggestions, I may need the expanded repitoire to cover my annoyance...

> "Vinny35" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>
> > From the FAQ (
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/evaluation/faq.mspx )
>
> > Q. What is the difference between VPC 2004 and VPC 2007?
> > A. VPC 2007 includes the following new features
> >
> > . Support for Windows Vista 64-bit as a host
> > . Support for Windows Vista as a guest
>
> Can we infer from this that 64-bit guests will not be possible, or will be
> possible but not supported...?

> friendly, or is the message just the result of being overly cautious?
> I would hate to not be able to migrate when Vista was ready just because
> VPC
> has some wierd issue.
>I fired up the lastest copy of Vista (5536) today in anticipation of
>testing
> how well Virtual PC runs on it. (not vista in a virtual pc, but rather
> vista
> being the HOST os and virtual PC running on vista). I was a little
> disappointed when I installed Virtual PC and it reported that there
> Virtual
> PC was incompatible with Vista. An attempt to "search for a solution"
> just
> lead to an ever spinning wheel.
>
> So, can anyone provide some light here as to why Virtual PC is not Vista
> friendly, or is the message just the result of being overly cautious? If
> I
> actually start firing a few guests into VPC on vista, should I expect it
> to
> work or to crash and burn, taking the guest images with it?
>
> I do most of my real work inside VPCs and just use the host OS for things
> that aren't VPC friendly like gaming, so VPC is really important for my to
> work under Vista. Now, for testing, and the day it is released for day to
> day work.
>
> I would hate to not be able to migrate when Vista was ready just because
> VPC
> has some wierd issue.

>Xepol wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. Sounds like my suspicions were correct. Sad. It appears that MS is
>> starting to collapse under its own weight. I wonder if they can turn that
>> trend around. Ah well, at least I don't own MS stock.
>>
>> I'll you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go swear for a while about not being able
>> to move to vista as soon as it comes out. If anyone has any good non-english
>> suggestions, I may need the expanded repitoire to cover my annoyance...
>
>BTW, why do you need or want Vista so quickly.

>I fired up the lastest copy of Vista (5536) today in anticipation of
>testing
> how well Virtual PC runs on it. (not vista in a virtual pc, but rather
> vista
> being the HOST os and virtual PC running on vista). I was a little
> disappointed when I installed Virtual PC and it reported that there
> Virtual
> PC was incompatible with Vista. An attempt to "search for a solution"
> just
> lead to an ever spinning wheel.
>
> So, can anyone provide some light here as to why Virtual PC is not Vista
> friendly, or is the message just the result of being overly cautious? If
> I
> actually start firing a few guests into VPC on vista, should I expect it
> to
> work or to crash and burn, taking the guest images with it?
>
> I do most of my real work inside VPCs and just use the host OS for things
> that aren't VPC friendly like gaming, so VPC is really important for my to
> work under Vista. Now, for testing, and the day it is released for day to
> day work.
>
> I would hate to not be able to migrate when Vista was ready just because
> VPC
> has some wierd issue.

> From the FAQ (
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/evaluation/faq.mspx )
> Q. What is the difference between VPC 2004 and VPC 2007?
> A. VPC 2007 includes the following new features
>
> . Support for Windows Vista 64-bit as a host
> . Support for Windows Vista as a guest

>>
>>BTW, why do you need or want Vista so quickly.
>
>
> Especially since "Vista's revolutionary features were stripped away
> one by one till it was little more than XP with eye candy"???
>

> There are a couple of issues. One, Glass gets turned off when VPC runs
> (it's because of direct draw I believe.)
> Another, at least with build 5472, was parallel ports wouldn't work or could
> even be configured correctly. Otherwise it runs just fine here.
> Virtual PC 2007....

> See the "Virtual PC Guy's Weblog" for discussions about installing Virtual
> PC 2004 in Vista. He covers All Things Virtual PC.
>
> Home:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/default.aspx
> Running Virtual PC under February CTP of Vista:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2006/02/27/540389.aspx
> Running Virtual Server / Virtual PC on Windows Vista Beta 1:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/08/01/446236.aspx
>
> These were the first two I found; there may be other entries.
>
> Hope it works for you.

>> Thanks for the reply. Geeze, as bad joke as it sounds, I've found that
>> desktop compositing engine for Glass is definitely brittle and easy to
>> break.
>> I'm pretty disappointed with what Vista has ultimately turned into after
>> nearly 7 years of development.
>
> No problem. It's still too early to pronounce a problem with Vista
> though, we'll have to wait until it's RTM. The latest build is so much
> better than the previous ones that I'm almost convinced it'll be okay. (as
> soon as we get enough Vista built drivers anyway.)
>
>> Ok, that's really valuable. I use a parallel port dongle so this would
>> be a
>> HUGE issue for me. I'll just have to test and see if they've resolved
>> that
>> yet, but at least it is a sign of hope.
>
> It's a problem and probably wont get fixed by Vista until VPC 2007 comes
> out. You could go with Virtual Server though, parallel ports work with
> it. (at least with the Virtual Server R2SP1 beta)
>
>> Ya, in typical MS style, will likely arrive in 2009 and only update the
>> VPC
>> additions to support Vista. Ugh, sorry, no, that is just the vista
>> disappointment and frustration talking.
>
> I doubt it'll be that late!
>
> --
> Bob Comer <Microsoft MVP Windows - Virtual Machine>
>
>
> "Xepol" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>
>>
>> "Robert Comer" wrote:
>>> There are a couple of issues. One, Glass gets turned off when VPC runs
>>> (it's because of direct draw I believe.)
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. Geeze, as bad joke as it sounds, I've found that
>> desktop compositing engine for Glass is definitely brittle and easy to
>> break.
>> I'm pretty disappointed with what Vista has ultimately turned into after
>> nearly 7 years of development.
>>
>>> Another, at least with build 5472, was parallel ports wouldn't work or
>>> could
>>> even be configured correctly. Otherwise it runs just fine here.
>>
>> Ok, that's really valuable. I use a parallel port dongle so this would
>> be a
>> HUGE issue for me. I'll just have to test and see if they've resolved
>> that
>> yet, but at least it is a sign of hope.
>>
>>> Virtual PC 2007....
>>
>> Ya, in typical MS style, will likely arrive in 2009 and only update the
>> VPC
>> additions to support Vista. Ugh, sorry, no, that is just the vista
>> disappointment and frustration talking.
>>
>> Still, it'll definitely throw a delay into my prefered plans. XP for at
>> least another year I guess. MS if you have any questions as to why some
>> poeple aren't migraiting to Vista as fast as you would like...
>
>

>I'm almost convinced it'll be okay.
> It's a problem and probably wont get fixed by Vista until VPC 2007 comes
> out. You could go with Virtual Server though, parallel ports work with it.
> (at least with the Virtual Server R2SP1 beta)
> I doubt it'll be that late!

> desktop compositing engine for Glass is definitely brittle and easy to
> break.
> I'm pretty disappointed with what Vista has ultimately turned into after
> nearly 7 years of development.
> Ok, that's really valuable. I use a parallel port dongle so this would be
> a
> HUGE issue for me. I'll just have to test and see if they've resolved
> that
> yet, but at least it is a sign of hope.
> Ya, in typical MS style, will likely arrive in 2009 and only update the
> VPC
> additions to support Vista. Ugh, sorry, no, that is just the vista
> disappointment and frustration talking.
>
>
> "Robert Comer" wrote:
>> There are a couple of issues. One, Glass gets turned off when VPC runs
>> (it's because of direct draw I believe.)
>
> Thanks for the reply. Geeze, as bad joke as it sounds, I've found that
> desktop compositing engine for Glass is definitely brittle and easy to
> break.
> I'm pretty disappointed with what Vista has ultimately turned into after
> nearly 7 years of development.
>
>> Another, at least with build 5472, was parallel ports wouldn't work or
>> could
>> even be configured correctly. Otherwise it runs just fine here.
>
> Ok, that's really valuable. I use a parallel port dongle so this would be
> a
> HUGE issue for me. I'll just have to test and see if they've resolved
> that
> yet, but at least it is a sign of hope.
>
>> Virtual PC 2007....
>
> Ya, in typical MS style, will likely arrive in 2009 and only update the
> VPC
> additions to support Vista. Ugh, sorry, no, that is just the vista
> disappointment and frustration talking.
>
> Still, it'll definitely throw a delay into my prefered plans. XP for at
> least another year I guess. MS if you have any questions as to why some
> poeple aren't migraiting to Vista as fast as you would like...

> I agree. Build 5536 runs beautifully.

> they've fixed the com port code to act in a "raw passthrough" mode
> properly
> yet or if it still wants to over work and thus break things like VPC (I
> would
> desperately love to get my MS Phone working again, but the VPC serial port
> mode is just too "helpful" to help.)
> <grin> Not gonna argue with what its cut down to huh?
> Thanks again for all the input.
>
>
> "Robert Comer" wrote:
>
>>I'm almost convinced it'll be okay.
>
> Heh, always good to have dreams.
>
>> It's a problem and probably wont get fixed by Vista until VPC 2007 comes
>> out. You could go with Virtual Server though, parallel ports work with
>> it.
>> (at least with the Virtual Server R2SP1 beta)
>
> I was going to start asking about this. I suppose I should also ask if
> they've fixed the com port code to act in a "raw passthrough" mode
> properly
> yet or if it still wants to over work and thus break things like VPC (I
> would
> desperately love to get my MS Phone working again, but the VPC serial port
> mode is just too "helpful" to help.)
>
>> I doubt it'll be that late!
>
> <grin> Not gonna argue with what its cut down to huh? Come on, it takes
> MS
> at least a year to announce huge plans to innovate and then savagely cut
> them
> back out. Heck, you have to give marketing at least a month of that time
> just to come up with a soul sucking, fun destroying name (WPF....WTF...
> avalon was SUCH a good name...)
>
> Thanks again for all the input.
>
> - Clinton