I have tried looking everywhere but there seems to be no help at all regarding enabling virtualization in Win 10.
Moreover, Gigabyte 970A DS3P support is also not helping.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks
Really late to the party here but someone else might need this...
To check if your CPU has Hyper-V support (and many other things) you can run coreinfo.exe written by Mark Russinovich / Sysinternals and available via MS website. It lists support for "Hypervisor" at the top of all the things it reports.
To enable Virtualization (Hyper-V) in Windows 10 you need to turn on the feature. Check out this post https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/hyperv_on_windows/quick_start/walkthrough_install
On the bios side. I'm not sure about the 970a. I do have a Gigabyte board and it is in the advanced section of the bios setup. I could depend on your chipset and CPU. You need a newer chipset and a supported CPU to do virtualization
Related
I am trying to enable Hyper-V in my local machine running Windows 8 Enterprise Ed 64-bit. I checked and my hardware is SLAT-compatible, the option in BIOS is turned on. I did several cold boot but the Hyper-V platform option still remains grayed out. I hope someone can help me since all the blogs/forums that seems to address this issue did not solve the issue for me.
If you hover your mouse over the Hyper-V item in the Optional Features list, it will tell you why it's disabled.
Otherwise, you can run MSINFO32.EXE and the System Summary panel will list the features required for Hyper-V and whether or not those features have been detected on your system.
Also, you said you've cold-booted the system a few times. This might sound stupid, but shut your system down and unplug it for a few minutes to make sure it's actually off before plugging it in and turning it on again. I've never seen a system where I had to do this, but I know other people who have.
Turn on Data Exeuction Prevention ?
Control panel - System - System Properties -Data Exeuction Prevention
I have been searching for documentation on how to properly enable the HPET on a Hyper-V. I haven't been able to find anything specifying if it works or not, and if it does work, how to properly enable it. From our initial tests, it doesn't seem to be consistent with either the machines timer or the HPET.
We are deploying Lync and UCMA based applications and have noticed a significant performance difference between machines with HPET enable and HPET disabled in terms of their ability to handle capacity. We would like to be able to virtualize these machines, but the HPET is currently our limiting factor.
Can anyone point me in the right direction to find an answer?
I am not sure but I don't think we can enable HPET in VM .
Generally for a physical machine we can enable it
1.From BIOS enable HPET
and
2.From OS run bcdedit /set useplatformclock true and then reboot.
Looking at Microsoft's Hypervisor Top-Level Functional Specification, the only references to the HPET I can see relate to the hypervisor's own use of the HPET. It doesn't appear to provide a virtual HPET device.
I plan to learn embedded linux and writing linux device drivers.
I need a dev board where I can,
Build and boot it with a linux distribution.
Write drivers for peripherals in the board.
(In future) Possible port Android to it
Can you suggest a dev kit to help me with this? Cost is not a bar - I am already familiar with linux at user space, I am willingly to spend to get better at the other side.
Thanks
James
How about a BeagleBoard (TI OMAP)? The Beagleboard has an active community and a lot of example projects, including an Android porting project. They're a few versions of Android behind the present day, but that should provide a starting point.
There is a new 25$ and 35$ option called Raspberry PI.
check this http://elinux.org/Android_on_OMAP
Google's Android on TI's ARM based OMAP SoCs / 2.6.23 Linux kernel
I think Armadeus project is for you. It is an open source project, that started in France and that is now expanding. The community is great and the number of peripherals is growing fast. Of course it is based on Linux.
A small company is building the boards. They are based on ARM9 and now ARM11. In the boards you also have a Xilinx FPGA, that open the doors for exciting experiments.
Hope this helps.
JCLL
Some cheap mini2440 linux board sounds like a good start. It can also run Android.
maybe you can have a Virtual Development Board, that is interesting.
Check also the OK6410 at http://www.arm9board.net, it is provided with Linux - 2.6.28 (2.6.36 in a quit near future) with all peripheral drivers and a basic Android system. You'll find it interesting and quit useful.
I am pricing a new software development machine and looking at the dell precision series.
When I get to this screen:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/reftopic.aspx/pub/products/precn_kat?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~section=T7400
The first choice is: Buy a Precision WorkStation T7400 32bit Now!
and the second choice is: Buy a Precision WorkStation T7400 64bit Now!
am I really at that point just deciding which software I want installed? or is there actually a different chipset depending on the choice.
I don't want to limit my options down the road by picking the wrong one - I can always upgrade the software - but I don't want to have to replace hardware.
BTW: This will be for SD of a Microsoft stack, asp.net, vs 2008, sql server etc and I would like to start using virtualization (probably from MS) with this machine purchase.
Both options give you the same choice of processors, they are all 64-bit capable. It's just a matter of whether a 32-bit or 64-bit version of the OS is preinstalled on it.
I would go with the 64-bit option simply because, in my experience, you can easily run both 32-bit and 64-bit VMs on a 64-bit platform, but are limited to 32-bit VMs on a 32-bit platform.
64-Bit, but just not XP64 (Which Dell offers as a downgrade). Driver situation is quite awful, and there are some incompatibilities in Software. If you need/want to stick to XP, go 32-Bit, if you want to use Vista or Windows Server 2008, 64-Bit is fine.
The only difference is the operating system anyway, so you can freely switch between installing 32 or 64 Bit Windows, you may just need to buy another License.
100% 64bit. RAM is cheap and you'll eventually want to use more than 4GB of it, especially if you've going to be running virtual machines.
64bit all the way. Vista64 is mature at this point, I haven't run into any issues. If you need 32bit for any older peripherals you might have, install XP32 as a VM.
As far as I know you can't really buy a 32-bit PC nowadays. I think the OS is the only different between the 32bit and 64bit version.
For .NET development it doesn't matter whether you're using a 64-bit OS or not. However 64-bit SQL Server maybe running faster.
And you'll also need more than 4GB RAM (especially if you run virtual machines), so I don't really see any reason to choose a 32-bit OS over a 64-bit one.
I would go for 64bit with 64bit Operating System. Only problem i encountered so far is that 32bit apps cannot access 64-dlls -> For example the context menu of TotalCommander won't show 64bit apps (e.g subversion) which might be inconvenient for development.
It can be difficult to get 64bit drivers for exotic or very new hardware, so if that's a concern for you, you might want to stick to the 32bit OS.
I am looking to purchase a new development PC. My budget is not more than $1,000 USD (including monitor). I am open to laptop (desktop replacement type) or the traditional desktop PC would do just fine.
My primary development environment will be Microsoft, Visual Studio 2008 (and support of older Visual Studio 6 code as well). SQL Server 2005, 2008 as well as legacy support of SQL Server 2000. Microsoft Office 2003, potential to install 2007 but support as far back as Office 2000. The software I will wrote and support will be Windows XP mostly, but some Vista. I am going to have to assume there are 64-bit implementations out there to install to.
My first confusion begins with choosing AMD or Intel. My concern is that there is a compatibility issue with building software using Visual Studio in an AMD environment. I dont have any evidence, its just a concern that hopefully someone will clear up for me.
Last, I am confused about 32-bit and 64-bit installations. Should I stick with the least common denominator (32-bit) even though 64-bit is steadily gaining ground? I am aware that the 64-bit operating systems will address over 4G of RAM and that I like because I would like to set up as many Virtual Machines for test environments as possible, and may have many active at once..
I am not looking for the dream machine, just a machine with a monitor and the best processor for about $1000 that will allow me to write software for the majority of machines out there.
There are some instruction level differences between AMD and Intel but nothing that Visual Studio is going to uncover. Perhaps if you were developing with Sun Studio you might run into them (I have!).
I would go for a 64 bit machine and run 32 bit VMs on it if you feel the need to do testing in that environment. The common feeling around here seems to be that the highest level of Vista you can afford is the platform on which to develop.
With 32-bit XP and Vista, you might not have access to much more than 3GB or RAM, but possibly quite less (My home machine could only access 2.25GB with Vista 32). If you can afford getting a machine with 4GB of RAM, I would recommend using Vista-64 (Home Premium or Ultimate).
Depending on what kind of development you are doing hard drive speed can make a big difference in compile times. Get 10,000 RPM hard drives if possible for a desktop machine and 7200 RPM drives for a laptop, but they do cost more.
AMD smoothed out their incompatibilities long ago. Your decision on that should simply be which brand you feel has better performance/features. I would definitely go with 64 bit because you can always emulate 32 bit for VM's and apps and so on. The ability to use extra memory will pay dividends later when you're just spending $100 for another 2-4 gigs instead of another $1000 to finally buy a 64 bit machine.
Given you're interested in running multiple VM's RAM is going to be key, as is the CPU.
Currently Intel are ahead on performance for dollar (especially if you are interested in overclocking) however AMD's options are acceptable and the batch of phenoms seem to be better at true quad core applications than the Intel quads.
The quality and speed of the RAM is largely unimportant. Generic DDRII 800mhz will be fine, just make sure you've got 4 or 8 GB of it.
In terms of operating systems, xp 64bit is fairly wanting on driver support even though it's been around for a while. Vista 64bit however has almost all the driver support of Vista 32bit. While this means that some of your older devices wont work, you should have much less hassles with Vista than XP. In terms of versioning, I recommend premium, however you'd need to look into the added feature list to determine if it's worth it or not (to me, it's not worth it at all).
In terms of issues that may occur due to specific processors? I agree with stimms that while there may be slight differences, it's not something you'd encounter in VS development. However my experience in that arena is by no means extensive.
If you look for a not-too-expensive dev machine, AMD should be better.
AMD 780G/790G mainboard has on-board integrated VGA, out-perform most nvidia/intel video integrated mainboard at a reasonable price. AMD Phenom CPU's performance is not as good as those of Intel. But considering you can get a AMD 3-core CPU at the price that Intel offers you only 2-core, it's a good deal.
Intel's CPU has great overclock potential. However as a developer, I suppose you like a solid-as-a-rock machine and not like to take risk geting a blue death screen while compiling your code.
Hardware virtualization is important if you like to paly with X64 virutal machine for testing. Most modern AMD CPUs have hardware virtualization feature built in, while Intel cut this feature from its low-end CPUs.
Get 4 gigs rams minimum equal that you need a system that can handle more than 3 gigs (so 64bits OS). Rams is cheap and IDE with all others software (debugging, testing, database client, etc) will require you some rams if you want something fast.
For the cpu, you can get a Quad Core for less than 190$, with a board that can handle it (about 125$) you have a strong start. You do not need to have the latest video card...
A lot of already build PC can be nice for you under your budget (under 720$). See this example:
Vista Home Premium 64-bit
320 gig hard drive
3 gig rams
GeForce 7100 graphics
22" Acer LCD included
Core 2 Duo E4700