XYplorer Beta Club

admin wrote: I have AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual (1GB RAM). So that's ok I assume (if I add another GB of RAM).

The processor should be fine. If your motherboard and your budget allow it, I'd bump the RAM up to 4 GB, however.

admin wrote:@nas8e9: Why is a USB disk not enough, just because of speed?

Part I/O speed, part CPU usage (USB, especially on older PC's, depends on the CPU as well).

If you have both a connector (SATA or IDE) as well as a drive bay spare in you current computer, I'd recommend getting a small (> 250 GB) second internal HD. Alternatively, if you have an eSATA connector on your MB, you could attach an eSATA HD.

zer0 wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:Cheapskate question: that applies to the (free!) VMware Player as well? (I do try to search for these things, but VMware's website is not terribly forthcoming.)

Yes, as long as you use VMware Player for personal, non-commercial purposes

The only possible downside of VMware Player vs. VMware Workstation (other than that license thingie... ) is that Player doesn't support making snapshots, i.e. if you mess the VM up, you're in the same situation as with a physical OS installation: repair or reinstall.

admin wrote:I have AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual (1GB RAM). So that's ok I assume (if I add another GB of RAM).

Not if you go down the VMware route. You need to add up memory requirements of host and guest Operating Systems, as well as any and all applications that run/will run on both. You have 1GB already, Win 7 64-bit requires 2GB minimum. Even if you add enough to make it 4GB physical RAM, Windows will take a chunk for the "address space" of components. It's definitely pushing it in terms of resources...

VirtualBox also has the ability to run 64-bit guest OS's on 32-bit host OS's. Furthermore, it can be used commercially by a one-man operation (IANAL however; please see this) and it supports snapshots.

Both VMware (Player (free) and Workstation ($ 189,-)) as well as VirtualBox (free or $ 50,- for a perpetual commercial license) have trial versions. I'd try VirtualBox first, given that it's free to use for you.

nas8e9 wrote:VirtualBox also has the ability to run 64-bit guest OS's on 32-bit host OS's.

One would need to enable "Hardware Virtualization" in the BIOS for VirtualBox to function correctly. This can be done in the BIOS, if such functionality is provided by installed hardware.

zer0 wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:VirtualBox also has the ability to run 64-bit guest OS's on 32-bit host OS's.

One would need to enable "Hardware Virtualization" in the BIOS for VirtualBox to function correctly. This can be done in the BIOS, if such functionality is provided by installed hardware.

Presumably also for VMware to enable running a 64-bit guest OS on a 32-bit host OS?

nas8e9 wrote:

zer0 wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:VirtualBox also has the ability to run 64-bit guest OS's on 32-bit host OS's.

One would need to enable "Hardware Virtualization" in the BIOS for VirtualBox to function correctly. This can be done in the BIOS, if such functionality is provided by installed hardware.

Presumably also for VMware to enable running a 64-bit guest OS on a 32-bit host OS?

I'd enable it, just in case, but as far as I know there is no requirement to have hardware virtualization enabled to run 64-bit guest. Also, VMware provide a handy utility to check whether your CPU is "good enough" to be supported: http://download3.vmware.com/software/wk ... -18463.exe

zer0 wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:

zer0 wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:VirtualBox also has the ability to run 64-bit guest OS's on 32-bit host OS's.

One would need to enable "Hardware Virtualization" in the BIOS for VirtualBox to function correctly. This can be done in the BIOS, if such functionality is provided by installed hardware.

Presumably also for VMware to enable running a 64-bit guest OS on a 32-bit host OS?

I'd enable it, just in case, but as far as I know there is no requirement to have hardware virtualization enabled to run 64-bit guest. Also, VMware provide a handy utility to check whether your CPU is "good enough" to be supported: http://download3.vmware.com/software/wk ... -18463.exe

Thanks! Good news for me:

---------------------------
VMware 64-bit Compatibility Check Passed
---------------------------
This host is capable of running a 64-bit guest operating system under this
VMware product.

So I assume it would also work for VirtualBox.

admin wrote:

---------------------------
VMware 64-bit Compatibility Check Passed
---------------------------
This host is capable of running a 64-bit guest operating system under this
VMware product.

So I assume it would also work for VirtualBox.

I'd try it out after checking in the BIOS whether hardware virtualization is enabled. It's a bit difficult to say for sure from a distance without knowing your exact MB and CPU type and revision. If a 64-bit Windows 7 installation ISO (much faster) or physical DVD boots correctly to the Setup screen, it's working. I'd wait with a full-blown installation until that memory and HD thing is resolved, however .

Do be careful when creating a new VM in VirtualBox to indicate that you want to run a 64-bit Windows 7 installation; this sets some highly technical options. It can be corrected afterwards if you don't indicate it, but it's much easier to let the wizard set things for you.

nas8e9 wrote:

admin wrote: I have AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual (1GB RAM). So that's ok I assume (if I add another GB of RAM).

The processor should be fine. If your motherboard and your budget allow it, I'd bump the RAM up to 4 GB, however.

admin wrote:@nas8e9: Why is a USB disk not enough, just because of speed?

Part I/O speed, part CPU usage (USB, especially on older PC's, depends on the CPU as well).

If you have both a connector (SATA or IDE) as well as a drive bay spare in you current computer, I'd recommend getting a small (> 250 GB) second internal HD. Alternatively, if you have an eSATA connector on your MB, you could attach an eSATA HD.

motherboard = MSI K9N6SGM-V, mATX

I currently have no free SATA left (HD + DVD/CD Reader are here already) but one IDE is free. My current HD is only 150 GB, so I guess a bigger second one won't harm. A eSATA connector is not mentioned in the motherboard description.

Or is it preferable to get an new IDE DVD/CD Reader (dump the SATA one) and get a SATA HD?

admin wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:

admin wrote: I have AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual (1GB RAM). So that's ok I assume (if I add another GB of RAM).

The processor should be fine. If your motherboard and your budget allow it, I'd bump the RAM up to 4 GB, however.

admin wrote:@nas8e9: Why is a USB disk not enough, just because of speed?

Part I/O speed, part CPU usage (USB, especially on older PC's, depends on the CPU as well).

If you have both a connector (SATA or IDE) as well as a drive bay spare in you current computer, I'd recommend getting a small (> 250 GB) second internal HD. Alternatively, if you have an eSATA connector on your MB, you could attach an eSATA HD.

motherboard = MSI K9N6SGM-V, mATX

I currently have no free SATA left (HD + DVD/CD Reader are here already) but one IDE is free. My current HD is only 150 GB, so I guess a bigger second one won't harm. A eSATA connector is not mentioned in the motherboard description.

Or is it preferable to get an new IDE DVD/CD Reader (dump the SATA one) and get a SATA HD?

I'd get a second SATA HD and an IDE DVD-CD drive. I see from the MB specs that you're limited to 2 GB of RAM no matter what. Pity!

OT, but amazing that you get so much done with in certain respects limited hardware!

nas8e9 wrote:

admin wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:

admin wrote: I have AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual (1GB RAM). So that's ok I assume (if I add another GB of RAM).

The processor should be fine. If your motherboard and your budget allow it, I'd bump the RAM up to 4 GB, however.

admin wrote:@nas8e9: Why is a USB disk not enough, just because of speed?

Part I/O speed, part CPU usage (USB, especially on older PC's, depends on the CPU as well).

If you have both a connector (SATA or IDE) as well as a drive bay spare in you current computer, I'd recommend getting a small (> 250 GB) second internal HD. Alternatively, if you have an eSATA connector on your MB, you could attach an eSATA HD.

motherboard = MSI K9N6SGM-V, mATX

I currently have no free SATA left (HD + DVD/CD Reader are here already) but one IDE is free. My current HD is only 150 GB, so I guess a bigger second one won't harm. A eSATA connector is not mentioned in the motherboard description.

Or is it preferable to get an new IDE DVD/CD Reader (dump the SATA one) and get a SATA HD?

I'd get a second SATA HD and an IDE DVD-CD drive. I see from the MB specs that you're limited to 2 GB of RAM no matter what. Pity!

OT, but amazing that you get so much done with in certain respects limited hardware!

The answer is Zen!

With XP SP3 I have a fast and stable OS and personally don't feel in any way limited. (BTW, alpha 3 comes in at 1.673 msecs here... who beats me?)

admin wrote:(BTW, alpha 3 comes in at 1.673 msecs here... who beats me?)

I do! 1.120 ms is the mark

zer0 wrote:

admin wrote:(BTW, alpha 3 comes in at 1.673 msecs here... who beats me?)

I do! 1.120 ms is the mark

Argh, now I have to kick you out of the forum!

admin wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:OT, but amazing that you get so much done with in certain respects limited hardware!

The answer is Zen!

With XP SP3 I have a fast and stable OS and personally don't feel in any way limited. (BTW, alpha 3 comes in at 1.673 msecs here... who beats me?)

I dread to think the impact of Windows 7 x64 running virtualized on your Zen.