Re: XY4 in Win7-64


--- On Mon, 7/30/12, William H. TeBrake <tebrake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Jordan,
> 
> I have both Win XP and Linux Ubuntu running within UMWare
> Player on my Win 7 (64 bit) machine with 8 gigs of memory.
> But, just for the fun of it, I also loaded VMWare Player on
> my slowly aging Win XP laptop with 2 gigs of memory, and
> Ubuntu runs quite well within that space. You should be able
> to run something like DOS or Win 3.1 within 512 megs or less
> within VMWare. Give it a try. It's free for the Player
> edition, and it uninstalls quite cleanly if you don't like.
> I did dual booting in the past, between Windows and OS/2,
> but I like the VMWare approach because it just seems to work
> for me without having to reboot.
> 


William,

Depending on which computer we're talking about, I have anywhere 
from 3.5 G. to 8G. of RAM installed.  My question was more about 
the power of the CPU.  That also affects VM performance -- a lot.
In these days of i3 / i5 / i7, I'm well behind the curve with 
the older, moderate dual-cores.  (AMD x2 Athlons, or their Intel 
contemporaries.)  

After reading various comments here, I'm leaning towards this 
VMware Player, rather than Virtual PC or the others.  (No one 
mentioned VirtualBox . . . . )  

I had been a proponent of dual-boot setups, but XP seems to have 
just bugged out on my main laptop.  It goes off to a black screen 
La-La Land at bootup.  I know it's not the hardware, because the 
alternate boot -- eCS -- is still working fine.  So, I'm looking 
at an XP "repair install", and hoping this won't lose all the 
updates and security fixes etc. etc. accumulated over the last 
few years.  I think that is claimed to be the case (?), but I've 
never tried it.  The VM thing is starting to look a lot more 
appealing.  But, I really don't want to give up eCS.  (That's the 
OS/2 successor.)  As far as I knew, VirtualBox was the only 
virtualizer that did OS/2 . . . but I think it had to be the Host 
and XP had to be the client.  


 Jordan


Other related posts: