Recommended Posts

No that is untrue. It only requires a chip that supports either AMD-V or Intel's VT-x and yes there are some Core 2's that do support it.

This comes from my experience in running Hyper-V on a Nehalem i7--ie the First Gen Core i7s.

^ thanks for all the replies... I was mainly asking for Windows 8's version of Hyper-V... Did some more research and apparently, judging by the CoreInfo tool, my CPU doesn't support SLAT which will be required to run Hyper-V on the desktop. :(

I was hoping to get rid of VMware, I guess I won't be able to.

I think I've read somewhere that Hyper-V will require Sandy Bridge CPUs to function properly... is this a requirement only for a specific feature, or will Hyper-V not run at all on Core 2 CPUs?

The feature that Hyper-V on Windows 8 *client* (not Server) requires is Second-level Address Translation (SLAT) and is specifically required by the RemoteFX-enhanced VM client in Windows 8 client. However, it is supported by Sandy Bridge CPUs above the Pentium G series (basically i3 and later).

However, i3 is silly-cheap.

Your BIOS also has to support DEP on Server 2008 R2. Normal server 2008 will work without. Little ****ed about this atm. My i7 Supports it but my Intel Motherboard has DEP disabled.

And there is no switch to enable it?

Conversely, the SLAT requirement does not exist for either Server 2008R2 or Windows 8 Server - I've run both on an E3400 (Celeron DC) on a motherboard with the *desktop/CSM* G41 chipset - Hyper-V works in both OSes just fine.

I'm upgrading to i5-2500K; however, Hyper-V is not why.

VMware Workstation 8 also works just fine in Windows 8 Developer, so that should be the case for the upcoming Consumer Preview as well.

No that is untrue. It only requires a chip that supports either AMD-V or Intel's VT-x and yes there are some Core 2's that do support it.

This comes from my experience in running Hyper-V on a Nehalem i7--ie the First Gen Core i7s.

It's not a Hyper-V core requirement - it's a requirement unique to the Windows 8 client.

Hyper-V itself normally has no greater requirements than Windows Virtual PC 2007 did - AMD-V or Intel's VT-x support. Windows Server 2008 and higher keep that requirement.

In the case of VT-x, most Core 2 CPUs and derivatives do support VT-x - down to, in fact, the Celeron DC E3xxx.

The additional requirement is due to an addition to the Windows 8 client for Hyper-V hosting (RemoteFX support) that Windows 8 Server does not have. That restricts the support to the Core i-series (i3 and up - both first-generation and second-generation).

I think I've read somewhere that Hyper-V will require Sandy Bridge CPUs to function properly... is this a requirement only for a specific feature, or will Hyper-V not run at all on Core 2 CPUs?

http://ark.intel.com/compare/28024,29753,30781,32242,34441,27248,29754,27249,29755,30782,30783,27250,27251,30784,30785,35348,36463,36500,36503,41495,34442,33909,35070,33910,33911,35605

you could check the above link for core2duo cpu's and check if it has VT-x feature.

ermm get rid on VMWARE Workstaion .... well you could use Virtual Box and use the Virtual Box PHP (webadmin) does just about the same job as VMWares Free Server (until they canned it) ,, and does way more then the VMWare Player ;P ...

i can run Ubuntu, XP, VIsta, Server 2008 R2 and Mac OSX 10.7 all 64 bit in Virtual box for testing ..i run this all on a lowley system Intel Core i3 530 2.9Ghz, 16gb kingston HyperX (grey) ram at 1.5v 1333mhz, Gigabyte GA-H57M-USB3, Corsiar Force 3 120Gb SSD (Boots Windows Server 2008 R2, have a IBM ServeRaid MD1015 (LSI RAID Card) that runs 2x 1Tb Western Digital Cavier Green Drives 64mb Cache each in RAID 1..

IIS 7.5, PHP 5.3, MySQL 5. and TVersity on base OS ... i have 2 server r2 VMS, 1 has Exchange Server and ADS, 2nd has Sharepoint

PS this is TechNet Professional Licenses only using to learn some server setup and admin things ... may swap to a Linux Base OS thou unsure what to do lol

yes my system spec is cheap its cheerfull does all i need to store and share files and for messing around, PS all runs 24/7 on a 350 Watt PSU!

... LAST time i tried to use Hyper-V a word of waring on Intergrated Intel HD Grahpics once the system rebooted from Installing Hyper V, I No longer had a Video OUTPUT.. moving the mouse made the screen come back but it randomly flickered on and off very fast ... making the system unusable ..so i think hyper-v dont like Intergrated GFX in processors report on Technet by some one else http://social.techne...b4-1fd526cd6542

http://ark.intel.com...910,33911,35605

you could check the above link for core2duo cpu's and check if it has VT-x feature.

My CPU is P8400... http://ark.intel.com/compare/35569

It says that VT-x is supported, but the CoreInfo tool by Microsoft said that SLAT isn't supported. :/

My CPU is P8400... http://ark.intel.com/compare/35569

It says that VT-x is supported, but the CoreInfo tool by Microsoft said that SLAT isn't supported. :/

SLAT is only on the core i-series cpus.

from wiki:

  • Although this is not an official requirement, Windows Server 2008 R2 and a CPU with Extended Page Table (SLAT) support are recommended for workstations.[11]

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

Nehalem and later have Second Level Address Translation (SLAT) and in general better virtualization support (2nd generation Intel VT-x) and will run Windows 8 Hyper-V just fine. The requirement as mentioned above is for decent graphics performance which isn't a concern on server which is why Server 2008/R2's Hyper-V do not have that requirement.

So if Hyper-V isn't present on my laptop, my laptop cannot run Windows 8? o_O

not correct, ur laptop will not currently have hyper v unless you are running server 2008 r2

most newer laptops nowadays should be able to run win8 which includes hyper-v

not correct, ur laptop will not currently have hyper v unless you are running server 2008 r2

most newer laptops nowadays should be able to run win8 which includes hyper-v

Oh I see, it doesn't even have hardware virtualization, it's not a feature of the CPU. That's what I mean, I don't have the ability to run Hyper-V.

looks like your out of luck then, sorry bud

my bad, misread the post(too much voddy)

just because you cant run hyper v has no meaning to the fact that you cant run win 8, hyper-v is just a feature.

Edited by ybrett23

installing win8 on the laptop shouldnt be a problem if win7 already works on it.

this doesnt mean hyper-v will be supported though.

as i previously stated, most laptops will run win 7 ,

and if win 8 runs as smooth as the dp then win 8 should work also, if not better than win 7

Edited by ybrett23

this doesnt mean hyper-v will be supported though.

as i previously stated, most laptops will run win 7 ,

and if win 8 runs as smooth as the dp then win 8 should work also, if not better than win 7

i was repying to the post "So if Hyper-V isn't present on my laptop, my laptop cannot run Windows 8?" its not a requirement to install win8.

For Hyper-V requirements, page1 has various links on what is needed.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google DeepMind published a document on June 18, 2026, that may be the most consequential admission yet from a frontier AI lab: alignment training alone cannot guarantee that AI agents will remain under human control, so structural containment must be built before more capable models arrive.............. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/318758/20260620/google-deepmind-ai-control-roadmap-when-alignment-fails-defense-depth-takes-over.htm  
    • I've got a SoundBlasterX G6 that I use in my streaming setup. Sounds great to me and I've had zero issues with the ancient software package so far in Win11. That G6 has 7.1, Dolby, fully working SPDIF and since it's a USB device it's outside of my rig so I don't have to worry about EMF distortion. Looks like for now this is a pass for me as I think I have better hardware....
    • How do you connect 5.1 Speakers to this thing?
    • I agree with both of you... It's absolutely imperative that science is completely based on actual proven facts and hard evidence and is not considered dogmatic in any way. Science is not a religion and it will never be, and that's exactly how it's supposed to be.
    • I'd basically agree. The only point I would add is to be careful not to treat science as a religion, complete with priests, dogma, and blasphemy. Humans are highly susceptible to religious-oriented ways of thinking since it aids in forming communities of like-minded people. The problem is that when this happens, nobody wants to be ostracized from the group by saying that a deeply-held idea is wrong. Science and "peer review" are not immune to this behavior, unfortunately. In the end, finding truth is our own responsibility and we can't depend on others to hand it to us. Skepticism is key, along with curiosity and the willingness to critically evaluate and consider ideas both new and old.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      502
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      169
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      88
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      73
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!