From: Chris Davies on
Geoffrey Clements <geoffrey.clementsNO(a)spambaesystems.com> wrote:
> I run XP under qemu (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/). This works for
> older processors that don't have the virtualisation hardware.

Make sure you have the kernel support module (kqemu), otherwise it will
crawl. The kvm variant also works well for me (I have a core duo with
hardware virtualisation).

Chris
From: Arthur Buse on
D.M. Procida wrote:

> I'm familiar (for certain values of "familiar") with using Linux virtual
> servers (Xen, UML) but I know nothing at all about Windows.
>
> A colleague has asked about running Windows in virtualisation
> environments - is it possible to run a Windows server instance on a
> server running Linux? And, will Microsoft licence terms permit this
> anyway?

I ran Windows XP for a short time with VirtualBox, openSUSE 10.3, KDE
desktop. I have an Athlon 64 3200+ with 1 GB memory. I needed to close all
other programs to get it to run smoothly. I think a better computer would
be needed. It had an internet connection but no sound, I did not try to
get sound working. It could read from my physical DVD-ROM drive. I did not
try to write a CD-ROM with XP. This would be how I would share data with
Linux, as I believe you have to pay for a version that will share data on
the hard drive.

I also installed WINDOWS 98, but it would not run properly, it would only
run in "Safe Mode". This is a restricted mode of operation wihout most of
the hardware working, as the drivers are not loaded.
From: Nix on
On 22 Apr 2008, jasee(a)btinternet.com stated:
> To run well (fast) _and_ support versions of windows you need to have a cpu
> which supprts those guests on Xen type software (paravirtualized). This is
> a sort of cut down version of Linux which adds very little overhead when

Xen is not a cut down version of Linux, sorry. It's free software,
interoperates with Linux, and shares some code with the xen arch in the
Linux kernel, but the hypervisor isn't Linux of any flavour.

--
`The rest is a tale of post and counter-post.' --- Ian Rawlings
describes USENET
From: jasee on

"Nix" <nix-razor-pit(a)esperi.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87ve29zm1h.fsf(a)hades.wkstn.nix...
> On 22 Apr 2008, jasee(a)btinternet.com stated:
>> To run well (fast) _and_ support versions of windows you need to have a
>> cpu
>> which supprts those guests on Xen type software (paravirtualized). This
>> is
>> a sort of cut down version of Linux which adds very little overhead when
>
> Xen is not a cut down version of Linux, sorry. It's free software,
> interoperates with Linux, and shares some code with the xen arch in the
> Linux kernel, but the hypervisor isn't Linux of any flavour.

Well I'm using Oracles vm which is (I believe) Xen based. It installs like
Linux and it looks (horribly to me) like Linux seems to accept the linux
commands and even uses lilo.


From: Chris on
Arthur Buse wrote:
> I ran Windows XP for a short time with VirtualBox, openSUSE 10.3, KDE
> desktop. I have an Athlon 64 3200+ with 1 GB memory. I needed to close all
> other programs to get it to run smoothly. I think a better computer would
> be needed.

I reckon your problems were due to memory requirements rather than a
slow computer. XP needs 512MB to run well and I've always found SUSe to
be a memory hog. Either adding more RAM or using a less demanding host
OS (e.g. using XFCE instead of KDE) would make a difference.

> It had an internet connection but no sound, I did not try to
> get sound working. It could read from my physical DVD-ROM drive. I did not
> try to write a CD-ROM with XP. This would be how I would share data with
> Linux, as I believe you have to pay for a version that will share data on
> the hard drive.

I've not used the Linux version of VirtualBox, but on the Mac VB allows
you to share files between the client and host with the free version.
Note: you need to install the 'client tools' for this to work, though.