Hyper-V Causes Intel Turbo Boost Tech. Monitor To Break???

Forums Operating Systems Windows Server 2008 R2 Applications Compatibility Hyper-V Causes Intel Turbo Boost Tech. Monitor To Break???

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #44334

      Hi everyone. After spending a few days getting my Bluetooth drivers to work under R2, I finally have that mostly working with a few minor caveats. I’m satisfied for now as far as that issue is concerned. But now it seems I’ve run into another inexorable issue……………ITBTM stops working after installing the Hyper-V Role in Server Manager! First, I enabled the Feature in Server Manager. No problems there. Then I attempted to install the Hyper-V Role (NOT Feature), a reboot was required, and while Windows was attempting to configure the system i got a BSOD! So I went into Safe Mode, another attempt was made to configure……………then BSOD again! It rebooted again, finally I was permitted to log in. I then tried to install the Role again, another reboot, but this time around, no BSOD, after logging in again I saw in Server Manager that the Role was added successfully. However, within a minute after that, ITBTM popped up with a cryptic message stating that it couldnt be started, without giving a reason, and saying that I should try to restart it. SO I clicked the desktop icon, after 20 seconds same message. Then I opened the Services menu and found that the associated Service wasnt started. So I tried to start it, which gave the error “0x80004005: Unspecified Error”. I then uninstalled ITBTM. removed the Hyper-V Role, rebooted, let Win do its usual configuration thing, then logged back in and reinstalled ITBTM again. This time, it ran fine. Then I installed the Hyper-V Role once more, after reboot and logging in, same error and Services messages. WTF gives here?! Is there a known incompatibility with Hyper-V and ITBTM? Ive tried searching Google, cant seem to find anything specifically related to my issue. But I do know for a fact that ITBTM works fine under 2008 R2, at ;least for me, because i had it working just fine until the Hyper-V role came along. Is there a way i can get the Intel app to work again, or troubleshoot what might be the cause? Do i really need to go back to Win7 just so i wont have problems? after spending a few days on bluetooth, this is frustrating the shit out of me. If anyone can help, please reply. Thanks!

    • #52183

      Hyper-V has known compatibility issues with Intel Turbo Boost as well as performance issues with 3D graphics rendering when the role is installed. Installing Hyper-V will almost certainly slow down your machine to a crawl not to mention there are far better alternatives out there (VMWare Player, VMWare Workstation, or VirtualBox). Uninstall that POS Hyper-V and get a better solution.

      Here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HDJ2P3TC

    • #52182

      Thanks for the advice, man. I already have a cracked copy of VMware Workstation 7, so I passed on the MegaUpload link you provided. I pirate all my software, especially after buying Vista Ultimate RTM a few years back and discovering how horrible of an OS it was. I kinda felt like i got screwed over. Ever since then I’ve been pirating everything I can find, also I dont make alot of money ATM so that gives me yet another reason, lol. I did buy a student-licensed copy of 7 ultimate while i was enrolled in business admin/management at University of Phoenix, but that was way back when 7 was first released and there were no stable working cracks for it. and besides that it only cost $30. cant beat that deal at any rate. then I found Server on DreamSpark for free.

      But I have heard that Hyper-V is one of the best things about 2008 R2 from a few other ppl from are currently running it as their main OS. I asked them and they said that they are not members of this forum/site and in fact have never heard of it. All of them have jobs in the IT sector.

      In your post you also state that Hyper-V has known incompatibility issues with the ITB and 3D graphics rendering. Can you provide documentation (hyperlinks) that back this up (especially the 1st comment)? Not saying I dont believe you, I just would like to read up on it. Tried searching Google but nothing specific there. I did notice that while playing Grand Theft Auto IV in online multiplayer (and single player campaign mode) as well as Call of Duty: Black Ops, my graphics would stop and go every now and then, like for instance things would be just fine, then a slight pause, then back to normal again. I think the formal term for it in gaming communities is called frame breaks or tearing or something like that. I play in windowed mode as often as I can so that might have been part of it. But GTAIV was running great before I installed the Hyper-V role. On a side note though, I have also played World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV Online and several others, all are still performing the same as before. But my system responsiveness/performance didnt seem to decrease any after installing the role, I couldnt find any noticeable difference.

      What is the difference between the Hyper-V Role and the Hyper-V Feature? seems kinda redundant to me…………….

      Would also like to get your take on Windows 8 Server/ Windows Server 8. has microsoft officially named it yet? how similiar/different will it be to Win8? I’ve tried the Win8 developers preview in a VM, it’s ok but needs alot of impovement before MS unleashes it upon the masses. I have heard that the Server version of 8 will include Hyper-V.

      And the last thing i’d like to mention is that I feel i shouldnt have to do all this tinkering and modding etc just to get features like Bluetooth working correctly, whereas in 7 they work out of the box without all the extra effort. On the other hand doing such things are part of the joy of being a true hacker (NOT cracker!), they love to fix stuff. Thats part of the reason why i’ve been test-drive Linux and FreeBSD. Do you have any experience with either?

      I have been considering installing win8 Enterprise Edition x64 as my main OS instead of Server, it’s still 7 and has all of the features of the other 7 editions, plus all vista/7 apps should work flawlessly on it without modding. And i would also have stuff like Windows Media Center and all the other 7 features that you guys have been trying to get working under Server for yrs, sometimes unsuccessfully i would like to note (not downing the hard work/efforts of anyone here so dont take that comment personally). I’m still trying to think of good reasons for not falling back on 7 as i’ve done many times in the past, but i keep finding one thing after another that doesnt function correctly under Server. I first got the idea of running Server a few yrs back from a friend who’s really into the tech scene, ever since then i’ve been jumping back and forth between Server and Vista/7. The one thing about Server that has really impressed me though, is the performance increase of Server over 7. I can honestly say it’s real, my system just seems a bit more responsive and stable with Server. So while i’m contemplating jumping ship again, i really dont want to.

      I just keep thinking though that i should just run 7 as my main OS on the laptop/netbook, and install Server on a desktop which is never meant to leave home and is always connected to the Internet (dont have one yet, i prefer laptops over desktops). AFter all, MS never designed Server to be ran on machines that are portable. It just seems that I should only use Server for a few specific tasks that it’s intended for, instead of trying to use it as main. Have also considered running 7 as main and keeping R2 in a VM for tasks that 7 isnt well suited to (and the same would apply to 8/8 Server). But i just cant seem to get over the reponsiveness and customization that Server provides.

      Any advice/opinions?

      Lastly,what is the main difference between 7 enterprise and 2008 r2? at first glance them seem very similiar. Which purposes are each best suited to?

      Well, thats all for now reply soon!

    • #52181

      @Enigma wrote:

      But I have heard that Hyper-V is one of the best things about 2008 R2 from a few other ppl from are currently running it as their main OS. I asked them and they said that they are not members of this forum/site and in fact have never heard of it. All of them have jobs in the IT sector.

      The hypervisor in Hyper-V by design is very secure. Hyper-V is not monolithic which means the hardware device drivers do not directly communicate with the guest VMs. All the requests instead are made on behalf of a virtual bus (VMBus) that goes out to the physical machine and makes the request on behalf. This process makes Hyper-V very secure but you pay a price for 3D performance. This is the one of the main reasons why running Hyper-V as a workstation is not a great idea. This overhead causes a performance degradation of your UI. Things are less snappier, FPS in games decrease, etc.

      This problem is even documented by Microsoft themselves.

      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/961661

      @Enigma wrote:

      In your post you also state that Hyper-V has known incompatibility issues with the ITB and 3D graphics rendering. Can you provide documentation (hyperlinks) that back this up (especially the 1st comment)? Not saying I dont believe you, I just would like to read up on it. Tried searching Google but nothing specific there.

      Check out user b0w_bender:

      http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/T400-T500-and-newer-T-series/Blue-screen-with-Hyper-v-on-T410/td-p/235107

      This forum documents an issue with Turbo Boost directly with Hyper-V.

      http://blogs.msdn.com/b/project_programmability/archive/2010/07/16/does-your-demo-laptop-with-intel-core-i3-i5-i7-cpu-bluescreens.aspx

      The forum user suggests disabling virtualization in your BIOS and then installing SP1, then turning Turbo Boost + virtualization back on once SP1 is installed. But I think you already have SP1 installed so it doesn’t seem that this fixes the problem?!

      @Enigma wrote:

      What is the difference between the Hyper-V Role and the Hyper-V Feature? seems kinda redundant to me…………….

      I think maybe you mean Hyper-V Server vs. Hyper-V role. Simply Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Server contains JUST hyper-V and thats it. Very small footprint…used for virtualization purposes only. Hyper-V role is included in the suite of additional 2008 r2 roles/features (DHCP,DNS, Active Directory, FTP, DirectAccess,etc). Hyper-V Server cannot be used as a workstation so its irrelevant to you. If you are interested in Hyper-V I would suggest looking into putting it on a portable USB drive. It’s a bit tedious but it can be done. Requires some technical knowledge though, so KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING!

      http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/BootHVSR2FromUSB

      @Enigma wrote:

      Would also like to get your take on Windows 8 Server/ Windows Server 8. has microsoft officially named it yet? how similiar/different will it be to Win8? I’ve tried the Win8 developers preview in a VM, it’s ok but needs alot of impovement before MS unleashes it upon the masses. I have heard that the Server version of 8 will include Hyper-V.

      I was able to snag a copy of the windows 8 server developer preview and I tried it out in a dual boot on my laptop, but I was not impressed at all with it. It is not really a fair assessment right now but thats because the current build is very buggy, so I am going to hold off on my initial “true” reponse until ATLEAST it hits beta…even then my real judgement won’t come until the RTM of Windows 8 Server.

      On the contrary, Hyper-V will be available on the home editions of Windows 8 (though not sure if just professional + ultimate editions) making the first time Hyper-V is available on client and server.

      @Enigma wrote:

      And the last thing i’d like to mention is that I feel i shouldnt have to do all this tinkering and modding etc just to get features like Bluetooth working correctly, whereas in 7 they work out of the box without all the extra effort. On the other hand doing such things are part of the joy of being a true hacker (NOT cracker!), they love to fix stuff. Thats part of the reason why i’ve been test-drive Linux and FreeBSD. Do you have any experience with either?

      No experience with FreeBSD, but I hear its very secure.
      I’ve played around on Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Backtrack 5, OpenSUSE. Linux dominates the market share of web servers and the community is growing…i wouldn’t be surprised if they own a 10% market share in desktops by 2016. They used to dominate the netbook industry and some OEMs use a variant of the Linux kernel for their “Instant-on” technology which ultimately is based on Splashtop.

      As Mark Russinovich has pointed out several times before the kernel differences of NT between Windows Server and its desktop counterpart are minimal. The difference you see is not the kernel itself, but rather the features that Microsoft restricts. For example Windows Server 2008 R2 standard is limited to only 50 RRAS connections while Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise is unlimited. The function of both behaves precisely the same. Both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are essentially derived from the MinWin kernel.

      http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-confirms-minwin-is-in-windows-7-after-all/1690

      This idea of compartmentalizing all your functions was introduced in Windows Server 2008. As a matter of fact you might be surprised to hear that Windows 7 is basically an evolution of Windows Server 2008, which in turn is an evolution of the previous Vista kernel.

      http://www.tgdaily.com/software-features/37639-no-completely-new-kernel-in-windows-7-microsoft-says

      The revamped Vista kernel that you see today is what people like to call “Windows 7”. Yes, Windows 7 is pretty much Vista 2.0. It is not a completely new kernel. If you notice, Windows Server 2008 R2 is a “minor” release which lead me to believe that we had to wait until Windows 8 to see a completely new kernel… and chances are we probably will…but I think it will most likely be an evolution of Windows 7/R2 kernel due to the hardware requirements Microsoft is pushing out due to its support for ARM processors now.

      The purpose of running a Server operating system all boils down to practicality. Some convincing reasons to use Windows Server as a desktop include:

      1. Security hardening
      2. Minimalist by design
      3. More management capabilities
      4. Low hardware requirements
      5. Small initial footprint
      6. Remote Access capabilities
      7. Simplified Backup Solution
      8. High application/driver compatibility w/ 7
      9. Centralized monitoring
      10. Application/software control
      11. Resource Allocation
      12. SharePoint development
      13. Virtualization
      14. Advanced file sharing

      I like having better control over my OS and I have never really cared to use any of the media features available in 7 (Homegroup, Media Center, etc). Compatibility is not an issue for the most part because I have a dual boot of Windows 7 to combat this problem. The point I am trying to make is you shouldn’t run Windows Server because its more light or because its free and you can “hack it”.. those are just some of the common logical fallacies I have heard.

      “I run Windows Server because its light”

      So what I could easily configure Tiny7 on my laptop with twice the less footprint of Windows Server.

      If bluetooth compatibility is a must for you and you cannot find a proper way to get it to work on Windows Server then Windows Server is not the OS for you. I have segregated my partitions into functionality and not because I want to run Windows Server as a true desktop replacement. It will never be a true desktop replacement that it just foolish talk.

      My 250GB HDD is partitioned as followed

      1. 50GB Windows 7
      Functions include:
      Media functionality
      Gaming functionality
      Application compatibility (for those few apps that don’t work in server)

      2. 200GB Windows Server 2008 R2
      Functions include:
      Running FTP Server
      Remote Access capabilities
      Virtualization/VM testing or production
      “General Purpose OS”
      Office productivity
      General media playback (listen to songs, movies, etc)

      So if I ever wanted to play video games I would reboot my machine and play on Windows 7 and if i ever wanted to test VMs I would boot into Windows Server. I wanted to make Windows 7 really light on resources and make it strictly my “gaming OS” so that way I could benefit the most out of it due to no extra services running. I don’t have any AV on 7 because I have disabled networking on 7… i copy all my ISOs and gamedata from server (where I downloaded all the games from) … and then simply offline install them onto my 7 partition. I don’t game very much so 90% of the time I am on Windows Server. As you have said you will undoubtedly run into compatability issues at one point or another (in your example with the Intel Turbo Boost monitor) so it might be wise to allocate your functionality (media, gaming on 7, general purpose on R2,etc)… to suit your needs. The performance increase you have seen as a result of running R2 is rather misleading.The performance benefit you see is most likely the direct cause of lowered resource consumption. A base Windows 7 Ultimate installation has over 40 services installed than a base Windows Server 2008 R2 installation. Even if Desktop Experience, .NET Framework 3.5, and Wireless LAN roles installed my laptop running R2 uses roughly 250MB less than its Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate counterpart. Also the behavior of the Disk I/O is designed differently in Server I believe which makes disk responsive behavior a little more responsive in R2 over 7… I have ran benchmarks of disk tests on 7 vs R2 and occasionally I do see a slight advantage toward R2. Theoretically I should not see a difference but ultimately I think this has to due with resource consumption than anything else.

      @Enigma wrote:

      Lastly,what is the main difference between 7 enterprise and 2008 r2? at first glance them seem very similiar. Which purposes are each best suited to?

      Mostly you have to think of it from a client/server perspective. Windows 7 enterprise is optimized for a corporate environment. It has the ability to join a domain, connect to a DirectAccess server, enforce local policies (more so than Windows 7 home premium), BranchCache, BitLocker, ability to connect to virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), as well as the string of media features you find in home edition of Windows 7. Pretty much in a nutshell Windows 7 enterprise has Windows 7 Home Premium features + enterprise-level functions…hence why it cost so much and you can only activate it via MAK or volume licensing. Keep in mind that all the corporate functions of 7 are purely client-side. You cannot become a domain, you can only join one. You cannot become a VDI you can only join one and so forth. As i said it all boils down to functionality.

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.