Virtual machine additions won't install

Discussion in 'Virtual PC' started by giacomo, May 7, 2007.

  1. giacomo

    giacomo Guest

    hello, I've winXP pro sp2 with latest update and virtual pc 7 with winNT 4
    workstation as host.

    All goes fine, but I must create a shared folder and so I must install
    Virtual machine Additions (ver. 13.803.00, no virtual pc 2004 at all, fresh
    install of Virtual pc 2007), but, when virtual iso is mounted, autorun won't
    start at all and I've this error: "SO o versione SO errati per
    l'applicazione" (it sound like: "os or os version is wrong for this

    Please some advice, thanks!
    giacomo, May 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. If all you want is the ISO image for the additions, then you could install
    VPC 2004 in a virtual machine instead of a physical one. VPC 2004 won't
    work when it's itself inside a virtual machine but the installation will
    work and you will have access to the iso image and be able to copy it
    somewhere on your physical machine.
    Sylvain Lafontaine, May 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Why? They seem to work just fine side-by-side.
    Karl E. Peterson, May 7, 2007
  4. You may be thinking of VPC and Virtual Server working side by side. Only
    one version of VPC can be installed on a machine at any given time. The
    easiest solution for the OP is to install VPC 2004 on Windows in a virtual
    machine and then move the virtual machine additions .iso to his host
    computer. VPC won't run in the vm but it will install.
    Colin Barnhorst, May 7, 2007
  5. giacomo

    Robert Comer Guest

    VPC2004 and VPC2007 cannot be installed side-by-side, when running the
    installer for VPC2007, it uninstalls VPC2004...
    Robert Comer, May 7, 2007
  6. Well, dunno what to say, other than, "Works here!" :)

    Not sure I fully recall the order I installed them in. Seems like I had 2007, then
    uninstalled that, installed 2004, then 2007 again. But, I used the custom install
    option, and told it to go to separate folders:

    C:\Program Files>tree "Virtual PC"
    Folder PATH listing
    Volume serial number is 00000073 E48C:6871
    ¦ +---1031
    ¦ +---1033
    ¦ +---1036
    ¦ +---1040
    ¦ +---1041
    ¦ +---3082
    ¦ +---Documentation
    ¦ ¦ +---English
    ¦ ¦ +---French
    ¦ ¦ +---German
    ¦ ¦ +---Italian
    ¦ ¦ +---Japanese
    ¦ ¦ +---Spanish
    ¦ +---Utility
    ¦ ¦ +---VMNetSrv
    ¦ +---Virtual Machine Additions
    ¦ +---English
    ¦ +---French
    ¦ +---German
    ¦ +---Italian
    ¦ +---Japanese
    ¦ +---Spanish
    ¦ +---VMNetSrv
    +---Virtual Machine Additions

    C:\Program Files>

    True, I can't run them both at the same time, but I certainly can run them
    individually at will.
    Karl E. Peterson, May 7, 2007
  7. giacomo

    Robert Comer Guest

    Not a bad way to do it if you have DOS or Win95 guests. I might have
    to try this myself. <g>
    Robert Comer, May 7, 2007
  8. Yeah, I was very much saddened to learn that VPC07 didn't support W95. I'm kinda
    (you may recall, that's a bit of an understatement from me <g>) tired of MSFT
    discarding vintage product lines and their users. Always looking for ways to
    continue supporting them myself!

    And, I kinda wanted to try bringing up an old DOS/Win3 system, just for nostalgia'
    Karl E. Peterson, May 7, 2007
  9. giacomo

    Robert Comer Guest

    Yeah, I was very much saddened to learn that VPC07 didn't support W95. I'm kinda
    Definitely an understatement. ;-)

    In their defense it is a free product, and it does really work, you
    just have to get and keep the VPC2004 additions around.
    You never know when you're going to need something like that -- I
    already have one.

    Bob Comer <Microsoft MVP Windows - Virtual Machine>
    Robert Comer, May 7, 2007
  10. Agreed on the free part. But I don't see that as an excuse to avoid responsibility.
    I support the products I offer for free. It's clearly a marketing device, and
    recognizing it as that allows you to accept the partial defense a bit. But missing
    Actually why I signed-on to this group. (Thread-drift warning!) Wanted to see to
    what degree the VM additions were supposed to work. Seems the silly thing still
    traps the cursor?
    Karl E. Peterson, May 7, 2007
  11. I've been accuse of worse things than "thinking" in the past, but I gotta deny it
    Not true. Just do custom installs, and specify non-default folders. You may have
    to make custom shortcuts, too -- I don't recall.
    Twisted. Neat. :)
    Karl E. Peterson, May 7, 2007
  12. giacomo

    Robert Comer Guest

    Seems the silly thing still
    Only if the additions are not installed, otherwise it's integrated.
    The addition work pretty well, especially for performance enhancements
    -- as long as you're running an OS with additions that is. Hardware
    Virtualization standard networking can help on those OS's that don't
    have additions.
    Robert Comer, May 7, 2007
  13. Whoosh! Sorry, I'm still ramping up on this. I installed the DOS additions, I
    believe. (I hesitate to affirm that, as the whole thing seems a lot hinkier than
    when installing the VM additions in newer OS's.) But the VM window still traps the
    cursor -- I have to press the right-Alt key to let it free -- and I get that warning
    about this the first time I click in the window. Is this the correct behavior?


    C:\>type config.sys
    Karl E. Peterson, May 7, 2007
  14. giacomo

    Steve Jain Guest

    Steve Jain, May 7, 2007
  15. giacomo

    Robert Comer Guest

    DOS is an exception to pointer integration -- unfortunately it doesn't
    do that function.
    Robert Comer, May 8, 2007
  16. "Bummer! Even when you're running Windows 3.1???" <gd&rvvvf...>

    So, what do the additions really do in DOS then? I guess there's the CD emulation.
    Anything else? (Should I start a new thread? What if the next question is how to
    increase Win3 screen resolution? <bg>)

    Karl E. Peterson, May 8, 2007
  17. giacomo

    Robert Comer Guest

    "Bummer! Even when you're running Windows 3.1???" <gd&rvvvf...>

    Yep. (I run wfw instead of 3.1.)
    Shared folders, CDRom drivers, better idle handling, and I think, time
    sync, though I haven't checked that. Steve Jain can answer that
    better than I, as I usually don't even bother with the DOS additions.
    It might not be bad to tag it with DOS or Win3.1, but to answer your
    question, you need to find an S3 Trio driver.
    Robert Comer, May 8, 2007
  18. giacomo

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> Robert Comer
    Shared folders, I can see.

    CDROM drivers, you should be able to use anything of the FreeDOS ones,
    or any DOS bootdisk you have kicking around.

    The idle handling is nice, but unfortunately (although understandably)
    only at the command prompt.
    DevilsPGD, May 8, 2007
  19. giacomo

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> "Karl E. Peterson"
    I did it, spent several hours getting everything up and running, even
    got some rudimentary networking ability, although I can't seem to get it
    to join my AD domain for some reason, maybe it doesn't support the
    latest NTLM version.

    It was rather aniclimatic as I couldn't really think of anything to do
    with it after all that effort.
    DevilsPGD, May 8, 2007
  20. I think my disks for that were of the "upgrade" variety, so I installed 3.1 first
    thinking I'd come back to update it. Definitely where I probably going.
    That's starting to sound sensible.
    I've seen that said in a dozen threads here -- "you need to find" -- is this
    something one just downloads somewhere? I'd think it'd be on one of these FAQ

    Thanks... Karl
    Karl E. Peterson, May 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.