If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 For Macintosh OS is here
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message ... "Jon Danniken" wrote in message ... If it was me, I would install VirtualBox and install it in there. It's a great place to test all types of different operating systems, from Windows to Linux, and even Macintosh. Where could you get a Macintosh OS? Online or buy it from Apple? That's how much I know about them. Bill Microsoft for Apple's http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=14201 More Info links http://www.bing.com/search?form=MSHP... ac&mkt=en-us Have a good Day |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message ... "BillW50" wrote in message ... On 8/14/2014 4:39 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote: "Jon Danniken" wrote in message ... If it was me, I would install VirtualBox and install it in there. It's a great place to test all types of different operating systems, from Windows to Linux, and even Macintosh. Where could you get a Macintosh OS? Online or buy it from Apple? That's how much I know about them. I am sure this is old school, but this is what I know. Apple like Commodore didn't care whatsoever if you pirated their operating system. Commodore even wrote applications and they didn't care if you pirated them either. As Commodore claimed they were in the hardware business and only wrote OS and applications to support their hardware. What you did with them is up to you. Apple viewed it the same way with their OS. They just didn't care. That is unless you crossed that line and were using them on non theirs hardware (same with Commodore). Now they have a huge problem and don't like that one bit. Both Apple and Commodore went after ones that targeted non their machines and won easily. So what I am saying in the end, as you don't qualify owing the OS unless through a hardware purchase, I don't think it is legal through any other means. I see. Of course though Linux Distros come with no hardware but I guess you would abide by a copyleft agreement or the distros agreement. I remember the old VIC20s and C64s. There wasn't an OS there if I remember. Just a Basic Interpreter burned onto ROM. Bill Linux set up run good on VirtualBox was by SunJava it at oracle on but free http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/se...ads/index.html But Linux OS Runs Poor on a Virtual PC 2007 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/15/2014 4:17 PM, Paul wrote:
Bill Cunningham wrote: "Paul" wrote in message ... Sure it will. Success. http://i58.tinypic.com/1xx79j.gif I have a good idea what happened. [snip] I have no SP3 out for my XP. I'm pretty sure. I have XP Pro. x64 Edition. Now my computer came with XP MCE SP2. But the CDs are not working on that. They must be scratched. So all I have is my x64 XP CD. And a SP2 update. Bill You'll need to check the nlite site, to see if it supports x64 or not. And then, if it does, slipstream in the SP2 .exe file. Yes isn't that odd? Why is there no SP3 for XP x64? Did Microsoft drop support for it before SP3 came out or what? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/15/2014 2:28 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message ... Sure it will. Success. http://i58.tinypic.com/1xx79j.gif I have a good idea what happened. [snip] I have no SP3 out for my XP. I'm pretty sure. I have XP Pro. x64 Edition. Now my computer came with XP MCE SP2. But the CDs are not working on that. They must be scratched. So all I have is my x64 XP CD. And a SP2 update. Is it one of those name brand computers? And it came with XP MCE SP2 x86 originally? And XP x64 versions are rare and I bet drivers must be very hard to find for it. Where did you get that version? And how is it for Windows compatibility in general? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
BillW50 wrote:
On 8/15/2014 4:17 PM, Paul wrote: Bill Cunningham wrote: "Paul" wrote in message ... Sure it will. Success. http://i58.tinypic.com/1xx79j.gif I have a good idea what happened. [snip] I have no SP3 out for my XP. I'm pretty sure. I have XP Pro. x64 Edition. Now my computer came with XP MCE SP2. But the CDs are not working on that. They must be scratched. So all I have is my x64 XP CD. And a SP2 update. Bill You'll need to check the nlite site, to see if it supports x64 or not. And then, if it does, slipstream in the SP2 .exe file. Yes isn't that odd? Why is there no SP3 for XP x64? Did Microsoft drop support for it before SP3 came out or what? You can roll out a single Service Pack, or use regular security updates to achieve the same effect. I'm sure the x64 OS received some attention. Just not the way we as users would like it. You could use wsusoffline to study what was released for the OS. That would be one way to examine it, and see what was offered. Whether support stopped prematurely or not. Paul |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP Use Two Hard Drives
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message ... "BillW50" wrote in message ... Windows 98SE is stuck with only using the first 128GB of the drive. So it must be within this first part and can't see further than this. I believe there are hacks around this problem if you need more. What kind of hacks? Bill There is a hacks around this problem it's Call Use Step-up-One Two Hard Drives Plug in your XP Hard Drives as Master Plug In New Hard Drives as Slave Step-up-Two Start up Computer Boot to XP In XP Go To Start Control Panel Switch to Classic View Administrative Tools Computer Management Storage Disk Management you will see Disk 0 and Disk 1 Step-up-Three |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: 98 Guy "using an old OS on XP"
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message ... "BillW50" wrote in message ... Hi Bill, Windows 98SE needs a FAT partition I believe. Did you set up a FAT partition for it? It might also need that partition being within the first 120GB of the drive. Setting up dualboot is indeed possible, but the installer will likely setup it up all wrong if you install an older Windows version last. But it is indeed fixable. The thing is installing XP as a fresh install will absolutely not let me format c: with FAT32. It will only let me format with NTFS. I have another partinio that is FAT32. I don't know what MS has against fat32 now, ntfs is fine but I like fat32 too. And it's more universal. Which OS has to be installed first? I can't reformat a mounted partition either of course. Bill |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
"BillW50" wrote in message ... Is it one of those name brand computers? And it came with XP MCE SP2 x86 originally? And XP x64 versions are rare and I bet drivers must be very hard to find for it. Where did you get that version? And how is it for Windows compatibility in general? I had some money back then. About 10 years ago and I bought a top of the line emachine. So I think it's a gateway built machine. AMD 64 Athlon 3500+. And cme with a 32 bit OS. I later bought x64 Pro XP edition. Bill |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
"Bill in Co" wrote in message m... Bill Cunningham wrote: I tried a partition the 120 and 140 GB sizes and by golly XP gave me an option to install fat32. Now if one expanded that partition if they wanted to, would they need to reformat the fat32 partition? Bill There are some programs that will allow you to resize existing partition(s) and still preserve the data (on each), without requiring a new reformat (destroying any existent data on that partition). Is that what you meant? I think the good (and free) Easeus Partition Manager will allow that, too. Yes but it's not allowing me to merge. I use Parted magic too. Now at one time I had a copy of Partition magic and it's the one software I know of that would convert an NTFS to a FAT32. Why would someone want to do that? Because they want too. That's what I like about FSF and the freesoftware movement. Freedom to do those kind of things and not have someone telling you "You use NTFS, you can't use FAT32." Bill |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I know this is about XP and I have XP x64 Pro edition. I would like to create a small partition to install win98se onto for fun and nostalgia If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion? BillW50 wrote: XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the partition is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first, dualboot should work just fine. Yes, win-9x/me needs to be installed first on a multi-OS drive, unless you're willing to mess around with a boot manager. And yes, XP was intentionally handicapped by Macro$haft so it can't create FAT32 volumes larger than 32 gb. Booting a system with a DOS floppy with format and fdisk on it is the easiest way to format or partition a hard drive to include a large FAT32 volume. Bill Cunningham wrote: Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition? The 32-bit IDE driver for win-98 (ESDI_506.PDR) has a design flaw that prevents it from handling hard drives larger than 137 gb. This is the same flaw that the first release of XP had back in 2001. The flaw was fixed in SP-1 for XP, but Macro$haft never released a fix for 98. As has been mentioned already, win-98 enthusiasts have create a patch for this a long time ago. But also note that Intel has a patch for a long time as well (for certain chipsets of the 800-series). Also note that if you use a SATA hard drive (in SATA mode, not IDE-emulation mode) then win-98 will be using the sata driver, not ESDI_506.PDR to access the drive, meaning that win-98 is compatible with drives up to 2 tb in size. Paul wrote: Is FAT32 "efficient" on a 2TB partition ? Not really. Actually, it probably is. Micro$haft designed their FAT-32 format programs to scale up the cluster-size along with hard-drive size in order to keep the total number of allocation units to 2 million or less. Format.com has a /Z command-line switch that allows you to specify an alternate cluster size - but it doesn't work. Having large clusters (either 32 or 64 kb) is not necessarily wasteful on a volume where you primarily store large files (media files, for example). I've used hard-drive formatting tools supplied by drive makers (like Seagate, WD, etc) to format FAT32 volumes using custom cluster-sizes in order to get around the intentional custer-size strategy that Micro$oft designed into format.com. For example, I've installed win-98se on a 500 gb sata hard drive that was formatted as a single volume with 4kb cluster size (same as any NT-based OS would do). This resulted in about 125 million allocation units (far beyond what Macro$haft claimed was possible for either DOS or Win-98 to handle). BillW50 wrote: Windows 98SE is stuck with only using the first 128GB of the drive. That's true only if: 1) the drive is IDE and you choose not to use the above-mentioned community-developed patch, or 2) the drive is IDE and you have a specified motherboard and choose not to use the 32-bit replacement IDE driver from the Intel application accelerator package, or 3) the drive is SATA and you choose to not use the drive in native SATA mode with a compatible win-98 SATA driver One of my win-98 systems has, for example, a 1.5 tb and 750 gb sata hard drive (each formatted as a single FAT32 volume) connected along with a smaller 80 gb IDE drive. BillW50 wrote: Enable48BitLBA - Break the 137Gb barrier! - Windows 9x Member Projects http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/7859...137gb-barrier/ Yes, that is the community-developed replacement for the original ESDI_506.PDR file. Paul wrote: Making sure that no partition gets near the 137GB mark The point with the 137 gb problem is that you can't solve it by simply keeping all volumes smaller than 137 gb. On a single physical drive, win-9x/me will simply not be able to correctly access any sector beyond the 137 gb point, no matter how the drive is partitioned or how the volumes are sized. Again, that only applies if win-98 is using the default 32-bit IDE driver (ESDI_506.PDR) to access the drive. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP
98 Guy wrote:
Paul wrote: Is FAT32 "efficient" on a 2TB partition ? Not really. Actually, it probably is. Micro$haft designed their FAT-32 format programs to scale up the cluster-size along with hard-drive size in order to keep the total number of allocation units to 2 million or less. Format.com has a /Z command-line switch that allows you to specify an alternate cluster size - but it doesn't work. Having large clusters (either 32 or 64 kb) is not necessarily wasteful on a volume where you primarily store large files (media files, for example). I've used hard-drive formatting tools supplied by drive makers (like Seagate, WD, etc) to format FAT32 volumes using custom cluster-sizes in order to get around the intentional custer-size strategy that Micro$oft designed into format.com. For example, I've installed win-98se on a 500 gb sata hard drive that was formatted as a single volume with 4kb cluster size (same as any NT-based OS would do). This resulted in about 125 million allocation units (far beyond what Macro$haft claimed was possible for either DOS or Win-98 to handle). I would expect the size of the FAT is a bit of an issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_...cation_Tabl e "Because each FAT32 entry occupies 32 bits (4 bytes) the maximal number of clusters (268435444) requires..." 1073741776 bytes or a gigabyte of RAM to hold the whole FAT. How many of those could you have sloshing around, without needing to re-read the FAT ? That's got to have some impact. Win98 has some funny address space limitations I don't understand, so a FAT that big might even cause problems with the dimensions of some of the addressing. I've not tested this, mainly because I wouldn't recommend it as a configuration to anyone. It would be fun to test, but I don't have a spare disk that size which is completely empty. Paul |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP
"Paul" wrote in message ... 98 Guy wrote: Paul wrote: Is FAT32 "efficient" on a 2TB partition ? Not really. Actually, it probably is. Micro$haft designed their FAT-32 format programs to scale up the cluster-size along with hard-drive size in order to keep the total number of allocation units to 2 million or less. Format.com has a /Z command-line switch that allows you to specify an alternate cluster size - but it doesn't work. Having large clusters (either 32 or 64 kb) is not necessarily wasteful on a volume where you primarily store large files (media files, for example). I've used hard-drive formatting tools supplied by drive makers (like Seagate, WD, etc) to format FAT32 volumes using custom cluster-sizes in order to get around the intentional custer-size strategy that Micro$oft designed into format.com. For example, I've installed win-98se on a 500 gb sata hard drive that was formatted as a single volume with 4kb cluster size (same as any NT-based OS would do). This resulted in about 125 million allocation units (far beyond what Macro$haft claimed was possible for either DOS or Win-98 to handle). I would expect the size of the FAT is a bit of an issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_...cation_Tabl e "Because each FAT32 entry occupies 32 bits (4 bytes) the maximal number of clusters (268435444) requires..." 1073741776 bytes or a gigabyte of RAM to hold the whole FAT. How many of those could you have sloshing around, without needing to re-read the FAT ? That's got to have some impact. Win98 has some funny address space limitations I don't understand, so a FAT that big might even cause problems with the dimensions of some of the addressing. I've not tested this, mainly because I wouldn't recommend it as a configuration to anyone. It would be fun to test, but I don't have a spare disk that size which is completely empty. Paul I have talked to others about the possibility of a FAT64. They say they don't think it would be practical. MS does have this exFat thing that must be an extension. Bill |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP
"98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message ... If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion? Wow I just found out about this group. I always liked 98. It was DOS with windows. Now Windows has a "fake" DOS, basically a CLI or DOS box. I can't get my 98se to boot and I think I now know why. I had a genuine win98se CD years ago. Now I don't know where it's at and I have a copy of it I burned. I must not have made the CD-R bootable. I'm not sure what to do now. Bill |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I'm not sure what to do now. I've never installed from CD. With current drives sizes I've copied the CD to a folder on one of the partitions and used a floppy disk to boot and run the installation from the HD drive. If you've no longer got a floppy drive any other bootable CD ought to suffice to give you a DOS prompt and HD access too. This helps with the "insert installation CD" messages later and also allows editing the /WIN98/MABATCH.INF [Setup] InstallDir="e:\WINBUNT" InstallType=3 ProductKey="12345-67890-abcdef-ghijk-lmnop" NoPrompt2Boot=1 Axel |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
... "98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message ... If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion? Wow I just found out about this group. I always liked 98. It was DOS with windows. Now Windows has a "fake" DOS, basically a CLI or DOS box. I can't get my 98se to boot and I think I now know why. I had a genuine win98se CD years ago. Now I don't know where it's at and I have a copy of it I burned. I must not have made the CD-R bootable. I'm not sure what to do now. Bill I have a Genuine windows 98 se CD too That have to run in windows 98 fe But there is a work around to it By adding win98 boot to your CD-R bootable I would use http://www.deepburner.com/ The Free will do the job |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|