Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill in Co. · Jun 13, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...snip
>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly
>>>>>>>> allows you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems)
>>>>>>>> virtually (i.e., running under the auspices of WinXP in a
>>>>>>>> window, as I understand it), but I have never tried it, and
>>>>>>>> don't know much about it. Some people seem to recommend that
>>>>>>>> approach, however - maybe its considered less invasive, and (I
>>>>>>>> guess) you wouldn't need a boot manager - you'd simply choose
>>>>>>>> to run it when you wanted after booting up into XP (at least as
>>>>>>>> I understand it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the
>>>>>>> same?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know. Never tried it. I expect there must be SOME
>>>>>> differences, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see a recent thread about it. Looks like it will be hard to see
>>>>> system settings. even the FAT32 you see in System Information-- may
>>>>> not be a FAT32! Sheesh!
>>>>
>>>> May not be. (Don't know).
>>>
>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd never
>>> be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk & defrag-- I
>>> don't think!
>>
>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running a
>> session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit VPC?
>> And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I forgot the
>> correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
>
> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing Win98?

I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall W98 each
time!

>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you could
>>> even find them!
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whenever I use it to do some partition operation (which isn't
>>>>>>>>>> all that often now), I always boot up on the floppy or the
>>>>>>>>>> flash disk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. Me too. Some day I should install so that I might boot
>>>>>>>>> my clone on D

artition, though-- but it would only be for fun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know if you can do this, but if you can use a Flash
>>>>>>>> drive, it sure beats the hell out of using a floppy. Not
>>>>>>>> sure how well that will work in a 98SE computer, with its
>>>>>>>> limited USB support, especially at the BIOS
>>>>>>>> level - I think you'd need the BIOS capability to be able to
>>>>>>>> boot up to a USB Flash drive to be able to do this (just like
>>>>>>>> you do with a floppy).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't really know. I believe I've read over at the Terabyte
>>>>>>> site that is possible to boot off a flash drive or some of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That might be worth checking into.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm content with my floppy & CD-ROM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once you use a Flash Drive, you get spoiled - fast. It's near
>>>>>> instantaneous, and it's nothing like having to use (or burn) a CD
>>>>>> or DVD each time you make a change!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea. I might. But right now I do have everything backed up to a 2nd
>>>>> hard drive, which probably is sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> But I was talking about booting up on a flash "disk" (say like for
>>>> BING), instead of a floppy. It is SO MUCH nicer and FASTER (the
>>>> flash drive is about as small as a book of matches, and just plugs
>>>> into any USB port, and I have 4 of those on the front of my
>>>> computer).
>>>
>>> I think I've seen one of those. A friend plugged one in to his
>>> computer to transfer files to a relative's XP-machine. It was
>>> impressive, but he never tried to boot it.
>>
>> It is really neat, and so easy to plug in and unplug.
>> You can boot to it IF your BIOS is new enough to support it. How
>> old is "new enough"? Not sure, but I'd guess within the past few
>> years.
>
> This one was bought in '00, IIRC. I'm fairly sure my BIOS won't do it by
> itself.

THAT is too old, I'm almost certain!! (time for a new computer)
PS Having this BIOS capability is REALLY nice. When I reboot, you briefly
on the screen see a menu that says something like, Press <F2> for BIOS or
<F12> for a boot menu (which allows me to select whatever media I want to
boot to, including the flash drive, assuming it was plugged in).

Also, the newer HDs coming out are now SATA (serial), and not PATA (with
those bulky 40 pin connectors). SATA (serial, with a much smaller and
simpler connector) is the new standard. That too won't be supported by
your BIOS, although there may be a workaround.

>>>> I even made a "Flash DOS" "disk"! (boots up into real DOS).
>>>
>>> On the XP-machine or on the 98?
>>
>> Either. On the Win98SE computer I installed that univeral USB
>> storage driver, so I can access the flash disk there too! Before I
>> did that, I had to rely on the flash disk coming with its own driver,
>> or I was out of luck. Some of them (and probably most of them) do
>> NOT have a Win98SE driver, so when you plugged it in, nada.

>
> Hmm. Good work. So, it might not work right off the bat, then, like on
> my friends machine. Hmm.

Right, but that Universal Generic USB driver should (nusb24e.exe, or
whatever)
(I used the older version there, as I think the newer ones were a bit
fussier. You'd have to read up on it).

> ...snip
>>>>> Win98 might not function on your new machine or with its
>>>>> peripherals.
>>>>
>>>> It likely would IF I had all the drivers it needs for my new
>>>> hardware (and there probably would be a few issues there), unless I
>>>> ran it in or under VPC (Virtual PC). Haven't had the need or
>>>> desire yet.
>>>
>>> If not too great a problem getting drivers & controlling the RAM &
>>> keeping XP's mitts off a real Win98 partition-- I'd want to dual
>>> boot a real Win98.
>>
>> Could do that too. But I have to say, after using WinXP (and
>> FINALLY getting it customized to my liking and removing all the BS,
>> etc, all of which took me several months), I haven't felt much, if
>> any, need for my slower and less robust Win98SE computer. But it's
>> nice having it as a backup. Although maybe someday I'll throw it
>> out (I almost did when I had to replace the MB due to that power
>> supply swap, but I went ahead and rescued it).
>
> That was good going too. I remember that thread.
>
>> Of course if you want to boot in real DOS mode, it has an advantage,
>> but then again, how often do we do that anymore? (well, except for
>> running scanreg /restore

>
> Uhuh. I'll still do a ScanReg /Fix, though, too, when I remember to.
>
>>>>> You might have to limit RAM too, if you've got over 500 MB (or is
>>>>> that 1 GB?).
>>>>
>>>> I have 1 GB of RAM. IF I ran VPC (Virtual PC) to use it, I'd set
>>>> aside half of that RAM to run W98SE, but, again, I haven't had any
>>>> need or desire to do any of this yet. XP is working out just fine.
>>>
>>> Alright. Could be a lot of trouble getting it working, anyhow.
>>>
>>>>

>>>
>>>

.
>>
>> The whole thing is too much trouble, that's why I'm pretty much just
>> using the faster and considerably more *robust* WinXP computer these
>> days (i.e. no crashes, etc, etc). And I still haven't got a blue
>> screen yet!! (but I'm sure I will some day)
>
> In truth, I likely will be that way too & drop Win98 if/when I get XP.
> Well, this machine will have irreparably died at that time, anyhow.
>
>> I'm tellin ya, it's hard to kill this "minibeast". (I say minibeast,
>> because it's a lot larger than Win98SE, but the real beast (aka:
>> albatross) is VISTA - which is not allowed on these premises).

>
> I believe those cautions about Vista.

.
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net

PCR · Jun 13, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:

....snip
|>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd
|>>> never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk &
|>>> defrag-- I don't think!
|>>
|>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running a
|>> session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit VPC?
|>> And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I forgot the
|>> correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
|>
|> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing
|> Win98?
|
| I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall W98
| each time!

Whatever. OK.

....snip
|>>>> But I was talking about booting up on a flash "disk" (say like for
|>>>> BING), instead of a floppy. It is SO MUCH nicer and FASTER
|>>>> (the flash drive is about as small as a book of matches, and just
|>>>> plugs into any USB port, and I have 4 of those on the front of my
|>>>> computer).
|>>>
|>>> I think I've seen one of those. A friend plugged one in to his
|>>> computer to transfer files to a relative's XP-machine. It was
|>>> impressive, but he never tried to boot it.
|>>
|>> It is really neat, and so easy to plug in and unplug.
|>> You can boot to it IF your BIOS is new enough to support it. How
|>> old is "new enough"? Not sure, but I'd guess within the past few
|>> years.
|>
|> This one was bought in '00, IIRC. I'm fairly sure my BIOS won't do
|> it by itself.
|
| THAT is too old, I'm almost certain!! (time for a new computer)
| PS Having this BIOS capability is REALLY nice. When I reboot, you
| briefly on the screen see a menu that says something like, Press <F2>
| for BIOS or <F12> for a boot menu (which allows me to select whatever
| media I want to boot to, including the flash drive, assuming it was
| plugged in).

Yea, sounds nice.

| Also, the newer HDs coming out are now SATA (serial), and not PATA
| (with those bulky 40 pin connectors). SATA (serial, with a much
| smaller and simpler connector) is the new standard. That too won't
| be supported by your BIOS, although there may be a workaround.

Uhuh, yea, SATA sounds nice, sure.

|>>>> I even made a "Flash DOS" "disk"! (boots up into real DOS).
|>>>
|>>> On the XP-machine or on the 98?
|>>
|>> Either. On the Win98SE computer I installed that univeral USB
|>> storage driver, so I can access the flash disk there too! Before
|>> I did that, I had to rely on the flash disk coming with its own
|>> driver, or I was out of luck. Some of them (and probably most of
|>> them) do NOT have a Win98SE driver, so when you plugged it in,
|>> nada.

|>
|> Hmm. Good work. So, it might not work right off the bat, then, like
|> on my friends machine. Hmm.
|
| Right, but that Universal Generic USB driver should (nusb24e.exe, or
| whatever)
| (I used the older version there, as I think the newer ones were a bit
| fussier. You'd have to read up on it).

OK. Thanks for the info. Sounds good.

....snip
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

Bill in Co. · Jun 13, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd
>>>>> never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk &
>>>>> defrag-- I don't think!
>>>>
>>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running a
>>>> session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit VPC?
>>>> And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I forgot the
>>>> correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
>>>
>>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing
>>> Win98?
>>
>> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall W98
>> each time!
>
> Whatever. OK.

Hey - there is BIG difference there!

> ...snip
>>>>>> But I was talking about booting up on a flash "disk" (say like for
>>>>>> BING), instead of a floppy. It is SO MUCH nicer and FASTER
>>>>>> (the flash drive is about as small as a book of matches, and just
>>>>>> plugs into any USB port, and I have 4 of those on the front of my
>>>>>> computer).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I've seen one of those. A friend plugged one in to his
>>>>> computer to transfer files to a relative's XP-machine. It was
>>>>> impressive, but he never tried to boot it.
>>>>
>>>> It is really neat, and so easy to plug in and unplug.
>>>> You can boot to it IF your BIOS is new enough to support it. How
>>>> old is "new enough"? Not sure, but I'd guess within the past few
>>>> years.
>>>
>>> This one was bought in '00, IIRC. I'm fairly sure my BIOS won't do
>>> it by itself.
>>
>> THAT is too old, I'm almost certain!! (time for a new computer)
>> PS Having this BIOS capability is REALLY nice. When I reboot, you
>> briefly on the screen see a menu that says something like, Press <F2>
>> for BIOS or <F12> for a boot menu (which allows me to select whatever
>> media I want to boot to, including the flash drive, assuming it was
>> plugged in).
>
> Yea, sounds nice.

It is LOVELY. But it's always nice to have the floppy drive option too,
to fall back on. And can you believe it? Many of the new computers are
either offering the floppy as an option, and perhaps some have dispensed
with it entirely.

>> Also, the newer HDs coming out are now SATA (serial), and not PATA
>> (with those bulky 40 pin connectors). SATA (serial, with a much
>> smaller and simpler connector) is the new standard. That too won't
>> be supported by your BIOS, although there may be a workaround.
>
> Uhuh, yea, SATA sounds nice, sure.
>
>>>>>> I even made a "Flash DOS" "disk"! (boots up into real DOS).
>>>>>
>>>>> On the XP-machine or on the 98?
>>>>
>>>> Either. On the Win98SE computer I installed that univeral USB
>>>> storage driver, so I can access the flash disk there too! Before
>>>> I did that, I had to rely on the flash disk coming with its own
>>>> driver, or I was out of luck. Some of them (and probably most of
>>>> them) do NOT have a Win98SE driver, so when you plugged it in,
>>>> nada.

>>>
>>> Hmm. Good work. So, it might not work right off the bat, then, like
>>> on my friends machine. Hmm.
>>
>> Right, but that Universal Generic USB driver should (nusb24e.exe, or
>> whatever)
>> (I used the older version there, as I think the newer ones were a bit
>> fussier. You'd have to read up on it).
>
> OK. Thanks for the info. Sounds good.

Yeah - look into it, if you're considering playing with flash drives.

Bill Blanton · Jun 14, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> PCR wrote:
>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>> PCR wrote:
>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...snip
>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly
>>>>>>>>> allows you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems)
>>>>>>>>> virtually (i.e., running under the auspices of WinXP in a
>>>>>>>>> window, as I understand it), but I have never tried it, and
>>>>>>>>> don't know much about it. Some people seem to recommend that
>>>>>>>>> approach, however - maybe its considered less invasive, and (I
>>>>>>>>> guess) you wouldn't need a boot manager - you'd simply choose
>>>>>>>>> to run it when you wanted after booting up into XP (at least as
>>>>>>>>> I understand it).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the
>>>>>>>> same?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know. Never tried it. I expect there must be SOME
>>>>>>> differences, however.

Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however confined to the
emulated hardware of the virtual machine.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see a recent thread about it. Looks like it will be hard to see
>>>>>> system settings. even the FAT32 you see in System Information-- may
>>>>>> not be a FAT32! Sheesh!

I didn't get that. Where in Sys Info is that information?

>>>>>
>>>>> May not be. (Don't know).
>>>>
>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd never
>>>> be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk & defrag-- I
>>>> don't think!

No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can scandisk, defrag,
go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot sectors, install a boot
manager, muti-boot, whatever..

>>>
>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running a
>>> session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit VPC?
>>> And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I forgot the
>>> correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
>>
>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing Win98?
>
> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall W98 each time!

You have a choice when you shut down, Save changes, delete changes, or
save and save state (think hibernate). Install your favorite program, shut
down and save. Install some crap program, trash the OS, then shut down
without a save. It's great for testing programs before putting them on
your production machine. That's just one use of course.

Personally, I haven't had a real need to multi-boot, since installing VPC.

>>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you could
>>>> even find them!

No, not at all.

PCR · Jun 14, 2008

Well, neither of us know. I see Blanton has entered, & I'm sure we will
be enlightened. Yea, I thought that's what you meant, that just the
session would disappear. But that's bad enough! Nothing you have done
will stick? Why do it?

|> ...snip
|>>>>>> But I was talking about booting up on a flash "disk" (say like
|>>>>>> for BING), instead of a floppy. It is SO MUCH nicer and
|>>>>>> FASTER (the flash drive is about as small as a book of matches,
|>>>>>> and just plugs into any USB port, and I have 4 of those on the
|>>>>>> front of my computer).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> I think I've seen one of those. A friend plugged one in to his
|>>>>> computer to transfer files to a relative's XP-machine. It was
|>>>>> impressive, but he never tried to boot it.
|>>>>
|>>>> It is really neat, and so easy to plug in and unplug.
|>>>> You can boot to it IF your BIOS is new enough to support it. How
|>>>> old is "new enough"? Not sure, but I'd guess within the past few
|>>>> years.
|>>>
|>>> This one was bought in '00, IIRC. I'm fairly sure my BIOS won't do
|>>> it by itself.
|>>
|>> THAT is too old, I'm almost certain!! (time for a new computer)
|>> PS Having this BIOS capability is REALLY nice. When I reboot, you
|>> briefly on the screen see a menu that says something like, Press
|>> <F2> for BIOS or <F12> for a boot menu (which allows me to select
|>> whatever media I want to boot to, including the flash drive,
|>> assuming it was plugged in).
|>
|> Yea, sounds nice.
|
| It is LOVELY. But it's always nice to have the floppy drive
| option too, to fall back on. And can you believe it? Many of
| the new computers are either offering the floppy as an option, and
| perhaps some have dispensed with it entirely.

I probably would move this floppy to the new computer on the sad day
this one goes irreparable!

|>> Also, the newer HDs coming out are now SATA (serial), and not PATA
|>> (with those bulky 40 pin connectors). SATA (serial, with a much
|>> smaller and simpler connector) is the new standard. That too won't
|>> be supported by your BIOS, although there may be a workaround.
|>
|> Uhuh, yea, SATA sounds nice, sure.
|>
|>>>>>> I even made a "Flash DOS" "disk"! (boots up into real DOS).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> On the XP-machine or on the 98?
|>>>>
|>>>> Either. On the Win98SE computer I installed that univeral USB
|>>>> storage driver, so I can access the flash disk there too!
|>>>> Before I did that, I had to rely on the flash disk coming with
|>>>> its own driver, or I was out of luck. Some of them (and
|>>>> probably most of them) do NOT have a Win98SE driver, so when you
|>>>> plugged it in, nada.

|>>>
|>>> Hmm. Good work. So, it might not work right off the bat, then, like
|>>> on my friends machine. Hmm.
|>>
|>> Right, but that Universal Generic USB driver should (nusb24e.exe, or
|>> whatever)
|>> (I used the older version there, as I think the newer ones were a
|>> bit fussier. You'd have to read up on it).
|>
|> OK. Thanks for the info. Sounds good.
|
| Yeah - look into it, if you're considering playing with flash drives.

The price is certainly right for one/two of them-- even if I can't boot
from it! I should start Googling, or maybe walk into Staples next time I
pass it.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

PCR · Jun 14, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill Blanton wrote:
| "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> PCR wrote:
|>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> ...snip
|>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly
|>>>>>>>>> allows you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems)
|>>>>>>>>> virtually (i.e., running under the auspices of WinXP in a
|>>>>>>>>> window, as I understand it), but I have never tried it, and
|>>>>>>>>> don't know much about it. Some people seem to recommend that
|>>>>>>>>> approach, however - maybe its considered less invasive, and
|>>>>>>>>> (I guess) you wouldn't need a boot manager - you'd simply
|>>>>>>>>> choose to run it when you wanted after booting up into XP
|>>>>>>>>> (at least as I understand it).
|>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>> It sounds like a viable alternative-- but can it really be the
|>>>>>>>> same?
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> I don't know. Never tried it. I expect there must be SOME
|>>>>>>> differences, however.
|
| Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however confined
| to the
| emulated hardware of the virtual machine.
|
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> I see a recent thread about it. Looks like it will be hard to
|>>>>>> see system settings. even the FAT32 you see in System
|>>>>>> Information-- may not be a FAT32! Sheesh!
|
| I didn't get that. Where in Sys Info is that information?

Oops! Sorry! I've looked again at that FACE thread (6/10/08 11:50 AM), &
I see the weird-looking "partition" was actually a shared folder...

"The two virtual machines share a folder (VMA is installed on both)
It is known to both as 'drive Z'

Available space on drive C: 1733MB of 1994MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive Z: 205090MB of 238472MB (â÷¿g)"

And I guess it probably would look that way in a real Win98 too!

|>>>>>
|>>>>> May not be. (Don't know).
|>>>>
|>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd
|>>>> never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk &
|>>>> defrag-- I don't think!
|
| No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can
| scandisk, defrag,
| go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot sectors,
| install a boot
| manager, muti-boot, whatever..

That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are you be
able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that? I thought WinXP
couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD boot to a repair console?

|>>>
|>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running a
|>>> session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit VPC?
|>>> And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I forgot the
|>>> correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
|>>
|>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing
|>> Win98?
|>
|> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall W98
|> each time!
|
| You have a choice when you shut down, Save changes, delete changes, or
| save and save state (think hibernate). Install your favorite
| program, shut
| down and save. Install some crap program, trash the OS, then shut down
| without a save. It's great for testing programs before putting them on
| your production machine. That's just one use of course.

I thought it would be something like that-- not too bad!

| Personally, I haven't had a real need to multi-boot, since installing
| VPC.
|
|
|>>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you could
|>>>> even find them!
|
| No, not at all.

So... doing as I do here answering posts in this NG... all of my Master
Posts still would apply? All of the settings I point to for a fix would
be in the same places & mean the same thing? What about files such
as...?...

HIMEM.SYS
Type: System file
Loc: C:\WINDOWS
Size: 33,181 bytes
Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM

Are they the same on a virtual machine? Can one enter a Windows DOS
session & would the commands be the same?

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

Bill Blanton · Jun 15, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:ObJvEPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:
> | "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> | news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> |> PCR wrote:
> |>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |>>> PCR wrote:
> |>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |>>>>> PCR wrote:
> |>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
> |>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

> |>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which allegedly
> |>>>>>>>>> allows you to run Win98SE (or some other operating systems)

> | Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however confined
> | to the
> | emulated hardware of the virtual machine.

> |>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd
> |>>>> never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk &
> |>>>> defrag-- I don't think!
> |
> | No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can
> | scandisk, defrag,
> | go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot sectors,
> | install a boot
> | manager, muti-boot, whatever..

> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are you be
> able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that? I thought WinXP
> couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD boot to a repair console?

Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've got a folder
full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real thing)

It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way. The virtual
BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads Windows.

The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine. Copying the file
is analogous to cloning your HD.

> |>>>
> |>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running a
> |>>> session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit VPC?
> |>>> And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I forgot the
> |>>> correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
> |>>
> |>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing
> |>> Win98?
> |>
> |> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall W98
> |> each time!
> |
> | You have a choice when you shut down, Save changes, delete changes, or
> | save and save state (think hibernate). Install your favorite
> | program, shut
> | down and save. Install some crap program, trash the OS, then shut down
> | without a save. It's great for testing programs before putting them on
> | your production machine. That's just one use of course.
>
> I thought it would be something like that-- not too bad!
>
> | Personally, I haven't had a real need to multi-boot, since installing
> | VPC.
> |
> |
> |>>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you could
> |>>>> even find them!
> |
> | No, not at all.
>
> So... doing as I do here answering posts in this NG... all of my Master
> Posts still would apply? All of the settings I point to for a fix would
> be in the same places & mean the same thing?

If it's software code, pretty much. Hardware is a different matter.

>What about files such
> as...?...
>
> HIMEM.SYS
> Type: System file
> Loc: C:\WINDOWS
> Size: 33,181 bytes
> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
>
> Are they the same on a virtual machine? Can one enter a Windows DOS
> session & would the commands be the same?

Yes, and yes.

PCR · Jun 15, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill Blanton wrote:
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:ObJvEPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> Bill Blanton wrote:
|> | "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|> | news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> |> PCR wrote:
|> |>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|> |>>> PCR wrote:
|> |>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|> |>>>>> PCR wrote:
|> |>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|> |>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
|> |>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|
|> |>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which
|> |>>>>>>>>> allegedly allows you to run Win98SE (or some other
|> |>>>>>>>>> operating systems)
|
|> | Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however confined
|> | to the
|> | emulated hardware of the virtual machine.
|
|
|> |>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd
|> |>>>> never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk &
|> |>>>> defrag-- I don't think!
|> |
|> | No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can
|> | scandisk, defrag,
|> | go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot sectors,
|> | install a boot
|> | manager, muti-boot, whatever..
|
|
|> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are you be
|> able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that? I thought
|> WinXP couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD boot to a
|> repair console?
|
| Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've got a
| folder
| full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real thing)
|
| It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way. The
| virtual
| BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads
| Windows.
|
| The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine. Copying
| the file
| is analogous to cloning your HD.

That's very impressive. But the BIOS is virtual too? So, even this BIOS
won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98 simulation?
Only then can you boot a Startup Disk to the virtual Win98, I guess.
But, very impressive how XP has completely swallowed Win98 & even the
BIOS! (I am sprinkling arsenic on my own Win98 machine immediately,
though!)

|> |>>>
|> |>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running
|> |>>> a session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit
|> |>>> VPC? And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I
|> |>>> forgot the correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
|> |>>
|> |>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing
|> |>> Win98?
|> |>
|> |> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall
|> |> W98 each time!
|> |
|> | You have a choice when you shut down, Save changes, delete
|> | changes, or save and save state (think hibernate). Install your
|> | favorite
|> | program, shut
|> | down and save. Install some crap program, trash the OS, then shut
|> | down without a save. It's great for testing programs before
|> | putting them on your production machine. That's just one use of
|> | course.
|>
|> I thought it would be something like that-- not too bad!
|>
|> | Personally, I haven't had a real need to multi-boot, since
|> | installing VPC.
|> |
|> |
|> |>>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you
|> |>>>> could even find them!
|> |
|> | No, not at all.
|>
|> So... doing as I do here answering posts in this NG... all of my
|> Master Posts still would apply? All of the settings I point to for a
|> fix would be in the same places & mean the same thing?
|
| If it's software code, pretty much. Hardware is a different matter.

OK. I was wondering whether I could still look things up & participate
in this NG from an XP virtual Win98. Sounds like it could be mostly
doable, but looking up hardware settings & Registry keys to post would
become problematic.

|>What about files such
|> as...?...
|>
|> HIMEM.SYS
|> Type: System file
|> Loc: C:\WINDOWS
|> Size: 33,181 bytes
|> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
|>
|> Are they the same on a virtual machine? Can one enter a Windows DOS
|> session & would the commands be the same?
|
| Yes, and yes.

Very impressive what they did.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

Bill in Co. · Jun 15, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

PCR wrote:
> Bill Blanton wrote:
>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> news:ObJvEPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Bill Blanton wrote:
>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly allows you to run Win98SE (or some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operating systems)
>>
>>>> Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however confined
>>>> to the emulated hardware of the virtual machine.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd
>>>>>>>> never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk &
>>>>>>>> defrag-- I don't think!
>>>>
>>>> No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can
>>>> scandisk, defrag,
>>>> go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot sectors,
>>>> install a boot manager, muti-boot, whatever..
>>
>>
>>> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are you be
>>> able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that? I thought
>>> WinXP couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD boot to a
>>> repair console?
>>
>> Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've got a
>> folder full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real
>> thing)
>>
>> It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way. The
>> virtual BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads
>> Windows.
>>
>> The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine. Copying
>> the file is analogous to cloning your HD.
>
> That's very impressive. But the BIOS is virtual too?

Is it really? How so?
Well, maybe it's in the terminology used here ("virtual BIOS") -(whatever
that means).
(Probably some part of RAM is set aside for updating some address pointers
and data normally used by the regular BIOS, I guess, like shadowing - but
apparently(?) needing to be changed to run VPC, but I don't understand why
that would even be necessary).

> So, even this BIOS
> won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98 simulation?

Why wouldn't the BIOS work (or change, for that matter)? The real BIOS is
hard-coded in ROM or EEPROM (AFAIK), and never changes, UNLESS you flash
update it.

> Only then can you boot a Startup Disk to the virtual Win98, I guess.

And that startup disk can be a Flash Drive, which is really nice and fast.

> But, very impressive how XP has completely swallowed Win98 & even the
> BIOS!

Swallowing the BIOS? I don't think so!

> (I am sprinkling arsenic on my own Win98 machine immediately, though!)
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running
>>>>>>> a session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit
>>>>>>> VPC? And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I
>>>>>>> forgot the correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing
>>>>>> Win98?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall
>>>>> W98 each time!
>>>>
>>>> You have a choice when you shut down, Save changes, delete
>>>> changes, or save and save state (think hibernate). Install your
>>>> favorite program, shut
>>>> down and save. Install some crap program, trash the OS, then shut
>>>> down without a save. It's great for testing programs before
>>>> putting them on your production machine. That's just one use of
>>>> course.
>>>
>>> I thought it would be something like that-- not too bad!
>>>
>>>> Personally, I haven't had a real need to multi-boot, since
>>>> installing VPC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you
>>>>>>>> could even find them!
>>>>
>>>> No, not at all.
>>>
>>> So... doing as I do here answering posts in this NG... all of my
>>> Master Posts still would apply? All of the settings I point to for a
>>> fix would be in the same places & mean the same thing?
>>
>> If it's software code, pretty much. Hardware is a different matter.
>
> OK. I was wondering whether I could still look things up & participate
> in this NG from an XP virtual Win98.

Why? You can participate in this newsgroup running XP, just like I am
doing now. You don't need a VPC or Win98 to do that.

> Sounds like it could be mostly
> doable, but looking up hardware settings & Registry keys to post would
> become problematic.
>
>>> What about files such
>>> as...?...
>>>
>>> HIMEM.SYS
>>> Type: System file
>>> Loc: C:\WINDOWS
>>> Size: 33,181 bytes
>>> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
>>>
>>> Are they the same on a virtual machine? Can one enter a Windows DOS
>>> session & would the commands be the same?
>>
>> Yes, and yes.
>
> Very impressive what they did.
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net

PCR · Jun 16, 2008

Bill Blanton · Jun 16, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:ur%23M2SyzIHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:
> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> | news:ObJvEPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> |> Bill Blanton wrote:
> |> | "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> |> | news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> |> |> PCR wrote:
> |> |>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |> |>>> PCR wrote:
> |> |>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |> |>>>>> PCR wrote:
> |> |>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |> |>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
> |> |>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |
> |> |>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which
> |> |>>>>>>>>> allegedly allows you to run Win98SE (or some other
> |> |>>>>>>>>> operating systems)
> |
> |> | Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however confined
> |> | to the
> |> | emulated hardware of the virtual machine.
> |
> |
> |> |>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd
> |> |>>>> never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk &
> |> |>>>> defrag-- I don't think!
> |> |
> |> | No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can
> |> | scandisk, defrag,
> |> | go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot sectors,
> |> | install a boot
> |> | manager, muti-boot, whatever..
> |
> |
> |> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are you be
> |> able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that? I thought
> |> WinXP couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD boot to a
> |> repair console?
> |
> | Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've got a
> | folder
> | full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real thing)
> |
> | It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way. The
> | virtual
> | BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads
> | Windows.
> |
> | The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine. Copying
> | the file
> | is analogous to cloning your HD.
>
> That's very impressive. But the BIOS is virtual too? So, even this BIOS
> won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98 simulation?

It's not XP, though I think that it the minimum requirement for VPC. VPC
is software that emulates a PC. It runs as a "process" on the host OS.
Not necessarily XP.

You boot the virtual machine and install your OS, just as you do on a "real"
machine.

Even though your BIOS is burned into a chip, it is still just software code
that loads when you boot.

Virtualzation software just removes that "physical" hardware layer, and
replaces it with "virtual" hardware.

When the OS accesses the hardware it calls upon the
virtual hardware and the virtual hardware returns the information
pertaining to its own configuration, just as your "real" hardware does.
It's all just a stream of bits and bytes. What's "hardware" to the OS
anyway?

>
> |> |>>>
> |> |>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only running
> |> |>>> a session of it for a limited time, which ends when you quit
> |> |>>> VPC? And maybe it uses something called a virtual disk (I
> |> |>>> forgot the correct term), which disappears when you quit VPC.
> |> |>>
> |> |>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a disappearing
> |> |>> Win98?
> |> |>
> |> |> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall
> |> |> W98 each time!
> |> |
> |> | You have a choice when you shut down, Save changes, delete
> |> | changes, or save and save state (think hibernate). Install your
> |> | favorite
> |> | program, shut
> |> | down and save. Install some crap program, trash the OS, then shut
> |> | down without a save. It's great for testing programs before
> |> | putting them on your production machine. That's just one use of
> |> | course.
> |>
> |> I thought it would be something like that-- not too bad!
> |>
> |> | Personally, I haven't had a real need to multi-boot, since
> |> | installing VPC.
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |>>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you
> |> |>>>> could even find them!
> |> |
> |> | No, not at all.
> |>
> |> So... doing as I do here answering posts in this NG... all of my
> |> Master Posts still would apply? All of the settings I point to for a
> |> fix would be in the same places & mean the same thing?
> |
> | If it's software code, pretty much. Hardware is a different matter.
>
> OK. I was wondering whether I could still look things up & participate
> in this NG from an XP virtual Win98. Sounds like it could be mostly
> doable, but looking up hardware settings & Registry keys to post would
> become problematic.

The Windows registry on a virtual Windows install is the same as on a real
machine.

It is just that the hardware is fixed. There's a basic virtual video adapter,
sound card, generic IDE adapter, network card. Reg-wise those values would be
different than what your "real" system has. Just as your hardware is different than
most other PCs.

>
> |>What about files such
> |> as...?...
> |>
> |> HIMEM.SYS
> |> Type: System file
> |> Loc: C:\WINDOWS
> |> Size: 33,181 bytes
> |> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
> |>
> |> Are they the same on a virtual machine? Can one enter a Windows DOS
> |> session & would the commands be the same?
> |
> | Yes, and yes.
>
> Very impressive what they did.

Connectix developed it. MS bought them and haven't done much with it since.
VMWare is probably the leader in virtualazation, but is not free. Not
for the cool stuff anyway ;-)

Bill Blanton · Jun 16, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:OTODKczzIHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> PCR wrote:
>> Bill Blanton wrote:
>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ObJvEPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Bill Blanton wrote:
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly allows you to run Win98SE (or some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operating systems)
>>>
>>>>> Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however confined
>>>>> to the emulated hardware of the virtual machine.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation! You'd
>>>>>>>>> never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a scandisk &
>>>>>>>>> defrag-- I don't think!
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can
>>>>> scandisk, defrag,
>>>>> go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot sectors,
>>>>> install a boot manager, muti-boot, whatever..
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are you be
>>>> able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that? I thought
>>>> WinXP couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD boot to a
>>>> repair console?
>>>
>>> Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've got a
>>> folder full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real thing)
>>>
>>> It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way. The
>>> virtual BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads
>>> Windows.
>>>
>>> The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine. Copying
>>> the file is analogous to cloning your HD.
>>
>> That's very impressive. But the BIOS is virtual too?
>
> Is it really? How so?

Press/Tap the <DEL> key real quick as the virtual machine is booting to gain access
to the BIOS ;-)

There's not as much config in there as most BIOSs. But there is IDE boot order,
IDE device config settings. password config, pwer management (IIRC)..
some other basic stuff.... clock...

> Well, maybe it's in the terminology used here ("virtual BIOS") -(whatever that means).
> (Probably some part of RAM is set aside for updating some address pointers and data normally used by the regular BIOS, I guess,
> like shadowing - but apparently(?) needing to be changed to run VPC, but I don't understand why that would even be necessary).

Not really. The BIOS is just code that is burned into a chip, and is loaded into
memory when you power on. And so, the virtual BIOS is code that runs and loads
when you start the VPC. Load software interrupts, etc..

>
>> So, even this BIOS
>> won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98 simulation?
>
> Why wouldn't the BIOS work (or change, for that matter)? The real BIOS is hard-coded in ROM or EEPROM (AFAIK), and never
> changes, UNLESS you flash update it.
>
>> Only then can you boot a Startup Disk to the virtual Win98, I guess.
>
> And that startup disk can be a Flash Drive, which is really nice and fast.
>
>> But, very impressive how XP has completely swallowed Win98 & even the
>> BIOS!
>
> Swallowing the BIOS? I don't think so!

Right, your own BIOS has nothing to do with a virtual emulation of the same.

Bill Blanton · Jun 16, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:O%23tpmsA0IHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Bill in Co. wrote:
> | PCR wrote:
> |> Bill Blanton wrote:
> |> So, even this BIOS
> |> won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98
> |> simulation?
> |
> | Why wouldn't the BIOS work (or change, for that matter)? The real
> | BIOS is hard-coded in ROM or EEPROM (AFAIK), and never changes,
> | UNLESS you flash update it.
>
> I'm thinking... don't forget the Win98 partition is really just a file
> that XP will expand. If you boot to the real BIOS, it won't see a
> partition. Therefore, they had to create a virtual BIOS too-- in order
> to make certain Win98 & DOS commands work!

The Virtual BIOS is really the heart of the whole thing. As is a real BIOS
on your own machine.

> |> Only then can you boot a Startup Disk to the virtual Win98, I guess.
> |
> | And that startup disk can be a Flash Drive, which is really nice and
> | fast.
>
> It depends on whether the virtual BIOS will allow it, I guess.

Unfortunately VPC does not support USB. However VMWare does.

Bill Blanton · Jun 16, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:O%23tpmsA0IHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Bill in Co. wrote:
> | PCR wrote:
> |> Bill Blanton wrote:
> |> So, even this BIOS
> |> won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98
> |> simulation?
> |
> | Why wouldn't the BIOS work (or change, for that matter)? The real
> | BIOS is hard-coded in ROM or EEPROM (AFAIK), and never changes,
> | UNLESS you flash update it.
>
> I'm thinking... don't forget the Win98 partition is really just a file
> that XP will expand. If you boot to the real BIOS, it won't see a
> partition. Therefore, they had to create a virtual BIOS too-- in order
> to make certain Win98 & DOS commands work!

The Virtual BIOS is really the heart of the whole thing. As is a real BIOS
on your own machine.

> |> Only then can you boot a Startup Disk to the virtual Win98, I guess.
> |
> | And that startup disk can be a Flash Drive, which is really nice and
> | fast.
>
> It depends on whether the virtual BIOS will allow it, I guess.

Unfortunately VPC does not support USB. However VMWare does.

PCR · Jun 17, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill Blanton wrote:
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:ur%23M2SyzIHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> Bill Blanton wrote:
|> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
|> | news:ObJvEPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> |> Bill Blanton wrote:
|> |> | "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|> |> | news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> |> |> PCR wrote:
|> |> |>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|> |> |>>> PCR wrote:
|> |> |>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|> |> |>>>>> PCR wrote:
|> |> |>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|> |> |>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
|> |> |>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|> |
|> |> |>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which
|> |> |>>>>>>>>> allegedly allows you to run Win98SE (or some other
|> |> |>>>>>>>>> operating systems)
|> |
|> |> | Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however
|> |> | confined to the
|> |> | emulated hardware of the virtual machine.
|> |
|> |
|> |> |>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation!
|> |> |>>>> You'd never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a
|> |> |>>>> scandisk & defrag-- I don't think!
|> |> |
|> |> | No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can
|> |> | scandisk, defrag,
|> |> | go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot
|> |> | sectors, install a boot
|> |> | manager, muti-boot, whatever..
|> |
|> |
|> |> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are you
|> |> be able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that? I
|> |> thought WinXP couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD boot
|> |> to a repair console?
|> |
|> | Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've
|> | got a folder
|> | full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real
|> | thing)
|> |
|> | It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way.
|> | The virtual
|> | BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads
|> | Windows.
|> |
|> | The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine. Copying
|> | the file
|> | is analogous to cloning your HD.
|>
|> That's very impressive. But the BIOS is virtual too? So, even this
|> BIOS won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98
|> simulation?
|
| It's not XP, though I think that it the minimum requirement for VPC.
| VPC
| is software that emulates a PC. It runs as a "process" on the host OS.
| Not necessarily XP.

I guess the only other choice would be Vista, then, for now. But,
whichever it is, it must boot first to set up (or allow VPC to set up?)
the process that is VPC. I suppose the host OS continues to run-- so,
you now have two machines running at once & can click between the two?

| You boot the virtual machine and install your OS, just as you do on a
| "real"
| machine.

Hmm. Amazing. I would have thought the VPC came with Win98
pre-installed.

| Even though your BIOS is burned into a chip, it is still just
| software code
| that loads when you boot.

Of course, you know, not all BIOS code is the same. Therefore, some
recognize devices (maybe even the MB?) that others do not & have
capabilities (large HDD support, multi-booting, etc.) that others do
not. Normally, one wouldn't want to put another machine's BIOS into his!

| Virtualzation software just removes that "physical" hardware layer,
| and
| replaces it with "virtual" hardware.

This virtual BIOS that VPC supplies-- doesn't it need to be specific to
the machine that it will run on? I see elsewhere you said...

"Unfortunately VPC does not support USB."

"There's not as much config in there as most BIOSs. But there is IDE
boot order,
IDE device config settings. password config, pwer management (IIRC)..
some other basic stuff.... clock..."

Too bad they didn't write it to actually use the BIOS that is installed
in the machine or to make a copy & use the copy (as I think Colorado
speculated it might be doing). Then, it would have the full
capabilities-- & no one would have to give up his flash drive!

| When the OS accesses the hardware it calls upon the
| virtual hardware and the virtual hardware returns the information
| pertaining to its own configuration, just as your "real" hardware
| does.
| It's all just a stream of bits and bytes. What's "hardware" to the OS
| anyway?

Unfortunately, though, it seems VPC has no bits for USB-- Colorado is
chagrinned! He loves his flash drive!

|>
|> |> |>>>
|> |> |>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only
|> |> |>>> running a session of it for a limited time, which ends when
|> |> |>>> you quit VPC? And maybe it uses something called a virtual
|> |> |>>> disk (I forgot the correct term), which disappears when you
|> |> |>>> quit VPC.
|> |> |>>
|> |> |>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a
|> |> |>> disappearing Win98?
|> |> |>
|> |> |> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall
|> |> |> W98 each time!
|> |> |
|> |> | You have a choice when you shut down, Save changes, delete
|> |> | changes, or save and save state (think hibernate). Install your
|> |> | favorite
|> |> | program, shut
|> |> | down and save. Install some crap program, trash the OS, then
|> |> | shut down without a save. It's great for testing programs before
|> |> | putting them on your production machine. That's just one use of
|> |> | course.
|> |>
|> |> I thought it would be something like that-- not too bad!
|> |>
|> |> | Personally, I haven't had a real need to multi-boot, since
|> |> | installing VPC.
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> |>>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you
|> |> |>>>> could even find them!
|> |> |
|> |> | No, not at all.
|> |>
|> |> So... doing as I do here answering posts in this NG... all of my
|> |> Master Posts still would apply? All of the settings I point to
|> |> for a fix would be in the same places & mean the same thing?
|> |
|> | If it's software code, pretty much. Hardware is a different matter.
|>
|> OK. I was wondering whether I could still look things up &
|> participate in this NG from an XP virtual Win98. Sounds like it
|> could be mostly doable, but looking up hardware settings & Registry
|> keys to post would become problematic.
|
|
| The Windows registry on a virtual Windows install is the same as on a
| real
| machine.
|
| It is just that the hardware is fixed. There's a basic virtual video
| adapter,
| sound card, generic IDE adapter, network card. Reg-wise those values
| would be
| different than what your "real" system has. Just as your hardware is
| different than
| most other PCs.

Too bad the VPC wouldn't feed it real information from what is actually
plugged into the XP/Vista machine. BUT-- I'm sure that is because Win98
may not have drivers to run some of them.

|>
|> |>What about files such
|> |> as...?...
|> |>
|> |> HIMEM.SYS
|> |> Type: System file
|> |> Loc: C:\WINDOWS
|> |> Size: 33,181 bytes
|> |> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
|> |>
|> |> Are they the same on a virtual machine? Can one enter a Windows
|> |> DOS session & would the commands be the same?
|> |
|> | Yes, and yes.
|>
|> Very impressive what they did.
|
| Connectix developed it. MS bought them and haven't done much with it
| since.
| VMWare is probably the leader in virtualazation, but is not free. Not
| for the cool stuff anyway ;-)

It really is pretty amazing as is. Thanks for all of this information,
Blanton. It's good to see you still will pop into this NG!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

Bill Blanton · Jun 17, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

I can't respond to your message. Outlook express is too stupid too
handle a thread this deep, so I'll put it here:

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:e2833JD0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:
> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> | news:ur%23M2SyzIHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> |> Bill Blanton wrote:
> |> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> |> | news:ObJvEPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> |> |> Bill Blanton wrote:
> |> |> | "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> |> |> | news:ezMUmjZzIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> |> |> |> PCR wrote:
> |> |> |>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |> |> |>>> PCR wrote:
> |> |> |>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |> |> |>>>>> PCR wrote:
> |> |> |>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |> |> |>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
> |> |> |>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
> |> |
> |> |> |>>>>>>>>> One can also install Microsoft's Virtual PC, which
> |> |> |>>>>>>>>> allegedly allows you to run Win98SE (or some other
> |> |> |>>>>>>>>> operating systems)
> |> |
> |> |> | Software-wise there isn't much difference. You are however
> |> |> | confined to the
> |> |> | emulated hardware of the virtual machine.
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |> |>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation!
> |> |> |>>>> You'd never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like a
> |> |> |>>>> scandisk & defrag-- I don't think!
> |> |> |
> |> |> | No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You can
> |> |> | scandisk, defrag,
> |> |> | go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot
> |> |> | sectors, install a boot
> |> |> | manager, muti-boot, whatever..
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are you
> |> |> be able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that? I
> |> |> thought WinXP couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD boot
> |> |> to a repair console?
> |> |
> |> | Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've
> |> | got a folder
> |> | full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real
> |> | thing)
> |> |
> |> | It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way.
> |> | The virtual
> |> | BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads
> |> | Windows.
> |> |
> |> | The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine. Copying
> |> | the file
> |> | is analogous to cloning your HD.
> |>
> |> That's very impressive. But the BIOS is virtual too? So, even this
> |> BIOS won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98
> |> simulation?
> |
> | It's not XP, though I think that it the minimum requirement for VPC.
> | VPC
> | is software that emulates a PC. It runs as a "process" on the host OS.
> | Not necessarily XP.
>
> I guess the only other choice would be Vista, then, for now. But,
> whichever it is, it must boot first to set up (or allow VPC to set up?)
> the process that is VPC. I suppose the host OS continues to run-- so,
> you now have two machines running at once & can click between the two?

Yea, the virtual machine runs as a process in its own "window", just as other
programs. You can toggle to a "Full screen" if you want the total effect.
Boot the host OS, run the program VPC, then choose which virtual machine to
run. (sorta' like an "open file" on your favorite word processor)

> | You boot the virtual machine and install your OS, just as you do on a
> | "real"
> | machine.
>
> Hmm. Amazing. I would have thought the VPC came with Win98
> pre-installed.

When you set up a new virtual machine, it's basically a PC with a blank
hard drive. You can boot with your floppy, fdisk, run the windows setup,
whatever you want. I believe that when Connectix owned it you could
install Linux. I'm not sure if MS has blocked this or not. You can also run
more than one virtual install at once, depending on your resources. (memory,
a fairly fast CPU)

Virtual Windows installs also require a license, and in the case of XP and
Vista, you do have to activate your copy.

>
> | Even though your BIOS is burned into a chip, it is still just
> | software code
> | that loads when you boot.
>
> Of course, you know, not all BIOS code is the same. Therefore, some
> recognize devices (maybe even the MB?) that others do not & have
> capabilities (large HDD support, multi-booting, etc.) that others do
> not. Normally, one wouldn't want to put another machine's BIOS into his!

The "virtual motherboard" contains well supported devices, and does not
change. You can specify what size HD, up to a limit, but other than that
you don't have any control over the harware, It would be nice if the
interface was open and devs could write out new virtual devices, which
you could then "plug in". It might open up a whole new market.

>
> | Virtualzation software just removes that "physical" hardware layer,
> | and
> | replaces it with "virtual" hardware.
>
> This virtual BIOS that VPC supplies-- doesn't it need to be specific to
> the machine that it will run on?

No, it's the same BIOS and devices no matter what PC you put it on.
It's virtual ;-)

> I see elsewhere you said...
>
> "Unfortunately VPC does not support USB."
>
> "There's not as much config in there as most BIOSs. But there is IDE
> boot order,
> IDE device config settings. password config, pwer management (IIRC)..
> some other basic stuff.... clock..."
>
> Too bad they didn't write it to actually use the BIOS that is installed
> in the machine or to make a copy & use the copy (as I think Colorado
> speculated it might be doing). Then, it would have the full
> capabilities-- & no one would have to give up his flash drive!

That kinda' gets away from the whole concept. It wouldn't be virtual then.
It'd be closer to a real OS, and have to support the myriad machines on the
market. If your accessing the real hadrware, you have to read/write to the
real hardware. What would be the point? In that case it would be a full
blown OS.

>
> | When the OS accesses the hardware it calls upon the
> | virtual hardware and the virtual hardware returns the information
> | pertaining to its own configuration, just as your "real" hardware
> | does.
> | It's all just a stream of bits and bytes. What's "hardware" to the OS
> | anyway?
>
> Unfortunately, though, it seems VPC has no bits for USB-- Colorado is
> chagrinned! He loves his flash drive!

Who doesn't love a flash drive?! ;-)

Like I said somewhere else,, MS hasn't done much with it since they bought
Connectix out. Frankly, they haven't done much but change all the "Connectix"
strings to "Microsoft". In VPC2004 you could still find some errant "Connectix"
strings in the help files.

VMWare supports USB. On VPC, you can create virtual CDs which will
load/run/boot faster than any physical USB device.

>
> |>
> |> |> |>>>
> |> |> |>>> Would that really be necessary, considering you're only
> |> |> |>>> running a session of it for a limited time, which ends when
> |> |> |>>> you quit VPC? And maybe it uses something called a virtual
> |> |> |>>> disk (I forgot the correct term), which disappears when you
> |> |> |>>> quit VPC.
> |> |> |>>
> |> |> |>> Huh? I thought it would be permanent. What good is a
> |> |> |>> disappearing Win98?
> |> |> |>
> |> |> |> I think the session disappears - not that you have to reinstall
> |> |> |> W98 each time!
> |> |> |
> |> |> | You have a choice when you shut down, Save changes, delete
> |> |> | changes, or save and save state (think hibernate). Install your
> |> |> | favorite
> |> |> | program, shut
> |> |> | down and save. Install some crap program, trash the OS, then
> |> |> | shut down without a save. It's great for testing programs before
> |> |> | putting them on your production machine. That's just one use of
> |> |> | course.
> |> |>
> |> |> I thought it would be something like that-- not too bad!
> |> |>
> |> |> | Personally, I haven't had a real need to multi-boot, since
> |> |> | installing VPC.
> |> |> |
> |> |> |
> |> |> |>>>> Probably, lots of system settings would look weird-- if you
> |> |> |>>>> could even find them!
> |> |> |
> |> |> | No, not at all.
> |> |>
> |> |> So... doing as I do here answering posts in this NG... all of my
> |> |> Master Posts still would apply? All of the settings I point to
> |> |> for a fix would be in the same places & mean the same thing?
> |> |
> |> | If it's software code, pretty much. Hardware is a different matter.
> |>
> |> OK. I was wondering whether I could still look things up &
> |> participate in this NG from an XP virtual Win98. Sounds like it
> |> could be mostly doable, but looking up hardware settings & Registry
> |> keys to post would become problematic.
> |
> |
> | The Windows registry on a virtual Windows install is the same as on a
> | real
> | machine.
> |
> | It is just that the hardware is fixed. There's a basic virtual video
> | adapter,
> | sound card, generic IDE adapter, network card. Reg-wise those values
> | would be
> | different than what your "real" system has. Just as your hardware is
> | different than
> | most other PCs.
>
> Too bad the VPC wouldn't feed it real information from what is actually
> plugged into the XP/Vista machine. BUT-- I'm sure that is because Win98
> may not have drivers to run some of them.
>
> |>
> |> |>What about files such
> |> |> as...?...
> |> |>
> |> |> HIMEM.SYS
> |> |> Type: System file
> |> |> Loc: C:\WINDOWS
> |> |> Size: 33,181 bytes
> |> |> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
> |> |>
> |> |> Are they the same on a virtual machine? Can one enter a Windows
> |> |> DOS session & would the commands be the same?
> |> |
> |> | Yes, and yes.
> |>
> |> Very impressive what they did.
> |
> | Connectix developed it. MS bought them and haven't done much with it
> | since.
> | VMWare is probably the leader in virtualazation, but is not free. Not
> | for the cool stuff anyway ;-)
>
> It really is pretty amazing as is. Thanks for all of this information,
> Blanton. It's good to see you still will pop into this NG!

Virtualization _is_ pretty amazing. (IMO, it's the coolest software since
the speadsheet.) The potential could be huge.

Good to see you again too PCR. (you watching the game?.. I bet you hate to see
Boston winning... <eg>)

PCR · Jun 18, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill Blanton wrote:
| I can't respond to your message. Outlook express is too stupid too
| handle a thread this deep, so I'll put it here:

That happens when we get to be too gabby. So far, only Chauvin has kind
of complained, though he is too politic to really tell.

| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:e2833JD0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> Bill Blanton wrote:
|> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

....snip
|> |> |> |>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation!
|> |> |> |>>>> You'd never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like
|> |> |> |>>>> a scandisk & defrag-- I don't think!
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You
|> |> |> | can scandisk, defrag,
|> |> |> | go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot
|> |> |> | sectors, install a boot
|> |> |> | manager, muti-boot, whatever..
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> |> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are
|> |> |> you be able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that?
|> |> |> I thought WinXP couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD
|> |> |> boot to a repair console?
|> |> |
|> |> | Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've
|> |> | got a folder
|> |> | full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real
|> |> | thing)
|> |> |
|> |> | It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way.
|> |> | The virtual
|> |> | BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads
|> |> | Windows.
|> |> |
|> |> | The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine.
|> |> | Copying the file
|> |> | is analogous to cloning your HD.
|> |>
|> |> That's very impressive. But the BIOS is virtual too? So, even this
|> |> BIOS won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98
|> |> simulation?
|> |
|> | It's not XP, though I think that it the minimum requirement for
|> | VPC. VPC
|> | is software that emulates a PC. It runs as a "process" on the host
|> | OS. Not necessarily XP.
|>
|> I guess the only other choice would be Vista, then, for now. But,
|> whichever it is, it must boot first to set up (or allow VPC to set
|> up?) the process that is VPC. I suppose the host OS continues to
|> run-- so, you now have two machines running at once & can click
|> between the two?
|
| Yea, the virtual machine runs as a process in its own "window", just
| as other
| programs. You can toggle to a "Full screen" if you want the total
| effect.
| Boot the host OS, run the program VPC, then choose which virtual
| machine to
| run. (sorta' like an "open file" on your favorite word processor)

Amazing. Sounds like what MS did with its Windows DOS (in a box) but on
a much grander scale.

|> | You boot the virtual machine and install your OS, just as you do
|> | on a "real"
|> | machine.
|>
|> Hmm. Amazing. I would have thought the VPC came with Win98
|> pre-installed.
|
| When you set up a new virtual machine, it's basically a PC with a
| blank
| hard drive. You can boot with your floppy, fdisk, run the windows
| setup,
| whatever you want. I believe that when Connectix owned it you could
| install Linux. I'm not sure if MS has blocked this or not. You can
| also run
| more than one virtual install at once, depending on your resources.
| (memory,
| a fairly fast CPU)

It's fairly impressive. I wouldn't be too surprised, if MS shut Linux
out & Apple too.

| Virtual Windows installs also require a license, and in the case of
| XP and
| Vista, you do have to activate your copy.

Is there a lot of activation involved with XP? Is it just the OS or do
installed packages also need it? After you've installed & activated XP
on one machine, can the Installation CDs ever be used again on a
different machine? Would one be able to clone the hard drive & move it
to another machine?

|>
|> | Even though your BIOS is burned into a chip, it is still just
|> | software code
|> | that loads when you boot.
|>
|> Of course, you know, not all BIOS code is the same. Therefore, some
|> recognize devices (maybe even the MB?) that others do not & have
|> capabilities (large HDD support, multi-booting, etc.) that others do
|> not. Normally, one wouldn't want to put another machine's BIOS into
|> his!
|
| The "virtual motherboard" contains well supported devices, and does
| not
| change. You can specify what size HD, up to a limit, but other than
| that
| you don't have any control over the harware, It would be nice if the
| interface was open and devs could write out new virtual devices, which
| you could then "plug in". It might open up a whole new market.

Too bad they didn't write it to allow a virtual BIOS flash of some sort.
But, in addition to having the BIOS see a new device, there would also
need to be a driver in the virtual OS.

|>
|> | Virtualzation software just removes that "physical" hardware layer,
|> | and
|> | replaces it with "virtual" hardware.
|>
|> This virtual BIOS that VPC supplies-- doesn't it need to be specific
|> to the machine that it will run on?
|
| No, it's the same BIOS and devices no matter what PC you put it on.
| It's virtual ;-)

I understand now. There are a bunch of standard/generic devices in the
VPC. If the computer has something that won't respond to any of those,
that device just won't work. Too bad.

|> I see elsewhere you said...
|>
|> "Unfortunately VPC does not support USB."
|>
|> "There's not as much config in there as most BIOSs. But there is IDE
|> boot order,
|> IDE device config settings. password config, pwer management (IIRC)..
|> some other basic stuff.... clock..."
|>
|> Too bad they didn't write it to actually use the BIOS that is
|> installed in the machine or to make a copy & use the copy (as I
|> think Colorado speculated it might be doing). Then, it would have
|> the full capabilities-- & no one would have to give up his flash
|> drive!
|
| That kinda' gets away from the whole concept. It wouldn't be virtual
| then.
| It'd be closer to a real OS, and have to support the myriad machines
| on the
| market. If your accessing the real hadrware, you have to read/write
| to the
| real hardware. What would be the point? In that case it would be a
| full
| blown OS.

But the virtual BIOS does access the real hardware at some point --
doesn't it? -- to know which virtual driver to assign it. That is when,
if it finds something new, they should have coded it to ask for a driver
that it could add to its virtual list. However, I guess the OS that
boots also would need a real driver & interface for the new device.
Also, someone would need to write an app for the OS that uses that
driver. That's too much, I guess.

|>
|> | When the OS accesses the hardware it calls upon the
|> | virtual hardware and the virtual hardware returns the information
|> | pertaining to its own configuration, just as your "real" hardware
|> | does.
|> | It's all just a stream of bits and bytes. What's "hardware" to the
|> | OS anyway?
|>
|> Unfortunately, though, it seems VPC has no bits for USB-- Colorado is
|> chagrinned! He loves his flash drive!
|
| Who doesn't love a flash drive?! ;-)

I'm very tempted to go shopping for one, myself! I don't expect I'll be
able to boot mine, but it would be great to have the external storage!

.

| Like I said somewhere else,, MS hasn't done much with it since they
| bought
| Connectix out. Frankly, they haven't done much but change all the
| "Connectix"
| strings to "Microsoft". In VPC2004 you could still find some errant
| "Connectix"
| strings in the help files.

Maybe they will do more, but maybe they just wanted to stop it from
becoming an alternative to their product.

| VMWare supports USB. On VPC, you can create virtual CDs which will
| load/run/boot faster than any physical USB device.

But is the virtual CDs as large as a flash drive?

....snip
|> It really is pretty amazing as is. Thanks for all of this
|> information, Blanton. It's good to see you still will pop into this
|> NG!
|
| Virtualization _is_ pretty amazing. (IMO, it's the coolest software
| since
| the speadsheet.) The potential could be huge.

They'd have to solve the driver problem for new devices. As is, though,
it does allow Win98, for instance, to function on a machine it otherwise
couldn't, by providing generic drivers for standard devices that may
otherwise be too new for Win98. Odd, they didn't include USB, though!

| Good to see you again too PCR. (you watching the game?.. I bet you
| hate to see
| Boston winning... <eg>)

As long as it is not baseball, Boston may win all it wants.

.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

Bill Blanton · Jun 19, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:eoW2pya0IHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:
> | I can't respond to your message. Outlook express is too stupid too
> | handle a thread this deep, so I'll put it here:
>
> That happens when we get to be too gabby. So far, only Chauvin has kind
> of complained, though he is too politic to really tell.

Seems not to happen to you? I have to cut down the "ref" field in the header.
Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

>
> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> | news:e2833JD0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> |> Bill Blanton wrote:
> |> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>
> ...snip
> |> |> |> |>>>> I think the partition would be fake-- just a simulation!
> |> |> |> |>>>> You'd never be able to do normal maintenance on it, like
> |> |> |> |>>>> a scandisk & defrag-- I don't think!
> |> |> |> |
> |> |> |> | No, the disk structure is emulated just as a real disk. You
> |> |> |> | can scandisk, defrag,
> |> |> |> | go in and muck around witht the partition tables or boot
> |> |> |> | sectors, install a boot
> |> |> |> | manager, muti-boot, whatever..
> |> |> |
> |> |> |
> |> |> |> That's an excellent emulation, then. But how can that be? Are
> |> |> |> you be able to boot to DOS or to a Starup Diskette to do that?
> |> |> |> I thought WinXP couldn't! Or is this done from some sort of CD
> |> |> |> boot to a repair console?
> |> |> |
> |> |> | Yes, you can boot to a boot floppy or CD. Real or virtual. I've
> |> |> | got a folder
> |> |> | full of virtual boot media. (much faster booting than the real
> |> |> | thing)
> |> |> |
> |> |> | It's a PC as far as the OS is concerned, and boots the same way.
> |> |> | The virtual
> |> |> | BIOS loads the MBR, the MBR loads the boot sector, which loads
> |> |> | Windows.
> |> |> |
> |> |> | The virtual hadr disk is one big file on the host machine.
> |> |> | Copying the file
> |> |> | is analogous to cloning your HD.
> |> |>
> |> |> That's very impressive. But the BIOS is virtual too? So, even this
> |> |> BIOS won't work, until you've boot to XP first & began the Win98
> |> |> simulation?
> |> |
> |> | It's not XP, though I think that it the minimum requirement for
> |> | VPC. VPC
> |> | is software that emulates a PC. It runs as a "process" on the host
> |> | OS. Not necessarily XP.
> |>
> |> I guess the only other choice would be Vista, then, for now. But,
> |> whichever it is, it must boot first to set up (or allow VPC to set
> |> up?) the process that is VPC. I suppose the host OS continues to
> |> run-- so, you now have two machines running at once & can click
> |> between the two?
> |
> | Yea, the virtual machine runs as a process in its own "window", just
> | as other
> | programs. You can toggle to a "Full screen" if you want the total
> | effect.
> | Boot the host OS, run the program VPC, then choose which virtual
> | machine to
> | run. (sorta' like an "open file" on your favorite word processor)
>
> Amazing. Sounds like what MS did with its Windows DOS (in a box) but on
> a much grander scale.
>
> |> | You boot the virtual machine and install your OS, just as you do
> |> | on a "real"
> |> | machine.
> |>
> |> Hmm. Amazing. I would have thought the VPC came with Win98
> |> pre-installed.
> |
> | When you set up a new virtual machine, it's basically a PC with a
> | blank
> | hard drive. You can boot with your floppy, fdisk, run the windows
> | setup,
> | whatever you want. I believe that when Connectix owned it you could
> | install Linux. I'm not sure if MS has blocked this or not. You can
> | also run
> | more than one virtual install at once, depending on your resources.
> | (memory,
> | a fairly fast CPU)
>
> It's fairly impressive. I wouldn't be too surprised, if MS shut Linux
> out & Apple too.
>
> | Virtual Windows installs also require a license, and in the case of
> | XP and
> | Vista, you do have to activate your copy.
>
> Is there a lot of activation involved with XP? Is it just the OS or do
> installed packages also need it?

Office activates, I think.

> After you've installed & activated XP
> on one machine, can the Installation CDs ever be used again on a
> different machine? Would one be able to clone the hard drive & move it
> to another machine?

Yea, but there's a time frame or something. I don't really know much about
activation. I think you can call MS if there's a problem. Dunno' really..

Moving to another machine is problematic for hardware reasons. In the case
of a virtual hardware machine, not really, since one VM equals another.

>
> |>
> |> | Even though your BIOS is burned into a chip, it is still just
> |> | software code
> |> | that loads when you boot.
> |>
> |> Of course, you know, not all BIOS code is the same. Therefore, some
> |> recognize devices (maybe even the MB?) that others do not & have
> |> capabilities (large HDD support, multi-booting, etc.) that others do
> |> not. Normally, one wouldn't want to put another machine's BIOS into
> |> his!
> |
> | The "virtual motherboard" contains well supported devices, and does
> | not
> | change. You can specify what size HD, up to a limit, but other than
> | that
> | you don't have any control over the harware, It would be nice if the
> | interface was open and devs could write out new virtual devices, which
> | you could then "plug in". It might open up a whole new market.
>
> Too bad they didn't write it to allow a virtual BIOS flash of some sort.
> But, in addition to having the BIOS see a new device, there would also
> need to be a driver in the virtual OS.
>
> |>
> |> | Virtualzation software just removes that "physical" hardware layer,
> |> | and
> |> | replaces it with "virtual" hardware.
> |>
> |> This virtual BIOS that VPC supplies-- doesn't it need to be specific
> |> to the machine that it will run on?
> |
> | No, it's the same BIOS and devices no matter what PC you put it on.
> | It's virtual ;-)
>
> I understand now. There are a bunch of standard/generic devices in the
> VPC. If the computer has something that won't respond to any of those,
> that device just won't work. Too bad.

The "real" computer hardware doesn't matter at all. The VM communicates only
with the host OS.

>
> |> I see elsewhere you said...
> |>
> |> "Unfortunately VPC does not support USB."
> |>
> |> "There's not as much config in there as most BIOSs. But there is IDE
> |> boot order,
> |> IDE device config settings. password config, pwer management (IIRC)..
> |> some other basic stuff.... clock..."
> |>
> |> Too bad they didn't write it to actually use the BIOS that is
> |> installed in the machine or to make a copy & use the copy (as I
> |> think Colorado speculated it might be doing). Then, it would have
> |> the full capabilities-- & no one would have to give up his flash
> |> drive!
> |
> | That kinda' gets away from the whole concept. It wouldn't be virtual
> | then.
> | It'd be closer to a real OS, and have to support the myriad machines
> | on the
> | market. If your accessing the real hadrware, you have to read/write
> | to the
> | real hardware. What would be the point? In that case it would be a
> | full
> | blown OS.
>
> But the virtual BIOS does access the real hardware at some point --
> doesn't it? --

No, never. The virtual BIOS is just a set of software routines within the VM .
The VM accesses Windows. Windows accesses the hardware.

That's the point of it. Physical hardware doesn't matter. As long as the
program running the VM is supported by the OS, the OS loaded within
the VM will operate.

> to know which virtual driver to assign it. That is when,
> if it finds something new, they should have coded it to ask for a driver
> that it could add to its virtual list. However, I guess the OS that
> boots also would need a real driver & interface for the new device.
> Also, someone would need to write an app for the OS that uses that
> driver. That's too much, I guess.

Yea, there are drivers, but only for the devices supported by the VM.

>
> |>
> |> | When the OS accesses the hardware it calls upon the
> |> | virtual hardware and the virtual hardware returns the information
> |> | pertaining to its own configuration, just as your "real" hardware
> |> | does.
> |> | It's all just a stream of bits and bytes. What's "hardware" to the
> |> | OS anyway?
> |>
> |> Unfortunately, though, it seems VPC has no bits for USB-- Colorado is
> |> chagrinned! He loves his flash drive!
> |
> | Who doesn't love a flash drive?! ;-)
>
> I'm very tempted to go shopping for one, myself! I don't expect I'll be
> able to boot mine, but it would be great to have the external storage!
>

.
>
> | Like I said somewhere else,, MS hasn't done much with it since they
> | bought
> | Connectix out. Frankly, they haven't done much but change all the
> | "Connectix"
> | strings to "Microsoft". In VPC2004 you could still find some errant
> | "Connectix"
> | strings in the help files.
>
> Maybe they will do more, but maybe they just wanted to stop it from
> becoming an alternative to their product.

Well, they do have to have their hand in everything..

>
> | VMWare supports USB. On VPC, you can create virtual CDs which will
> | load/run/boot faster than any physical USB device.
>
> But is the virtual CDs as large as a flash drive?

Depends on the flash drive. As large as a CD.

>
> ...snip
> |> It really is pretty amazing as is. Thanks for all of this
> |> information, Blanton. It's good to see you still will pop into this
> |> NG!
>|
> | Virtualization _is_ pretty amazing. (IMO, it's the coolest software
> | since
> | the speadsheet.) The potential could be huge.
>
> They'd have to solve the driver problem for new devices. As is, though,
> it does allow Win98, for instance, to function on a machine it otherwise
> couldn't, by providing generic drivers for standard devices that may
> otherwise be too new for Win98. Odd, they didn't include USB, though!
>
> | Good to see you again too PCR. (you watching the game?.. I bet you
> | hate to see
> | Boston winning... <eg>)
>
> As long as it is not baseball, Boston may win all it wants.

.

Baseball too.. ;-)
Nevermind the BoSox,, the Cubs have the best record in the league!

PCR · Jun 20, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill Blanton wrote:
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:eoW2pya0IHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
|> Bill Blanton wrote:
|> | I can't respond to your message. Outlook express is too stupid too
|> | handle a thread this deep, so I'll put it here:
|>
|> That happens when we get to be too gabby. So far, only Chauvin has
|> kind of complained, though he is too politic to really tell.
|
| Seems not to happen to you? I have to cut down the "ref" field in the
| header.
| Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

It happens to me! I move the post up in the thread when it does, which
is the same as cutting the Ref field-- I guess!

|>
|> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
|> | news:e2833JD0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> |> Bill Blanton wrote:
|> |> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

....snip
|> Is there a lot of activation involved with XP? Is it just the OS or
|> do installed packages also need it?
|
| Office activates, I think.

OK. I guess they do it for stuff bought separately.

|> After you've installed & activated XP
|> on one machine, can the Installation CDs ever be used again on a
|> different machine? Would one be able to clone the hard drive & move
|> it to another machine?
|
| Yea, but there's a time frame or something. I don't really know much
| about
| activation. I think you can call MS if there's a problem. Dunno'
| really..

OK. I personally would only have one machine, anyhow.

| Moving to another machine is problematic for hardware reasons. In the
| case
| of a virtual hardware machine, not really, since one VM equals
| another.

OK. Other than VM, just as with Win98, it's best to fresh install XP to
a new machine. For me, it only would matter if one machine died & I had
to get another & if the other didn't have it pre-installed.

|>
|> |>
|> |> | Even though your BIOS is burned into a chip, it is still just
|> |> | software code
|> |> | that loads when you boot.
|> |>
|> |> Of course, you know, not all BIOS code is the same. Therefore,
|> |> some recognize devices (maybe even the MB?) that others do not &
|> |> have capabilities (large HDD support, multi-booting, etc.) that
|> |> others do not. Normally, one wouldn't want to put another
|> |> machine's BIOS into his!
|> |
|> | The "virtual motherboard" contains well supported devices, and does
|> | not
|> | change. You can specify what size HD, up to a limit, but other than
|> | that
|> | you don't have any control over the harware, It would be nice if
|> | the interface was open and devs could write out new virtual
|> | devices, which you could then "plug in". It might open up a whole
|> | new market.
|>
|> Too bad they didn't write it to allow a virtual BIOS flash of some
|> sort. But, in addition to having the BIOS see a new device, there
|> would also need to be a driver in the virtual OS.
|>
|> |>
|> |> | Virtualzation software just removes that "physical" hardware
|> |> | layer, and
|> |> | replaces it with "virtual" hardware.
|> |>
|> |> This virtual BIOS that VPC supplies-- doesn't it need to be
|> |> specific to the machine that it will run on?
|> |
|> | No, it's the same BIOS and devices no matter what PC you put it on.
|> | It's virtual ;-)
|>
|> I understand now. There are a bunch of standard/generic devices in
|> the VPC. If the computer has something that won't respond to any of
|> those, that device just won't work. Too bad.
|
| The "real" computer hardware doesn't matter at all. The VM
| communicates only
| with the host OS.

OK. So, the host OS must first be able to recognize a new device. Then,
it's a matter of whether the VPC has something for that too already
built in. OK, then.

|>
|> |> I see elsewhere you said...
|> |>
|> |> "Unfortunately VPC does not support USB."
|> |>
|> |> "There's not as much config in there as most BIOSs. But there is
|> |> IDE boot order,
|> |> IDE device config settings. password config, pwer management
|> |> (IIRC).. some other basic stuff.... clock..."
|> |>
|> |> Too bad they didn't write it to actually use the BIOS that is
|> |> installed in the machine or to make a copy & use the copy (as I
|> |> think Colorado speculated it might be doing). Then, it would have
|> |> the full capabilities-- & no one would have to give up his flash
|> |> drive!
|> |
|> | That kinda' gets away from the whole concept. It wouldn't be
|> | virtual then.
|> | It'd be closer to a real OS, and have to support the myriad
|> | machines on the
|> | market. If your accessing the real hadrware, you have to read/write
|> | to the
|> | real hardware. What would be the point? In that case it would be a
|> | full
|> | blown OS.
|>
|> But the virtual BIOS does access the real hardware at some point --
|> doesn't it? --
|
| No, never. The virtual BIOS is just a set of software routines within
| the VM .
| The VM accesses Windows. Windows accesses the hardware.
|
| That's the point of it. Physical hardware doesn't matter. As long as
| the
| program running the VM is supported by the OS, the OS loaded within
| the VM will operate.

Alright. I think I get it now. The VM BIOS communicates only with the
host OS to know what devices are available. But, the principle is the
same-- if it finds something new, too bad it won't ask for a VM driver
to handle it.

|> to know which virtual driver to assign it. That is when,
|> if it finds something new, they should have coded it to ask for a
|> driver that it could add to its virtual list. However, I guess the
|> OS that boots also would need a real driver & interface for the new
|> device. Also, someone would need to write an app for the OS that
|> uses that driver. That's too much, I guess.
|
| Yea, there are drivers, but only for the devices supported by the VM.

OK. No way to add new ones as of yet. Too bad.

....snip
|> | Like I said somewhere else,, MS hasn't done much with it since they
|> | bought
|> | Connectix out. Frankly, they haven't done much but change all the
|> | "Connectix"
|> | strings to "Microsoft". In VPC2004 you could still find some errant
|> | "Connectix"
|> | strings in the help files.
|>
|> Maybe they will do more, but maybe they just wanted to stop it from
|> becoming an alternative to their product.
|
| Well, they do have to have their hand in everything..

Uhuh. I guess they gobbled it up for a reason. And surely they must know
it has a flaw.

|>
|> | VMWare supports USB. On VPC, you can create virtual CDs which will
|> | load/run/boot faster than any physical USB device.
|>
|> But is the virtual CDs as large as a flash drive?
|
| Depends on the flash drive. As large as a CD.

OK.

|>
|> ...snip
|> |> It really is pretty amazing as is. Thanks for all of this
|> |> information, Blanton. It's good to see you still will pop into
|> |> this NG!
|>|
|> | Virtualization _is_ pretty amazing. (IMO, it's the coolest software
|> | since
|> | the speadsheet.) The potential could be huge.
|>
|> They'd have to solve the driver problem for new devices. As is,
|> though, it does allow Win98, for instance, to function on a machine
|> it otherwise couldn't, by providing generic drivers for standard
|> devices that may otherwise be too new for Win98. Odd, they didn't
|> include USB, though!
|>
|> | Good to see you again too PCR. (you watching the game?.. I bet you
|> | hate to see
|> | Boston winning... <eg>)
|>
|> As long as it is not baseball, Boston may win all it wants.

.
|
| Baseball too.. ;-)
| Nevermind the BoSox,, the Cubs have the best record in the league!

The Yankess have begun to win every game now-- just as they should! And
I was almost about to quit watching this season!

.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

Bill Blanton · Jun 21, 2008

Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:O4UZkKz0IHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:

> | The "real" computer hardware doesn't matter at all. The VM
> | communicates only
> | with the host OS.
>
> OK. So, the host OS must first be able to recognize a new device. Then,
> it's a matter of whether the VPC has something for that too already
> built in. OK, then.

No, the VM will operate even if the host OS does not have a similar device.
However, if your host OS does not have a display adapter, for example,
you're not going to "see" it. Or if your host OS does not have a sound
card, you're not going to "hear" the virtual output.

> |> But the virtual BIOS does access the real hardware at some point --
> |> doesn't it? --
> |
> | No, never. The virtual BIOS is just a set of software routines within
> | the VM .
> | The VM accesses Windows. Windows accesses the hardware.
> |
> | That's the point of it. Physical hardware doesn't matter. As long as
> | the
> | program running the VM is supported by the OS, the OS loaded within
> | the VM will operate.
>
> Alright. I think I get it now. The VM BIOS communicates only with the
> host OS to know what devices are available.

(Excluding the CPU) It doesn't care what devices are on the host. It has its
own set of virtual devices. It's its own "machine"

Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill in Co.

Guest

PCR

Guest

Bill in Co.

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest

PCR

Guest

PCR

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest

PCR

Guest

Bill in Co.

Guest

PCR

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest

PCR

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest

PCR

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest

PCR

Guest

Bill Blanton

Guest