This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in x86. |
How about adding a list of Intel and AMD processors that do or don't support this AMD-V or V-x mode in hardware? A reference like that is important because otherwise people apparently have to search each model for the feature?
Maybe I don't understand the topic, but weren't there x86 virtalization products long before VMWare? VirtualPC and SoftWindows95 come to mind. Anirvan 23:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Due to pressure from Microsoft (No citations available*), Intel's VT and AMD's V technologies have been proactively disabled in many desktop/laptop bioses. This is to prevent people from easily testing out alternate operating systems at full speed. It is -not- a technology which needs Bios support.
Intel had their own software development labs which created technologies in the past, Microsoft saw as a threat, and under pressure from Microsoft, Intel closed those efforts. Meanuwhile, Intel has been promoting alternate operating systems, such as desktop Linux. Microsoft's control of Intel is not as strong as their control of the hardware marketers, like Dell, and every large PC and laptop hardware vendor.
Perhaps this article and Virtualization Technology should be merged? They both try to discuss hardware and software virtualization on the x86 architecture. -- Bovineone 18:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
=>Mabye, mabye not, first they should both be cleaned up. Second, they should be seperated and cleaned so that Virtualization Technology should contain implemented hardware (with accompying software) techniques, where X86 virtualization should discuss generic techniques involved (ring 0 and the like). But I agree, at the mement they are both very similar. -- 220.237.182.188 10:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they should not be merged. Virtualization Technology is about a very specific hardware feature, while X86 virtualization is about virtualization on x86 processors in general. Surely the latter should link to the former, but including the former in the latter would be putting too much specific information in a general article. ThinkingInBinary 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think they probably should be merged, since both are quite short, and the data in Virtualization Technology is highly relevant for the future of virtualization on x86. However, if they're not, then at least the name of the Virtualization Technology article needs to be changed. It's an incredibly general name, sounding far more general than the name of the X86 virtualization article, while in fact being much more specific. It should properly be named something like AMD and Intel hardware features for virtualization (horrible name) or some such. JZ 17:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
How about Hardware X86 Virtualisation? RealLink 11:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Surely the other way round, Virtualization Technology can cover ALL types of Virtualization, where as X86 Virtualization can only cover a subsection.... -- NigelJ talk 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be enough non-x86 information here to justify separate pages. Even including a little information about IBM and HP virtualization won't really do it. The pages can always be separated later when sufficient material is available. Also, the information under the Use heading on the Xen page looks like it would fit well here. Zik 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Under "Software utilizing VT," and "The following software is known to conditionally make use of virtualization technology features:" Microsoft Virtual PC has a "citation needed" tag... doesn't the link cite itself? Maybe I'm not quite getting what the list is specifically speaking of, but isn't the added html comment "since what version?" is answered by the link as well... right? Again, I might just be missing what the list is specifying. -- KyleP 00:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Would love to know where people think the 939 processors don't support AMD's Virtualization, I have two 939's here that are Virtualization enabled, so this is misleading. 75.71.217.152 ( talk) 05:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Recursive definitions are uninformative, in general. Can someone come up with a definition which is actually helpful? I admit to being at a loss for one at the moment. -- Scott McNay 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Virtualization describes a process by which a CPU is shared between multiple operating systems, each of which believes it has the CPU in supervisor mode. Virtualization of x86 processors from i386 and up has required "emulating" Ring 0-specific instructions in software. Ring 0 is the "supervisor" mode where protected OS functions are controlled. These supervisor functions can include shutting down the CPU and disabling/enabling interrupts. Newer x86 and x86_64 architecture chips provide instructions which offer Ring 0 work-alike functions that do not affect the overall CPU, but only the specific virtual CPU, allowing the virtualization software to delegate the trapping of Ring 0 instructions to the hardware. --Anonymous contributor 9:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the spirit of the opening statement. Popek and Goldberg guidelines are, as openly stated within their paper, only general and not a list of "necessities". Virtualization on the x86 platform evolved quite nicely over the years well before the advent of AMD-V and Intel-VT. Even now, the leading virtualization technologies are only beginning to take advantage of the very early hardware support that the AMD and Intel extensions are adding. It is not until the next wave of hardware support that virtualizes I/O, and the next wave of virtualization products that are optimized to take advantage of hardware extensions fully and capitalize on the advances of Intel-VT-d and AMD-V+1, that we will really understand the implications of hardware supported virtualization on the x86 platform. Despite that, there are many real-world production case studies of VMWare and Virtual Server being utilized on a large-scale today. The article implies that Popek-Goldberg somehow establishes a gospel for what is absolutely mandatory to have successful virtualization and that, it is only now, that the x86 platform has "met the requirements" that it can be done "easily". That is all a dramatic oversimplification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlambert890 ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
Can a guest detecht if it is running as a guest within a hypervisored environment? If not it should be possible that it starts its own hypervisor and the virtualization can be nested endlessly, right? -- 84.72.190.27 13:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) ( de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)
Should we really be linking to these? What are the criteria for inclusion? 24.127.51.40 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The following article argues that Windows Vista Home Basic and Premium may be installed on a virtual machine, *if* the accompanying license is not otherwise in use:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157
Microsoft reacted and explained, that the cheapest versions of Vista really cannot be used as guests
Urocyon 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How is a buyer supposed to know which systems have secure (isolating) IOMMUs? These are needed for crash protection and malware sandboxing.
AMD: All chips have some IOMMU, but mostly they are not secure. Which model numbers are secure? What about motherboard chipset requirements? One would need to have each PCI slot be a separate bus, in practice meaning PCI Express.
Intel: As with AMD, what CPU models and what motherboard chipsets? There is a worse problem with Intel though. Unlike AMD, Intel allows the BIOS to disable features at boot -- and the PC vendors actually do this!
24.110.144.116 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the performance benefit of hardware assisted virtualization ? The only data I could find is from 2006 by VMWare A Comparison of Software and Hardware Techniques for x86 Virtualization. From its results it seems HW virtualization has no performance benefit. Is there newer data about this issue ? -- Xerces8 ( talk) 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Para-virtualization will generally out-perform pure virtualization. The best hardware support can do is to reduce the penalty (by reducing the number of traps required). This is what Intel and AMD are doing. Heiser ( talk) 05:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary of what section «Virtualization for IA32» says, Intel Core2 Duo E7300 do *not* include VTx as per http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2duo/specifications.htm . I do have one and it doesn't include VTx. The article should be updated. 83.99.66.90 ( talk) 14:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC) V. Cadet
I suppose Athlon 2400 does not support this according to the web page? Is there a proogram to run to tell for sure or a list of all processors with a check off of whether it has this feature or not?
On this wikipedia page the statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization#Intel_Virtualization_Technology_for_x86_.28Intel_VT-x.29
"Xen — Xen is a separate and independent operating system that virtualizes everything else on the machine. It supports both architectures, but does not require them for supported guest OS's."
Now on the Zen Page the statement " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization#Intel_Virtualization_Technology_for_x86_.28Intel_VT-x.29
"Xen version 3.0 introduced the capability to run Microsoft Windows as a guest operating system unmodified if the processor supports hardware virtualization provided by Intel VT (formerly codenamed Vanderpool) or AMD-V (formerly codenamed Pacifica)."
So what is the answer? Does Windows on Zen need Intel-Vt / AMD-V hardware assistance to run under Xen? The Xen pages says yes you do need it and the X86 Virtualization page says No you don't need it. Facts need to be checked. 67.174.7.187 ( talk) 23:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Here T5500 was reported to support virtualization, but at least my notebook's T5500 does not contain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.117.12 ( talk) 09:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone add that AMD-V is not real HV and hwMMU (RVI)?
It seems that regular consumer processors with AMD-V only support BT, and not HV and hwMMU with the 4th generation server processor Operons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.207.3 ( talk) 14:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it's stated that only SL9U8 of T5500 model has Vt-x, Intel product info shows that it's not true. All SKUs of T5500 have VT-x feature. This needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsek77 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If you dont have a computer background, you cannot understand this page. What the hell is the point of these virtual machines? What does virtual mean in this context? Needs a top to toe re-write. 124.171.42.238 ( talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not all of AMD Turion have virtualization support. Have virtualization support:
- AMD Turion™ X2 Dual-Core (RM-7X) - AMD Turion™ X2 Ultra Dual-Core (ZM-8X) - AMD Turion™ Neo X2 Dual-Core (L625, K625, K655) - AMD Turion II Dual-Core (N530, P520, M5X0) - AMD Turion II Ultra Dual-Core (M6X0)
Have not virtualization support:
- AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Dual-Core (TL-5X, TL-6X)
http://products.amd.com/en-us/NotebookCPUResult.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozaro ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I renamed sections, moved sections, added a new section called "Chipset" and bumped up the subsections under it since those are part of the chipset instead of the CPU, merged 64-bit sections, and added more references. If I made any mistakes, please correct instead of doing a bulk "undo", and please no throwing rocks at me :-) • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is press-release for 4-core Nano CPU: http://www.via.com.tw/en/resources/pressroom/pressrelease.jsp?press_release_no=5507 It is caimed that in 4-core Nan (as well as in some 2-core Nano X2-E ) there is "VIA VT" hardware virtualisation. Did anyone saw reviews of it ? how it compares with AMD-V and Intel VT ? Does it have software support ? etc 79.111.223.5 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
refs 320 n 330 - seems to be exactly the same. Can wiki merge them and use same number for both ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.223.5 ( talk) 19:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add tests to check whether a system has virtualization on or not. This violates our policies on what Wikipedia isn't. Also, please do not use the word "you" in the article per WP:MOS. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing this article on Japanese Edition now, taking the section of this article into account.
I noticed that VT-i (Virtualization/Vanderpool Technology for the Intel Itanium Architecture) was redirected by this article, but this article does not mention VT-i.
I don't have a good command of English, so I wish it is revised in some way. -- 61.89.14.86 ( talk) 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
X86 virtualization. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on X86 virtualization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://2013.asiabsdcon.org/papers/abc2013-P5A-paper.pdf:{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://download.intel.com/products/processor/manual/326019.pdf:When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in x86. |
How about adding a list of Intel and AMD processors that do or don't support this AMD-V or V-x mode in hardware? A reference like that is important because otherwise people apparently have to search each model for the feature?
Maybe I don't understand the topic, but weren't there x86 virtalization products long before VMWare? VirtualPC and SoftWindows95 come to mind. Anirvan 23:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Due to pressure from Microsoft (No citations available*), Intel's VT and AMD's V technologies have been proactively disabled in many desktop/laptop bioses. This is to prevent people from easily testing out alternate operating systems at full speed. It is -not- a technology which needs Bios support.
Intel had their own software development labs which created technologies in the past, Microsoft saw as a threat, and under pressure from Microsoft, Intel closed those efforts. Meanuwhile, Intel has been promoting alternate operating systems, such as desktop Linux. Microsoft's control of Intel is not as strong as their control of the hardware marketers, like Dell, and every large PC and laptop hardware vendor.
Perhaps this article and Virtualization Technology should be merged? They both try to discuss hardware and software virtualization on the x86 architecture. -- Bovineone 18:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
=>Mabye, mabye not, first they should both be cleaned up. Second, they should be seperated and cleaned so that Virtualization Technology should contain implemented hardware (with accompying software) techniques, where X86 virtualization should discuss generic techniques involved (ring 0 and the like). But I agree, at the mement they are both very similar. -- 220.237.182.188 10:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they should not be merged. Virtualization Technology is about a very specific hardware feature, while X86 virtualization is about virtualization on x86 processors in general. Surely the latter should link to the former, but including the former in the latter would be putting too much specific information in a general article. ThinkingInBinary 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think they probably should be merged, since both are quite short, and the data in Virtualization Technology is highly relevant for the future of virtualization on x86. However, if they're not, then at least the name of the Virtualization Technology article needs to be changed. It's an incredibly general name, sounding far more general than the name of the X86 virtualization article, while in fact being much more specific. It should properly be named something like AMD and Intel hardware features for virtualization (horrible name) or some such. JZ 17:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
How about Hardware X86 Virtualisation? RealLink 11:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Surely the other way round, Virtualization Technology can cover ALL types of Virtualization, where as X86 Virtualization can only cover a subsection.... -- NigelJ talk 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be enough non-x86 information here to justify separate pages. Even including a little information about IBM and HP virtualization won't really do it. The pages can always be separated later when sufficient material is available. Also, the information under the Use heading on the Xen page looks like it would fit well here. Zik 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Under "Software utilizing VT," and "The following software is known to conditionally make use of virtualization technology features:" Microsoft Virtual PC has a "citation needed" tag... doesn't the link cite itself? Maybe I'm not quite getting what the list is specifically speaking of, but isn't the added html comment "since what version?" is answered by the link as well... right? Again, I might just be missing what the list is specifying. -- KyleP 00:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Would love to know where people think the 939 processors don't support AMD's Virtualization, I have two 939's here that are Virtualization enabled, so this is misleading. 75.71.217.152 ( talk) 05:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Recursive definitions are uninformative, in general. Can someone come up with a definition which is actually helpful? I admit to being at a loss for one at the moment. -- Scott McNay 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Virtualization describes a process by which a CPU is shared between multiple operating systems, each of which believes it has the CPU in supervisor mode. Virtualization of x86 processors from i386 and up has required "emulating" Ring 0-specific instructions in software. Ring 0 is the "supervisor" mode where protected OS functions are controlled. These supervisor functions can include shutting down the CPU and disabling/enabling interrupts. Newer x86 and x86_64 architecture chips provide instructions which offer Ring 0 work-alike functions that do not affect the overall CPU, but only the specific virtual CPU, allowing the virtualization software to delegate the trapping of Ring 0 instructions to the hardware. --Anonymous contributor 9:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the spirit of the opening statement. Popek and Goldberg guidelines are, as openly stated within their paper, only general and not a list of "necessities". Virtualization on the x86 platform evolved quite nicely over the years well before the advent of AMD-V and Intel-VT. Even now, the leading virtualization technologies are only beginning to take advantage of the very early hardware support that the AMD and Intel extensions are adding. It is not until the next wave of hardware support that virtualizes I/O, and the next wave of virtualization products that are optimized to take advantage of hardware extensions fully and capitalize on the advances of Intel-VT-d and AMD-V+1, that we will really understand the implications of hardware supported virtualization on the x86 platform. Despite that, there are many real-world production case studies of VMWare and Virtual Server being utilized on a large-scale today. The article implies that Popek-Goldberg somehow establishes a gospel for what is absolutely mandatory to have successful virtualization and that, it is only now, that the x86 platform has "met the requirements" that it can be done "easily". That is all a dramatic oversimplification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlambert890 ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
Can a guest detecht if it is running as a guest within a hypervisored environment? If not it should be possible that it starts its own hypervisor and the virtualization can be nested endlessly, right? -- 84.72.190.27 13:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) ( de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)
Should we really be linking to these? What are the criteria for inclusion? 24.127.51.40 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The following article argues that Windows Vista Home Basic and Premium may be installed on a virtual machine, *if* the accompanying license is not otherwise in use:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157
Microsoft reacted and explained, that the cheapest versions of Vista really cannot be used as guests
Urocyon 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How is a buyer supposed to know which systems have secure (isolating) IOMMUs? These are needed for crash protection and malware sandboxing.
AMD: All chips have some IOMMU, but mostly they are not secure. Which model numbers are secure? What about motherboard chipset requirements? One would need to have each PCI slot be a separate bus, in practice meaning PCI Express.
Intel: As with AMD, what CPU models and what motherboard chipsets? There is a worse problem with Intel though. Unlike AMD, Intel allows the BIOS to disable features at boot -- and the PC vendors actually do this!
24.110.144.116 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the performance benefit of hardware assisted virtualization ? The only data I could find is from 2006 by VMWare A Comparison of Software and Hardware Techniques for x86 Virtualization. From its results it seems HW virtualization has no performance benefit. Is there newer data about this issue ? -- Xerces8 ( talk) 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Para-virtualization will generally out-perform pure virtualization. The best hardware support can do is to reduce the penalty (by reducing the number of traps required). This is what Intel and AMD are doing. Heiser ( talk) 05:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary of what section «Virtualization for IA32» says, Intel Core2 Duo E7300 do *not* include VTx as per http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2duo/specifications.htm . I do have one and it doesn't include VTx. The article should be updated. 83.99.66.90 ( talk) 14:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC) V. Cadet
I suppose Athlon 2400 does not support this according to the web page? Is there a proogram to run to tell for sure or a list of all processors with a check off of whether it has this feature or not?
On this wikipedia page the statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization#Intel_Virtualization_Technology_for_x86_.28Intel_VT-x.29
"Xen — Xen is a separate and independent operating system that virtualizes everything else on the machine. It supports both architectures, but does not require them for supported guest OS's."
Now on the Zen Page the statement " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization#Intel_Virtualization_Technology_for_x86_.28Intel_VT-x.29
"Xen version 3.0 introduced the capability to run Microsoft Windows as a guest operating system unmodified if the processor supports hardware virtualization provided by Intel VT (formerly codenamed Vanderpool) or AMD-V (formerly codenamed Pacifica)."
So what is the answer? Does Windows on Zen need Intel-Vt / AMD-V hardware assistance to run under Xen? The Xen pages says yes you do need it and the X86 Virtualization page says No you don't need it. Facts need to be checked. 67.174.7.187 ( talk) 23:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Here T5500 was reported to support virtualization, but at least my notebook's T5500 does not contain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.117.12 ( talk) 09:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone add that AMD-V is not real HV and hwMMU (RVI)?
It seems that regular consumer processors with AMD-V only support BT, and not HV and hwMMU with the 4th generation server processor Operons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.207.3 ( talk) 14:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it's stated that only SL9U8 of T5500 model has Vt-x, Intel product info shows that it's not true. All SKUs of T5500 have VT-x feature. This needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsek77 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If you dont have a computer background, you cannot understand this page. What the hell is the point of these virtual machines? What does virtual mean in this context? Needs a top to toe re-write. 124.171.42.238 ( talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not all of AMD Turion have virtualization support. Have virtualization support:
- AMD Turion™ X2 Dual-Core (RM-7X) - AMD Turion™ X2 Ultra Dual-Core (ZM-8X) - AMD Turion™ Neo X2 Dual-Core (L625, K625, K655) - AMD Turion II Dual-Core (N530, P520, M5X0) - AMD Turion II Ultra Dual-Core (M6X0)
Have not virtualization support:
- AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Dual-Core (TL-5X, TL-6X)
http://products.amd.com/en-us/NotebookCPUResult.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozaro ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I renamed sections, moved sections, added a new section called "Chipset" and bumped up the subsections under it since those are part of the chipset instead of the CPU, merged 64-bit sections, and added more references. If I made any mistakes, please correct instead of doing a bulk "undo", and please no throwing rocks at me :-) • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is press-release for 4-core Nano CPU: http://www.via.com.tw/en/resources/pressroom/pressrelease.jsp?press_release_no=5507 It is caimed that in 4-core Nan (as well as in some 2-core Nano X2-E ) there is "VIA VT" hardware virtualisation. Did anyone saw reviews of it ? how it compares with AMD-V and Intel VT ? Does it have software support ? etc 79.111.223.5 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
refs 320 n 330 - seems to be exactly the same. Can wiki merge them and use same number for both ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.223.5 ( talk) 19:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add tests to check whether a system has virtualization on or not. This violates our policies on what Wikipedia isn't. Also, please do not use the word "you" in the article per WP:MOS. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing this article on Japanese Edition now, taking the section of this article into account.
I noticed that VT-i (Virtualization/Vanderpool Technology for the Intel Itanium Architecture) was redirected by this article, but this article does not mention VT-i.
I don't have a good command of English, so I wish it is revised in some way. -- 61.89.14.86 ( talk) 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
X86 virtualization. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on X86 virtualization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://2013.asiabsdcon.org/papers/abc2013-P5A-paper.pdf:{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://download.intel.com/products/processor/manual/326019.pdf:When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)