Searching \ for '[TECH] Using Microsoft Virtual PC' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=using+microsoft
Search entire site for: 'Using Microsoft Virtual PC'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] Using Microsoft Virtual PC'
2009\05\04@163420 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Has anyone tried installing Windows 98 on the Microsoft Virtual PC?

I just read a letter in EPE where some guy recommended it, and decided to
give it a try. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out how to access an ISO image
I created from a Windows 98 CD.

I click on CD->Capture ISO, select the file, and... nothing happens. D: is
the RAM drive, and E: says "Invalid drive specification". I tried a few
other letters, without success. Online help doesn't say anything I don't
already know.

Ideas?

Vitaliy

2009\05\04@164327 by peter green

flavicon
face

> I click on CD->Capture ISO, select the file, and... nothing happens. D: is
> the RAM drive, and E: says "Invalid drive specification". I tried a few
> other letters, without success. Online help doesn't say anything I don't
> already know.
>  
What environment are you running theese commands from? did you boot
virtual PC off the windows 98 CD iso or what?

Does virtual PC let you configure how the CD drive is presented to the
guest OS and if so what do you have selected?

As a fallback option you could always use another OS in virtual PC to
copy the windows 98 install files to a virtual hard drive.

2009\05\04@165758 by John Gardner

picon face
Dunno, but I'm running DOS 6.22 under VPC 2007 on XP HE,
despite M$ disavowall of support for DOS under VPC.

I've got old assemblers, compilers, and device programmers
which run under DOS or W3 - So far everything I've tried works.

Re-remembering how to configure DOS was the hard part. I also
lucked out in that my 15-year-old DOS install disks still work.

2009\05\04@170725 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
peter green wrote:
>> I click on CD->Capture ISO, select the file, and... nothing happens. D:
>> is
>> the RAM drive, and E: says "Invalid drive specification". I tried a few
>> other letters, without success. Online help doesn't say anything I don't
>> already know.
>>
> What environment are you running theese commands from? did you boot
> virtual PC off the windows 98 CD iso or what?

I had a "Win98 boot CD" which has basically the same files you would get
when you create a startup floppy under Win 98.

So I created a virtual HD, formatted it, and copied the files over. So now
it boots from C:


> Does virtual PC let you configure how the CD drive is presented to the
> guest OS and if so what do you have selected?

This is the weird part. When I used the (genuine) Windows 98 SE CD, and
instruct the virtual PC to use the "D:" drive, it does not work. The disk
itself is OK, because I can view the files on the "real" machine, and the
boot menu comes up fine.

So I created an ISO from this Win 98 install CD, and tried to load it in
VPC. I don't get any errors, and it looks like it should work, but I have no
idea how to access this virtual CD.

Does this make sense?


> As a fallback option you could always use another OS in virtual PC to
> copy the windows 98 install files to a virtual hard drive.

Hm, I guess I could try installing Windows 2000. I don't think I have access
to a non-OEM Win XP CD.

Vitaliy

2009\05\04@171738 by John Gardner

picon face
Just for grins, you do have your CD-ROM in your boot sequence
on the base machine, right?

2009\05\04@171932 by peter green

flavicon
face
John Gardner wrote:
> Dunno, but I'm running DOS 6.22 under VPC 2007 on XP HE,
> despite M$ disavowall of support for DOS under VPC.
>  
> I've got old assemblers, compilers, and device programmers
> which run under DOS or W3 - So far everything I've tried works.
>
> Re-remembering how to configure DOS was the hard part. I also
> lucked out in that my 15-year-old DOS install disks still work.
>  
Did you remember to set up a suitable CD rom driver ("oakcdrom.sys" is a
good one if your virtual CD drive is IDE ) and mscdex?

2009\05\04@172213 by John Gardner

picon face
What I'm getting at is, have you tried starting the VM
and then booting W98 from the CD?

2009\05\04@173025 by Dave Wheeler

flavicon
face
From memory, the Win98CD will not install directly, you have to make
the floppy disks (on the CD) to boot the PC (or VM). The floppy loads
the CD driver and sets up a very basic DOS environment.

Good Luck

Dave

John Gardner wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2009\05\04@184401 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
I would not recommend VirtualPC in the first place. Use VmWare or VirtualBox
instead.

Tamas


On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Vitaliy <spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\05\04@190708 by John Gardner

picon face
>  From memory, the Win98CD will not install directly...

You may well be right - I have zero experience with 95/98. I ran W3.1 till
XP came out. Got interesting the last few years, fencing with the ISPs to
stay on the net...

> I would not recommend VirtualPC in the first place

Likewise, no experience. VPC 2007 worked right out of the box for me -
Started the VM, put DOS 6.22 Disk 1 in A:\ and hit enter. Twenty minutes
later I was running DOS...

The only thinking involved was speculating that if it'd run W3 it would
probably run DOS unless inhibited from doing so.

Jack

2009\05\05@013047 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
John Gardner wrote:
> Just for grins, you do have your CD-ROM in your boot sequence
> on the base machine, right?

Yes, I do.

2009\05\05@013200 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Dave Wheeler wrote:
> John Gardner wrote:
>> What I'm getting at is, have you tried starting the VM
>> and then booting W98 from the CD?
>>  
> From memory, the Win98CD will not install directly, you have to make
> the floppy disks (on the CD) to boot the PC (or VM). The floppy loads
> the CD driver and sets up a very basic DOS environment.

I tried this. Except that instead of a floppy, I used a bootable CD.

Vitaliy

2009\05\05@013313 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>I would not recommend VirtualPC in the first place. Use VmWare or
>VirtualBox
> instead.

Why?

2009\05\05@014249 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Vitaliy <.....spamKILLspamspam@spam@maksimov.org> wrote:
> Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>>I would not recommend VirtualPC in the first place. Use VmWare or
>>VirtualBox instead.
>
> Why?

One of the reason I do not like Virtual PC is that it does not support
USB.

The other is that it does not work under Linux but that may not
be a problem for you.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\05@014701 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Vitaliy <spamspamKILLspammaksimov.org> wrote:
>> From memory, the Win98CD will not install directly, you have to make
>> the floppy disks (on the CD) to boot the PC (or VM). The floppy loads
>> the CD driver and sets up a very basic DOS environment.
>
> I tried this. Except that instead of a floppy, I used a bootable CD.

I vaguely remember I got Windows 98 working under Virtual PC
but I may have confused it with 2000 or Vmware Player. I am sure
Windows 2000 works under Virtual PC.

Later I decided that Virtual PC is not good enough for me since
it does not support USB which I want to try out.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\05@015856 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Mon, 4 May 2009 22:32:23 -0700, "Vitaliy" <.....spamKILLspamspam.....maksimov.org> said:
> Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> >I would not recommend VirtualPC in the first place. Use VmWare or
> >VirtualBox
> > instead.
>
> Why?

Because they work?  :-)

Nate
--
 Nate Duehr
 EraseMEnatespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTnatetech.com

2009\05\05@021218 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>>I would not recommend VirtualPC in the first place. Use VmWare or
>>>VirtualBox instead.
>>
>> Why?
>
> One of the reason I do not like Virtual PC is that it does not support
> USB.

Really? I did not know that.

2009\05\05@031101 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Vitaliy <spamspamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
>> One of the reason I do not like Virtual PC is that it does not support
>> USB.
>
> Really? I did not know that.

Look at the comments here. It is a big minus for me. But it may be
ok for some other people.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/02/20/running-virtual-pc-2007-on-windows-vista.aspx

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\05@043505 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Vitaliy <@spam@spamKILLspamspammaksimov.org> wrote:

> >I would not recommend VirtualPC in the first place. Use VmWare or
> >VirtualBox
> > instead.
>
> Why?


VmWare is the pioneer on the virtualization, and still they do a great job.
The workstation version is very easy to use, supports snapshots with
branches, cloning, supports virtually all OS available today -- even old
ones. And as others said supports USB. It also has a free VmWare player
version and also a free server version. The player is good for 'playing' the
virtual machines (running it) but you cannot create new ones. The server
version is a bit more sophisticated and therefore bit more difficult to
configure but is great.

VirtualBox was originally developed by a German company, but now Sun
Microsystems maintains it -- Sun has a very good reputation on
virtualisation (Java VM). VirtualBox also supports snapshots and cloning
(altough not branching). It has many features that VmWare does not, like
'Seemless Mode' which is basically makes the virtual OS' desktop meting into
the host desktop so all application running on the virtual machine looks
like was running on the host. Also it has a remote destop access so the
server virtualisation is also possible with the desktop version. Supports
USB and most OS you may want to play with (DOS, Win3.1, Win95/98,
WinNT/2K/XP/Vista, OS2, Linuxes/Unixes).

Both of them supports shared folders and the VT technology supported by
modern CPUs. With VirtualPC you have very few features like this, they do
not really support Linux (even if you can install it there is no guest
additions), and overall the performance is way less than VmWare or
VirtualBox. BTW I found that VirtualBox is the fastest, so even at my
workplace I am looking to replace VmWare to it. At home I have the
VirtualBox on Linux host and WinXP+MPLAB+PICkit2 works great.

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\05\05@044652 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Tue, 5 May 2009 09:35:03 +0100, "Tamas Rudnai"
<snipped Tamas' good comments on VirtualBox and VMWare for brevity>

I believe that Parallels also should make the "short list" for anyone
looking into these technologies.  I think, but would have to check their
site for sure, that they've moved away from Mac-only support and now
have PC versions.  

They actually pioneered the "seamless" mode you mentioned of VirtualBox,
but call it "Coherence" instead.  

VirtualBox for FREE, is hard to beat, though.

Nate
--
 Nate Duehr
 KILLspamnateKILLspamspamnatetech.com

2009\05\05@044803 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaiTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

> Both of them supports shared folders and the VT technology supported by
> modern CPUs. With VirtualPC you have very few features like this, they do
> not really support Linux (even if you can install it there is no guest
> additions), and overall the performance is way less than VmWare or
> VirtualBox. BTW I found that VirtualBox is the fastest, so even at my
> workplace I am looking to replace VmWare to it. At home I have the
> VirtualBox on Linux host and WinXP+MPLAB+PICkit2 works great.

On the other hand, VirtualBox has terrible support for BSDs. I have
VirtualBox installed under Windows Vista and Ubuntu. I could
not install FreeBSD/NetBSD with my desktop PC but installation
under VirtualBox is also not working. I do not want to run common
guests like Windows and Linux as I have already both OS running
and I prefer to use dual boot. Actually qemu is better in this aspect.

http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest_OSes

VMware is said to be better in OS supports.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\05@071546 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: And as others said supports USB

The latest beta version (which MS have forgotten to link to a download
server) is supposed to include USB support - according to the W7 XP
mode virtual server blurb.

Colin
--
cdb, spamBeGonecolinspamBeGonespambtech-online.co.uk on 5/05/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359






2009\05\05@072513 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM, cdb <TakeThisOuTcolinEraseMEspamspam_OUTbtech-online.co.uk> wrote:

> :: And as others said supports USB
>
> The latest beta version (which MS have forgotten to link to a download
> server) is supposed to include USB support - according to the W7 XP
> mode virtual server blurb.
>

At last. Actually is there any virtualization that supports Bluetooth?

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\05\05@092540 by Vis Naicker

flavicon
face
Tamas wrote:
>> :: And as others said supports USB

>At last. Actually is there any virtualization that supports Bluetooth?
>Tamas

I don't know if this is what you are asking but over the weekend I plugged a
bluetooth dongle into my Suse 9 VM - running Vmware 6. WinXP sp2 (running
natively) has issues and won't see the dongle without drivers and tweaking,
Suse detected it straight away, and I was able to send files both ways to my
Nokia cellphone.
The Obex mode worked, as well as browse - unlike XP without Nokia PC Suite.

2009\05\05@154403 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: At last

Bad news is, you need a processor that uses Intel/AMD virtualization
technology and have it enabled. That's my desktop excluded then!



:: is there any virtualization that supports Bluetooth?

They don't list it in the features.

Colin
--
cdb, RemoveMEcolinspamTakeThisOuTbtech-online.co.uk on 6/05/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\05\05@155819 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 05:43 +1000, cdb wrote:
>
> :: At last
>
> Bad news is, you need a processor that uses Intel/AMD virtualization
> technology and have it enabled. That's my desktop excluded then!
>
>
>
> :: is there any virtualization that supports Bluetooth?
>
> They don't list it in the features.

I haven't tried it, but since bluetooth is usually just a USB adapter
away I'd bet that VMWare would support bluetooth without issue, after
all, it's just another USB device, VMware doesn't need to know what it's
doing. Conceivably you may have to keep the adapter exclusive to the
guest OS.

TTYL

2009\05\05@192840 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Herbert Graf <hkgrafEraseMEspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't tried it, but since bluetooth is usually just a USB adapter
> away I'd bet that VMWare would support bluetooth without issue, after
> all, it's just another USB device, VMware doesn't need to know what it's
> doing. Conceivably you may have to keep the adapter exclusive to the
> guest OS.

Many USB device works. Many others do not work under VMware
or Virtualbox or Qemu with a Linux host. I will think it is similar
for other host.

There was a long discussion in the Linux usb mailing list and now
the topic started again. USB pass through is not easy at all.
http://marc.info/?t=124134477900001&r=1&w=2

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\05@205330 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
>> :: At last
>>
>> Bad news is, you need a processor that uses Intel/AMD virtualization
>> technology and have it enabled. That's my desktop excluded then!

This is *not* true for Virtual PC 2007. You do *not* need Intel/AMD
virtualization for this product.

Is this comment referring to the beta of the new version of Virtual PC?

-- Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2009\05\05@210647 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bob Ammerman <EraseMErammermanspamverizon.net> wrote:
>>> :: At last
>>>
>>> Bad news is, you need a processor that uses Intel/AMD virtualization
>>> technology and have it enabled. That's my desktop excluded then!
>
> This is *not* true for Virtual PC 2007. You do *not* need Intel/AMD
> virtualization for this product.
>
> Is this comment referring to the beta of the new version of Virtual PC?
>

Yes. It is referring to the beta of the new version of Virtual PC which
is said to start to support USB.
www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/features/default.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2009/04/27/windows-virtual-pc-is-coming.aspx

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\06@041337 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't tried it, but since bluetooth is usually just a USB adapter
> away I'd bet that VMWare would support bluetooth without issue, after
> all, it's just another USB device, VMware doesn't need to know what it's
> doing. Conceivably you may have to keep the adapter exclusive to the
> guest OS.
>

You are right, I missed the point -- my one is still hangs on the USB even
though it is embedded one. I also had a problem with the access rights on
the usbfs which prevented to pick up the bluetooth device by the virtual
machine.

Thanks,
Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\05\06@043406 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaispam_OUTspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I haven't tried it, but since bluetooth is usually just a USB adapter
>> away I'd bet that VMWare would support bluetooth without issue, after
>> all, it's just another USB device, VMware doesn't need to know what it's
>> doing. Conceivably you may have to keep the adapter exclusive to the
>> guest OS.
>>
>
> You are right, I missed the point -- my one is still hangs on the USB even
> though it is embedded one. I also had a problem with the access rights on
> the usbfs which prevented to pick up the bluetooth device by the virtual
> machine.

The later version of VMware is said to solve that problem. Last time
you need to
mount usbfs to use Vmware. Now the Linux USB developers want to actually
deprecate this option. By default Ubuntu does not mount it.

But the whole USB passthrough is a risky business. Long discussion here:
http://marc.info/?t=124134477900001&r=1&w=2

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\13@093725 by Nicola Perotto

picon face

Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> VirtualBox also supports snapshots and cloning
> (altough not branching). It has many features that VmWare does not, like
> 'Seemless Mode' which is basically makes the virtual OS' desktop meting into
> the host desktop so all application running on the virtual machine looks
> like was running on the host.
Starting from VMware version 6.5 there is the 'Unity' mode that works in
a similar manner.

> Also it has a remote destop access so the
> server virtualisation is also possible with the desktop version.
In VMware you can access the guest O/S using a VNC client. And, of
course if is a windows, with a remote desktop client...


2009\05\13@213430 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Nicola Perotto <EraseMEnicolaspamspamspamBeGonenicolaperotto.it>wrote:

>
>
>
> > Also it has a remote destop access so the
> > server virtualisation is also possible with the desktop version.
> In VMware you can access the guest O/S using a VNC client. And, of
> course if is a windows, with a remote desktop client...
>

The VirtualBox remote desktop is a bit different. It is provided natively by
VirtualBox
so you can connect with rdesktop while the VM is still starting up or
loading the OS.

This also means you can also get to the real console if the VM is not
running a GUI.

John

2009\05\14@030846 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:34 AM, John La Rooy <RemoveMEpiclist.jlrKILLspamspamlarooy.com>wrote:

> > > Also it has a remote destop access so the
> > > server virtualisation is also possible with the desktop version.
> > In VMware you can access the guest O/S using a VNC client. And, of
> > course if is a windows, with a remote desktop client...
> >
>
> The VirtualBox remote desktop is a bit different. It is provided natively
> by
> VirtualBox
> so you can connect with rdesktop while the VM is still starting up or
> loading the OS.
>
> This also means you can also get to the real console if the VM is not
> running a GUI.


I am not familiar with the VmWare Workstation 6, but on the website it says:

"Enable remote users to connect to virtual machines from VNC clients with
built-in VNC support"

http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/new.html
http://www.petri.co.il/images/new-vmware-6-features-02.jpg

As this blog says:
"Plus there's just something cool about watching a machine boot via a VNC
window... that's right, since the VNC viewer is connecting to vmware-vmx.exe
on the host rather than a VNC server in the guest, you get a proper console
connection like an iLO on a HP server."

http://n00dlestheindelible.blogspot.com/2007/01/vmware-workstation-60-totally-awesome.html

Thanks
Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\05\14@033034 by Nicola Perotto

picon face


John La Rooy wrote:
> VirtualBox
> so you can connect with rdesktop while the VM is still starting up or
> loading the OS.
>
> This also means you can also get to the real console if the VM is not
> running a GUI.
>
> John
>  
> The VirtualBox remote desktop is a bit different. It is provided
> natively by
The "vncserver" is provided natively, of course!
And it works also for a DOS VM.


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...