I've been messing around with running XP Home in a virtual machine on
Vista 64 bit, using MS's Virtual PC. Pretty cool. The real machine (not
the virtual one) also dual boots to Win XP Pro 64-bit. So, I'm a power
user too. If I can find a version of Linux that EASILY installs into
Virtual PC, I'll give that a shot as well.
I use CentOS (
www.centos.org), a clone of Red Hat enterprise Linux,
as my host. This because I need "Enterprise" level quality to
support my Linux servers out there (I have w2k0 and w2k3
servers out there as well, so no one get their feeling hurt!)
You may wish to consider using Linux as your host. With the open
source dump/restore utility you can back up EVERYTHING on your
hard drive: no registry, hidden files, file locks, system files,
hidden files to worry about. You also get a self healing/journaling
file system. And you get about 50% more performance on the same hardware
as XP (100% more than Vista?). Extra performance on the host is
valuable when you suffer from the performance hits of a virtual machine.
I "love" my set up. I get the best of both the MS and the Linux
worlds.
Oh! Virtual Box (
http://www.virtualbox.org/) is now supporting
the VT-X hardware features. Warning: you have to re-enable
it every update to Virtual Box.
My next virtual project: create a virtual machine for ReactOS
(an open source XP clone). This could come in useful if
my customers can not make the XP, Vista transition, due to
program incompatibilities and performance issues (Vista currently
being 50% slower that XP) and XP becomes no longer obtainable.
(I don't see ReactOS going anywhere, unless MS removes XP from
the market.)
Now, maybe the fact that your Vista computer is a virtual one may be the
issue here. The video card capability is pretty limited inside virtual
machines. According to my limited understanding, the software you use to
virtualize creates a not-very-powerful "fake" video card, which is your
case, as I understand it. Maybe that fake card can't handle the
"advanced" settings.
Sounds like you called it. Vista still runs well in the
virtual machine. It may even run better without the fancy stuff.
BTW: You might have gotten useful advice quicker if you'd said at the
outset that this was Vista running in a virtual machine. Not lecturing;
only suggesting. The more details the better when you post.
The trick is to give just the right amount of info. Give too
little and you don't get a good answer. Give too much and
the responders will sometimes go off on tangents, especially
if you use the phrase "I do not have a v-i-r-u-s". You get tons of
links to anti virus sites.