New column on Expert Zone

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Charlie Russel - MVP, May 3, 2006.

  1. Charlie Russel - MVP, May 3, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], May 3, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 3, 2006
    #3
  4. "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" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    >
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], May 3, 2006
    #4
  5. 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]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "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" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> 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" <> wrote in
    >>> message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert
    >>>> Zone.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Charlie.
    >>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Administrator/jhafele, May 3, 2006
    #5
  6. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> 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" <> wrote in
    >>>> message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert
    >>>>> Zone.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Charlie.
    >>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], May 3, 2006
    #6
  7. 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]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > {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:}
    > --
     
    Lawrence E. Oliver, May 3, 2006
    #7
  8. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> > {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:}
    >> --

    >
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], May 3, 2006
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=, May 3, 2006
    #9
  10. 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> 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" <> wrote in
    >>> message news:...
    >>>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert
    >>>> Zone.
    >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Charlie.
    >>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 4, 2006
    #10
  11. Just treat it like the Web page it is, not like a real interface. ;) It's
    not the actual install that's idle, it's the web interface. (and reset your
    timeouts, under Server Properties, VMRC Server. And for the overall web site
    under IIS Admin GUI.)

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

    Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
    > Thanks, will try that later. :)
    > --
    >
    > "Lawrence E. Oliver" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> 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]" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>> {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:}
    >>> --
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 4, 2006
    #11
  12. Charlie - you got it bad! LOL! :-D
    --
    --
    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> 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" <> wrote in
    >>>> message news:...
    >>>>> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert
    >>>>> Zone.
    >>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Charlie.
    >>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    >
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], May 4, 2006
    #12
  13. Hi

    Im not sure if I am posting in the correct place or the right way.
    But I am hoping that somebody may advise me on an XP problem I am having:

    MDM Zinc v2 Error Handler (notification)

    This gives me the option to debug window or abort. Opening the debug window
    lists frames ... here I am stumped and help and support centre does not seem
    to explain fully what to do and how to operate the debugging window.

    I appreciate any assistance with this error and hope that you dont mind me
    replying on this message.

    Thanks
    Caryn

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

    > There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FyeW4=?=, May 18, 2006
    #13
  14. I have no idea what Zinc is, what MDM is, or where this error message comes
    from. But I suspect it's _not_ a 64bit problem, which is the purview of this
    newsgroup. I suspect you might find better success over on
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general.

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

    Caryn wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > Im not sure if I am posting in the correct place or the right way.
    > But I am hoping that somebody may advise me on an XP problem I am having:
    >
    > MDM Zinc v2 Error Handler (notification)
    >
    > This gives me the option to debug window or abort. Opening the debug
    > window lists frames ... here I am stumped and help and support centre
    > does not seem to explain fully what to do and how to operate the
    > debugging window.
    >
    > I appreciate any assistance with this error and hope that you dont mind me
    > replying on this message.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Caryn
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >
    >> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Charlie Russel - MVP

    John Barnes Guest

    In addition to what Charlie said, you could look at the support pages and
    maybe the forum for the product
    http://www.multidmedia.com/support/



    "Caryn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi
    >
    > Im not sure if I am posting in the correct place or the right way.
    > But I am hoping that somebody may advise me on an XP problem I am having:
    >
    > MDM Zinc v2 Error Handler (notification)
    >
    > This gives me the option to debug window or abort. Opening the debug
    > window
    > lists frames ... here I am stumped and help and support centre does not
    > seem
    > to explain fully what to do and how to operate the debugging window.
    >
    > I appreciate any assistance with this error and hope that you dont mind me
    > replying on this message.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Caryn
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >
    >> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    John Barnes, May 19, 2006
    #15
  16. Hi Charlie. You seem like a cool fellow, but I am miffed at how much effort
    I have spent with the allegedly "free" VMWare Server, which is mostly just to
    run applications like Palm Desktop (from the dreadful Palm Inc.).

    The server does NOT support USB out of the box. Given the time I've spent
    trying to get this buggy and touchy product to work, I conclude that it is a
    waste of time for anyone who is unwilling to pay for technical support. :-(

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

    > There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?c3Jr?=, Jul 19, 2006
    #16
  17. Yes, you have to "add" a USB device. Hardly difficult. Given that the
    product was, until very recently, in beta, one can't really complain if it
    had bugs. That _is_, after all, what a beta is all about. Beyond that, I've
    been pretty candid about what I think the strengths and weaknesses of both
    the MS and VMWare offererings are. I've used both, and will probably
    continue to use both.

    The whole environment gets an order of magnitude better when we start doing
    the heavy lifting at the hardware level, under the OS (ie, "Hypervisor").
    But that isn't really an option yet in the general world. So we struggle
    with what IS there. And learn through our struggles, of course.


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


    srk wrote:
    > Hi Charlie. You seem like a cool fellow, but I am miffed at how much
    > effort I have spent with the allegedly "free" VMWare Server, which is
    > mostly just to run applications like Palm Desktop (from the dreadful Palm
    > Inc.).
    >
    > The server does NOT support USB out of the box. Given the time I've spent
    > trying to get this buggy and touchy product to work, I conclude that it
    > is a waste of time for anyone who is unwilling to pay for technical
    > support. :-(
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >
    >> There's a new column y'all might find interesting up on the Expert Zone.
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_virtualmachine.mspx
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 19, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    815
    unholy
    Jun 27, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXMgTm9ycmVkIFtNU0ZUXQ==?=

    New column: How to Secure Your Wireless Home Network with Windows

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXMgTm9ycmVkIFtNU0ZUXQ==?=, Feb 14, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    546
    Barb Bowman [MVP-Windows]
    Feb 16, 2005
  3. Jones

    Zone Alarm or Zone Alarm Pro?

    Jones, Feb 19, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    640
    Phil Marshall
    Feb 20, 2004
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    New Photography Column Posted

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 7, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    278
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Oct 7, 2006
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    New Foto Tip column by Mark Alberhasky

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Dec 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    809
    Robert Brace
    Dec 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page