Virtual PC in Vista

Hi ALL:

My HP system was built with Vista in mind and has been working flawlessly
for a year and a half. It runs better than XP and takes one awful beating
from me and my system is on all the time with sleep engaged, waking up to
perform tasks on it's own very reliably. I really do not know what people
are bitching about! Just lucky I guess.

My question has to do with Virtual PC, I have tried 2004 and 2007 and have
the same problem with both. In trying to install Ubuntu Linux there just not
seem to be a way to get the display resolution correct. In VPC during the
install VPC reports that the guest OS has selected a resolution too wide for
the screen. I have tried all three resolution options in the VPC setup
without sucess. XP installs in VPC perfectly. Linux and XP install
perfectly in Virtual Box.

Virtual Box has some issues with virtual disk size that I have been unable
to resolve or I would just use Virtual Box from Sun systems. and Virtual Box
runs much more quickly than VPC.

Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks

George

On Thu, 22 May 2008 14:54:01 -0700, WindyGeorge wrote:

> Hi ALL:
>
> My HP system was built with Vista in mind and has been working
> flawlessly for a year and a half. It runs better than XP and takes one
> awful beating from me and my system is on all the time with sleep
> engaged, waking up to perform tasks on it's own very reliably. I really
> do not know what people are bitching about! Just lucky I guess.
>
> My question has to do with Virtual PC, I have tried 2004 and 2007 and
> have the same problem with both. In trying to install Ubuntu Linux
> there just not seem to be a way to get the display resolution correct.
> In VPC during the install VPC reports that the guest OS has selected a
> resolution too wide for the screen. I have tried all three resolution
> options in the VPC setup without sucess. XP installs in VPC perfectly.
> Linux and XP install perfectly in Virtual Box.
>
> Virtual Box has some issues with virtual disk size that I have been
> unable to resolve or I would just use Virtual Box from Sun systems. and
> Virtual Box runs much more quickly than VPC.
>
> Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks
>
> George

I have had good luck with VirtualBox, and no disk issues.

http://www.virtualbox.org/

But had problems with Virtual PC when installing Ubuntu and Solaris.

In fact, if I scp in a file from another system into Vista directly, and
I do the same inside VirtualBox running Ubuntu or Solaris, I get much
better performance over the network than Vista seems to be capable of
naively.

"Canuck57" wrote:

> On Thu, 22 May 2008 14:54:01 -0700, WindyGeorge wrote:
>
> > Hi ALL:
> >
> > My HP system was built with Vista in mind and has been working
> > flawlessly for a year and a half. It runs better than XP and takes one
> > awful beating from me and my system is on all the time with sleep
> > engaged, waking up to perform tasks on it's own very reliably. I really
> > do not know what people are bitching about! Just lucky I guess.
> >
> > My question has to do with Virtual PC, I have tried 2004 and 2007 and
> > have the same problem with both. In trying to install Ubuntu Linux
> > there just not seem to be a way to get the display resolution correct.
> > In VPC during the install VPC reports that the guest OS has selected a
> > resolution too wide for the screen. I have tried all three resolution
> > options in the VPC setup without sucess. XP installs in VPC perfectly.
> > Linux and XP install perfectly in Virtual Box.
> >
> > Virtual Box has some issues with virtual disk size that I have been
> > unable to resolve or I would just use Virtual Box from Sun systems. and
> > Virtual Box runs much more quickly than VPC.
> >
> > Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks
> >
> > George
>
> I have had good luck with VirtualBox, and no disk issues.
>
> http://www.virtualbox.org/
>
> But had problems with Virtual PC when installing Ubuntu and Solaris.
>
> In fact, if I scp in a file from another system into Vista directly, and
> I do the same inside VirtualBox running Ubuntu or Solaris, I get much
> better performance over the network than Vista seems to be capable of
> naively.
>
> Hi From George:
I am not familiar with the term SCP, please explain it for me?

You are reminding me that XP would not go to the internet from VBox. I too
noticed that Ubuntu got better download speeds over the internet than did
Vista.

I found that disk activity in VPC was also slower that VBox. Thanks.

George

"Canuck57" wrote:

> On Thu, 22 May 2008 14:54:01 -0700, WindyGeorge wrote:
>
> > Hi ALL:
> >
> > My HP system was built with Vista in mind and has been working
> > flawlessly for a year and a half. It runs better than XP and takes one
> > awful beating from me and my system is on all the time with sleep
> > engaged, waking up to perform tasks on it's own very reliably. I really
> > do not know what people are bitching about! Just lucky I guess.
> >
> > My question has to do with Virtual PC, I have tried 2004 and 2007 and
> > have the same problem with both. In trying to install Ubuntu Linux
> > there just not seem to be a way to get the display resolution correct.
> > In VPC during the install VPC reports that the guest OS has selected a
> > resolution too wide for the screen. I have tried all three resolution
> > options in the VPC setup without sucess. XP installs in VPC perfectly.
> > Linux and XP install perfectly in Virtual Box.
> >
> > Virtual Box has some issues with virtual disk size that I have been
> > unable to resolve or I would just use Virtual Box from Sun systems. and
> > Virtual Box runs much more quickly than VPC.
> >
> > Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks
> >
> > George
>
> I have had good luck with VirtualBox, and no disk issues.
>
> http://www.virtualbox.org/
>
> But had problems with Virtual PC when installing Ubuntu and Solaris.
>
> In fact, if I scp in a file from another system into Vista directly, and
> I do the same inside VirtualBox running Ubuntu or Solaris, I get much
> better performance over the network than Vista seems to be capable of
> naively.
>
> HI from George:
My Linux install in Virtual Box would only accept the virtual hard drive if
I configured it as a dynamic drive. I tried to configure the virtual hard
drive as a fixed 10 gig drive, VBox would not let that happen. You reminded
me that I was unable to get networking functioning in Virtual Box for XP. Xp
would not go on line from VBox. I am not familiar with the term SCP. Please
explain it for me? hanks
>
>

On Thu, 22 May 2008 16:01:01 -0700, WindyGeorge wrote:

> "Canuck57" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 14:54:01 -0700, WindyGeorge wrote:
>>
>> > Hi ALL:
>> >
>> > My HP system was built with Vista in mind and has been working
>> > flawlessly for a year and a half. It runs better than XP and takes
>> > one awful beating from me and my system is on all the time with sleep
>> > engaged, waking up to perform tasks on it's own very reliably. I
>> > really do not know what people are bitching about! Just lucky I
>> > guess.
>> >
>> > My question has to do with Virtual PC, I have tried 2004 and 2007 and
>> > have the same problem with both. In trying to install Ubuntu Linux
>> > there just not seem to be a way to get the display resolution
>> > correct. In VPC during the install VPC reports that the guest OS has
>> > selected a resolution too wide for the screen. I have tried all
>> > three resolution options in the VPC setup without sucess. XP
>> > installs in VPC perfectly. Linux and XP install perfectly in Virtual
>> > Box.
>> >
>> > Virtual Box has some issues with virtual disk size that I have been
>> > unable to resolve or I would just use Virtual Box from Sun systems.
>> > and Virtual Box runs much more quickly than VPC.
>> >
>> > Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks
>> >
>> > George
>>
>> I have had good luck with VirtualBox, and no disk issues.
>>
>> http://www.virtualbox.org/
>>
>> But had problems with Virtual PC when installing Ubuntu and Solaris.
>>
>> In fact, if I scp in a file from another system into Vista directly,
>> and I do the same inside VirtualBox running Ubuntu or Solaris, I get
>> much better performance over the network than Vista seems to be capable
>> of naively.
>>
>> Hi From George:
> I am not familiar with the term SCP, please explain it for me?
>
> You are reminding me that XP would not go to the internet from VBox. I
> too noticed that Ubuntu got better download speeds over the internet
> than did Vista.
>
> I found that disk activity in VPC was also slower that VBox. Thanks.
>
> George

Secure Shell Copy (scp). A more secure way to copy files. It can also
be used to "tunnel" other services. Been around for years. A secure
replacement for telnet and ftp. For Windows machines the client tools
are called "PuTTy". A google search for putty and secure shell will
yield a current download site and more info.

Not included in Vista, you must install separately. But I think all
Linux/UNIX variants have it by default these days.

Hi,

You have to follow the steps here:
http://www.woodwardweb.com/programming/000387.html

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"WindyGeorge" <> wrote in message
news:0E20FAEF-A7E1-4B87-8FAD-...
> Hi ALL:
>
> My HP system was built with Vista in mind and has been working flawlessly
> for a year and a half. It runs better than XP and takes one awful beating
> from me and my system is on all the time with sleep engaged, waking up to
> perform tasks on it's own very reliably. I really do not know what people
> are bitching about! Just lucky I guess.
>
> My question has to do with Virtual PC, I have tried 2004 and 2007 and have
> the same problem with both. In trying to install Ubuntu Linux there just
> not
> seem to be a way to get the display resolution correct. In VPC during the
> install VPC reports that the guest OS has selected a resolution too wide
> for
> the screen. I have tried all three resolution options in the VPC setup
> without sucess. XP installs in VPC perfectly. Linux and XP install
> perfectly in Virtual Box.
>
> Virtual Box has some issues with virtual disk size that I have been unable
> to resolve or I would just use Virtual Box from Sun systems. and Virtual
> Box
> runs much more quickly than VPC.
>
> Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks
>
> George

Windy George Wrote

Hello Rick:

Wow! What a response, this works very well. The Martin Woodward site has
this really nailed down. Thank you very much.

George


"Rick Rogers" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You have to follow the steps here:
> http://www.woodwardweb.com/programming/000387.html
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
>
> "WindyGeorge" <> wrote in message
> news:0E20FAEF-A7E1-4B87-8FAD-...
> > Hi ALL:
> >
> > My HP system was built with Vista in mind and has been working flawlessly
> > for a year and a half. It runs better than XP and takes one awful beating
> > from me and my system is on all the time with sleep engaged, waking up to
> > perform tasks on it's own very reliably. I really do not know what people
> > are bitching about! Just lucky I guess.
> >
> > My question has to do with Virtual PC, I have tried 2004 and 2007 and have
> > the same problem with both. In trying to install Ubuntu Linux there just
> > not
> > seem to be a way to get the display resolution correct. In VPC during the
> > install VPC reports that the guest OS has selected a resolution too wide
> > for
> > the screen. I have tried all three resolution options in the VPC setup
> > without sucess. XP installs in VPC perfectly. Linux and XP install
> > perfectly in Virtual Box.
> >
> > Virtual Box has some issues with virtual disk size that I have been unable
> > to resolve or I would just use Virtual Box from Sun systems. and Virtual
> > Box
> > runs much more quickly than VPC.
> >
> > Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks
> >
> > George
>
>