[windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines

  • From: "Sorin Srbu" <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:23:47 +0100

Yeah, but it does some things very weird. Like eg not being able to run
*nix-guests very good. At least this was the case before, maybe they've
improved on this now...
 

  _____  

From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Mangan
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:12 PM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines


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: