Dell switches 2300 for 2300E on recent orders...

It seems, Dell quietly switched processors from 2300 to 2300E on recent orders. The latter apparently don't support virtualization technology. People planning to run multiple OSes should complain...

 

I still don't understand what virtulization means.

Does this impact the capacity to operate a linux operating system at all?

 

If it's just Linux, it's probably OK, but if you're running multiple OSes from different partitions you've got a problem. That's what I heard, but I am not an expert on this.

 

Well, I just checked for the E1405 and it is now being advertised w/ the T2300E (w/ no reduction in price; thanks Dell); but just a couple days ago it was still being advertised w/ the T2300. Are you saying that people ordered w/ the T2300, & Dell is shipping out with the T2300E? I've ordered a total of 3 E1405's. One for myself (5 days ago) & two for friends (2-3 weeks ago).

When I ordered, my notebook was being configured w/ the T2300. If I receive the T2300E, I might raise a stink with Dell; seeing how the T2300 is actually a better processor (though I might not be using Virutalization) & the price of the T2300E is actually supposed to be cheaper.

Edit: I just checked the service tags

E1405 Ordered 5 Days Ago:
NJ745 PROCESSOR, 80539, YONAH, T2300E, 1.66, 2M

E1405's Ordered 2-3 Weeks Ago:
X9799 PROCESSOR, 80539, YONAH, T2300, 1.66, C0
X9799 PROCESSOR, 80539, YONAH, T2300, 1.66, C0

Can Dell do this? It just doesn't seem right. My order confirmation clearly says T2300.

 

The T2300E would still allow multiple partitions with different operating systems, but you would have to boot into each one for it to work. Virtualization is the ability to launch another operating system on your partition when you are active within your current OS. For example, Parallels ( www.parallels.com) is a software that allows virtualization of Windows within Mac OS.

As far as I see it, there is not really much use to this. Most people reboot anyway to swith between their operating systems.

 

Plus, the 2300E draws a lot less power, right?

 

you are getting all worked up for no reason

 

No, both T2300 and T2300E consume the same power - 31W.

 

Sure? Thought I read it pulled 25. Link to that? I just need my facts straight so I don't go spouting stuuf likwe that again

 

Intel confirmed that this was a typo on their website. The T2300E uses just as much power as the T2300. The only difference is that it's cheaper b/c it isn't capable of Virtualization.

Maybe. I'm not TOO upset, but I ordered the notebook w/ a T2300. If anything, Dell should confirm w/ the customer before replacing it a cheaper option, w/ fewer capabilities.

 

i would say that ^^^^ is a valid point. They should confirm before making a change, in all cases.

And I thought I had read that on the Intel site (power consumption). Thanks!

 

You can get the specs at this Intel page:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/index.htm

 

I consider it a major inconvenience to reboot every time you need to switch between systems.

 

running an OS virtually is now really fun either.
i'd rather reboot and have full speed, resources etc..
i only use linux anyway

 

Frodo has Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo Processor T2400

 

This has already resulted in law suits in Japan and China.
Here's a link:
http://www4.it168.com/ztsys/zhuanti/580/default.shtml

The reason behind secretly replacing 2300 with 2300E is that Intel stopped production on T2300.

 

If you have a notebook with a T2300 and for whatever reason you have to send it in for repair, I've heard if replacements are sent out they have the T2300E instead.

 

I have been considering purchasing a Dell M1210.

The recent hullabulu about the T2300E 1.66ghz CPU not possessing the Intel Virtualization (VT) extensions has scared me.

Virtualization is a very hot topic these days.
Had it not been for these forums, I might not have been made aware of the lack of VT in T2300E until too late.

In my opinion this substitution is a mistake by Intel and by Dell.
Who would want to purchase a brand new computer that lacked the latest hotly discussed features? Who would not feel cheated after doing so?

That said, I have been googling for speed comparison between VT-enabled and non-VT-enabled systems running virtualization software.

I was supprised to find that... there are no such comparisons.

There is an enormous amount of hype, claiming astounding life-changing effects that occur when using the VT-enabled processors.

More conservative opinions state that the speed increase is small, and that the real improvement is "stability" .

Apparently the recent free Virtualization products are all *NOT* Vt-enabled.
These ignore VT extensions.
One assumes that the next generation of Virtualization products will make use of the VT extensions.
One assumes that these next generation products will not be free.
Also, one surmises that the current free products are free because they are obsolete.

A Hypervisor is a "true" virtualization product that resides between the hardware and all installed operating systems.

A Virtual Machine Manager is a "fake" virtualization product that resides between a "host" operating system and a managed "guest" operating system.

Believe it or not, There are no "true" Hypervisor Virtualization products available at the time of this writing.
These are hyped as being available Real Soon Now(tm).
The cautious amongst us will expect these new products to be prone to leading edgeism.
This means that they will be expensive to purchase, and also prone to distressing new technology problems.

Note that the Parallels web site claims that their products are the first to be "VT extension aware". "aware" in this case appears to mean "still not a real Hypervisor".

Intel and Xen are working feverously together to produce a real Hypervisor.

Vmware and Microsoft Virtual PC are predicting great things in the future, like maybe 2007 sometime.

I am led to the conclusion that:

1) The Intel VT (and also AMD) are not being used by currently available products.
2) When next generation Virtualization products arrive, they are not expected to be faster than the current. They are expected to be "more stable" .
3) The current Intel VT ( and also AMD ) have not been tested with real products and may require revision. This means that the current untested VT extensons may quickly become obsolete. I can envision VT2 and VT3 extensions.

In addition, wireless network connections are problematic to virtualization. Apparently wireless communicaton requies a fixed ethernet MAC ( Media Access Control) address.
Current virtualization products install NAT ( Network Address Translation ) software in their VMM ( Virtual Manchine Manager ) to circumvent this issue.

It appears pointless to worry about the lack of Intel Virtualization extensions in the T2300E processor.

It is still a mistake by both Intel and Dell to have made this substitution.