Talk:Virtual PC

BIOS

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)

• Have a look at this: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Virtual_PC&diff=9557245&oldid=8734781 and then this: http://ws.arin.net/whois?queryinput=207.46.125.17

Virtualisation or virtual machine?

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)

A virtual machine (VM) is a technical term from the CPU designer's point of view. Virtualization is the process of using it. Anyone got links to any references on original uses of the terms? They'de explain this better. I seem to remember seeing VM mentioned first in an Intel CPU document (286/386 or the like). The idea was to have each program think it was running it's own copy of DOS when ran under Windows or other multitasking managers. Deskview (spelling?) was another multitasking environment. In Microsoft Windows 3.x/95/98/ME, there are 2 files called EMM386.EXE and KERNEL32.DLL that might be interesting to research. VMM: Virtual Machine Manager EMM386.exe: Expanded Memory Manager (not exclusively EMS) EMS: Expanded Memory Specification XMS: eXtended Memory Specification VCPI: Virtual memory Control Program Interface (Can't have VMs without seperate memory spaces!)

Two good references: http://www.qualitas.com/product/max/history.htm http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/msdos/05_memry.mspx?mfr=true

Sorry if this was a little long.  :) JWhiteheadcc 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Canceled

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)

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)

The work seems to be finished. Notinasnaid 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. But it's coming along nicely. -- Steven Fisher 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are a few things I see that need to be updated. DidYouLoseASock 21:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Virtual PC Guy

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)

Pentium II with MMX

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)

Virtual PC 2007 Released 2007-02-19

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/default.mspx

Controversy

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).

Changed Trivia

Changed trivia to limitations, as this is more encyclopeadic in nature.

32-bit

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)

Compatibility

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)

3D Acceleration

I'm not sure how it would work, but can Virtual PC do 3D acceleration emulation? I'm not talking dx9 or anything, I mean I have a good few games that ran on 3DFX, and this is what my Win98 virtual machine was made for!

They do have Glide Wrappers that are supposed to let you play old 3dfx games using OpenGL cards... maybe install a wrapper in the virtual OS? Or not? Dunno!

--JaffaCakeLover 21:38, 22 June 2007 (GMT)

Limitations with Vista Home editions

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

In general you can state that msvm runs any windows version lower or equal to the host version. Exception is vista home, which will only run lower versions. This is a licensing issue, not a technical one.82.170.120.233 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Add to article

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)

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)

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)

supported OS'es

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)

It has a list of _supported_ OSes, although it /should/ work for others. There is no way to know without testing since so many things can be broken. To find the list, either try to create a virtual machine, or read the manual/website. It is also possible that although the OS (98SE for example) works when installed, that specific applications will fail. JWhiteheadcc 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it make for a more informative article to include, for whatever the latest version is at any given point (presently 2007), to include a list of 1) supported host operating systems 2) supported guest operating systems. It should be mentioned of course that just because MS doesnt support a particular OS as a guest does not necessarily mean it wont work. I leave it to your better judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.24.247 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Virtual PC a Hardware emulator and therefore should support any OS? Random Devil (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Doesn't the table of supported operating systems contain that information? N7I2S5 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

picture

Ok, I know the picture I uploade is quite old and plain, but I put it there for a few good reasons.

1. It has one os to show the program itelf
2. the new picture has linux, which is not supported.
3. It is somewhat low-res
4. it is smaller
5. 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)

Supported hosts & guests

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)

What Works and What Doesn't ....

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)

Windows Virtual PC

Windows Virtual PC should be merged here. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree! SF007 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, although it could be argued that Windows Virtual PC refers to the Windows version of the product, whereas this page is a more general reference (to both versions). -David Farrell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.154.120 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows Virtual PC is a seperate product, it is to virtuallise Win XP in Windows 7 and requires hardware support - unlike Microsoft Virtual PC which doesn't. Lukefulford (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Describe Windows Virtual PC as 'Windows Virtual PC is the latest Microsoft virtualization technology for Windows 7.' not as a replacement for the existing product. Lukefulford (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Luke and David have a point – is Windows Virtual PC a continuation of the same product, or a new product with a similar function? I can see benefits to keeping the two as separate articles, since a lot of the information seems Virtual PC 2007-centric.

If we keep the articles merged, I propose a few structural adjustments to better distinguish content that no longer applies to the latest version. (For example, it seems that Virtual Machine Additions have been replaced by Integration Components in Windows Virtual PC.) Here's one potential structure, which moves some top-level sections into subsections of the Virtual PC versions to which they apply.

Current Structure	Potential Structure
Lead Emulated environment Virtual Machine Additions Supported host and guest operating systems Host operating systems Guest operating systems Emulating Linux-based environments Version history Windows Virtual PC Requirements Availability Intel-based Mac support Windows XP Mode	Lead Windows Virtual PC Requirements Availability Windows XP Mode Emulated environment Comparison table showing major versions of VPC Supported host and guest operating systems Comparison table showing major versions of VPC Emulating Linux-based environments Intel-based Mac support Previous versions Virtual PC by Connectix Virtual PC 2004/2007 Virtual Machine Additions

Any thoughts? I'm not particularly attached to the specific structure above, but I do think some adjustments should be made.

—Pslide (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this layout would benefit the artical and make it clearerLukefulford (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've now changed the layout to the one suggested by Pslide, please feel free to change it in any way. Lukefulford (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Nicely done. One potential change might be to put all versions in chronological order. Originally I suggested Windows Virtual PC at the top of the article, for reader convenience, but on second thought this might make the article harder to update. For example, when the next version's beta comes along, where would it go? At what point would it become the "current version", replacing Windows Virtual PC at the top? Pslide (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows XP Mode Under VirtualBox

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)

Please no original researchJasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Organizing supported hosts and guests

I think the Supported host and guest operating systems section could use some organization, especially after the recent merge of the Windows Virtual PC article. Currently, readers can scan through the bulleted lists to find an individual OS, but it's hard to see the big picture.

Perhaps the information could be presented more clearly and consistently by consolidating the six bulleted lists into a single table? This would also make the section easy to update for future software releases. -- Pslide (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I know they're ugly, but I just added a bunch of {{fact}} templates to Supported host and guest operating systems. I don't necessarily doubt the information given for Virtual PC 2007 but, for example, we need sources to:

• show why Vista Home Basic is officially supported but Home Basic N won't even install
• justify the "will not install" classification of hosts
• confirm official Microsoft support for Vista Home Premium and Home Basic hosts
• verify that all versions of Vista are supported guests (how about Vista Starter?)

I can verify at least some of the info just from personal experience, but hey, I'm not a "reliable" source. For more, see my actual edit. -- Pslide (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked the Supported host and guest operating systems section in my user space, at User:Pslide/sb/vpc. My goals were improved organization, clearer specifics, and reliable sources. Comments and edits welcome. If no one objects, I'll update the main article in a couple days. Pslide (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Older operating systems and Virtual PC

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)

Stable release version number seems to be wrong & general versioning

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)

Dubious

Windows XP Mode was not released for, and will fail to function on, any editions of Windows 7 other than Professional, Enterprise and Ultimate Editions.

I doubt there's any reason why Home editions of Windows 7 wouldn't be ABLE to run XP Mode - it's probably an artificial restriction, like how IIS "wasn't supported" on XP Home but this restriction could be circumvented. Looking at a google search for "xp mode home premium" suggests that workarounds do exist. GSMR (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

First, why do you censor the article instead of just putting a dubious sign in it?

Second, I checked the Google results you listed neither were they reliable sources nor did they what they claimed: They did not offer a workaround; instead, they instructed on how to extract Windows XP from WXM and how to artificially create a Virtual Machine with Windows XP.

Last but not least, you did not get the whole issue: Windows XP Mode is not licensed to users of Home Premium edition. Use of it on Windows 7 Home Premium in any way is illegal. The only legal workaround would be to have a licensed copy of Windows XP. Hence, the workarounds that your Google Results show are an act of software piracy.

I'll add necessary sources. Fleet Command (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

1. "censor" is inflamable,

2. there's a technical question (can XP actually run in the Home edition?) and a marketing question (will MS do it?),

3. the piracy question is off-topical. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No. It isn't. "Can XP actually run in the Home edition?" is not the question here. (If it is your question, you can refer to "Supported host and guest operating systems" section of the article for an answer.) The section on Windows XP Mode perfectly establishes the fact the Windows XP Mode is the name of a virtual machine package and its included license. Yes, Microsoft has allowed everyone with a license of Windows XP to run it inside a virtual or physical machine but not everyone is allowed to have a free copy of Windows XP Mode. Fleet Command (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

windows xp mode is avalible on all windows 7 editions except starter and home premium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simo233 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Table of supported operating systems

Windows Server 2008 R2 is not mentioned, although it was released some time ago. Since MS did not release any 32-bit versions, it is clear that it is not supported on VPC 2007 SP1 or earlier, nor in Win VPC as a 32-bit guest. I'm not sure if it is supported in Win VPC as a 46-bit guest though. Either way I think it should be included in the table. Does anyone agree? 71.199.54.157 (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Windows Virtual PC supports no 64-bit guests, so R2 is not supported.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, but the table has a 64-bit guest column (although everything in it said "No"). 71.199.54.157 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just there because similar tables exist for other software, I think.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I've added Win Server 2008 R2 to the table, with "N/A' in the 32-bit columns and "No" for the 64-bit columns. 71.199.54.157 (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted your addition, since you have failed to supply a source that confirms your assertion. And I also deleted the redundant 64-bit column since WP:FACR does not approve redundancies. Fleet Command (talk)

I was always thinking "redundant!" but I never bothered to complain.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

False Information

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) 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not officially supported.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

@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)

Wow! Even I missed it!--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit compatibility question

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)

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)

Attached hard disks

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Windows Virtual PC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Windows Virtual PC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2023

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)

---

Windows Virtual PC → 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) updated 19:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – The problem, however, is that the current product is actually called "Windows Virtual PC". DFlhb, can you clarify why the current redirect Microsoft Virtual PC, which points to the relevant section in the article, isn't sufficient? How does a user seeking out the Mac version become confused? Guess I'm not following. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I created Virtual PC by Connectix, which is a better match for the Mac version (seems Microsoft abandoned it for Mac shortly after acquiring it). That redirect does mostly solve my problem.

  Frankly, we might even consider moving to Virtual PC (currently a redirect), since it seems that all its names only lasted for a few short years ("Virtual PC" 1997-2006, "Microsoft Virtual PC" 2006-2009, "Windows Virtual PC" 2009-2011, then discontinued). DFlhb (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  OK, by that rationale, I could probably support the move. Do you want to modify the move request since no one has weighed in yet? Then I'll add my !vote below. BTW, I didn't pick up on the fact that the software was discontinued until you mentioned it (though I do see it now in the infobox), so perhaps some additional clarity could be added to the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Good idea. I've modified it; feel free to collapse this thread. I've also noticed that "Virtual PC" seems to be the real COMMONNAME (and despite "Virtual PC" being a pretty generic term, the rise and fall in its use seems to coincide well with this program, so don't think the Ngram is capturing unrelated use). DFlhb (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support – per WP:COMMONNAME and OP's comments. The software was simply called "Virtual PC" for the majority of its existence. Redirects are in place to cover the other possible titles. Further improvement of the lead will also aid those who land here looking for a specific iteration of this software. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:SURPRISE - it is too vague a name and even I assumed that "Virtual PC" meant "virtual machine" or a subcategory thereof. (And yes, I am suggesting Virtual PC become a disambiguation page). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  What else would you link in a disambig page, beyond Virtual machine, which we have a hatnote for? DFlhb (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think WP:SURPRISE applies. It wouldn't be a shock to land in an article that talks about a type of virtual machine. In fact, Virtual PC already redirects to the article. The first paragraph mentions virtualization, Hyper-V, and emulator, all front and center and the most likely alternatives. And of course, virtual machine is one of the hatnotes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.