What are the practical (or real) advantages of Intel VT and TxTtechnology (Q8200 vs Q9300) ?

With regard to, say, the following 2 processors: Q8200 and Q9300

The 8200 is listed as not having Intel "virtualization technology" nor
Intel "Trusted execution technology".

What are the implications of not having those two technologies for a
desktop developer system running 64-bit XP-pro with 8gb ram?

What will I absolutely not be able to do with a Q8200 (and what will be
a major or minor pain, but still possible to do) compared with having
the Q9300?

In message Intel Guy was
claimed to have wrote:

With regard to, say, the following 2 processors: Q8200 and Q9300

The 8200 is listed as not having Intel "virtualization technology" nor
Intel "Trusted execution technology".

What are the implications of not having those two technologies for a
desktop developer system running 64-bit XP-pro with 8gb ram?

What will I absolutely not be able to do with a Q8200 (and what will be
a major or minor pain, but still possible to do) compared with having
the Q9300?

If you're missing VT you'll never be able to run Hyper-V (which is
mainly a server technology anyway), and other virtualization software
will perform more slowly although for the moment everything else still
runs.

Intel Guy wrote:
With regard to, say, the following 2 processors: Q8200 and Q9300

The 8200 is listed as not having Intel "virtualization technology" nor
Intel "Trusted execution technology".

You'll miss virtualization technology, but absolutely not miss trusted
execution technology. Virtualization will for example let you run Linux
under Windows, or vice-versa.

Trusted Execution is otherwise known as DRM. Not having it will make
your life much simpler.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

The 8200 is listed as not having Intel "virtualization technology"
nor Intel "Trusted execution technology".

Virtualization will for example let you run Linux under Windows, or
vice-versa.

Is it an absolute given that I *won't* be able to run *any* sort of
virtualization if I don't have this VT?

If I have 64-bit XP installed on this machine, and I want to run a
virtual 32-bit XP session, or even a virtual win-98 session, I won't be
able?

Is it an absolute given that I *won't* be able to run *any* sort of
virtualization if I don't have this VT?

No. VirtualBox uses hardware virtualization if you have VT on
but it will run fine (albeit slower) with software virtualization.

Tom Lake

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:25:26 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Virtualization will for example let you run Linux
under Windows, or vice-versa.

You might wanna review good descriptions of:

1.) Virtualization and VM's.
2.) Emulation.

AQ

"The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up.
The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up.
The monkey stumbled, mama.
The baboon fell.
The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!"
- from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935

On Mar 17, 8:32*pm, Intel Guy wrote:
Is it an absolute given that I *won't* be able to run *any* sort of
virtualization if I don't have this VT?

If I have 64-bit XP installed on this machine, and I want to run a
virtual 32-bit XP session, or even a virtual win-98 session, I won't be
able?

No, there were software-emulated virtualization software before which
could still do what you want. Those were mainly provided by Vmware
which had this market pretty much to itself in the past: it had the
most comprehensive and mature virtualization suite. The recent spate
of competition for Vmware has been mainly made possible by the
introduction of the hardware virtualization services. So many of the
latest virtualization software does depend on the hardware, since they
didn't develop the full software-emulation strategies that Vmware has
done over several years beforehand. So it's not clear if the newer
virtualizers are as good or even could work at all without the
hardware backbone behind them. It's also not clear how much longer
even Vmware will maintain its old software stack in the face of its
simpler hardware stack being available.

Yousuf Khan

In message Alphonse Q
Muthafuyer was claimed to have wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:25:26 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Virtualization will for example let you run Linux
under Windows, or vice-versa.

You might wanna review good descriptions of:

1.) Virtualization and VM's.
2.) Emulation.

The problem is that most modern virtual machine solutions are a mix of
virtualization and emulation, so the difference between the two concepts
is less well defined in practice.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:32:07 -0400, Intel Guy wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

The 8200 is listed as not having Intel "virtualization technology"
nor Intel "Trusted execution technology".

Virtualization will for example let you run Linux under Windows, or
vice-versa.

Is it an absolute given that I *won't* be able to run *any* sort of
virtualization if I don't have this VT?

No, it's not an absolute given.


If I have 64-bit XP installed on this machine, and I want to run a
virtual 32-bit XP session, or even a virtual win-98 session, I won't be
able?

You will be able to.

2771 2771 On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:39:35 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

In message Alphonse Q
Muthafuyer was claimed to have wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:25:26 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Virtualization will for example let you run Linux
under Windows, or vice-versa.

You might wanna review good descriptions of:

1.) Virtualization and VM's.
2.) Emulation.

The problem is that most modern virtual machine solutions are a mix of
virtualization and emulation, so the difference between the two concepts
is less well defined in practice.

That's certainly news to me.

Can you substantiate?

Doesn't emulation still have a virtual pedigree from the American Kennel Club? :-)

AQ

"The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up.
The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up.
The monkey stumbled, mama.
The baboon fell.
The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!"
- from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935