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: <//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 > > > > >