Yep. Nothing more then running xp in a VM. It's not the same at all as true XP mode with VT support. Still for ppl who don't have VT supported cpu's, running a VM is the only viable solution as to date. +1 for that
Won't VirtualBox do the same thing? It also has a seemless and window mode.I don't see the purpose of this application.
Well if you look at the examples on their website, the seamless mode appears very similar to Microsoft's Virtual XP mode, at least visually. Their example has FF running in XP mode but without any XP desktop or start button showing, just the FF window itself on the Win 7 screen.
It's still just a VM imho. But personal preference none the less. For whoever can use it, it seems a pretty good solution.
The main thing that seems to make it more than a vanilla VM is that the programs themselves are able to be run from the WINDOWS 7 start menu. Big difference from say, Virtualbox where you have start up the VM then run the app from the VM's start menu. If it ain't a variant of an XP mode like Microsoft's it appears to be really really close functional-wise.
Which is exactly the big difference what makes VT better. You will NOT notice at all you are running in a virtual environment. Here you definitely will notice it is a VM. But as I said, for ppl without VT, it's a pretty good solution. Best I've seen untill now. But you will always notice the difference between them. It's like having a replica ferrari. It looks the same, and it also drives fast, but you will definitely notice it's not the real thing.
Well I don't think anyone who can actually use Microsoft's Virtual XP mode is going to use this unless there is a compelling reason. Like perhaps they engineer better graphics support than M$, as in DirectX and such. The whole point of it is that it doesn't require VT. Of course if the features are the same you'll end up using M$'s version as it uses VT to run faster, if you can use VT. That goes without saying.