What about support for Windows Virtual PC ?
#1
Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:28 PM
#2
Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:00 PM
But why not use such great freeware like VirtualBox?
Peter
#3
Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:36 PM
#4
Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:43 PM
Because VirtualPC is also freeware.
But is it also "great"?
Wonko
#5
Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:48 PM
#6
Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:04 PM
Sure , you are right , I trusted peter's word for it , being myself an old dinosaur, and normally running just Qemu....Before we come to that, let's first prove that VitualBox is great to start with.
Probably it became great after this :
http://reboot.pro/7758/
Wonko
#7
Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:28 PM
Just make the ISO and load it into your VM…
#8
Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:35 PM
Well, but what if you want to run INSIDE the PE a VM (say to run a Linux of some flavour or a DOS)?There is no need for either VirtualBox or VirtualPC scripts.
Just make the ISO and load it into your VM…
AND Qemu is not good for it?
Wonkko
#9
Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:50 PM
Sorry, I don’t see any reason to run a VM inside a PE!Well, but what if you want to run INSIDE the PE a VM (say to run a Linux of some flavour or a DOS)?
AND Qemu is not good for it?
Wonkko
Explain please...
#10
Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:33 PM
You're mean!Probably it became great after this :
http://reboot.pro/7758/
The reasons are just the same as n a normal OS.Sorry, I don’t see any reason to run a VM inside a PE!
Checking out an ISO, if it suits your needs, before burning it to a CDVD, for instance.
#11
Posted 18 May 2011 - 06:28 PM
Historically it happened that when I was studying technologies from Мicrosoft, then for the laboratory study, we used Windows virtual PC 2004. And it worked great. Well, in Russia we have a saying, "let well enough alone:). Ie if something works good do not look for alternativesAs far as I remember, there exists a script for this.
But why not use such great freeware like VirtualBox?
Peter
And yet. WinBuilder is based on Microsoft. It is therefore natural to use and the VM from MS. Microsoft has always closely used in their products integrate with OS Windows.
Edited by Sevilho, 18 May 2011 - 06:39 PM.
#12
Posted 18 May 2011 - 06:31 PM
There is no need for either VirtualBox or VirtualPC scripts.
Just make the ISO and load it into your VM…
A few topics before me have already explained that if the use of VM inside a constructor, the improved interface = need to make fewer clicks.
Edited by Sevilho, 18 May 2011 - 06:34 PM.
#13
Posted 18 May 2011 - 07:20 PM
Just for the record , BOB also was a Microsoft Product, perfectly integrated in Windows (3.1 at the time).And yet. WinBuilder is based on Microsoft. It is therefore natural to use and the VM from MS. Microsoft has always closely used in their products integrate with OS Windows.
This in NO way makes it better than ANY other shell, actually it made it worse than ANYHTING ever seen running in the PC and even to-day, ONLY the bloatness of .Net can be compared as amount of terror that is induced to a sane user.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Microsoft_Bob
http://toastytech.com/guis/bob.html
Microsoft does not always mean "good" (nor "bad" ) and never means that a concurrent product can (or cannot ) be "better".
Wonko
#14
Posted 18 May 2011 - 08:27 PM
I always delete no needed scripts = VM scripts.A few topics before me have already explained that if the use of VM inside a constructor, the improved interface = need to make fewer clicks.
Because I want to have control over what I’ doing.
But you do it your way, of course!
#15
Posted 18 May 2011 - 09:27 PM
#16
Posted 18 May 2011 - 10:15 PM
Correction is needed my friend.. WinBuilder is based on reboot.pro, it is not owned by MS so we can choose our own style of work.And yet. WinBuilder is based on Microsoft. It is therefore natural to use and the VM from MS. Microsoft has always closely used in their products integrate with OS Windows.
WinBuilder likes QEmu over all other alternatives.
QEmu from Fabrice Bellard is extremely small (less than 10Mb), portable and runs Windows OS's with enough quality. Also, we have express permission from the author of QEmu to distribute these products with Winbuilder and the same can't be said for VirtualPC.
Hope this helps to clear our position in terms of preferred Virtualizers.
#17
Posted 19 May 2011 - 07:10 PM
Correction is needed my friend.. WinBuilder is based on reboot.pro, it is not owned by MS so we can choose our own style of work.
WinBuilder likes QEmu over all other alternatives.
QEmu from Fabrice Bellard is extremely small (less than 10Mb), portable and runs Windows OS's with enough quality. Also, we have express permission from the authors of QEmu and VirtualBox to distribute these products with Winbuilder. The same can't be said for VirtualPC.
Hope this helps to clear our position in terms of preferred Virtualizers.
Of course, every product has its pros and cons. Just today announced a new VirtualBox, v.4.0.8 (2011-05).
FEATURES:
• 64-bit guest systems (MS 32-bit only, I think)
• Support USB 2.0 (device, host machines available for guest)
• support for a hard disk VMDK (VMware) and VHD (Microsoft Virtual PC)
• support public folders for sharing files between host and guest system (removed in MS)
• added new virtual components: Intel ICH9 chipset and Intel HD Audio
#18
Posted 19 May 2011 - 07:14 PM
Yes, Virtual Box has a lot of support from Oracle and that is good.Of course, every product has its pros and cons. Just today announced a new VirtualBox
QEmu is my favorite but unfortunately it is only supported by the author and a few more fans and updates come at slower pace. Would be nice to see a non-profit association stepping forward to help with financing to QEmu and further developments.
Oracle seems to be getting their hand on a lot of things lately. Perhaps one day they also acquire Ubuntu and MS altogether..
#19
Posted 19 May 2011 - 07:24 PM
That was long ago . To figure out the historical truth even remember what MS DOS v1.0 was slightly modified version of the purchased QDOSBefore we go into a M$ against the rest of the world topic, let's not forget, that VirtualPC was not developed by the guys in Redmont, but bought from Connectix.
#20
Posted 19 May 2011 - 07:31 PM
Oracle seems to be getting their hand on a lot of things lately. Perhaps one day they also acquire Ubuntu and MS altogether..
No, it seems that M$ will be evergreen
Edited by Sevilho, 19 May 2011 - 07:31 PM.
#21
Posted 19 May 2011 - 07:41 PM
You are the boss, and your opinion is therefore also my opinion.WinBuilder likes QEmu over all other alternatives.
But please allow me "very cautious" to public my private opinion:
qEmu is extremely slow in booting, is rather old, and IMO not supported since a long time.
Would be great to see here
PeterWinBuilder likes VirtualBox over all other alternatives.
#22
Posted 19 May 2011 - 08:14 PM
#23
Posted 20 May 2011 - 10:36 AM
On Linux, you have kvm (Kernel-based Virtual Machine), which has the same syntax (commandline options)as qemu. kvm uses hardware virtualisation, so it is similar in speed as VirtualBox.qEmu is extremely slow in booting, is rather old, and IMO not supported since a long time.
#24
Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:53 PM
QEMU keeps a stiff upper lip only.
The rest, either do not support 64-bit Guest (Parallels Workstation, Windows Virtual PC) or require CPU VT support (VMware Player, Oracle VM VirtualBox).
QEMU was quite slow: Boot ISO takes 3 minutes and 33 seconds. Enabling kqemu accelerator gave quite a bit: 3:30.
Used is quite old v.0.9 by 2007. I would like to see the v1.0 from 2012 in hopes of getting faster.
VMware Player is much faster: about 50 sec (but for 32-bit guest).
#25
Posted 10 February 2012 - 10:23 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users