[windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines
- From: "Tim Mangan" <tmangan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:11:52 -0600
The 32bit VMs are only limited to a 4GB max each - but they
don't know nor care where the memory comes from. It is the host OS that cares,
which is why it needs to be x64 so you can stuff that puppy.
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;
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:48:08 -0600
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
37EDE7C4C8C;
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:50 -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 21045-03; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
A54B17C4C5B;
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list windows2000); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:42
-0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
371F97C4C13
for <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:42 -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 20994-06 for <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.lane34.com (lane34.com [69.41.238.114])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
E861B7C4B96
for <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from RayVista ([71.225.52.211]) by mail.lane34.com with MailEnable
ESMTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:23 -0500
X-SMSpamC: processed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on bl1.hostek.com from
10.10.12.7 at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:49:29 -0600
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=7.0 tests=DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW version=3.2.2
X-Original-To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Ray Costanzo" <ray@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <063d01c83174$a224b0a0$e66e11e0$@com>
<20071127204602.04E4.CHARLES@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<12c34f3b0711280629t48faddcamd074159c8e586145@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <12c34f3b0711280629t48faddcamd074159c8e586145@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:47:28 -0500
Message-ID: <0b6d01c831d5$faefe540$f0cfafc0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0B6E_01C831AC.1219DD40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcgxyznsC7oDjtEnRreVj9jLSJzT4QACoTcQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at localhost.localdomain
X-archive-position: 17973
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-to: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-original-sender: ray@xxxxxxxxxx
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>
This was another thing I was
wondering. If I go with a 64bit host OS, I can use much more RAM, but I wasn't
sure if the RAM that's unaddressable by a 32bit OS would be available to the
virtual OSes. I suppose since VMWare is the bridge between the physical
memory and the guest OS, it's possible. If so, NICE!!!
From:
windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Reese
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:30 AM
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
*****************************
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.
http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm
Other related posts:
