Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > New column on Expert Zone

Reply
Thread Tools

New column on Expert Zone

 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...almachine.mspx

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Excellent article Charlie, just one thing:

"Don't try running virtual machines on an x64 PC with 512 MB of memory
because you won't be happy."

I am running Windows 98 and NT 4 Workstation in VM Ware and the performance
is not demeaning on the host (512 MB) at all. Although investing in more
memory is always a good thing, for legacy OS's like Windows 9x and NT 4 its
not that bad, I gave 95 16 MBs of RAM, NT 4 - 32 MBs and both run
simulataneously just fine.

When it comes to 2000 and XP though, the more RAM, the better.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...almachine.mspx
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
You're probably right - but frankly I find x64 on 512 pretty constraining
without running VMs of any kind. OTOH, I gave my Win98 VM 128 Mb I think.
Profligate, I know. And I can't imagine any reason whatsoever that I'd run
an NT4 VM, so that's not an issue.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
> Excellent article Charlie, just one thing:
>
> "Don't try running virtual machines on an x64 PC with 512 MB of memory
> because you won't be happy."
>
> I am running Windows 98 and NT 4 Workstation in VM Ware and the
> performance is not demeaning on the host (512 MB) at all. Although
> investing in more memory is always a good thing, for legacy OS's like
> Windows 9x and NT 4 its not that bad, I gave 95 16 MBs of RAM, NT 4 - 32
> MBs and both run simulataneously just fine.
>
> When it comes to 2000 and XP though, the more RAM, the better.
> --
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...almachine.mspx
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
"And I can't imagine any reason whatsoever that I'd run an NT4 VM, so that's
not an issue."

I had the disk lying around on my desk, so I decided to make good use of.
It also depends on what you are doing, if you are doing a whole lot of stuff
with the VM, more RAM is probably best, you might be running a lot legacy
software in your 98 VM, so more RAM is probably necessary in your case, its
really up to what you are doing with it.

Seriously though, Virtual Server 2005 R2 is NOT user friendly, I just
attempted to install 2000 Pro, went away from my machine and when I came
back, it said my connection was idle, installation haulted. I tried to
reset, but Virtual Server just become non-responsive and I had to end the
Task. I think it was a very big mistake using IE for this type of software,
also, the interface is one of those "need to go back to the drawing board"
kinda things.

Why couldn't they use a simple wizard based interface, gosh?!?
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> You're probably right - but frankly I find x64 on 512 pretty constraining
> without running VMs of any kind. OTOH, I gave my Win98 VM 128 Mb I think.
> Profligate, I know. And I can't imagine any reason whatsoever that I'd run
> an NT4 VM, so that's not an issue.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
>> Excellent article Charlie, just one thing:
>>
>> "Don't try running virtual machines on an x64 PC with 512 MB of memory
>> because you won't be happy."
>>
>> I am running Windows 98 and NT 4 Workstation in VM Ware and the
>> performance is not demeaning on the host (512 MB) at all. Although
>> investing in more memory is always a good thing, for legacy OS's like
>> Windows 9x and NT 4 its not that bad, I gave 95 16 MBs of RAM, NT 4 - 32
>> MBs and both run simulataneously just fine.
>>
>> When it comes to 2000 and XP though, the more RAM, the better.
>> --
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
>>>
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...almachine.mspx
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Administrator/jhafele
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
I must agree with the posts concerning " troublesome " situations with
Virtual server 2005 R2. After a very grevious installation on a Win2K Server
machine, I installed an evaluation version of Win2K3 Server as the " guest
" OS. Two weeks of hell ensued with constant problems of ALL sorts. I
removed everything and downloaded the free copy of VM Server. I reinstalled
VM and Win2K3 Server without one single hitch and it has been running
flawlessly for some time now. The M/S version of
Virtual Server appears to have a way to go before it is truly reliable.
..........................John.
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "And I can't imagine any reason whatsoever that I'd run an NT4 VM, so
> that's not an issue."
>
> I had the disk lying around on my desk, so I decided to make good use of.
> It also depends on what you are doing, if you are doing a whole lot of
> stuff with the VM, more RAM is probably best, you might be running a lot
> legacy software in your 98 VM, so more RAM is probably necessary in your
> case, its really up to what you are doing with it.
>
> Seriously though, Virtual Server 2005 R2 is NOT user friendly, I just
> attempted to install 2000 Pro, went away from my machine and when I came
> back, it said my connection was idle, installation haulted. I tried to
> reset, but Virtual Server just become non-responsive and I had to end the
> Task. I think it was a very big mistake using IE for this type of
> software, also, the interface is one of those "need to go back to the
> drawing board" kinda things.
>
> Why couldn't they use a simple wizard based interface, gosh?!?
> --
> --
> Andre
> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> You're probably right - but frankly I find x64 on 512 pretty constraining
>> without running VMs of any kind. OTOH, I gave my Win98 VM 128 Mb I think.
>> Profligate, I know. And I can't imagine any reason whatsoever that I'd
>> run an NT4 VM, so that's not an issue.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
>>> Excellent article Charlie, just one thing:
>>>
>>> "Don't try running virtual machines on an x64 PC with 512 MB of memory
>>> because you won't be happy."
>>>
>>> I am running Windows 98 and NT 4 Workstation in VM Ware and the
>>> performance is not demeaning on the host (512 MB) at all. Although
>>> investing in more memory is always a good thing, for legacy OS's like
>>> Windows 9x and NT 4 its not that bad, I gave 95 16 MBs of RAM, NT 4 - 32
>>> MBs and both run simulataneously just fine.
>>>
>>> When it comes to 2000 and XP though, the more RAM, the better.
>>> --
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert
>>>> Zone.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...almachine.mspx
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Its still a version 1 product (I think), since Connectix did not have a
Server version of Virtual PC, so VS 2005 is wholely created MS Product, so
it won't reach that level of sophistication until around version 3. But I
agree, its not for faint of heart.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Administrator/jhafele" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I must agree with the posts concerning " troublesome " situations with
>Virtual server 2005 R2. After a very grevious installation on a Win2K
>Server machine, I installed an evaluation version of Win2K3 Server as the
>" guest " OS. Two weeks of hell ensued with constant problems of ALL sorts.
>I removed everything and downloaded the free copy of VM Server. I
>reinstalled VM and Win2K3 Server without one single hitch and it has been
>running flawlessly for some time now. The M/S version of
> Virtual Server appears to have a way to go before it is truly reliable.
> .........................John.
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "And I can't imagine any reason whatsoever that I'd run an NT4 VM, so
>> that's not an issue."
>>
>> I had the disk lying around on my desk, so I decided to make good use of.
>> It also depends on what you are doing, if you are doing a whole lot of
>> stuff with the VM, more RAM is probably best, you might be running a lot
>> legacy software in your 98 VM, so more RAM is probably necessary in your
>> case, its really up to what you are doing with it.
>>
>> Seriously though, Virtual Server 2005 R2 is NOT user friendly, I just
>> attempted to install 2000 Pro, went away from my machine and when I came
>> back, it said my connection was idle, installation haulted. I tried to
>> reset, but Virtual Server just become non-responsive and I had to end the
>> Task. I think it was a very big mistake using IE for this type of
>> software, also, the interface is one of those "need to go back to the
>> drawing board" kinda things.
>>
>> Why couldn't they use a simple wizard based interface, gosh?!?
>> --
>> --
>> Andre
>> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> You're probably right - but frankly I find x64 on 512 pretty
>>> constraining without running VMs of any kind. OTOH, I gave my Win98 VM
>>> 128 Mb I think. Profligate, I know. And I can't imagine any reason
>>> whatsoever that I'd run an NT4 VM, so that's not an issue.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
>>>> Excellent article Charlie, just one thing:
>>>>
>>>> "Don't try running virtual machines on an x64 PC with 512 MB of memory
>>>> because you won't be happy."
>>>>
>>>> I am running Windows 98 and NT 4 Workstation in VM Ware and the
>>>> performance is not demeaning on the host (512 MB) at all. Although
>>>> investing in more memory is always a good thing, for legacy OS's like
>>>> Windows 9x and NT 4 its not that bad, I gave 95 16 MBs of RAM, NT 4 -
>>>> 32
>>>> MBs and both run simulataneously just fine.
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to 2000 and XP though, the more RAM, the better.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert
>>>>> Zone.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...almachine.mspx
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence E. Oliver
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Andre -

When you get the 'connection was idle' message, don't try reset, go to
'Master Status' and then reenter into your VM instance - it will then
continue from it's stopping point.

Larry

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > {Quote: "Seriously though, Virtual Server 2005 R2 is NOT user friendly,
> > I just

> attempted to install 2000 Pro, went away from my machine and when I came
> back, it said my connection was idle, installation haulted. I tried to
> reset, but Virtual Server just become non-responsive and I had to end the
> Task. " EndQuote:}
> --



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Thanks, will try that later.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Lawrence E. Oliver" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Andre -
>
> When you get the 'connection was idle' message, don't try reset, go to
> 'Master Status' and then reenter into your VM instance - it will then
> continue from it's stopping point.
>
> Larry
>
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > {Quote: "Seriously though, Virtual Server 2005 R2 is NOT user friendly,
>> > I just

>> attempted to install 2000 Pro, went away from my machine and when I came
>> back, it said my connection was idle, installation haulted. I tried to
>> reset, but Virtual Server just become non-responsive and I had to end the
>> Task. " EndQuote:}
>> --

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Charlie:
Nice column. Interesting material.
Carlos

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...almachine.mspx
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Well, I suspect that only the developer could love the Virtual Server
interface. I certainly don't. OTOH, the VMRC is really useful and gives me
everything I need except the ability to change hardware, without having to
log in to the web interface.

You can, by the way, set the timeout on the web interface and VMRC to
something very large. I think I have mine set to 9999 seconds.

I honestly like both and dislike both VS and VMWare. I dislike VMWare's
handling of NICs - even after months of using it, I find it impossible to
remember which NIC is bridged to which network, and it doesn't let you
rename them or do anything to make it easier. (Keep in mind that I run
VMWare and Virtual Server on a machine that has 4 NICs, all in use.
Networking here is a MESS.)

I don't like their tabbed interface - it's just annoying and doesn't add
anything to the mix. And takes up room that I can't spare. And I really
don't like that VMWare doesn't clean up after itself well. If you start
VMWare on a fresh system, and start one or more VMs, and just leave them
up - no problems at all. But if you start one, do something in it, shut it
down, start a different one, maybe add a couple of client VMs, now a 64-bit
one, and then shut down the server one, start up another, or maybe the first
one over again...
You get the picture - lots of starts and stops of VMs. Over time (and not
all that much time!), the system gets slower and slower and slower. Until
the mouse becomes completely unusable and the host server has to be
rebooted.

Virtual server, OTOH, doesn't support x64 guests at all, doesn't support
generic SCSI, doesn't support cut and paste, doesn't support USB. That tends
to limit things a bit. But, to compensate - I can run the exact same
scenario that brings the box to its knees with VMWare in Virtual Server? And
no real difference from when I started.

So, I use both. Depending on what I'm doing.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
> "And I can't imagine any reason whatsoever that I'd run an NT4 VM, so
> that's not an issue."
>
> I had the disk lying around on my desk, so I decided to make good use of.
> It also depends on what you are doing, if you are doing a whole lot of
> stuff with the VM, more RAM is probably best, you might be running a lot
> legacy software in your 98 VM, so more RAM is probably necessary in your
> case, its really up to what you are doing with it.
>
> Seriously though, Virtual Server 2005 R2 is NOT user friendly, I just
> attempted to install 2000 Pro, went away from my machine and when I came
> back, it said my connection was idle, installation haulted. I tried to
> reset, but Virtual Server just become non-responsive and I had to end the
> Task. I think it was a very big mistake using IE for this type of
> software, also, the interface is one of those "need to go back to the
> drawing board" kinda things.
>
> Why couldn't they use a simple wizard based interface, gosh?!?
> --
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> You're probably right - but frankly I find x64 on 512 pretty constraining
>> without running VMs of any kind. OTOH, I gave my Win98 VM 128 Mb I think.
>> Profligate, I know. And I can't imagine any reason whatsoever that I'd
>> run an NT4 VM, so that's not an issue.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
>>> Excellent article Charlie, just one thing:
>>>
>>> "Don't try running virtual machines on an x64 PC with 512 MB of memory
>>> because you won't be happy."
>>>
>>> I am running Windows 98 and NT 4 Workstation in VM Ware and the
>>> performance is not demeaning on the host (512 MB) at all. Although
>>> investing in more memory is always a good thing, for legacy OS's like
>>> Windows 9x and NT 4 its not that bad, I gave 95 16 MBs of RAM, NT 4 - 32
>>> MBs and both run simulataneously just fine.
>>>
>>> When it comes to 2000 and XP though, the more RAM, the better.
>>> --
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert
>>>> Zone.
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...almachine.mspx
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
prevent a postback when moving web parts from zone to zone. =?Utf-8?B?VmluY2UgVmFyYWxsbw==?= ASP .Net 0 02-08-2006 12:20 AM
SECURITY Expert Reveals New Vulnerability in Windows XP and 2000 Au79 Computer Support 0 01-21-2006 11:51 PM
How to new added column in the fist column ad ASP .Net 3 06-08-2005 12:59 PM
Expert advice needed (We were all new once) hoggmeister@gmail.com C Programming 9 04-28-2005 03:56 PM
Zone Alarm or Zone Alarm Pro? Jones Computer Information 5 02-20-2004 07:29 PM



Advertisments