[Anahata]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:22:20 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't know of any virtual machine products that allow you to virtually
boot a hard drive.

Either you've never seen VMware, or I've totally misunderstood that
statement.

One of the ways a VMware VM can start is to boot from a real bootable HD
partition. Having the HD simulated in a file on the host system is
another way, but not the only way.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Arny Krueger]

"anahata" wrote in message
o.uk

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:22:20 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't know of any virtual machine products that allow
you to virtually boot a hard drive.

Either you've never seen VMware, or I've totally
misunderstood that statement.

I've been using VMWare, but until just now I found that the only hard drives
it boots directly are virtual. That impression comes from running the
documentation that comes with the relevant products.

You're right though - it is possible to boot a physical drive and I thank
you for the tip.

The process of booting a real partition is not nearly as obvious as you seem
to want to make it out to be.

It's described he

http://www.vmware.com/support/ws55/d..._dualboot.html

Which says:

"Setting up a physical disk configuration for a virtual machine is more
complicated than using a virtual disk. Virtual disks are recommended unless
you have a specific need to run directly from a physical disk or partition.
"

I wouldn't recommend booting a real drive for which a solid, very recent
backup does not exist.

One of the ways a VMware VM can start is to boot from a
real bootable HD partition.

So it seems, but with a number of caveats and with some tips and techniques
required.

Having the HD simulated in a file on the host system is another way, but
not the only way.

Again, this is the sort of thing that is not obvious from running the
software (which I have been doing) or reading the basic user operations
documentation. Your initial comment is stated in a rather
self-aggrandizing, insulting sort of way.

[John Williamson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"anahata" wrote in message
o.uk

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:22:20 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't know of any virtual machine products that allow
you to virtually boot a hard drive.

Either you've never seen VMware, or I've totally
misunderstood that statement.

I've been using VMWare, but until just now I found that the only hard drives
it boots directly are virtual. That impression comes from running the
documentation that comes with the relevant products.

You're right though - it is possible to boot a physical drive and I thank
you for the tip.

The process of booting a real partition is not nearly as obvious as you seem
to want to make it out to be.

It's described he

http://www.vmware.com/support/ws55/d..._dualboot.html

Which says:

"Setting up a physical disk configuration for a virtual machine is more
complicated than using a virtual disk. Virtual disks are recommended unless
you have a specific need to run directly from a physical disk or partition.
"

I wouldn't recommend booting a real drive for which a solid, very recent
backup does not exist.

One of the ways a VMware VM can start is to boot from a
real bootable HD partition.

So it seems, but with a number of caveats and with some tips and techniques
required.

Having the HD simulated in a file on the host system is another way, but
not the only way.

Again, this is the sort of thing that is not obvious from running the
software (which I have been doing) or reading the basic user operations
documentation. Your initial comment is stated in a rather
self-aggrandizing, insulting sort of way.


Slightly off topic for the thread, I'm wondering why the fascination
recently with virtual machines unless you *need* to run two systems
simultaneously, say to do your office work on Vista while you're
rendering video on XP, or running a Windows 95 game on a Vista box. Even
then, it's not ideal for any application that has to run in real time,
such as recording or playback, as the processor, memory and buses are
still shared and there is the added overhead of the virtualisation.

For best performance and compatibility, why not dual boot for full
native performance on all the systems and accept the reboot delay when
changing systems? I know Vista and XP, not to mention Linux, can all
live their own independent lives on the same HD while still happily
sharing data, after all, that's what I do on this laptop. Or, an older
trick is to put your OS and programs on one HD, your Data on another,
and put the OS HD(s) in a caddy.

The HD space required is the same in any case, and you don't get the
inevitable slowdown and possible hardware problems caused by the
virtualisation.

Just a thought....
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Williamson" wrote in
message

I'm wondering why the
fascination recently with virtual machines unless you
*need* to run two systems simultaneously, say to do your
office work on Vista while you're rendering video on XP,
or running a Windows 95 game on a Vista box. Even then,
it's not ideal for any application that has to run in
real time, such as recording or playback, as the
processor, memory and buses are still shared and there is
the added overhead of the virtualisation.

I've had some pretty good experiences with audio playback on a VM.

For best performance and compatibility, why not dual boot
for full native performance on all the systems and accept
the reboot delay when changing systems?

You sort of answered your own question: Time and convenience.

I know Vista and
XP, not to mention Linux, can all live their own
independent lives on the same HD while still happily
sharing data, after all, that's what I do on this laptop.

That is the traditional way to do such things and it indoubtably works.

Been there, done that.

Or, an older trick is to put your OS and programs on one
HD, your Data on another, and put the OS HD(s) in a
caddy.

Been there, done that.

I've also had a PC with the drive master/slave pins wired to a switch.

The HD space required is the same in any case, and you
don't get the inevitable slowdown and possible hardware
problems caused by the virtualisation.

I don't think that it is any secret that PCs have several orders of
magnitude more power and storage than they did back in the days when some of
us were dual-booting 386/33s. Can it put to any good use other than the
obvious, and in ways that can make us more productive?

There was actually quite a bit of work that was done with virtual PCs back
in the days of Windows 386 though the virtual machines were limited to
character mode DOS.

[John Williamson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in
message

I'm wondering why the
fascination recently with virtual machines unless you
*need* to run two systems simultaneously, say to do your
office work on Vista while you're rendering video on XP,
or running a Windows 95 game on a Vista box. Even then,
it's not ideal for any application that has to run in
real time, such as recording or playback, as the
processor, memory and buses are still shared and there is
the added overhead of the virtualisation.

I've had some pretty good experiences with audio playback on a VM.

And multi-channel recording? That's where bus timings can get a bit
tight. I can comfortably play back and mix 8 channels of 16bit, 44.1KHz
sound using a Pentium II 300MHz processor with a 66MHz bus. I needed an
800MHz processor with a faster bus to record them without glitching. Of
course, modern systems will cope with dozens of tracks, but I get
satisfaction from using the least effort possible to do a job.

For best performance and compatibility, why not dual boot
for full native performance on all the systems and accept
the reboot delay when changing systems?

You sort of answered your own question: Time and convenience.

How often do you change systems, and how many programs do you use that
won't run on Vista or 7 that will run on XP? The reboot delay is just
about long enough to get that coffee from the machine that you promised
yourself, IME.

I've also had a PC with the drive master/slave pins wired to a switch.

I never needed to go that far, but okay. I prefer caddy swapping,
though, as there is then no chance of an OS fouling up any other OS, as
the HD is not physically there. Personal preference and paranoia.

The HD space required is the same in any case, and you
don't get the inevitable slowdown and possible hardware
problems caused by the virtualisation.

I don't think that it is any secret that PCs have several orders of
magnitude more power and storage than they did back in the days when some of
us were dual-booting 386/33s. Can it put to any good use other than the
obvious, and in ways that can make us more productive?

I suspect that we reached the limit of how fast the user can use the
peripherals and understand the output quite a while ago. I find that
using DVD quality video, for instance, a reasonable (Last year's model)
computer can render to MPEG2 faster from a couple of mixed streams than
I can watch it.

Virtualisation, IMO, is useful in circumstances where you have multiple
users doing things at the same time, or you must use two programs at the
same time on incompatible OS's, otherwise, you can more efficiently
multitask in one OS. I'd agree that having a number of VMs on one box
makes sense in a situation with many users, but for a single user I
don't see the point, unless you're just trying to prove that it can be done.

If you're trying a new system out, then it makes even more sense not to
use virtualisation, as it's hard to be certain whether a particular
problem is in the OS or the VM.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

John Williamson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"anahata" wrote in message
o.uk

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:22:20 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't know of any virtual machine products that allow
you to virtually boot a hard drive.

Either you've never seen VMware, or I've totally
misunderstood that statement.

I've been using VMWare, but until just now I found that the only hard
drives it boots directly are virtual. That impression comes from
running the documentation that comes with the relevant products.

You're right though - it is possible to boot a physical drive and I
thank you for the tip.

The process of booting a real partition is not nearly as obvious as
you seem to want to make it out to be.

It's described he

http://www.vmware.com/support/ws55/d..._dualboot.html

Which says:

"Setting up a physical disk configuration for a virtual machine is
more complicated than using a virtual disk. Virtual disks are
recommended unless you have a specific need to run directly from a
physical disk or partition. "

I wouldn't recommend booting a real drive for which a solid, very
recent backup does not exist.

One of the ways a VMware VM can start is to boot from a
real bootable HD partition.

So it seems, but with a number of caveats and with some tips and
techniques required.

Having the HD simulated in a file on the host system is another way,
but not the only way.

Again, this is the sort of thing that is not obvious from running the
software (which I have been doing) or reading the basic user
operations documentation. Your initial comment is stated in a rather
self-aggrandizing, insulting sort of way.

Slightly off topic for the thread, I'm wondering why the fascination
recently with virtual machines unless you *need* to run two systems
simultaneously, say to do your office work on Vista while you're
rendering video on XP, or running a Windows 95 game on a Vista box. Even
then, it's not ideal for any application that has to run in real time,
such as recording or playback, as the processor, memory and buses are
still shared and there is the added overhead of the virtualisation.


It buys insulation from hardware which causes software
to go obsolete. That is exactly why I am interested in it.
I use stuff that originally ran on Win3.1 that runs
great on XP, and I'm interested in continuing to use
that software, at least until I can migrate the data to
Linux apps. That migration may need never happen.

Don't say "well, just upgrade" - you can't. And I'm
off the upgrade treadmill for good this way. Once I found
out that Win7 Home 64 does not offer native support for 32 bit
operation, the die was cast. Besides, I'd be running
a VM to run the 32 bit stuff anyway...

For best performance and compatibility, why not dual boot for full
native performance on all the systems and accept the reboot delay when
changing systems? I know Vista and XP, not to mention Linux, can all
live their own independent lives on the same HD while still happily
sharing data, after all, that's what I do on this laptop. Or, an older
trick is to put your OS and programs on one HD, your Data on another,
and put the OS HD(s) in a caddy.


I run XP on a virtual image at work ( admittedly on a Xeon
workstation ) and there's no apparent overhead.

The HD space required is the same in any case, and you don't get the
inevitable slowdown and possible hardware problems caused by the
virtualisation.

Just a thought....

I don't have any data on slowdown from virtualization, but the
stuff I run on a WinXP image on a RedHat box doesn't seem to be in
bad shape at all. Again, it's a honking big Xeon box, but I'll
risk it.

--
Les Cargill

[Arny Krueger]

"John Williamson" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote
in message

I'm wondering why the
fascination recently with virtual machines unless you
*need* to run two systems simultaneously, say to do your
office work on Vista while you're rendering video on XP,
or running a Windows 95 game on a Vista box. Even then,
it's not ideal for any application that has to run in
real time, such as recording or playback, as the
processor, memory and buses are still shared and there
is the added overhead of the virtualisation.

I've had some pretty good experiences with audio
playback on a VM.

And multi-channel recording?

Something to be investigated.

That's where bus timings can
get a bit tight. I can comfortably play back and mix 8 channels of
16bit, 44.1KHz sound using a Pentium II 300MHz processor
with a 66MHz bus.

I've done similar things, but with a 666 MHz P3, if memory serves.

I needed an 800MHz processor with a
faster bus to record them without glitching.

I used the 66 MHz P3 for that, as well. I was able to get up to 12 channels
if memory served. I was having no problems there, but upgraded the system
when I went to 28 channels for other reasons.

These things depend on the audio interface being used, as well.

Of course,
modern systems will cope with dozens of tracks, but I get
satisfaction from using the least effort possible to do a
job.

Like I said, something to be investigated.

For best performance and compatibility, why not dual
boot for full native performance on all the systems and
accept the reboot delay when changing systems?

You sort of answered your own question: Time and
convenience.

How often do you change systems, and how many programs do
you use that won't run on Vista or 7 that will run on XP?

The reason for the virtual machine operation is for the benefit of people
who are intimidated by the Windows 7 desktop, or the prospect of
reinstalling all of their applications right up front. The virtual machine
is for their convenience. Rebooting the machine every time they want to go
backward or forward is not what most people would call convenience.

The reboot delay is just about long enough to get that coffee from the
machine
that you promised yourself, IME.

The only thing better than a quick reboot is no reboot at all, wouldn't you
say?


The HD space required is the same in any case, and you
don't get the inevitable slowdown and possible hardware
problems caused by the virtualisation.

Actually, the HD space is somewhat optional on virtual machines that apply
various strategies for compression. A common feature is a dynamically sized
virtual hard drive that expands as needed, but consumes no disk space for
empty space.

I don't think that it is any secret that PCs have
several orders of magnitude more power and storage than
they did back in the days when some of us were
dual-booting 386/33s. Can it put to any good use other
than the obvious, and in ways that can make us more
productive?

I suspect that we reached the limit of how fast the user
can use the peripherals and understand the output quite a
while ago. I find that using DVD quality video, for instance, a reasonable
(Last
year's model) computer can render to MPEG2 faster from a
couple of mixed streams than I can watch it.

Then we agree about that.

Virtualisation, IMO, is useful in circumstances where you
have multiple users doing things at the same time, or you
must use two programs at the same time on incompatible
OS's, otherwise, you can more efficiently multitask in
one OS. I'd agree that having a number of VMs on one box makes sense in a
situation with many users, but for a
single user I don't see the point, unless you're just trying to prove
that it can be done.

Those are all good reasons for virtualization, but they may not be all
possible ones.

If you're trying a new system out, then it makes even
more sense not to use virtualisation, as it's hard to be certain whether
a
particular problem is in the OS or the VM.

I've used virtual machines for checking out hard drives for non-working real
machines, and had good results.

I'm sure that virtual machines are far from perfect, but they are obviously
very capable for many applications.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"anahata" wrote in message
o.uk

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:22:20 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't know of any virtual machine products that allow
you to virtually boot a hard drive.

Either you've never seen VMware, or I've totally
misunderstood that statement.

I've been using VMWare, but until just now I found that the only hard drives
it boots directly are virtual. That impression comes from running the
documentation that comes with the relevant products.

You're right though - it is possible to boot a physical drive and I thank
you for the tip.

The process of booting a real partition is not nearly as obvious as you seem
to want to make it out to be.

It's described he

http://www.vmware.com/support/ws55/d..._dualboot.html

Which says:

"Setting up a physical disk configuration for a virtual machine is more
complicated than using a virtual disk. Virtual disks are recommended unless
you have a specific need to run directly from a physical disk or partition.
"

I wouldn't recommend booting a real drive for which a solid, very recent
backup does not exist.

One of the ways a VMware VM can start is to boot from a
real bootable HD partition.

So it seems, but with a number of caveats and with some tips and techniques
required.

Having the HD simulated in a file on the host system is another way, but
not the only way.

Again, this is the sort of thing that is not obvious from running the
software (which I have been doing) or reading the basic user operations
documentation.

Two posts back I was on the verge of telling you that I love it when you
talk like that - respectfully from a position of knowledge.

But I held off...

Your initial comment is stated in a rather
self-aggrandizing, insulting sort of way.

And then you ****ed it all up.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Anahata]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:05:30 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
Your initial comment is stated in a rather
self-aggrandizing, insulting sort of way.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be.

My view may be skewed by the fact that my first (and only extensive)
experience of VMWare was on a dual boot machine (Windows + Linux) where
one OS became the host for the other and VM booted from the real HD
partition, despite VMWare's warnings.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message


And then you ****ed it all up.

Not nearly as badly as you just did, Hank.

What a busybody you are, for someone who supposedly has a life.

Nothing to do but jump into other people's screw-ups.

In public, yet.

Sad.

[Arny Krueger]

"Anahata" wrote in message

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:05:30 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

Your initial comment is stated in a rather
self-aggrandizing, insulting sort of way.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be.

OK.

My view may be skewed by the fact that my first (and only
extensive) experience of VMWare was on a dual boot
machine (Windows + Linux) where one OS became the host
for the other and VM booted from the real HD partition,
despite VMWare's warnings.

Do you remember how you got that working?

Was it by reading the first page of the VMWare userumentation for the
software?

Or, did you have to read the whole thing, including appendices?

Did you get it working by just following the menus?

Did someone give you relevant advice?

Or, did you have do some searching around, or try some stuff that failed and
get more advice until it worked?

Here's my concern. If people are harshly criticized for reporting their
experiences, why would they bother to post here? Or, is this supposed to be
a forum for experts only?

[Sean Conolly]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Virtualisation, IMO, is useful in circumstances where you have multiple
users doing things at the same time, or you must use two programs at the
same time on incompatible OS's, otherwise, you can more efficiently
multitask in one OS. I'd agree that having a number of VMs on one box
makes sense in a situation with many users, but for a single user I don't
see the point, unless you're just trying to prove that it can be done.

If you're trying a new system out, then it makes even more sense not to
use virtualisation, as it's hard to be certain whether a particular
problem is in the OS or the VM.

Well, there's also portability to consider. With a purely virtual OS install
I can move the image to another system, which is nice when it comes time to
upgrade the CPU/MB.

And that's not just to spare the time needed to do an OS install, either. I
have several applications installed which were over $5K each, and they are
keyed to that installation. If you don't have the CDs or keys at hand that
can be very time consuming.

If you combine a virtual system with and underlying storage that supports
snapshots (i.e. copy on write), you can easily set a restore point for the
OS image before making a change, without waiting for anything to be copied.
How often would you back up your system if you didn't have to go offline for
an hour to do it?

Another plus is to have a 'disposable' VM for internet access, without
exposing your core system to virusii and malware.

Sean

[Anahata]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:40:29 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

Do you remember how you got that working?

Unfortunately not. It was nearly 10 years ago in a software development
house where the product (a web browser) needed to be tested on either
platform (at the time, Red Hat and Windows NT). Many developers installed
VMWare on their standard-issue dual boot systems and no doubt I got some
help from others who'd already done it. Once up and running it just
worked and was very impressive.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Arny Krueger]

"Anahata" wrote in message
o.uk
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:40:29 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

Do you remember how you got that working?

Unfortunately not. It was nearly 10 years ago in a
software development house where the product (a web
browser) needed to be tested on either platform (at the
time, Red Hat and Windows NT). Many developers installed
VMWare on their standard-issue dual boot systems and no
doubt I got some help from others who'd already done it.
Once up and running it just worked and was very
impressive.

Is it possible that booting off of real hardware was simply much more
prevalent in those days? If memory serves, back in Y2K common hard drive
sizes were on the order of a few dozen gigabytes or less. A fully
operational bootable, operational system would make a big dent in one. Lots
of justification for one drive equals one system.

Today they sell terabyte drives in office supply stores cheek-to-jowl with
paper clips. I stack up full backups of my own and customer machines in a
subfolder of My Documents on a terabyte drive. Hope I don't forget where
they are... ;-)