Re: XY4 in Win7-64

[J R FOX jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

--- On Mon, 7/30/12, William H. TeBrake  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