Intel clearly saw VT as a high-end, niche feature: not everyone needed it, and those that did were willing to pay for it. So from the standpoint of maximizing profitability they did something very sensible. Then along came Microsoft with a more mainstream use for it in Windows 7's XP Mode (though still not a consumer-level use, which is why it's not in the Home edition), throwing a wrench into Intel's nicely tiered price/features matrix.

At this point, Intel really should just follow AMD's lead and enable the feature on the entire line -- and they may be doing that, stepping by stepping, but it will take a while. And meanwhile the whole Core 2 line is slated to get increasingly marginalized by the bottom of the Nehalem family, rendering the whole discussion far less interesting than the question: is VT universally enabled in Lynnfield and Clarkdale?

Half glass empty cries foul about past lack of VT. Half glass full looks at the new Celerons that are equal to the e5xxx series and have VT and says 'sweet.'

Oh. So now those with Intel CPUs (Pentium DC, E7000/Q8000 series) who want to use the Virtual XP in Win7 will now have to run out an buy another Intel CPU?
No wonder they sell so many CPUs. Next we'll have to buy a different Intel CPU for each different app. Maybe they's do us this favor also.

For what it's worth, AMD sold me one processor almost only because was kind enough to support my curiosity for virtual machines with AMD-V even if I was on a tight budget. Oh, and for better IGP too!

Please Ignore

"XP Mode" would seem like a prime mover. Then they can put these into business machines that don't need much horsepower.

But with an increased price. Intel likes to charge for their VT support.

Also already showing up in new revisions of the E5300 and E5400.
for the E5400 http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40478
for the E5300 http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35300
I hope Intel will somehow differentiate between the VT and non-VT CPUs that have the same name.