 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Virtual PC / May 2008ANN: Virtual PC 2007 SP1
Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 Download <URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=28c97d22-6eb8-4a09-a7f7 -f6c7a1f000b5&displaylang=en> Release Notes <URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en>  SignatureThomas Scheidegger - 'NETMaster' http://www.cetus-links.org/oo_dotnet.html - http://dnetmaster.net/ >Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Release Notes ><URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en> Is there anyone that can find the *real* improvements/fixes that are implemented with this SP1? The links above list *only* that the SP1 improves support for a number of MS operating systems service packs, but does not say what exactly they did... For example, have they fixed the RS232 handling bug? Is there anything about USB? Probably nothing.... Bo Berglund >>Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 >>Release Notes >><URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en> > > Is there anyone that can find the *real* improvements/fixes that are > implemented with this SP1? And why do the "Release Notes" only speak of server operating systems as supported? Signature.NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org >>>Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 >>>Release Notes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And why do the "Release Notes" only speak of server operating systems as supported? What release notes are you referring to? The ones I'm looking at make no such claim. SignaturePaul Adare http://www.identit.ca This login session: $13.76, but for you: $11.88. >>>>Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 >>>>Release Notes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What release notes are you referring to? The ones I'm looking at make no > such claim. At the link above. (I was pretty sure that was misinformation, but still...) Specifically... http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en#Requirements Signature.NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org >>>>>Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 >>>>>Release Notes [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en#Requirements What you see on the download page for the Release Notes is referring to the system requirements for the Release Notes themselves (which is still wrong) and has nothing at all to do with the system requirements for VPC itself. SignaturePaul Adare http://www.identit.ca Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits. >>>>>>Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 >>>>>>Release Notes [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > system requirements for the Release Notes themselves (which is still wrong) > and has nothing at all to do with the system requirements for VPC itself. Yep, figured as much. It's just poorly (and under-) worded, which was all I was trying to say. Signature.NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org My area of confusion is since I have used XP Sp3 as a guest OS, and Vista SP1 as a host OS, exactly what does this fix that clearly was not broken in the first place? If all they did was support OS service packs that already worked, I'm left with a big WTF here. Something more had to change, it is a shame they failed to try to document it. - Clinton R. Johnson > >Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bo Berglund If you have a system that supports hardware virtualization - you will not notice much difference (benefit of hardware virtualization there). But if your system does not support hardware virtualization this will make a big difference. Cheers, Benjamin Armstrong ============================ Windows Virtualization Program Manager Blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/Virtual_PC_Guy Book: http://tinyurl.com/ysxcbm This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. You assume all risk for your use. > My area of confusion is since I have used XP Sp3 as a guest OS, and Vista SP1 > as a host OS, exactly what does this fix that clearly was not broken in the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> Bo Berglund Ben, I have such a system, however the biggest thing I notice with hardware virtualization is that my sentinel parallel port dongle stops working when it is enabled, and the software that needs it also automatically stops working. Needless to say, its the first "feature" that I turn off. I'm sure not the only one who has mentioned that the parallel porrt/serial port code is fundamentally flawed in VPC, and I'm definitely not the first person to figure out that the VPC team just doesn't seem to care. Of course, when the parallel port dies, or the next machine I buy doesn't have one and I have to get a usb dongle, I will also have to stop using VPC entirely, because the VPC team also doesn't seem to care about customer requests for USB support (which clearly isn't impossible, since its already supported in other products) If you sense that I am somewhat annoyed by the issues here - it is because I am. Hardware virtualization does indeed make a pretty big speed difference, but it can't come at the cost of loosing basic functionality - that's like saying a car can go 80, but the tires all fly off. Great if you want to go 80, less great if you want to survive the process. - Clinton R. Johnson > If you have a system that supports hardware virtualization - you will > not notice much difference (benefit of hardware virtualization there). > But if your system does not support hardware virtualization this will > make a big difference. This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. Cheers, Benjamin Armstrong ============================ Windows Virtualization Program Manager Blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/Virtual_PC_Guy Book: http://tinyurl.com/ysxcbm This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. You assume all risk for your use. >> Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bo Berglund > This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. Pretty darned poorly written Release Notes, in that case. Signature.NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org ?? It talks about adding support for Vista SP1 and WinXPSP3... SignatureBob Comer >> This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. > >Pretty darned poorly written Release Notes, in that case. >>> This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. >> >>Pretty darned poorly written Release Notes, in that case. > > ?? It talks about adding support for Vista SP1 and WinXPSP3... Okay, clearly we're all talking about different things. I was referring specifically to the link in the *original* post in this thread. That page is *titled* Release Notes. There were no other links on that page leading to where I've since come to find the actual Release Notes. As a reminder, here's the original post: Thomas Scheidegger wrote: > Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Release Notes > <URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en> That second link there; check it out. What appears to be the actual release notes, which I didn't come across until this morning, is (for benefit of the thread) here: http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/f/4/8f44a346-1f62-4bb2-b957-7508ea1f7d8 0/relnotes.htm Clearly, the second link in the first post is misleading. That was my only point. Sorry it got dragged out like this. Signature.NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org The second link in that post is to the download for the release notes and the first link is to the download for the executables. The first doesn't say anything about release notes here and the second is just a download page. I wonder if maybe you got some old pages on your side. (even here some of the .gif links on the first page are broken) SignatureBob Comer >>>> This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Clearly, the second link in the first post is misleading. That was my only point. >Sorry it got dragged out like this. > The second link in that post is to the download for the release notes Ahhhhhhh... LOL! Well, then, *that's* what's not clear, here. I never punched the download button. When I see a page titled "RELEASE NOTES" that's what I expect I'm reading. Who the heck ever heard of *downloading* release notes??? <g> (Another prime example of why MSFT will never overcome GOOG.) Signature.NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org I agree, that is pretty strange. SignatureBob Comer >> The second link in that post is to the download for the release notes > >Ahhhhhhh... LOL! Well, then, *that's* what's not clear, here. I never punched the >download button. When I see a page titled "RELEASE NOTES" that's what I expect I'm >reading. Who the heck ever heard of *downloading* release notes??? <g> (Another >prime example of why MSFT will never overcome GOOG.) To get back to the actual service pack, has anyone actually installed and tried it? On a 3Ghz P4 (no hardware virtuailization) with 2G of memory running Vista SP1 (guests are XPSP3 and Server 2003 SP2) I find that it is much smoother and faster and well worth the effort of installing it. >I agree, that is pretty strange. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>(Another >>prime example of why MSFT will never overcome GOOG.) I have on one PC, but I had a problem on the install, I had to reinstall it, otherwise now it's working fine. (Laptop with a core2duo) It didn't install the vmnet driver the first time. SignatureBob Comer > To get back to the actual service pack, has anyone actually installed and >tried it? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>>(Another >>>prime example of why MSFT will never overcome GOOG.) > This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. As with previous upgrades, is it advisable / necessary to re-apply the Additions to all existing Windows guests...? SignatureMark Rae ASP.NET MVP http://www.markrae.net >> This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. > > As with previous upgrades, is it advisable / necessary to re-apply the > Additions to all existing Windows guests...? Yes, definitely. SignaturePaul Adare http://www.identit.ca If a program is useless, it must be documented. > >> This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Paul Adarehttp://www.identit.ca > If a program is useless, it must be documented. I installed the bits and this is my notes: USB support is still not available as part of this Service Pack :( This service pack adds support to the list of OS'es listed in the site. I guess other fixes have been made. I am not able to repro the bug which Rick is mentioning about after installing the fix. Yes, the additions need to be upgraded after installation (additions have been changed as well) The new product version is 6.0.192 and the additions version is 13.820. No new features have been introduced to my knowledge > USB support is still not available as part of this Service Pack :( Surely no-one was expecting it to be... SignatureMark Rae ASP.NET MVP http://www.markrae.net Which already worked. (ie: vista sp1 and XP Sp3), leaving those of us who already had that working with just VPC 2007 asking ourselves "huh? wtf?" > This service pack primarily adds support for new platforms. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/Virtual_PC_Guy > Book: http://tinyurl.com/ysxcbm >>Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of MS operating systems service packs, but does not say what exactly > they did... This seems like a pretty useless SP. I have been running VPC under Vista Ultimate 64 SP1, running Vista Business SP1 and Server 2008 as guests, among many others. I am skipping this. Nothing is broken here. If USB hasn't been fixed then this is merely a PR release. > This seems like a pretty useless SP. I have been running VPC under Vista > Ultimate 64 SP1, running Vista Business SP1 and Server 2008 as guests, among > many others. > > I am skipping this. Nothing is broken here. If USB hasn't been fixed > then this is merely a PR release. This is no such thing. In addition to everything else provided by the Virtual Machine Addiitions, they also provide kernel level performance enhancements. Every time a new service pack is released for a Windows OS, new kernel level perf enhancements are required. The Additions that come with SP1 contain these perf enhancements for Vista SP1, Server 2008, and XP SP3. SignaturePaul Adare http://www.identit.ca Long computations that yield zero are probably all for naught. > If USB hasn't been fixed Hmm - there appears to be a bit of a misconception with USB lately... VPC for Windows has *NEVER* supported USB nor, AFAIK, will it ever support it in its current form... Where did the idea come from that USB would be supported in this service pack...? SignatureMark Rae ASP.NET MVP http://www.markrae.net > Where did the idea come from that USB would be supported in this service > pack...? Mark: Perhaps the fact that that's what "everybody" wants. <rhetorical> Why would MS issue a service pack without the main thing that customers want? </rhetorical> SignatureDavid Wilkinson Visual C++ MVP >> Where did the idea come from that USB would be supported in this service >> pack...? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > want? > </rhetorical> But why this particular service pack...? People have been asking for USB support for as long as I can remember... From a technical perspective, it's not beyond Microsoft's capability. After all, other virtualisation software has perfectly good USB support, including VPC for Mac... :-) Therefore, the only reason why it's not in VPC for Windows is because Microsoft don't think it's worth doing... SignatureMark Rae ASP.NET MVP http://www.markrae.net >>> Where did the idea come from that USB would be supported in this service >>> pack...? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >But why this particular service pack...? People have been asking for USB >support for as long as I can remember... Isn't this the very first service pack for VPC2007??? It is named SP1 at least. So why expect it in *this* SP? Well, whichever SP then? SP23 or something? Because it is the hope of everyone who do not want to switch to VMWare just because of the USB issue.... >From a technical perspective, it's not beyond Microsoft's capability. After >all, other virtualisation software has perfectly good USB support, including >VPC for Mac... :-) > >Therefore, the only reason why it's not in VPC for Windows is because >Microsoft don't think it's worth doing... Which is countering the thinking of most users out there.... Bo Berglund >>But why this particular service pack...? People have been asking for USB >>support for as long as I can remember... > > Isn't this the very first service pack for VPC2007??? It is. > It is named SP1 at least. That's right. > So why expect it in *this* SP? I don't. Never did... > Because it is the hope of everyone who do not want to switch to VMWare > just because of the USB issue.... That may be the case, but it's not going to happen. If Microsoft wanted to support USB in VPC for Windows, they'd have done so long before now... >>Therefore, the only reason why it's not in VPC for Windows is because >>Microsoft don't think it's worth doing... > > Which is countering the thinking of most users out there.... Again, that may very well be the case. Nevertheless... SignatureMark Rae ASP.NET MVP http://www.markrae.net >> Where did the idea come from that USB would be supported in this service >> pack...? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why would MS issue a service pack without the main thing that customers want? > </rhetorical> Used to be, no one expected new features in a service pack. The *point* of SPs is to fix bugs. Microsoft perverted that concept by allowing feature creep in SPs, and now there appears to be very unrealistic expectations that SPs actually are meant for that. That's just sad. It's a poor way to handle both customers and their expectations. Signature.NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org AWESOME! This is suppose to fix the major bug when you install Windows XP SP3 on the host computer (Broadcom NIC) and lose all network connectivity for all your existing virtual OS's. I am going to install it and see if it does. > Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Release Notes > <URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en> I am glad to see that the default name of the download is setup.exe. Most files I download are named with a helpful name related to what the download is. Well, at least this is consistent. > Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Release Notes > <URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en> > I am glad to see that the default name of the download is setup.exe. Most > files I download are named with a helpful name related to what the download > is. Well, at least this is consistent. This bothers me a little bit as well, but it certainly doesn't take a whole lot of effort to rename the EXE as part of the download process. SignaturePaul Adare http://www.identit.ca If it was easy, the hardware people would take care of it. > Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Release Notes > <URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f3d3eb5-5e03-4712-999c -e96f91bdf128&DisplayLang=en> After the recent fiasco upgrading to Virtualbox 1.6 I think I'll let you guys find the bugs in this service pack. I have 14 VM's under VPC and they are running just fine (like my Win2000 VM WAS under Virtualbox 1.5..!) Good luck..I'll be watching Signature... Jules Brisbane, Australia |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.