Talk:Virtual PC

message: Virtual PC for Macintosh switched to the AMI BIOS with version 7.0. I know that the Windows version was already using the AMI BIOS at that point, but I'm not sure if that was from inception, or if there was a change. Clarification would be appreciated.
I struck "Even although they already had VM software, but they didn't want VirtualPC to be shipped with a tiny version of RedHat Linux." because it's not a complete sentence and somewhat unclear as to what the point is, nor is it neutral in tone. Finally, as a former employee of Connectix, I can say without a doubt that VPC with Redhat Linux was dead long before the Microsoft acquisition.Unseelie 16:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BIOS

message: This article defines Virtual PC (for Windows) as a virtualization product (a generic category that includes virtual machine). However, the very similar VMware is defined as a virtual machine product. Which is more right? I think they should be consistent unless there is a fundamental difference I mised. Notinasnaid 10:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtualisation or virtual machine? 

message: This page needs to be updated because Microsoft canceled Virtual PC http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/08/07/vpc/index.php . There is a lot of work needed for this page since they are no longer developing it and I have no idea where to start. DidYouLoseASock 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps less work than you think. Just because products are discontinued, cancelled or dying, it doesn't affect what you write about them, except to remove discussions of the future and add a note about any official announcements.  Notinasnaid 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The work seems to be finished. Notinasnaid 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go that far. But it's coming along nicely. -- Steven Fisher 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, there are a few things I see that need to be updated. DidYouLoseASock 21:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  If Virtual PC has a diffrent icon in windows then it should be changed to that. The image also should now be Vertual PC running in  Windows. Best would be if some one could get an image of Vista running an older version of Windows. DidYouLoseASock 22:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Clarification: Microsoft canceled the **Mac** version only. -Andreas Toth
What's with the ignorance on Wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canceled 

message: None of the External Links have a description after the link, so I dunno how this would look going after the blog link: " - Has articles on getting specific operating systems and legacy games running, as well as tips and tricks and scripting samples for both Virtual PC and Virtual Server."  I think it would be helpful (I wouldn't expect to find info on how to get so many DOS games running.  I'll let someone else add it if everyone doesn't think it'll break the format too much.--70.18.190.183 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual PC Guy 

message: Isn't this sort of redundant? I used to think that Pentium II = Pentium Pro + MMX, and the Pentium II article essentially agrees with this. Was there ever a Pentium II without MMX instructions? At least according to the Wikipedia article, there wasn't. Aragorn2 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentium II with MMX 

message: I lack the prudence and grammar skills to create a consice edit, but I believe there deserves to be a controversy section to this article because of the recent ammendments to the Windows operating systems licence agreements that restrict usage of the OS in non-Microsoft-VPC products, such as VMware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.154.253.105 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Made slight edit to mention that Virtual PC emulates/virtualizes 32-bit processors only.
:This applies to all version prior to version 2007 (version 2007 is available as 32-bit and 64-bit versions). -Andreas Toth
::Yes, the 2007 release is available in 32-bit and 64-bit, but still only virtualizes 32-bit. -David Farrell  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.154.120 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  32-bit 

message: Removed this text:
For example, a bug in VirtualPC 2004 SP1 in Windows is such that if there exists any installed printer using LPT1 in the host OS (i.e. Windows XP), the guest OS will be unable to use the printer port at all.  This problem was corrected in Virtual PC 2007.  
From this paragraph:
Not all programs are guaranteed to work because they can use undocumented features of hardware, exotic timings, or unsupported opcodes, although overall compatibility is considered excellent.  Nonetheless, there are many issues that remain which detract from the overall experience, even within the expected/targeted OSes.  For example, a bug in VirtualPC 2004 SP1 in Windows is such that if there exists any installed printer using LPT1 in the host OS (i.e. Windows XP), the guest OS will be unable to use the printer port at all.  This problem was corrected in Virtual PC 2007.  
If the LPT1 problem has been corrected in Virtual PC 2007, it is not an issue that "remains" in the product, and is therefore an invalid example of "issues that remain which detract..."
: This is an encyclopedia, not an extension of ms product information. The fact that an issue is resolved in a newer release does not mean that it is solved in previous releases. So the bug is still there in msvp 2004. 
:The way you handle this is like removing the vietnam war from american history because 'the war is over'   82.170.120.233 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compatibility 

message: This section is confusing. Is it refering to using Vista Home as the guest or host OS? Josh 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations with Vista Home editions 

message: USB devices don't seem to be able to run under a Virtual PC. Should I add that?
Astroview120mm 03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means... As long as you have sources... 203.14.53.15  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.53.15 (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anybody have more info on what types of USB devices are actually supported? It seems to work on common USB devices (e.g. flash drives) but not for fairly uncommon ones (e.g. fingerprint readers). RasterBlaster (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to article 

message: Does virtual pc support all microsoft operating systems from DOS and Windows 1.0 to XP? 160.7.234.154 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There can always be incompatabilities. Just like no OS will run on any hardware. Sometimes the problems are just plain stupid. I once tried to install a software on a virtual pc, cause it did not want to install on my Vista(please don't judge me ;-)). On the product it said "Win 98/2000". So I installed Win 2000 on a VPC, but the software still did not want to install. Prior to installation it tested the OS is was running on. Since the VPC with Win 2000 did not return "Win 2000", but something very strange, the Software refused to install ("OS is 'skdjksaj'...not Win2000 bla bla bla"), even if it would have probably run just fine. As you can see: There are still little differences between virtual and physical PCs and those sometimes make the difference. 78.54.123.242 (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the table of supported operating systems contain that information? N7I2S5 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  supported OS'es 

message: Ok, I know the picture I uploade is quite old and plain, but I put it there for a few good reasons. 
# It has one os to show the program itelf
# the new picture has linux, which is not supported.
# It is somewhat low-res
# it is smaller
# it doesn't fill the whole screen with a bunch of windows that mean the same thing.
I won't replace it yet, but I'd like some feedback on this. --Astroview120mm 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: I think this section really is still confusing (it was earlier too) because "supported" has many different meanings:
* Whether the license/EULA permits/"supports"
* "Support" with virtual machine additions or without VM additions, including unpredictable results for "unsupported" OSes
* Whether technically it is absolutely out of VPC's capabilities to install..e.g.64-bit guest OSes
* "Supported hosts" has a different meaning because as such there aren't any feature differences/limitations amongst the SKUs preventing VPC to run ON THAT HOST OS.
* The actual results a user may get e.g.XP Media Center is not "supported" but it behaves exactly like XP Professional
MS having now lifted the EULA restrictions for Vista, I propose to remove the SKU information, mention only 32-bit or 64-bit. - xpclient talk 09:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supported hosts & guests 

message: I think this would be a valuable External Link, but I am putting it in the talk page first per the message.  What Works and What Doesn't in VPC. Surv1v4l1st (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Works and What Doesn't .... 

message: It looks like, when you install Virtual Windows XP for Windows 7 Professional/Ultimate it extracts a VHD from a MSI package. I was able to run VHD in VirtualBox without any problems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.202.197 (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please no original researchJasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows XP Mode Under VirtualBox 

message: Here is some info on older operating systems and VPC.
1.  PC/MS-DOS  5.0 and later in vpc.  Note that the vpc 2007 is unreadable by DOS, so the files should be placed on a diskette.
2.  Windows 3.x (3.0, 3.0 MME, 3.1, 3.11) has difficulty starting in enhanced mode.  Use standard mode for these.  Win-OS/2 also seems affected by this, although its DOS runs fine.
3.  OS/2 2.x and later install and run in VPC.  OS/2 1.x does not install, but will run in VPC. There is a copy of 1.31 installed on a real PC, and imaged to VPC. VPC 2007 cdrom can not be read by OS/2.  
4.  Windows NT 3.1 and 3.50 will not install unmodified onto a pentium computer, but there is a fix for this.  All three (inc vpc 3.51) run in VPC.  You can network these to the host, by installing the appropriate network protocols.  It's best to use the three install diskettes for this: they work fine, even as images.
5.  VPC 2007 has a driver cdrom that does not work under DOS or OS/2, however, the drivers work just fine.
--Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older operating systems and Virtual PC 

message: I don't know where the stable version number in this article came from, but it doesn't seem to gel with anything that I can find.
According to Microsoft the current build for Windows 7 RTM is:
6.1.7600.16393
Source: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=2B6D5C18-1441-47EA-8309-2545B08E11DD&displaylang=en
So how we got to a Windows Vista build number of 6.0.211.0 for a Windows 7 release and a SP1 for an operating system which hasn't been serviced yet, I don't know?
Secondly, I would like request discussion over the use of "Virtual PC 2009". I cannot see any immediate reference to this branding in the program, and a google search of microsoft.com for the term "virtual pc 2009" renders only community banter:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Amicrosoft.com+%22Virtual+PC+2009%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
If this is more than a coloquial term then whoever added it, please provide a reference. If it is coloquail, I don't think that it has a place in an encyclopaedia article.
C:Amie (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable release version number seems to be wrong & general versioning 

message: In the table of supported host and guest operating systems with the different versions of Virtual PC,I see false information. There is all kinds of false information regarding Windows 7 as a host OS (and I am sure that there is some regarding other OSes too). For example, I have Windows 7 Ultimate with Virtual PC 2007,and I am running Windows 2000 Professional fine on it,but here it says "N/A". Kelton2 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not officially supported.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kelton2: The "N/A" you are referring to is in the field corresponding to host OS on x64. Your host OS is Windows 7 Ultimate. It is your guest OS that is Windows 2000 and that field says "Yes". Oops! Your mistake! Fleet Command (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Even I missed it!--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Information 

message: Does Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit run Corel Draw 4 upgraded to 9?  Or do I have to purchase Corel Draw 12 to run with Windows 7 etc etc?  Can't seem to find answer anywhere.  Thank you
Rev Barbara Maclennan
Email redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.248.7 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference desk is for you, but you can't expect us amateur editors to provide support for this software.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit compatibility question 

message: This article would be improved by the addition of information about the feature set of Windows Virtual PC, and possibly some discussion about the reason for the removal of features. 
For example: (1) Some versions of Windows Virtual PC allowed you to attach, hardware level, to a hard disk. (2) Some versions of Windows Virtual PC allowed you to execute files from an attached shared folder.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attached hard disks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Windows Virtual PC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090704215326/http://www.microsoft.com:80/downloadS/details.aspx?familyid=943B6AC7-87F2-45DF-A516-21321D559AC3&displaylang=en to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=943B6AC7-87F2-45DF-A516-21321D559AC3&displaylang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090704215326/http://www.microsoft.com:80/downloadS/details.aspx?familyid=DB29EB2B-F095-4172-8E83-9C5623045D4E&displaylang=en to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=DB29EB2B-F095-4172-8E83-9C5623045D4E&displaylang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Windows Virtual PC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090704023244/http://www.microsoft.com:80/downloadS/details.aspx?familyid=65E1C5EB-DF9B-415F-B2D6-27F6EF5DCEB9&displaylang=en to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=65E1C5EB-DF9B-415F-B2D6-27F6EF5DCEB9&displaylang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows Virtual PC →  – Per Google Ngram, seems like "Virtual PC" is the WP:COMMONNAME. That was its name between 1997 and 2006 (then "Microsoft Virtual PC" 2006-2009, "Windows Virtual PC" 2009-2011, then discontinued). Checking old Macintosh magazines, they all call it "Virtual PC", so it seems "Connectix Virtual PC" was never its official name. DFlhb (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 April 2023