Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 SP1

Save time and money as Virtual PC allows you to maintain the compatibility of legacy and custom applications during migration to new operating systems and increases the efficiency of support, development, and training staffs. With Microsoft® Virtual PC 2007, you can create and run one or more virtual machines, each with its own operating system, on a single computer. This provides you with the flexibility to use different operating systems on one physical computer.

Download: Virtual PC 2007 SP1 (32-bit and 64-bit) | 31.8MB (Freeware)
View: Virtual PC 2007 SP1

This update for Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 includes support for the following additional Host and Guest Operating Systems:

Additonal Guest Operating System support:
Windows Vista® Ultimate Edition with Service Pack 1 (SP1)
Windows Vista® Business Edition with Service Pack 1 (SP1)
Windows Vista® Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 1 (SP1)
Windows Server® 2008 Standard
Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3

Additional Host Operating System support:
Windows Vista® Ultimate Edition with Service Pack 1 (SP1)
Windows Vista® Business Edition with Service Pack 1 (SP1)
Windows Vista® Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 1 (SP1)
Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

nVidia GeForce 175.16 WHQL Drivers

Next Story

Microsoft seals the deal with OLPC

20 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Howewver, the big reason why some folks (in this thread) prefer VirtualBox to VirtualPC is because it's not from Microsoft. It's like that if Microsoft acquires (yet redistributes) something, they are the Devil Incarnate, however, when someone else (say, Apple or Sun) does it, they are not raked as viciously over the coals (in Apple's case, I'm referring to FileMaker Pro, and in Sun's case, I'm referring to not only StarOffice/OpenOffice, but VirtualBox itself). The OS/2 guest support (which VPC has retained, but VirtualBox and, amusingly, VMWare, both lack) is plenty of reason to keep VPC around (not to mention the fact that it's free). The reality is that VirtualPC and VBox each has strengths and weaknesses when it comes to guest-OS support (one of VB's strengths is the degree of customization that can be done to individual VMs; another is the support for different emulated Ethernet adapters *and* sound cards, both of which are new in 1.6). However, both fall down rather badly when it comes to support of 64-bit OS guests (neither supports them; that is left to bochs and the commercial VMWare).

I run this on Vista Ultimate 32-bit and on Vista Business. Both are patched to SP1.

Honestly, for running multiple MS OSes, Virtual PC is better than Virtual Box. Linux ... not so much.
With Virtual PC I have XP, 2000, 2003 Server and 2008 Server running in Virtual Machines. Zero Problems. I even found an ISO of Windows 3.1 I am going to play with.

However, I have been able to try out dozens of Linux distros with Virtual Box and couldn't be happier.

No reason in the world not to have both. I routinely have both running with several different OSes all at once under Vista with 4MB of RAM.

Problem with VirtualPC is firstly the lack of support for the latest Linux distros (other companies bring out an update almost every time a major linux distro is out), and the other most irritating factor for me is the lack of support for multiple snapshots.

Other than multiple snapshots, VPC lacks a LOT of basic features which is present in virtual box. VPC is also double the size of VBox, yet it offers lesser features.

VPC is also updated once in a bluemoon, while other VMs come out with an update atleast once in two months.

With all these drawbacks, I can't think of any reason why someone would prefer VPC over VBox.

[deXter
said,#6]the lack of support for the latest Linux distros

Who cares of "latest Linux distros"?

VPC lacks a LOT of basic features which is present in virtual box.

A lot of? O rly?

VPC is also double the size of VBox

The horror, the horror!

With all these drawbacks, I can't think of any reason why someone would prefer VPC over VBox.

Because we can. Satisfied? Hope not.

(computergeek83 said @ #3)
www.virtualbox.org

For all those who think MS is the first to do this, Virtual box will even run linux.....

Virtual PC runs Linux fine, too, and it's equally free.

(GreyWolfSC said @ #3.2)

Virtual PC runs Linux fine, too, and it's equally free. :)

I gave up on trying to get ubuntu 8.04 or Virtual PC and just went with virtualbox. I was about to get VMware Player but the dowload size made me go with virtualbox because i just wanted to play around nothing serious. I still might give Virtual PC a shot again since i have an XP and Server 2008 around from my MSDNAA from school.

(Doli said @ #3.4)

I gave up on trying to get ubuntu 8.04 or Virtual PC and just went with virtualbox. I was about to get VMware Player but the dowload size made me go with virtualbox because i just wanted to play around nothing serious. I still might give Virtual PC a shot again since i have an XP and Server 2008 around from my MSDNAA from school.

The problem with running ubuntu or other linux versions on Virtual PC is that it only works with 16bit color and not 32bit etc. I've had times when Ubuntu etc wouldn't start (live CD) or they would actually but the screen was messed up because of that limitation. There is a workaround though but I've forgot it after this time. If that was even the problem you where having you should look it up.

Anyways, maybe they've fixed these little bugs with SP1?

(computergeek83 said @ #3)
www.virtualbox.org

For all those who think MS is the first to do this, Virtual box will even run linux.....

Who actually thought Microsoft were the first to do this? They didn't even create this program, they bought it from a different company and released it for free...

VirtualBox is a great. It runs about as fast as VMware. The only thing I like about VirtualPC is that it works better with some of the older operating systems.