Re: A general strategy for retaining XyWrite in a non-DOS world

[Bill Troop billtroop@xxxxxxxx]

One reason I support Kari's approach is that I
don't think it makes sense to get involved with
old hardware. Also because VM technology is just
getting better and better. Apparently there are
some things about Hyper-V in Win 8 that, along
with the latest hardware, give even better
performance than we have been experiencing with
VirtualBox and VMware. This apparently is a field
where things are actively moving forward. The
ability to save a machine state in software seems
to me infinitely preferable to dealing with a
hunk of aging and possibly temperamental
hardware. (That said, there are those who just
love to tinker with old cars . . . . and what's the matter with that?)


I also personally would deeply resent having to
use a separate machine. I really do want it all-in-one.


I do think VMware is faster with W2K than
VirtualBox, at least as I use it under Win 8.


I'm not really worried about XyWrite over the
next ten years, but after that? Will VMs still be
supporting W2K twenty and thirty years from now?
Maybe I shouldn't worry. Who knows? Maybe 20
years from now Nota Bene will finally work to
XyWriters' universal satisfaction?


At 26/05/2014 15:08, you wrote:
> Harry,
>
> I am not quite sure what you mean by
> configuration jiggering inherent in
> virtualization. My experience is one of ultimate
> hardware stability vis-à-vis the guest operating
> system as it is invariable being part of the
> virtualization platform. For some purposes it
> may be meaningful to maintain or build a
> separate DOS machine, but I do not see the point
> of maintaining W2K or XP machines as they can be
> more easily virtualized or emulated. I see no
> slowdown in running DOS/Win 3.1: if I save the
> VM's state, it is instantly available in
> VirtualPC 2007. W2K in VirtualBox is almost as fast.
>
>
> But if you like physical computers more than
> virtual ones, then a KVM switch solution might
> be for you. With quality KVM equipment it is
> possible to have many systems at your
> fingertips, provided they are reasonably modern.
> USB connectivity makes this practical. Still
> there are industrial systems for true legacy
> (AT-style) hardware, but they might prove to be disappointing.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kari Eveli
> LEXITEC Book Publishing (Finland)
> lexitec@xxxxxxxx
>
> *** Lexitec Online ***
> Lexitec in English: http://www.lexitec.fi/english.html
> Home page in Finnish: http://www.lexitec.fi/
>
> 25.5.2014 19:31, Harry Binswanger wrote:
> > Advantages: None of the slowdowns or configuration jiggering and
> > re-jiggering required for virtual machines. Low cost--zero, if you already
> > have such a machine in your closet.
> >
> > Disadvantages: Networking is even flakier, flukier, funkier than virtual
> > machine settings; but then Dropbox is amazingly robust, transparent, fast.