Virtual PC 2007

[Guest]

My understanding is that VPC 2007 will run in Vista Home Premium but it is
not support, is this correct?
Can a Linux OS be installed as a guest OS in VPCX 2007?
--
Regards
Bob J
If advise given from anyone, solves problem or not, or if solved from
another source,post back & let us know.
Then we all benefit.

 

[DR]

VPC should run on all versions of Vista, if I know correctly. What
Microsoft is limiting is the ability to run Vista inside of a virtual
environment. Only Vista Ultimate is technically licensed to run in a
virtual environment.

Some Linux OSes can be installed, but I found it to be very hit and miss on
which ones would install and which ones wouldn't.

DR

 

[V Manes]

Yes, you can install VPC in Vista Home Premium. It's not supported, and the
install will tell you you can't install, but it goes on.

Yes, you can install Linux as a guest OS.

Val

My understanding is that VPC 2007 will run in Vista Home Premium but it is
not support, is this correct?
Can a Linux OS be installed as a guest OS in VPCX 2007?
--
Regards
Bob J
If advise given from anyone, solves problem or not, or if solved from
another source,post back & let us know.
Then we all benefit.

 

[Andrew McLaren]

My understanding is that VPC 2007 will run in Vista Home Premium but it is
not support, is this correct?
Can a Linux OS be installed as a guest OS in VPCX 2007?

Hi Bob,

There is no technical barrier to running Virtual PC on Home Edition. The
Microsoft license ("EULA") for Home Edition says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software
installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system.

Not being a lawyer I won't try to interpret this statement. It's widely
taken to mean, you cannot run Home Edition as a Guest in Virtual PC. It does
not seem to prohibit using Vista Home as a Host for vitual machine system
products. So, you can run a virtualisation product as an application, on a
Vista Home edition computer.

However, Virtual PC 2007 is not "supported", in the narrow sense. As per
the Virtual PC download page, Virtual PC is supported on Buisness,
Enterprise and Ultimate editions:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...02-3199-48A3-AFA2-2DC0B40A73B6&displaylang=en
<quote>
Virtual PC 2007 runs on: Windows VistaT Business; Windows VistaT Enterprise;
Windows VistaT Ultimate; Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition; Windows
Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition; Windows XP Professional; Windows XP
Professional x64 Edition; or Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
</quote>

If you ring up Microsoft PSS and say, I'm having a problem running VPC on
Vista Home edition, when I try to click on ..." they'll just hang up on you
at that point (well, not hang up per se; but they won't go on to do any
in-depth troubleshooting). When you try to install Virtual PC onto Home
edition, you get a warning message about it being an unsupported platform.
But it doesn't actually block you from installing.

Linux guests are supported on Virtual Server 2005 R2, but not on Virtual PC.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/virtualserver/downloads/linuxguestsupport.mspx
Although it isn't supported, you could try splicing a Virtual Server Linux
VM to run in Virtual PC.

In spite of all, I love Virtual Server and Virtual PC, they are great tools.
But in my experience, VMWare Workstation gives you a much better platform
for running virtual Linux, FreBSD, and Solaris machines - these are core
scenarios for the VMWare guys.

Ubuntu 7.04 does not run on Virtual PC 2007. I tried everything, nada.

 

[Guest]

Thanks everyone you have confirmed, my understanding & interpretations.
I do not really need it but like everything, you have got to have a go.
I already have XP & Linux on a dual boot PC, just want to see what I am
capable of.
Happy Computing to All
--
Regards
Bob J
If advise given from anyone, solves problem or not, or if solved from
another source,post back & let us know.
Then we all benefit.

 

[Ian Betts]

No Linux is a totally different hard drive configuration. You could run two
hard drives though or two partitions.

 

[Rick Rogers]

Linux installs just fine under a VPC in Vista. When you create a virtual
machine, the file structure being used by the host is ignored. The VM
emulates the file structure needed for the operating system being installed.
You can run Linux one what to it seems to be ext volumes, and DOS on FAT all
under Virtual PC on NTFS.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

 

[Andrew McLaren]

No Linux is a totally different hard drive configuration. You could run
two hard drives though or two partitions.

???
I don't quite follow.

The "hard disk" in Virtual PC is just a file, <VM_Name>.vhd. The VMs
partition table is a data structure within this file, totally isolated from
the host. Neither Virtual PC, nor the host operating system, can see or even
cares what kind of file system is runing inside the guest VM. So you could
have NTFS, etx3, reiserFS, even exotica like AndrewFS, xfs, raw swap
partitions, etc.

The main limitation of Linux in a Virtual PC VM is that there are no VM
Additions for Linux. So you loose the nice features you get with supported
OS VMs (cut-n-paste, cursor integration, high-res graphics drivers, etc).

But certainly, many Linux distros install and run fine in a VM. The only
question is whether it is the best option; or whether VMWare, dual boot,
etc, would give a better experience.

 

[Guest]

Andrew your last past, points out things which I was considering, I am
inclined to thing that to get the full benefit of Linux, dual boot/VMW is
most probably the way to go.
Thanks all for input
--
Regards
Bob J
If advise given from anyone, solves problem or not, or if solved from
another source,post back & let us know.
Then we all benefit.

 

[Andyistic]

Not only do I have Linux installed as a guest OS in Virtual PC, but I also
installed it using PXE.

-- Andy

 

[Tim Judd]

Hi Bob,

There is no technical barrier to running Virtual PC on Home Edition. The
Microsoft license ("EULA") for Home Edition says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software
installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system.

Not being a lawyer I won't try to interpret this statement. It's widely
taken to mean, you cannot run Home Edition as a Guest in Virtual PC. It does
not seem to prohibit using Vista Home as a Host for vitual machine system
products. So, you can run a virtualisation product as an application, on a
Vista Home edition computer.

However, Virtual PC 2007 is not "supported", in the narrow sense. As per
the Virtual PC download page, Virtual PC is supported on Buisness,
Enterprise and Ultimate editions:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...02-3199-48A3-AFA2-2DC0B40A73B6&displaylang=en
<quote>
Virtual PC 2007 runs on: Windows VistaT Business; Windows VistaT Enterprise;
Windows VistaT Ultimate; Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition; Windows
Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition; Windows XP Professional; Windows XP
Professional x64 Edition; or Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
</quote>

If you ring up Microsoft PSS and say, I'm having a problem running VPC on
Vista Home edition, when I try to click on ..." they'll just hang up on you
at that point (well, not hang up per se; but they won't go on to do any
in-depth troubleshooting). When you try to install Virtual PC onto Home
edition, you get a warning message about it being an unsupported platform.
But it doesn't actually block you from installing.

http://www.ntcompatible.com/Installing_Virtual_PC_2007_on_Windows_2000_s89210.html

Removing a single row in the MSI file will let you install and run VPC
on older OS's too! (I am running VPC 2007 on Windows 2000 Pro). I just
don't ever call PSS.

Linux guests are supported on Virtual Server 2005 R2, but not on Virtual PC.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/virtualserver/downloads/linuxguestsupport.mspx
Although it isn't supported, you could try splicing a Virtual Server Linux
VM to run in Virtual PC.

In spite of all, I love Virtual Server and Virtual PC, they are great tools.
But in my experience, VMWare Workstation gives you a much better platform
for running virtual Linux, FreBSD, and Solaris machines - these are core
scenarios for the VMWare guys.

I don't see a performance gain by running commercialized software
(VMWare Player or Workstation) over free products (Virtual PC,
virtualbox, qemu) because of what I run in the guest OS. Moreover, I
have a machine that has removable drive bays, so I can swap HDDs easily
and run whatever OS I want natively.

Ubuntu 7.04 does not run on Virtual PC 2007. I tried everything, nada.

I read it has something to do with the splash screen while booting is
using 24-bit color and VPC just doesn't handle it well (read: "at all").
Yet another reason that I'm very irritated at the whole Linux scene,
they just can't get a working, universal system.

HTH

 

[Andrew McLaren]

I don't see a performance gain by running commercialized software (VMWare
Player or Workstation) over free products (Virtual PC, virtualbox, qemu)
because of what I run in the guest OS. Moreover, I

Well, I don't want to be a VMWare "advocate" - virtualisation is becoming a
core feature of all major OSes; and in due course, full vitualisation will
be a natural, built-in part of Windows, without any add-on products
required - Virtual PC, VMWare, or otherwise. And Virtual PC gives a
single-vendor solution so, mutatis mutandis, it would be preferred over
VMWare.

However, today, from a purely practical persopective, VMWare lets me run
guests on x64 CPU (ie, the CPU *inside* the guest) and use dual-proc guest
configuration as well. Since my main guest is 64 bit Solaris, this puts
VMWare way ahead of Virtual PC. In fact Virtual PC isn't even in the race,
because it is 32 bit, single proc, and has no VM Tools for Solaris. VMWare
cost money, but it wasn't very expensive, it has been rock-solid and has
very good features. So I don't complain.

I read it has something to do with the splash screen while booting is
using 24-bit color and VPC just doesn't handle it well (read: "at all").
Yet another reason that I'm very irritated at the whole Linux scene, they
just can't get a working, universal system.

Yes, that's the problem. I'm neither "for" or "against" Linux - hell, I'll
work with any OS ... but video isssues are the number one barrier to me
using Linux, more often.

 

[Mike]

I read it has something to do with the splash screen while booting is
using 24-bit color and VPC just doesn't handle it well (read: "at all").
Yet another reason that I'm very irritated at the whole Linux scene,
they just can't get a working, universal system.

I had the same problem. I started it in "Safe Graphics Mode" and it
finally came up, but was frozen and the mouse cursor did not move.

High quality "free" software in action!

Mike

 

[Tim Judd]

However, today, from a purely practical persopective, VMWare lets me run
guests on x64 CPU (ie, the CPU *inside* the guest) and use dual-proc guest
configuration as well. Since my main guest is 64 bit Solaris, this puts
VMWare way ahead of Virtual PC. In fact Virtual PC isn't even in the race,
because it is 32 bit, single proc, and has no VM Tools for Solaris. VMWare
cost money, but it wasn't very expensive, it has been rock-solid and has
very good features. So I don't complain.

MS VirtualPC 2007 offers a 64-bit edition to work on your 64-bit Host.
I didn't read, I am not checking to see if it emulates a 64-bit guest or
not though. So if your complaint that "Virtual PC isn't even in the
race, because it is 32 bit, single proc" is that it won't run on 64-bit
hosts (which isn't quite clear from your statement), you are mistaken.

Yes, that's the problem. I'm neither "for" or "against" Linux - hell, I'll
work with any OS ... but video isssues are the number one barrier to me
using Linux, more often.

I'm against Linux, entirely. I've tried a handfull of the 350-some
active Linux distributions, and none of them operate as cleanly and as
universally as any other system out there. Apple Macs, BSDs, even
Windows. I keep going as far as to say: "I would prefer to even use
Windows over Linux because of my constant disappointment with Linux, in
general."

I do not ever advocate Linux, and hesitate to use it in a business
because of the problems I've seen. Compared to the comparative systems
that are also free and, IMHO, better. (THIS being my personal opinion,
I understand and expect different views on it. But my reasoning has
been sound reasoning in the past for my decision against Linux.)

 

[Tim Judd]

I had the same problem. I started it in "Safe Graphics Mode" and it
finally came up, but was frozen and the mouse cursor did not move.

High quality "free" software in action!

Mike

I've got nothing nice to say to Ubuntu, so I will not say anything at
all. I just want to go on record as saying that I hear you and agree
with you 100%!

 

[Mike]

I'm against Linux, entirely. I've tried a handfull of the 350-some
active Linux distributions, and none of them operate as cleanly and as
universally as any other system out there.

But see, you are using the wrong distro! You *must* try Super Duper
XanHatDebTu Linux version 4.2.5.853b9 with Linux kernel 2.7.3a for the
truly best Linux experience!

<yawn>

And people whine about Vista's 4 versions as being "so confusing"!

Mike

 

[Tim Judd]

But see, you are using the wrong distro! You *must* try Super Duper
XanHatDebTu Linux version 4.2.5.853b9 with Linux kernel 2.7.3a for the
truly best Linux experience!

Oh, where's the download link? Now that it's been named, Do you
think it's going to eventually "show up"? I can see:

1) Part Xandros
2) Part RedHat
3) Part Debian
4) Part Ubuntu

So we're going to get a rpm/apt package hybrid call rampt that is
supposed to be "the best" package management with "smart dependency"
handling, that can use either RPM or APT/DEB syntax and packages.

I haven't run Xandros, so I can't include that in my outlook on the
Distribution.



Yea, "flavor of the week."

<yawn>

And people whine about Vista's 4 versions as being "so confusing"!
ROFL

Mike

Tim