[windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines

  • From: "Greg Reese" <gareese@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:18:09 -0600

On Nov 29, 2007 8:11 AM, Tim Mangan <tmangan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The free virtual server from microsoft will run on a 64bit host.
>
> Tim Mangan
> Founder, TMurgent Technologies
> tmangan@xxxxxxxxxxxx (+1)781.492.0403
>
> ------------------------------
> Return-Path: <windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180] by
> mail7.hostek.com with SMTP;
> Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:56:03 -0600
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
> 24FBB7C786D;
> Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:55:49 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
> by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
> with ESMTP id 00652-09; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:55:49 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
> 8C2747C75E9;
> Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:55:48 -0500 (EST)
> Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list windows2000); Thu, 29 Nov 2007
> 03:55:41 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
> F16BF7C6898
> for <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:55:40 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
> by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
> with ESMTP id 00608-10 for <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:55:40 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from klais.its.uu.se (klais.its.uu.se [130.238.7.59])
> by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
> 7C8F97C59EC
> for <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:55:40 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from nyarlathotep (mach163.orgfarm.uu.se [130.238.38.64])
> by klais.its.uu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6A43826BC
> for <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:55:39 +0100 (CET)
> X-SMSpamC: processed
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on
> spam5.hostek.com
> from 10.10.12.7 at Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:57:10 -0600
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=7.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
> X-Original-To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Delivered-To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v0.6.4 klais.its.uu.se 9B6A43826BC
> DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uu.se;
> s=centralsmtp; t=1196326539; bh=d1ySeeoU/PDvBkfN734fe4AdV/5ykCmD5r+
> UxCgBI2Q=; h=Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:
> Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:
> Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:X-Virus-Scanned; b=S314JZHkAHaeepKLzaDtKt
> s7Qa9TOqABa6nn0R34VlhSbEtk1aT0ng6a3ftuT836rm0LaDXR8VTHkmWLVedJ4/V5A
> GmTfjJMyyLscXmBqjHOMKNfA+BiheBW6FyIEiwPn4EzilIfrN5R08kT2JwsmEukb/zL
> a2V7PPEsRZeDKOQ=
> From: "Sorin Srbu" <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> References: <063d01c83174$a224b0a0$e66e11e0$@com> <
> 20071127204602.04E4.CHARLES@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <
> 12c34f3b0711280629t48faddcamd074159c8e586145@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:55:39 +0100
> Organization: Org Pharm Chem, Uppsala University of Sweden
> Message-ID: <BEA5DF139A8A4D62974B8DBFD5B9DFEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01C8326D.FF4C6580"
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4133
> Thread-Index: Acgxy0jTsqAn6dI3QwmoDppenVsFfQAmhwgQ
> In-Reply-To: <12c34f3b0711280629t48faddcamd074159c8e586145@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at klais.its.uu.se
> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at localhost.localdomain
> X-archive-position: 17979
> X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
> Sender: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Errors-to: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-original-sender: sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Precedence: normal
> Reply-to: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> List-help: <mailto:ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=help>
> List-unsubscribe: <windows2000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=unsubscribe>
> List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
> List-Id: windows2000 <windows2000.freelists.org>
> X-List-ID: windows2000 <windows2000.freelists.org>
> List-subscribe: <windows2000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=subscribe>
> List-owner: <mailto:jimkenz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> List-post: <mailto:windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> List-archive: <http://www.freelists.org/archives/windows2000>
> X-list: windows2000
> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at localhost.localdomain
> X-Rcpt-To: <tmangan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The VMWare advantage with 64b hosts, is as far as I understand only true
> with VMWare *Workstation*, which is the only VMWare software that actually
> supports native 64b with native 64b executables and such. The free VMWare
> server et all doesn't. Or so I've heard.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Greg Reese
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:30 PM
> *To:* windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines
>
>   a 64 bit host with 32 bit guests is the way to go.  You will be able to
> run more 32bit vm's more efficiently. The host has overhead and VMWare, Xen,
> etc were written to take advantage of 64 bit hardware.  Plus, you can cram
> it full of RAM which is where you will really see things perk up.
>
> On Nov 27, 2007 10:52 PM, Charles R. Buchanan <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > From a layman's perspective, using the 64-bit cpu for 32bit apps/os'es
> > and so forth is no biggy. In fact, in a lot of cases, having that
> > dual/quad core cpu will make life so much better! :-)  I experimented
> > with XP64 for about a week and uninstalled it. It didn't like my sound
> > card, and I wasn't having that! lol!!! :-)  64bit computing would
> > probably be great, except for a few minor annoyances, like the lack of
> > drivers and the lack of 64bit programs to actually run! :-O  As you
> > know,
> > max out on the memory!
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:10:38 -0500, While Searching For The "ANY" Key,
> > "Ray Costanzo" < ray@xxxxxxxxxx> said this:
> >
> > > Hi list,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My winter project this year is to rebuild my home network.  I'm
> > upgrading to
> > > a WS2003 domain from Windows 2000 (or I may venture into 2008
> > depending on
> > > when that comes out).  I'm going to make use of virtualization as much
> > as
> > > possible and anticipate having five or six VMs.  I'm not a big fan of
> > 64 bit
> > > OSes, so I want to run all 32 bit ones.  When I build the machine that
> > will
> > > host all the virtual machines, I'll want to get as much processing
> > power as
> > > I can reasonably afford.  It seems, however, that all the hardcore
> > > processors these days are 64 bit.  Will this matter?  Will I just be
> > wasting
> > > money buying a 64 bit processor for all 32 bit OSes?  Aside from the
> > "you
> > > should run 64 bit OSes" responses, any thoughts on this?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> >
> > Jesus Christ: "There is no surer proof of Christ's divinity than that he
> > is still so hated
> > some two thousand years after his death."
> >
> > *****************************
> > New Site from The Kenzig Group!
> > Windows Vista Links, list options
> > and info are available at:
> > http://www.VistaPop.com <http://www.vistapop.com/>
> > *****************************
> > To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
> > mode or view archives use the below link.
> >
> > http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm
> >
>
>
>

Other related posts: