XP Mode Question


D

Don

I am contemplating upgrading my machine from Windows XP Pro to Windows 7
Pro 64 bit. I have a legacy video capture devices (Plextor 402U) with
no Windows Vista/7 support. Question is, could I install the drivers
and software under XP mode, and would it work?

Thanks
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Blake

I am contemplating upgrading my machine from Windows XP Pro to Windows 7
Pro 64 bit. I have a legacy video capture devices (Plextor 402U) with
no Windows Vista/7 support. Question is, could I install the drivers
and software under XP mode, and would it work?

It should work, but bear in mind that an upgrade us not possible. The
only way to get from XP to Windows 7 is by a clean installation (or a
two-step upgrade--first to Vista, then to Windows 7--which I do *not*
recommend).

Also is your hardware adequate for Windows 7? Most XP-era machines are
not. Tell us what the configuration is.

And finally, do you realize that you can install 64-bit Windows 7,
only if have a 64-bit motherboard and CPU? Again, most XP-era machines
do not.
 
P

Paul

Don said:
I am contemplating upgrading my machine from Windows XP Pro to Windows 7
Pro 64 bit. I have a legacy video capture devices (Plextor 402U) with
no Windows Vista/7 support. Question is, could I install the drivers
and software under XP mode, and would it work?

Thanks
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd744684(WS.10).aspx

"Scenario 2: Use a USB device in a virtual machine

Windows Virtual PC supports the use of USB 2.0 devices, either by
sharing the device or by redirecting the device to the virtual machine.
The method you use depends on which type of USB device you want to use.
When integration features are installed and enabled in the guest
operating system, storage devices and smart card readers are automatically
shared with virtual machines on a physical computer. No additional steps
are required to use these types of USB devices. (Integration features
are enabled by default when you install them, but you can disable them
from the Action menu.)

For other types of devices, you can use them by attaching them to the
virtual machine. For example, you can attach the following types of USB devices:

* Digital cameras
* USB CD writer/reader
* MP3 players
* Phone/PDA/mobile device
* WebCam/video camera
* Wireless network adapters

To attach a USB device to a virtual machine

1. Attach the device to the physical computer and turn on the device.
2. From the virtual machine window, click USB and then click Attach-device name.
3. Windows looks for and tries to install the device driver in the guest operating
system. You can install the driver from the Internet or from a CD.
4. After the driver is installed, you can use the USB device from within the
virtual machine the same way as you would on a physical computer. However,
USB devices that are connected using these steps are not shared, so they
must be released from one operating system to be available for use on
the other operating system.
5. To make the USB device available on the host operating system, release it
from the virtual machine. From the virtual machine window, click USB and
then click Release device name."

So it sounds like, unlike VirtualPC 2007, the current generation supports
USB attach like VirtualBox does. It would give you one more way to *try* to
get it to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

"A new version of Microsoft Virtual PC, newly renamed as Windows Virtual PC
was made available for Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate editions."

Paul
 
K

KCB

Ken Blake said:
It should work, but bear in mind that an upgrade us not possible. The
only way to get from XP to Windows 7 is by a clean installation (or a
two-step upgrade--first to Vista, then to Windows 7--which I do *not*
recommend).

Also is your hardware adequate for Windows 7? Most XP-era machines are
not. Tell us what the configuration is.

And finally, do you realize that you can install 64-bit Windows 7,
only if have a 64-bit motherboard and CPU? Again, most XP-era machines
do not.
64-bit machines have been around for 7 or 8 years. What do you consider
XP-era machines?
 
K

Ken Blake

64-bit machines have been around for 7 or 8 years. What do you consider
XP-era machines?


Sigh. XP-era machines are those that were sold during the period when
the current version of Windows was XP. Regardless of how long 64-bit
machines have been available, in the XP era, they were rare. I didn't
have one then, and most of us didn't either.
 
R

R. C. White

Hi, Ken.
Regardless of how long 64-bit machines have been available, in the XP
era, they were rare. I didn't have one then, and most of us didn't either.
Right. WinXP went on sale in October 2001. But Windows XP 64-bit Edition
did not arrive until about 2005. I got my first 64-bit motherboard/CPU in
July 2004 and WinXP x64 was still considered beta, almost. It still was not
really stable - for me - until about the time that Vista "went gold" in
November 2006. Norton Internet Security 2005 never did get updated to
64-bit; my subscription expired while I was waiting for 64-bit - and NIS
2006 didn't promise 64-bit support, either, so I never bought that version.
Drivers for 64-bit WinXP/Vista were still scarce items until some time after
Vista went on sale to the public in early 2007. I've used 64-bit Vista/Win7
exclusively (almost) since December 2006.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"Ken Blake" wrote in message

64-bit machines have been around for 7 or 8 years. What do you consider
XP-era machines?

Sigh. XP-era machines are those that were sold during the period when
the current version of Windows was XP. Regardless of how long 64-bit
machines have been available, in the XP era, they were rare. I didn't
have one then, and most of us didn't either.
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Todd

I am contemplating upgrading my machine from Windows XP Pro to Windows 7
Pro 64 bit. I have a legacy video capture devices (Plextor 402U) with no
Windows Vista/7 support. Question is, could I install the drivers and
software under XP mode, and would it work?

Thanks
Don't know about "video capture" in XP mode. I suspect it will
give you a hassle.

To find out if/how your machines runs under 64 bit, download
and burn this ISO and boot off it. It is a 64 bit Linux Live
CD. It will bitch if you can not run 64 bit.

http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/spins/linux/releases/15/Spins/x86_64/Fedora-15-x86_64-Live-XFCE.iso

You may wish to just purchase a new computer to run W7. Remember
that you have to get one that is at least twice as fast as
your XP machine to get the same performance out of it that
you got from XP. W7 is arguable 80% slower than XP. And be
prepared for a lot of crashing you did not get in XP: W7 is
about 10 times as unstable as XP. And, and, be prepared to
have to purchase all new software. Most old non-M$ authored
software for XP has troubles in W7.

Hth somewhat,
-T
 
C

charlie

Most old non-M$ authored
software for XP has troubles in W7.
While some older and poorly written newer software can have problems,
most software applications intended for XP can be used in Win 7. That's
not to say that there can be various problems to surmount to get it to
run properly. Generally, if the software truly followed the conventions
for XP, It will run. At one point, we even were successful in running
QBasic programs that did some things that "are not supported" in XP, let
alone Win 7.
The single largest problem we found had to do with
directory/subdirectory names, length of the names, and complex directory
trees. We also tried such things as a Lotus version that would run on
XP, but was intended for an earlier windows version.

What will likely not run (and may not even "install") - - any software
that expects to do direct i/o.
 
C

Char Jackson

You may wish to just purchase a new computer to run W7. Remember
that you have to get one that is at least twice as fast as
your XP machine to get the same performance out of it that
you got from XP. W7 is arguable 80% slower than XP. And be
prepared for a lot of crashing you did not get in XP: W7 is
about 10 times as unstable as XP. And, and, be prepared to
have to purchase all new software. Most old non-M$ authored
software for XP has troubles in W7.
You REALLY have a bad impression of Windows 7.

My own experiences, which aren't any more valuable than yours, are
very, VERY, different.
 
T

Todd

Same here.
You two lead a charmed life. I have been doing this for over 16
years. I have seen most of what M$ has to offer. I could
also tell you story after story after story. But, not
everyone sees things the same. Although W7 is a really nice
clean up of Vista, if is still Vista. I am not really happy with
W7. XP is must faster and far more stable. I have XP, Vista, W7
as virtual machines in my office. I use XP to do my Windows work
as W7 is far too slow and Vista is horrible. I also work in
the Linux world. Linux runs circles around M$'s when it comes
to performance and stability -- love the journaling file system.
Linux is my host operating system. But, Linux does not have
the application base, so most of my customers are in Windows.

I still have customer ask me to build them custom machines
with XP through W7 downgrade rights. The only one that
had me do a custom with W7, has now had me revert her
back to XP. Too much crashing and too slow. She is really
enjoying XP's increased stability and speed. And it is not
my hardware, it runs perfectly under XP.

Just had a Toshiba laptop that was driving a poor old grandmother
crazy. All she wanted to do is type letters. She is not
even on the Internet. All her kids and grandkids kept configuring
things on her desktop for her. They lasted about two days and were
gone. When they finally called me in, I quickly diagnosed the
stinking roll back problem after W7 crashes. It even crashed
on me trying to boot up to see what was going on.

She is now on 64 bit Fedora Core 14 (Linux Desktop) with Libre Office
and she is about 300% faster and never crashes. So rock solid
you think her computer was an appliance. Again, not the
hardware.

It is nice that we can disagree and remain civil. Sometimes
the flaming on these groups can get really tiresome.

It is a living. :)

-T
 
Ad

Advertisements

L

Leon Manfredi

You REALLY have a bad impression of Windows 7.

My own experiences, which aren't any more valuable than yours, are
very, VERY, different.
Right! Not only is it slower, it's erratic, and as an inferior, and
incomplete
a product that MS has ever marketed. It will only recognize 3 meg of memory.
 
S

Seth

Leon Manfredi said:
Right! Not only is it slower, it's erratic, and as an inferior, and
incomplete
a product that MS has ever marketed. It will only recognize 3 meg of
memory.
Was there supposed to be a smiley face in there some where?

A) The limit is 3GB, not 3MB.
B) That limit is for 32b only. Memory limit is much higher on 64b.
 
K

Ken Blake

Right! Not only is it slower, it's erratic, and as an inferior, and
incomplete
a product that MS has ever marketed. It will only recognize 3 meg of memory.


Sorry, but that is *not* correct, for several reasons. First of all,
undoubtedly you mean 3GB, not 3MB, but even that is not correct.

How much memory it will recognize is a function of two things: whether
it's 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows, and for 32-bit Windows what
hardware you have. Moreover, even with 32-bit Windows, the number is
usually a little higher than 3GB

And also be aware that the amount of memory that 32-bit Windows 7 will
recognize on a particular computer is exactly the same as the amount
*any* 32-bit client version of Windows will recognize (see below).

An explanation of how much it will recognize follows below, but let me
also mention that how much memory you need for good performance
depends on what applications you run, and for most people, a little
more than 3GB is more than enough.

All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just XP/Vista/7) have a 4GB
address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

But you can't use the entire address space. Even though you have a
4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's
because some of that space is used by hardware and is not available to
the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM
goes unused because there is no address space to map it to.
 
P

Paul

Leon said:
Right! Not only is it slower, it's erratic, and as an inferior, and
incomplete
a product that MS has ever marketed. It will only recognize 3 meg of
memory.
As it turns out, the memory limitation of a Windows 32 bit OS, is
an artificial situation. Someone has hacked Vista 32 bit for example,
and run 8GB of memory on it. PAE supports at least up to a 36 bit
address (more bits than that, in the AMD architecture), so technically,
a 32 bit OS could address a lot more. But Microsoft decided that would
eat into their server business, so they limited the "memory license" to
4GB (minus the space used by hardware busses).

http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm

The hardware busses take address space. A major consumer of space on
those busses, is the memory on the video card.

The hardware solves this problem, by remapping memory above 4GB. But
the Microsoft license, prevents you from accessing up there. Depending
on how the mapper is set up, it may "hoist" everything above 3GB, into
a place that you can't use it. That is one reason for the 3GB number.

There is one motherboard (in a Dell), where an unfortunate choice was
made to change the lift point to 2GB. On that particular system, even
with a video card with tiny onboard memory, a 32 bit Windows OS will
only allow 2GB max. The offset and granularity of the lifting thing,
affects what you get to use. At least Dell was good enough, to
warn about this, on one of their web pages for the product.

If a user installs 4GB of memory, and two 512MB video cards in SLI,
they get to use 2.75GB of memory, after all bus addressing requirements
are met. If you make the video card memory big enough (Asus Mars),
you can get to a point where there is no longer any room to address
system memory (with a 32 bit OS).

One other tidbit I've learned. You *can* use memory above 4GB, with this
product. I've actually tested this. Using WinXP 32 bit, with 6GB memory
installed in the computer, I had 3.2GB free for programs, and a 2GB
RAMDisk for high speed storage. That is a total of 5.2GB on a 32 bit
system. It seems that somehow, you can define a RAMDisk up there, but
not run programs up there. On the one hand, PAE makes the addressing
part of the problem a solved issue, but the real question, is how
did these people manage to map what they needed ? That's pretty
clever.

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

My RAMDisk in action, benching at close to 4GB/sec. On a 32 bit OS...
And living in "high memory". I only kept this config long enough,
to finish the benchmark.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8694/hdtunedataram2gbabove.gif

Paul
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Tim Slattery

Was there supposed to be a smiley face in there some where?

A) The limit is 3GB, not 3MB.
B) That limit is for 32b only. Memory limit is much higher on 64b.
The limit is inherent in 32-bit systems. It also applies to
32-versions of NT, XP, and Vista. It is *not* something unique to
Vista. And it's not hard-and-fast 3GB. See
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
 
B

BillW50

Alias said:
Doesn't apply to Linux 32 bit.
Really? Then why can't this Linux (Xandros) see anything past 1GB? The
Diagnostic Tool shows 2GB of RAM (which is correct). While System Info
only shows 1024MB of RAM. And the Task Manager reports:

687,904 KB used
220,828 KB free
 
N

Nil

And I'll also add my voice to the two of yours.
And me, too. "Todd" is wrong, misinformed, and/or misleading in every
point.

- Windows 7 will run in many computers spec'ed for XP, and a faster
computer will run it better, of course. But saying that you need one
"twice as fast" is ridiculous. He's grossly exaggerating.

- Win7 has been stable as a rock on the several computers I monitor.
Almost no crashes, and certainly no more than XP. He's wrong or lying.

- I only had to buy one new software package for my Win7 box, Nero. I'm
aware that there are other packages that must be upgraded to run on
Win7, but MOST software will run just fine. Once again, he is
exaggerating in order to create a false impression.

I have some issues with Windows 7, but none of them have anything to do
with the above points.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

You two lead a charmed life.
I think you'll find that your experiences are far from typical. I also
suspect that your perspective will change as you gain experience with
Windows 7.
I have been doing this for over 16
years. I have seen most of what M$ has to offer.
FYI, the use of "M$" seriously damages your credibility.

<snip>
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top