XP Virtual Machine in Win 7 - strange happenings
in [Laptops]
|
Prev: Yes, do Go Away And NEVER Come Back!
Next: Reset BIOS
From: The Natural Philosopher on 16 Jun 2010 07:34 Mike Barnes wrote: > geoff <troll(a)uk-diy.org>: >> In message <hv69p7$b0e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 >> <BillW50(a)aol.kom> writes >>> In news:eN5ntnVr7oFMFwAy(a)demon.co.uk, >>> geoff typed on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:19:55 +0100: >>>>> I do regret buying two copies of Windows 7 that still sit up on the >>>>> shelf unopened. As I was running two copies of Windows 7 Ultimate RC >>>>> for about a year and I was unimpressed with it. >>>> Better send one to me then >>> Really? You like Windows 7? After using it for about a year, I saw it >>> only capable of running 95% of what I want to do vs. Windows XP which >>> runs 100% of what I want. And Windows 7 eats up lots of CPU time just >>> while you are doing nothing. Windows XP when you are doing nothing, the >>> CPU is actually at or near idle. And running something that is very CPU >>> intensive like games, always runs slower under Windows 7 than it does >>> under Windows XP. So I don't see Windows 7 as any big deal and I can see >>> why some want to downgrade their Vista and Windows 7 machines. And I >>> don't blame them one bit. ;-) >>> >> Wouldn't touch for my work machines, but, using VM , having bought a >> new webcam, etc, it sort of works well enough >> >> even turnpike is almost OK >> >> but I agree >> >> XP is rockandroll > > Interesting. > > I just made a spare partition and put Windows 7 onto it, so I can now > boot XP or 7. As time permits I'm intending to configure the Win7 > partition and install my (numerous) apps on it, with the eventual aim of > moving to Win7 full time. > > After a day or so at it I find that I'm looking at Win7's new features, > finding them useless or worse, and expending almost all of my effort on > making Win7 work like XP does. > > And I'm wondering why I'm bothering. > > The way I'm thinking now, I'll not waste any more time on Windows 7 > until I buy a new PC, when I'd be doing all that configuring and > installing anyway. > I did the same trying to make XP work like 98.. Then I went Linux :-)
From: The Natural Philosopher on 16 Jun 2010 07:37 BillW50 wrote: > In news:hv7e7p$bmp$3(a)news.datemas.de, > dennis(a)home typed on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:37:56 +0100: >> "BillW50" <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote in message >> news:hv69p7$b0e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> In news:eN5ntnVr7oFMFwAy(a)demon.co.uk, >>> geoff typed on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:19:55 +0100: >>>>> I do regret buying two copies of Windows 7 that still sit up on the >>>>> shelf unopened. As I was running two copies of Windows 7 Ultimate >>>>> RC for about a year and I was unimpressed with it. >>>> Better send one to me then >>> Really? You like Windows 7? After using it for about a year, I saw >>> it only capable of running 95% of what I want to do vs. Windows XP >>> which runs 100% of what I want. And Windows 7 eats up lots of CPU >>> time just while you are doing nothing. Windows XP when you are doing >>> nothing, the CPU is actually at or near idle. And running something >>> that is very CPU intensive like games, always runs slower under >>> Windows 7 than it does under Windows XP. So I don't see Windows 7 as >>> any big deal and I can see why some want to downgrade their Vista >>> and Windows 7 machines. And I don't blame them one bit. ;-) >> Are you sure you actually have looked at windows 7? >> None of what you say is true for me or anyone else I know with >> windows 7. You can send me the other win7 if you don't want it. ;-) > > What kind of computers are you running Windows 7 on? I ran Windows 7 > Ultimate RC on three different computers. One on a Gateway MX6124, a > Gateway M465e, and an Asus 702 netbook. All three uses Celeron CPUs with > 2GB of installed RAM. All three has Intel graphics (915 and 945). And > only this machine here could run Aero. > > And it was always the same. Much higher CPU usage and much higher > average core temperatures (up by 20°F) than it was when compared to XP > on the same machines. If you didn't monitor the CPU usage and/or the > core temperatures. I can see how somebody wouldn't even know that > Windows 7 is working very hard in the background. > > As Windows 7 is very clever in appearances. But that is all it is, just > an illusion. Even the minimum specs for high powered PC games are higher > for Vista and Windows 7 than they are for Windows XP. That should tell > you something wrong right there. As why would you need a faster > processor and massive more memory for the same game if Windows 7 really > didn't slow things down? > > And as for the two unopened Windows 7 copies, right now they are holding > my books up straight on the shelf. And I am thinking the DVDs might also > make some pretty nifty drink coasters too. ;-) > hah! its all in the pretty graphics mate. I can get almost 100% utilisation here (Linux) by moving a window round the screen very fast.. Older Macs simply couldn't keep up with flash videos.. I would say that in most cases 97% of all CPU power goes into eye candy. The only other things that really stress my machine are manipulation and doing operations on seriously large and complex graphic objects.
From: Andy Champ on 16 Jun 2010 14:59 BillW50 wrote: > > Yes bad drivers can make or break an OS. But you don't need to change > the OS to fix that problem. And I am not sure I follow you about the > nice picture handling features. As it didn't seem very special to me. > And all of that security under Windows 7 drives me nuts. > I agree I shouldn't have needed to change the OS - but I wanted to try it anyway! Security doesn't seem to hit meon Win7, it did on Vista until I turned it all off. > As Windows 7 doesn't want you to have control over itself. But it rather > control the user instead. And Windows 7 does stupid things like grabbing > My Documents off of my flash drive and merging it with My Documents on > the hard drive. Makes it very confusing. Worse, it also renames folders > too on it's own. Like it grabbed My Favorites on my XP partition and > renamed it to just Favorites. Unbelievable! Haven't met anything like this either. But then I did a clean install. When I put my camera's memory in it asks me what to do. > > It is like Windows 7 was designed to use by idiots. You make something > so idiot proof, only an idiot would want to use it. That is were it is > heading Andy. Maybe you like that idea, but I sure don't. > Ah, now _that_ was Win ME! Andy
From: C.Joseph Drayton on 20 Jun 2010 14:57
On 6/14/2010 3:13 AM, Roger Mills wrote: > I have an XP Virtual Machine running under Windows 7 Professional > "Windows Virtual PC" so that I can run some 'legacy' applications which > won't work in Win 7. > > In the virtual machine, Windows Explorer shows a local disk (C:) and > also all the disks on the host machine - and allows me to copy files > back and forth. > > Most of the applications running in the virtual machine are quite happy > to read and write data files on the host machine. > > However Word 2000[1] (and Excel 2000) are not. If I try to open a file > from the host machine in Word, it just hangs - and CPU usage goes to > 100% On the other hand, if I copy a file from the host machine to the > local disk, it then opens quite happily in Word. > > It's presumably got something to do with sharing and file privileges > etc., but why should Word (and other Office 2000 applications) behave > differently from (say) Quicken in this respect? Any ideas? > > > [1] In case you're wondering why I'm running Word in a virtual machine, > I need to use a particular pseudo printer driver (Jaws - for creating > PDF files) which won't work in Win7, and I need to open Word files in > order to 'print' them. (Yes, there are other PDF converters which *will* > run in Win7 - but I haven't yet found one with the same security options > as Jaws). Hello Roger, You might consider using a different VM manager. I am using portable VirtualBox (Oracle's second maintenance release) and I have had no problem with it under WindowsXP, Vista, or Windows7, Server 2003. I like using VMs for testing. I also have one 16GB (fixed size) VDI that I have installed Acrobat, and a few other commercial pieces of software that I don't use often enough to have take up space on my production computer. With portable VirtualBox, I can run those applications literally on any WindowsXP or newer Windows OS without having to do a real install of the app. Since most commercial software doesn't want you running multiple copies of it, I am not (as far as I know) in violation of the software's EULA since I only have them installed on the VM. I do of course keep backups of the VDI and do not loan/give the VDI to anyone. Sincerely, C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T CSD Computer Services Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ E-mail: c.joseph(a)csdcs.site90.net |