dencorso Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 If the idea is to run 16-bit Windows and DOS applications, a VM running Win 98SE should better than 2k for doing just that. And lightier, too.
NoelC Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Sure, but I'll bet void* is more used to using Win 2000. The point is, with a virtualization system you can run any and all systems you want (within licensing limitations of course). -Noel
jaclaz Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 If the idea is to run 16-bit Windows and DOS applications, a VM running Win 98SE should better than 2k for doing just that. And lightier, too. Sure, but I'll bet void* is more used to using Win 2000. The point is, with a virtualization system you can run any and all systems you want (within licensing limitations of course). But, the question is "How to run the Oxford Hachette thingy I own in the stupid OS I am running now?" It is not really a "generic" virtualization question, given that a VM is slower than the "natively booted" OS and that the virtualized OS would be in this particular case only the means to run a single, specific tool, the simpler the OS in the VM is, the faster the Oxford Hachette will load. All the rest, every single byte, every single additional feature of a newer (or better) OS that is not used to load the Oxford Hachette thingy is unneeded and would (even if "how much exactly" would of course need to be measured) only slow down the user experience, in this particular case, as nothing will be actually done (except running the dictionary) inside the VM. The VM itself will need less memory (which is subtracted from the memory of the machine), the OS image will take less space on the hard disk, etc., etc., only to give a reference these are the default VM RAM settings in Qemu Manager:Windows 95 32 MbWindows NT 64 MbWindows 98 64 MbWindows 2k 128 MbWindowsXP 256 MbWindows Vista 1024which are the mimimum OS requirements and should really-really be doubled to make the VM faster. A "normal install" of Windows 3.x would be running more than OK with 8 Mb or RAM from a disk image 16 Mb or less ( a Minibox will use a much smaller image of course). Still "normal installs" (without reducing source, or removing unused apps and subsystems, etc.) typical HD base space requirements (please read as minimum size of the disk image): Windows 95 60 MbWindows NT 150 MbWindows 98 200 MbWindows 2k 800 MbWindowsXP 1800 MbWindows Vista 16000 Mb jaclaz
NoelC Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I felt the thread had moved on beyond the original point and into more general territory. Kind of a "I need to put together a scratching post, which hammer should I get?" drifting to a "The Swiss Army Hammer has many great uses" kind of response... Sorry if it's forbidden to go off topic. -Noel
jaclaz Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Sorry if it's forbidden to go off topic.Naah, no need to be sorry , it is not really "forbidden" to go off-topic, if you go off-topic in good faith the most you might get is a stern look of disapproval , and after all it was the OP that steered it into "what runs not on my system" .... jaclaz
dencorso Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Sure, but I'll bet void* is more used to using Win 2000. Well, in any case, it seems to me our friend void* isn't much interested in participating in any of the multiple threads he opens when he decides to pay us a visit. Sorry if it's forbidden to go off topic. We do go off-topic very often, as you know... I did return to the 9x point because I do feel for most uses 95c or 98SE should be at the perfect balance between functionality and size. And because 95c+ is much more stable and reliable than 3.x... As always, just my 2¢, so, in a way, I'm too venturing off-topic, isn't it?
pointertovoid Posted June 14, 2015 Author Posted June 14, 2015 Be reassured I'm interested in participating! It's just that I do too many things in parallel. Just checking what runs or not on Seven took me a day. Discovering the added protections on Seven, the Xp mode and the Dos Box, trying to assess what Paint Shop Pro and Oxford-Hachette do wrong - that's an awful lot of new information. Add that my new installation of Xp is already bricked, that my Internet data volume was exhausted, plus all the normal (I mean, computer unrelated) acitivites...
pointertovoid Posted September 24, 2016 Author Posted September 24, 2016 On 10/6/2015 at 5:18 PM, pointertovoid said: I had begun to imagine that Windows could sandbox the applications that modify files or keys they shouldn't: say, Paint Shop Pro would modify freely its own excerpt of [Hklm], find the values again next time, but leave the common ones untouched. Though, this has drawbacks: for instance the associations of file extensions cannot be local to one application. Maybe someone would be wiling to program it if Microsoft doesn't? If it's only a matter of the application fiddling with [HKLocalMachine], maybe a dll added near the application could intercept the calls by the application and redirect them to a local equivalent of [HKLM] where the application finds its data back and 7-64 doesn't complain? Runasdate succeeds in a similar function on 7-64 too.
NoelC Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 And store the data in an .ini file! I like it! -Noel
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now