There is still no USB support, unlike VMWare.

Why can't I run Linux in a virtual box?

Windows XP Home Edition it is possible to instal Virtual PC 2007

http://www.microsoft.com...s/virtualpc/sysreq.mspx

As a guest OS yes, not as a host OS, which is the big(ger) issue.

Contrary to other comments here, VPC2007 will install and run on XP Home absolutely fine. It's just it isn't officially supported. All that happens if you'll receive two warnings before installing which say the OS you're installing it on isn't on the supported list. The same happened for VPC2004.

Note I did previously have VPC2004 installed before running the VPC2007 installer, I don't know if this made any difference :)

For all the users that can not run vp 2k7 try virtualbox (www.virtualbox.org)
amazing speed, opensource etc

I reported during the beta that it runs noticeably slower than VMware WS 5 on the same VM configurations. I submitted metrics and logs to back that up. They agreed and said it was because my CPU didn't support HW virtualization, which is one of the core features of VPC07. Anyone else see that issues?

If I run VPC 2007 on Vista can I install a version of XP? I ask becuase my fijustu scansanp will NOT run under vista and I hate having to dual boot just to get to my scanner

Yea, nice it's free but weird it doesn't run on any of the Home editions. Maybe it's missing required functionality of the higher-end business class OS's. Home verson users probably don't come anywhere near the demographic for running this either. Just a guess.

It's purely a licensing issue as far as I can tell. The license for the basic versions of Vista doesn't permit Virtualization - this has been covered in the news before. I doubt there is a technical reason why it can't be done.

Probably just MS trying to squeeze a few more $ out of you ;) Give away VPC, but in doing so 'encourage' people to buy the premium versions of Windows to be able to use it. That's where the gravy is. In fact, it might even be a double zinger: Maybe you need a Pro version of the OS to run VPC, and a higher-end version of Vista to actually run virtualized?

Gravy money x 2!

Yes, its the money since VMware, Parallels, and Virtualbox all run under XP Home, Vista Home Basic and Premium with no problems.

Microsoft is showing everyone now that the bottom line means everything by limiting a "free" application to running only on the more expensive flavors of their operating systems.

Leveraging monopoly power in more imaginitive ways to generate revenue while avoiding antitrust actions, getting in bed with the media industry through restrictive DRM and also DRM on their own operating system to allow them to deactivate anyone at any time, all to protect the bottom line.

Why have 5 or 6 versions of Vista? And why have Home Basic at all, when the new Aero interface is crippled/inoperative in Basic? Why have so many overpriced versions???

Ballmer's recent statements as to blaming poor Vista sales on piracy also illustrates their mentality, which I think is one of entitlement...

Using estimated sales forecasts to justify their blanket statements proves they think they are entitled to receive the sales figures they think they should have.

Vista isn't ready for market, the market really doesn't *want* what Vista and what it represents, and the market knows it, and has shown it by the numbers.

Woopty doo

Then why has everyone complied that MSFT should have gotten the OS out sooner?

[WeezulDK]: Vista isn't ready for market, the market really doesn't *want* what Vista and what it represents, and the market knows it, and has shown it by the numbers.

I bought Vista a week ago and there's so much crap that you have to undo (tweak) just to get it working so that it's merely less annoying that's it's really shameful. Microsoft really should be embarrassed, not proud, that Vista took five years. The only good thing I've found so far is its disk and file management. Everything else is substandard to XP Pro. And Aero is just awful. Trust me, you'll want to turn it off as fast as you did UAC.

This has been my experience also.

I will not run Vista. I will run XP Pro until I get a new Mac. Then, I can dual boot MacOS with Windows XP Pro on an Apple computer. :)

Microsoft sux0rs.

Some people may notice Virtual PC 2004 will install on Windows XP Home with only a warning that it is not supported.

Virtual PC 2007 will not allow installs onto XP Home at all.

Fortunately the only real improvement I see, other than Vista support, is the support for full DVD-sized ISO images. If you cannot load a large (>2 gb) ISO in 2004, use a tool like Daemon Tools to mount it as a drive letter and then use that drive letter in Virtual PC.

I keep 2004 around for XP and have used the 2007 beta in Vista. I don't believe I have had any problems with backwards/forward compatibility with VMs.

From the MS site, the following are not listed as supported:

XP Home
Vista Home Basic
Vista Home Premium

That makes no sense.

Force you to upgrade to a more expensive OS just so you can use Virtual PC 2007?

Buttholes.

It works on XP Pro fine, so I'm happy.

Just a question.
What do people do running multiple OSes at home?

ROFL, you are serious right? There are a pile of people who need to run DOS apps still (gasp!), or even older Windows 95 apps that won't play nice in XP. By running them in a virtual OS, they can still run those programs without having to resort to crazy drastic dual-booting or worse scenarios. There is no real excuse why those three operating systems were left out.

what kind of apps?
I know some business apps that won't run under anything other than NT4.0 and so some companies use virtual PC and emulate NT on XPs or 2ks but at home?

sure there is. they dont want to have to provide tech support to home users. makes perfect sense.