"Rick Raisley" <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote in message
news:#JBCRGqVHHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Okay, I write programs for resale (very low distribution) and realize I
must
> have a Vista environment available for testing, at least, and possibly for
> development. At the very least, I need to test my programs using Vista,
and
> include instructions on how to install (using admin, XP Compatibility
Mode,
> whatever) so that it works as expected.
>
> I'll probably be getting a new computer with Vista Ultimate (need a new
one
> and monitor anyhow), and I've heard I can also install WinXP on the same
> machine and be able to boot to that. I'll keep my current XP machine on
the
> network, but my wife wants it, so won't have it forever.
>
> So, do I develop in the XP environment, and test in the Vista environment?
> Are there any gotchas with having both? Of course, not having VB installed
> in the Vista environment would mean I couldn't do any real-time debugging
> with Vista, so it would be good to have it there as well.
>
> What I'm trying to do, among other things, is make sure that by installing
> VB6 on Vista I don't solve all the Vista problems in "another way". That
> probably makes no sense, but of course once I have my apps running on my
own
> computer, it's pretty much worthless to try "virgin" installs on. I'd like
> there to be a way I can make sure what the best way to install is, and
> include it in my documentation, help files and setup program.
>
> Any suggestions on how to make this process, and setting up a good dual-OS
> development environment, more thorough, flexible, better or trouble-free
> would be appreciated.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rick Raisley
>
>

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:43:39 -0500, "BeastFish" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> Heck, I still develop/build on Win98 (because some customers are still
>> running Win98).  Typically, you'd want to build (compile and build setup) on
>> the oldest OS you intend on supporting.  Personally, I develop on my "oldest
>> supported" OS system build as well (keeps me from potential "gotchas" like
>> mistakenly using a WinXP-or-greater API, etc.).
>
>> I use what's called "drive drawers" or "disk caddies" for swapping hard
>> drives of the different Windows OS versions for testing.
>
> I second that - also something like PowerQuest's Drive Image so that
> one can always get a Caddied drive back to its virgin state.
>
>

> Heck, I still develop/build on Win98 (because some customers are still
> running Win98).  Typically, you'd want to build (compile and build setup)
> on
> the oldest OS you intend on supporting.  Personally, I develop on my
> "oldest
> supported" OS system build as well (keeps me from potential "gotchas" like
> mistakenly using a WinXP-or-greater API, etc.).
>
> I use what's called "drive drawers" or "disk caddies" for swapping hard
> drives of the different Windows OS versions for testing.
>
>
>
>
> "Rick Raisley" <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote in message
> news:#JBCRGqVHHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Okay, I write programs for resale (very low distribution) and realize I
> must
>> have a Vista environment available for testing, at least, and possibly
>> for
>> development. At the very least, I need to test my programs using Vista,
> and
>> include instructions on how to install (using admin, XP Compatibility
> Mode,
>> whatever) so that it works as expected.
>>
>> I'll probably be getting a new computer with Vista Ultimate (need a new
> one
>> and monitor anyhow), and I've heard I can also install WinXP on the same
>> machine and be able to boot to that. I'll keep my current XP machine on
> the
>> network, but my wife wants it, so won't have it forever.
>>
>> So, do I develop in the XP environment, and test in the Vista
>> environment?
>> Are there any gotchas with having both? Of course, not having VB
>> installed
>> in the Vista environment would mean I couldn't do any real-time debugging
>> with Vista, so it would be good to have it there as well.
>>
>> What I'm trying to do, among other things, is make sure that by
>> installing
>> VB6 on Vista I don't solve all the Vista problems in "another way". That
>> probably makes no sense, but of course once I have my apps running on my
> own
>> computer, it's pretty much worthless to try "virgin" installs on. I'd
>> like
>> there to be a way I can make sure what the best way to install is, and
>> include it in my documentation, help files and setup program.
>>
>> Any suggestions on how to make this process, and setting up a good
>> dual-OS
>> development environment, more thorough, flexible, better or trouble-free
>> would be appreciated.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rick Raisley
>>
>>
>
>

"Signet" <22signet7deleteth***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:#ED20PCWHHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Could some of you elaborate on your methodology for swapping drives for
> testing? I would assume you have at least one drive that stays in the unit
> all the time, with your code on it, that you can at least copy to the test
> drive? Or do you just test the EXE?  Otherwise you're going to need
several
> VB installations (not a big deal I guess), but also access to whatever
> source code and utilities that you regularly use.
>
> I like the idea of being able to switch OSs, for testing and development.
I
> was thinking more along the lines of having Vista as the "main" OS, on a
new
> machine, and then I understand I can install XP (at least) as a separate
> partition and boot to that when desired. I can then have my programs,
data,
> whatever, on a third drive that can be accessed by any OS that is
installed.
> Well, obviously Win95 couldn't access an NTFS partition, so I'd have to
> watch that kind of thing.
>
> Anyhow, I'm just beginning to wrap my thoughts around what I /think/ I
want,
> and I /know/ I'll make a bunch of mis-steps without some advice from all
of
> you. So specifics on how to best handle these in everyday life would be
> great:
>
> * Development in the IDE (one or multiple).
>
> * Testing on multiple OSs.
>
> * Internet and email use.
>
> * The occasional game or other distraction.
>
> Oh, and are these drive caddies adaptable to, say, a new Dell or Gateway
> box? In a 5.5" drive bay, or what? Might HP's system which has a plug-in
> separate drive work well for this (although a bit expensive)? All those
> would change an /extra/ drive, though, not normally the boot drive, right?
>
> Confusing, this is.... ;-)

"Rick Raisley" <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote in message
news:%23JBCRGqVHHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Okay, I write programs for resale (very low distribution) and realize I
> must
> have a Vista environment available for testing, at least, and possibly for
> development. At the very least, I need to test my programs using Vista,
> and
> include instructions on how to install (using admin, XP Compatibility
> Mode,
> whatever) so that it works as expected.
>
> I'll probably be getting a new computer with Vista Ultimate (need a new
> one
> and monitor anyhow), and I've heard I can also install WinXP on the same
> machine and be able to boot to that. I'll keep my current XP machine on
> the
> network, but my wife wants it, so won't have it forever.
>
> So, do I develop in the XP environment, and test in the Vista environment?
> Are there any gotchas with having both? Of course, not having VB installed
> in the Vista environment would mean I couldn't do any real-time debugging
> with Vista, so it would be good to have it there as well.
>
> What I'm trying to do, among other things, is make sure that by installing
> VB6 on Vista I don't solve all the Vista problems in "another way". That
> probably makes no sense, but of course once I have my apps running on my
> own
> computer, it's pretty much worthless to try "virgin" installs on. I'd like
> there to be a way I can make sure what the best way to install is, and
> include it in my documentation, help files and setup program.
>
> Any suggestions on how to make this process, and setting up a good dual-OS
> development environment, more thorough, flexible, better or trouble-free
> would be appreciated.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rick Raisley
>
>

"Darhl Thomason" <darhlt@papamurphys.nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:ObWm$H2WHHA.3980@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Rick Raisley" <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote in message
> news:%23JBCRGqVHHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > Okay, I write programs for resale (very low distribution) and realize I
> > must
> > have a Vista environment available for testing, at least, and possibly
for
> > development. At the very least, I need to test my programs using Vista,
> > and
> > include instructions on how to install (using admin, XP Compatibility
> > Mode,
> > whatever) so that it works as expected.
> >
> > I'll probably be getting a new computer with Vista Ultimate (need a new
> > one
> > and monitor anyhow), and I've heard I can also install WinXP on the same
> > machine and be able to boot to that. I'll keep my current XP machine on
> > the
> > network, but my wife wants it, so won't have it forever.
> >
> > So, do I develop in the XP environment, and test in the Vista
environment?
> > Are there any gotchas with having both? Of course, not having VB
installed
> > in the Vista environment would mean I couldn't do any real-time
debugging
> > with Vista, so it would be good to have it there as well.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do, among other things, is make sure that by
installing
> > VB6 on Vista I don't solve all the Vista problems in "another way". That
> > probably makes no sense, but of course once I have my apps running on my
> > own
> > computer, it's pretty much worthless to try "virgin" installs on. I'd
like
> > there to be a way I can make sure what the best way to install is, and
> > include it in my documentation, help files and setup program.
> >
> > Any suggestions on how to make this process, and setting up a good
dual-OS
> > development environment, more thorough, flexible, better or trouble-free
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rick Raisley
> >
> >
> Use Micro$oft's VirtualPC 2007.  It creates a virtual environment you can
> install an OS onto (like XP).  You can keep it windowed and pull it up any
> time you want.  It's a free download http://www.microsoft.com/virtualpc
>
> d
>
>

> here's the system requirements:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/virtualpc/sysreq.mspx
>
> > If you're saying that I can install, and run, any other OS from, or
along
> > with, Vista, that sounds like the puppy I want/need!  ;-)
>
> Yep, it'll run just about anything.  I found a complete list yesterday,
and the
> number of OSs was in the 100s.  (Maybe 1000s?)  Almost too much fun.
Setting up
> various VMs can be almost as compulsive as collecting MP3s, I'm afraid.
Heh...
>
> I'm discovering the joys (not!) of Vista now, safely within XP.  Got a
Win95 build
> going just the other day.  Oh, the nostalgia...
> --
> .NET: It's About Trust!
>  http://vfred.mvps.org
>
>

> >> clean/withVB5-6/withOffice2000-2003.  I can whip any of them out, and
have 'em
> >> running in minutes now.  It's definitely an "art" getting the VHD
(virtual hard
> >> drive) file whittled down to the minimum size necessary, for archiving,
though.
> >> To give you an idea...
> >
> > DVDs? I thought these would be in partitions, or directories, on the
hard
> > drive, no? They don't /run/ off the DVD, do they? Or are the DVDs just
so
> > you can put one in place quickly on your hard drive, without taking
space up
> > all the time.
>
> Yeah, the latter.  VPC creates what it calls a "virtual hard drive" as a
single VHD
> file.  These are, by default, dynamically sized, so they start out small
and grow
> and grow and grow and grow...  When I get a VM setup the way I want to
preserve it,
> I attempt to shrink down the VHD file as small as possible, then burn to

> have online at the moment:
>
>    02/09/2007  05:10 PM        55,417,150 Win98-IE4.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:13 PM       120,601,116 Win98-IE6.cab
>    02/23/2007  05:58 PM       130,423,492 W95.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:28 PM       160,569,346 Win98-IE6-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:21 PM       178,678,986 Win98-IE6-O2K.cab
>    02/13/2007  11:18 AM       183,245,352 XP-Pro (stripped).cab
>    02/13/2007  01:54 PM       198,542,446 XP-Bare.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:53 PM       216,374,452 Win98-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/09/2007  06:52 PM       297,034,590 Win2K-SP0.cab
>    02/13/2007  05:06 PM       300,436,094 XPP2.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:05 PM       323,784,796 Win2K-SP4.cab
>    02/23/2007  11:02 AM       371,535,154 XPP2-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:22 PM       382,041,220 Win2K-SP4-IE6.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:59 PM       417,612,140 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:40 PM       422,082,082 Win2K-SP4-IE6-O2K.cab
>    02/23/2007  12:16 PM       441,530,936 XPP2-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/12/2007  11:10 AM       459,783,776 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/23/2007  02:06 PM       768,065,402 XPP2-VB-O2K3.cab
>    02/28/2007  06:15 PM     2,349,559,142 Vista.zip
>
> Which causes me to wonder how I messed up the W95 such that is *so* much
bigger than
> the W98!  I found cabarc.exe did a better compression job than winzip, in
general,
> but that it can't handle files much bigger than 2Gb very gracefully.  Had
to switch
> over to winzip for Vista!  Here's an example of some XP builds:
>
>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM       784,659,968 XP-Bare.vhd
>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM            13,082 XP-Bare.vmc
>    02/23/2007  11:50 AM     1,409,698,304 XPP2-VB-O2K.vhd
>    02/23/2007  11:20 AM            12,178 XPP2-VB-O2K.vmc
>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM     1,860,696,064 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vhd
>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM            12,342 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vmc
>    02/23/2007  10:26 AM     1,264,959,488 XPP2-VB.vhd
>    02/23/2007  10:14 AM            12,162 XPP2-VB.vmc
>    02/13/2007  05:45 PM     1,061,486,080 XPP2.vhd
>    02/13/2007  05:40 PM            12,130 XPP2.vmc
>
> The VMC file is an XML "virtual machine configuration" file, and can be
hand editted
> to point to different locations for the VHD.  (This relation will make
more sense
> after you've built your first VM.)
>
> > Looks like that 10k 150 GB C-drive I was speccing out will get some good
> > use!  ;-)
>
> Definately!  But I'd definitely recommend you keep "Gold" VMs offline, and
restore
> them as needed to test "fresh" systems.
>
> >>    Coding Horror: Creating Smaller Virtual Machines
> >>    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000639.html
> >
> > Thanks, I'll check that out.
>
> OCD to the max. <g>
>
> >>> Does anyone know if it actually comes /with/ Vista, or is a download
for
> >>> Vista as well?
> >>
> >> No, you need to supply your own operating systems. <g>
> >
> > I meant that if I buy a new machine with Vista Ultimate, will it have
> > Virtual PC 2007 already on it, or do I have to still download it.
>
> VPC07 only RTM'd last week, so I'd suspect you'll need to acquire it
separately.
> Btw, you may want to download VPC04 while you're at it.  The "virtual
machine
> extensions" in it will work on older OS's than those in VPC07, which

> "support" Win95.
> --
> .NET: It's About Trust!
>  http://vfred.mvps.org
>
>

> >> clean/withVB5-6/withOffice2000-2003.  I can whip any of them out, and
have 'em
> >> running in minutes now.  It's definitely an "art" getting the VHD
(virtual hard
> >> drive) file whittled down to the minimum size necessary, for archiving,
though.
> >> To give you an idea...
> >
> > DVDs? I thought these would be in partitions, or directories, on the
hard
> > drive, no? They don't /run/ off the DVD, do they? Or are the DVDs just
so
> > you can put one in place quickly on your hard drive, without taking
space up
> > all the time.
>
> Yeah, the latter.  VPC creates what it calls a "virtual hard drive" as a
single VHD
> file.  These are, by default, dynamically sized, so they start out small
and grow
> and grow and grow and grow...  When I get a VM setup the way I want to
preserve it,
> I attempt to shrink down the VHD file as small as possible, then burn to

> have online at the moment:
>
>    02/09/2007  05:10 PM        55,417,150 Win98-IE4.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:13 PM       120,601,116 Win98-IE6.cab
>    02/23/2007  05:58 PM       130,423,492 W95.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:28 PM       160,569,346 Win98-IE6-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:21 PM       178,678,986 Win98-IE6-O2K.cab
>    02/13/2007  11:18 AM       183,245,352 XP-Pro (stripped).cab
>    02/13/2007  01:54 PM       198,542,446 XP-Bare.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:53 PM       216,374,452 Win98-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/09/2007  06:52 PM       297,034,590 Win2K-SP0.cab
>    02/13/2007  05:06 PM       300,436,094 XPP2.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:05 PM       323,784,796 Win2K-SP4.cab
>    02/23/2007  11:02 AM       371,535,154 XPP2-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:22 PM       382,041,220 Win2K-SP4-IE6.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:59 PM       417,612,140 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:40 PM       422,082,082 Win2K-SP4-IE6-O2K.cab
>    02/23/2007  12:16 PM       441,530,936 XPP2-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/12/2007  11:10 AM       459,783,776 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/23/2007  02:06 PM       768,065,402 XPP2-VB-O2K3.cab
>    02/28/2007  06:15 PM     2,349,559,142 Vista.zip
>
> Which causes me to wonder how I messed up the W95 such that is *so* much
bigger than
> the W98!  I found cabarc.exe did a better compression job than winzip, in
general,
> but that it can't handle files much bigger than 2Gb very gracefully.  Had
to switch
> over to winzip for Vista!  Here's an example of some XP builds:
>
>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM       784,659,968 XP-Bare.vhd
>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM            13,082 XP-Bare.vmc
>    02/23/2007  11:50 AM     1,409,698,304 XPP2-VB-O2K.vhd
>    02/23/2007  11:20 AM            12,178 XPP2-VB-O2K.vmc
>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM     1,860,696,064 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vhd
>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM            12,342 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vmc
>    02/23/2007  10:26 AM     1,264,959,488 XPP2-VB.vhd
>    02/23/2007  10:14 AM            12,162 XPP2-VB.vmc
>    02/13/2007  05:45 PM     1,061,486,080 XPP2.vhd
>    02/13/2007  05:40 PM            12,130 XPP2.vmc
>
> The VMC file is an XML "virtual machine configuration" file, and can be
hand editted
> to point to different locations for the VHD.  (This relation will make
more sense
> after you've built your first VM.)
>
> > Looks like that 10k 150 GB C-drive I was speccing out will get some good
> > use!  ;-)
>
> Definately!  But I'd definitely recommend you keep "Gold" VMs offline, and
restore
> them as needed to test "fresh" systems.
>
> >>    Coding Horror: Creating Smaller Virtual Machines
> >>    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000639.html
> >
> > Thanks, I'll check that out.
>
> OCD to the max. <g>
>
> >>> Does anyone know if it actually comes /with/ Vista, or is a download
for
> >>> Vista as well?
> >>
> >> No, you need to supply your own operating systems. <g>
> >
> > I meant that if I buy a new machine with Vista Ultimate, will it have
> > Virtual PC 2007 already on it, or do I have to still download it.
>
> VPC07 only RTM'd last week, so I'd suspect you'll need to acquire it
separately.
> Btw, you may want to download VPC04 while you're at it.  The "virtual
machine
> extensions" in it will work on older OS's than those in VPC07, which

> "support" Win95.
> --
> .NET: It's About Trust!
>  http://vfred.mvps.org
>
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:untgjgEXHHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Rick Raisley <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote:
>> Say, Karl, in looking at the white paper about Virtual PC 2007, it
>> mentions
>> that you can run it on Vista 64-bit. It doesn't /require/ 64-bit, does
>> it? I
>> haven't even seen that 64-bit Vista was available.
>>
>> I plan on getting the standard Vista Ultimate, which I'm pretty sure is
>> considered 32-bit.
>
> I'm running it on XP Pro, SP2.  Definitely 32-bit. <g>  Interesting
> question, though.  I don't know whether I can load 64-bit VMs or not.
> Haven't tried.  Maybe, if you want 64-bit VMs, you need to run on a 64-bit
> OS?  The choices are pretty limitless, though -- http://vpc.visualwin.com/
> (and that's for the previous version!).
> --
> .NET: It's About Trust!
> http://vfred.mvps.org
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uOja1uEXHHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Robert Comer <bobcomer-remove***@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> I'm running it on XP Pro, SP2.  Definitely 32-bit. <g>
>>
>> There's a 64-bit and a 32-bit version.
>
> Mine's the 32-bit, thanks. <g>
>
>>> I don't know whether I can load 64-bit VMs or not.  Haven't tried.
>>> Maybe,
>>> if you want 64-bit VMs, you need to run on a 64-bit OS?
>>
>> You can't run 64-bit guests in VPC or Virtual Server, no matter what the
>> host is.  VMWare has much better support for 64-bit guests for now.
>
> Even in 2007?  Rick indicated the Whitepaper said 64-bit was supported.
> (Not really relevent to me, ...)
>
>> And as mentioned, everyone else has some USB support except MS.
>
> That could be useful, if you were working directly with USB devices, but
> I'm not downloading my photos to a VM! <g>
>
>> For development, I very much like the Microsoft offerings though, they're
>> a bit lighter resource wise...
>
> It's the only one I've tried, so far, but sure seems adequate at the
> moment.  Good to hear.
> --
> .NET: It's About Trust!
> http://vfred.mvps.org
>

>Karl E. Peterson wrote:
>> Robert Comer <bobcomer-remove***@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> That could be useful, if you were working directly with USB devices, but
>>>> I'm not downloading my photos to a VM! <g>
>>> It'd be useful for a lot of things, scanners, pen drives, external disks,
>>> Mobile devices, tape, camera's <g>, ...
>>
>> I guess I haven't found the need.  As long as the Host can get to it...
>
>
>Such VMs wouldn't be much help if you were testing software in any aspect that
>required USB communication, like theft protection, comparing or moving files ...
>
>I can think of a few.  I had an auto-synch app a while back which was supposed to
>recognize my camera memory cards on insertion and automatically archive everything
>new or updated.
>
>VMs seem to me to have little advantage *unless* you want the "host" OS to be
>running on the same hardware at the same time.  At least so far, I would prefer
>actual hardware under the OS I'm testing on.  I hope to make time soon to test
>the offerings from Acronis, with which I should be able to make a stack of bootable
>optical discs for my test box, for (hopefully) a very simple image-boot-test cycle.
>
>
>    Bob

> Bob O`Bob <filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>> Karl E. Peterson wrote:
>>> Bob O`Bob <filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>> VMs seem to me to have little advantage *unless* you want the "host" OS to be
>>>> running on the same hardware at the same time.  At least so far, I would prefer
>>>> actual hardware under the OS I'm testing on.
>>> I understand that, as well.  However, to quickly "see what your customer sees",
>>> these things can save hours if not days.
>> Oh, absolutely.
>> But that's what I've used swap-bay hard drive "caddies" for,
>> since about when 98SE shipped.
>
> As long as that works for you, you're in Fat City, I suppose.  VMs add *so* much
> more, though.  For instance, you can install and configure all the client's
> software, just as they do.  Run your tests, install what tools you need, etc., etc.,
> etc.  When you're done, just delete the now-trashed VM.  You'll be able to start
> fresh, by popping a cleanly built OS into the DVD player, next problem that arises.

> Karl E. Peterson wrote:
>> Bob O`Bob <filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>> Karl E. Peterson wrote:
>>>> Bob O`Bob <filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>> VMs seem to me to have little advantage *unless* you want the "host" OS to be
>>>>> running on the same hardware at the same time.  At least so far, I would
>>>>> prefer actual hardware under the OS I'm testing on.
>>>> I understand that, as well.  However, to quickly "see what your customer sees",
>>>> these things can save hours if not days.
>>> Oh, absolutely.
>>> But that's what I've used swap-bay hard drive "caddies" for,
>>> since about when 98SE shipped.
>>
>> As long as that works for you, you're in Fat City, I suppose.  VMs add *so* much
>> more, though.  For instance, you can install and configure all the client's
>> software, just as they do.  Run your tests, install what tools you need, etc.,
>> etc., etc.  When you're done, just delete the now-trashed VM.  You'll be able to
>> start fresh, by popping a cleanly built OS into the DVD player, next problem
>> that arises.
>
> two partitions per caddy.

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ueHybh3XHHA.4692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Robert Comer <bobcomer-remove***@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> That could be useful, if you were working directly with USB devices, but
>>> I'm not downloading my photos to a VM! <g>
>>
>> It'd be useful for a lot of things, scanners, pen drives, external disks,
>> Mobile devices, tape, camera's <g>, ...
>
> I guess I haven't found the need.  As long as the Host can get to it...
> --
> .NET: It's About Trust!
> http://vfred.mvps.org
>

> >> clean/withVB5-6/withOffice2000-2003.  I can whip any of them out, and
have 'em
> >> running in minutes now.  It's definitely an "art" getting the VHD
(virtual hard
> >> drive) file whittled down to the minimum size necessary, for archiving,
though.
> >> To give you an idea...
> >
> > DVDs? I thought these would be in partitions, or directories, on the
hard
> > drive, no? They don't /run/ off the DVD, do they? Or are the DVDs just
so
> > you can put one in place quickly on your hard drive, without taking
space up
> > all the time.
>
> Yeah, the latter.  VPC creates what it calls a "virtual hard drive" as a
single VHD
> file.  These are, by default, dynamically sized, so they start out small
and grow
> and grow and grow and grow...  When I get a VM setup the way I want to
preserve it,
> I attempt to shrink down the VHD file as small as possible, then burn to

> have online at the moment:
>
>    02/09/2007  05:10 PM        55,417,150 Win98-IE4.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:13 PM       120,601,116 Win98-IE6.cab
>    02/23/2007  05:58 PM       130,423,492 W95.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:28 PM       160,569,346 Win98-IE6-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:21 PM       178,678,986 Win98-IE6-O2K.cab
>    02/13/2007  11:18 AM       183,245,352 XP-Pro (stripped).cab
>    02/13/2007  01:54 PM       198,542,446 XP-Bare.cab
>    02/09/2007  05:53 PM       216,374,452 Win98-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/09/2007  06:52 PM       297,034,590 Win2K-SP0.cab
>    02/13/2007  05:06 PM       300,436,094 XPP2.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:05 PM       323,784,796 Win2K-SP4.cab
>    02/23/2007  11:02 AM       371,535,154 XPP2-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:22 PM       382,041,220 Win2K-SP4-IE6.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:59 PM       417,612,140 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB.cab
>    02/09/2007  07:40 PM       422,082,082 Win2K-SP4-IE6-O2K.cab
>    02/23/2007  12:16 PM       441,530,936 XPP2-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/12/2007  11:10 AM       459,783,776 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
>    02/23/2007  02:06 PM       768,065,402 XPP2-VB-O2K3.cab
>    02/28/2007  06:15 PM     2,349,559,142 Vista.zip
>
> Which causes me to wonder how I messed up the W95 such that is *so* much
bigger than
> the W98!  I found cabarc.exe did a better compression job than winzip, in
general,
> but that it can't handle files much bigger than 2Gb very gracefully.  Had
to switch
> over to winzip for Vista!  Here's an example of some XP builds:
>
>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM       784,659,968 XP-Bare.vhd
>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM            13,082 XP-Bare.vmc
>    02/23/2007  11:50 AM     1,409,698,304 XPP2-VB-O2K.vhd
>    02/23/2007  11:20 AM            12,178 XPP2-VB-O2K.vmc
>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM     1,860,696,064 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vhd
>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM            12,342 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vmc
>    02/23/2007  10:26 AM     1,264,959,488 XPP2-VB.vhd
>    02/23/2007  10:14 AM            12,162 XPP2-VB.vmc
>    02/13/2007  05:45 PM     1,061,486,080 XPP2.vhd
>    02/13/2007  05:40 PM            12,130 XPP2.vmc
>
> The VMC file is an XML "virtual machine configuration" file, and can be
hand editted
> to point to different locations for the VHD.  (This relation will make
more sense
> after you've built your first VM.)
>
> --
> .NET: It's About Trust!
>  http://vfred.mvps.org
>
>

"Rick Raisley" <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote in message
news:ORlPF5rfHHA.4936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Karl Peterson had a lot of good advice last month concerning Virtual PC
> (much of which is below), and now that I've finally got a Vista machine,
> I'm
> fooling around with it. Fooling around is probably the best word here, as
> I
> haven't gotten such good results yet, and I was hoping Karl and/or someone
> else might help out a bit.
>
> I've so far only installed a single Vista Home Premium Virtual Machine set
> up, and it has resulted in a number of questions:
>
> * I have a small builder edition of Vista Ultimate 32-bit, included with
> my
> new PC. Can I install the virtual machines, temporarily, as any other
> version? I have to say on the license agreement that I have that version,
> even though I don't, so didn't know. This is just for testing, of course.
>
> * Are Virtual Drives /necessary/ with the Virtual PC? Reason I ask is that
> it seems that VPC makes its own "system drive", without adding anything
> else. But I'm not sure.

>
> * I made two accounts, an Admin account with admin privileges, and a
> Testing
> account with standard user privileges. I want to test my installs as a
> normal user, but will need admin to do checks and make changes. Does that
> sound right?
>
> * How does the 30 day expiration date of a trial install work out here? If
> it uses the install date, won't installing a 31 day old copy from a DVD
> end
> up being out of date, and therefore unusable? This part is really
> confusing
> to me (like the rest isn't).  ;-)
>
> * You/Karl mention about shrinking down the VHD as small as possible,
> before
> burning. How is that done?
>
> I'm afraid I'll have more questions after I get further along, but I'm
> finding this really interesting and want to install virtual environments
> of
> all of the OS's for testing. I have full versions, not currently used, of
> XP, 2000, ME, 98 and probably even 95 laying around somewhere. ;-)
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rick Raisley
>
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%235zlPoDXHHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Rick Raisley <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote:
>> > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%
>> >>
>> >> It's fun.  Took a couple tries to get down how I wanted to do it, but
> yeah, it's
>> >> definitely fun.  I filled one DVD with VMs of permutations of
> 95/98/2K/XP,
>> >> clean/withVB5-6/withOffice2000-2003.  I can whip any of them out, and
> have 'em
>> >> running in minutes now.  It's definitely an "art" getting the VHD
> (virtual hard
>> >> drive) file whittled down to the minimum size necessary, for
>> >> archiving,
> though.
>> >> To give you an idea...
>> >
>> > DVDs? I thought these would be in partitions, or directories, on the
> hard
>> > drive, no? They don't /run/ off the DVD, do they? Or are the DVDs just
> so
>> > you can put one in place quickly on your hard drive, without taking
> space up
>> > all the time.
>>
>> Yeah, the latter.  VPC creates what it calls a "virtual hard drive" as a
> single VHD
>> file.  These are, by default, dynamically sized, so they start out small
> and grow
>> and grow and grow and grow...  When I get a VM setup the way I want to
> preserve it,
>> I attempt to shrink down the VHD file as small as possible, then burn to
> DVD so I
>> can instantly restore an entire operating system!  Very slick.  But to
> give you an
>> idea of the storage sizes you're looking at (or aiming for <g>), here are
> a few I
>> have online at the moment:
>>
>>    02/09/2007  05:10 PM        55,417,150 Win98-IE4.cab
>>    02/09/2007  05:13 PM       120,601,116 Win98-IE6.cab
>>    02/23/2007  05:58 PM       130,423,492 W95.cab
>>    02/09/2007  05:28 PM       160,569,346 Win98-IE6-VB.cab
>>    02/09/2007  05:21 PM       178,678,986 Win98-IE6-O2K.cab
>>    02/13/2007  11:18 AM       183,245,352 XP-Pro (stripped).cab
>>    02/13/2007  01:54 PM       198,542,446 XP-Bare.cab
>>    02/09/2007  05:53 PM       216,374,452 Win98-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
>>    02/09/2007  06:52 PM       297,034,590 Win2K-SP0.cab
>>    02/13/2007  05:06 PM       300,436,094 XPP2.cab
>>    02/09/2007  07:05 PM       323,784,796 Win2K-SP4.cab
>>    02/23/2007  11:02 AM       371,535,154 XPP2-VB.cab
>>    02/09/2007  07:22 PM       382,041,220 Win2K-SP4-IE6.cab
>>    02/09/2007  07:59 PM       417,612,140 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB.cab
>>    02/09/2007  07:40 PM       422,082,082 Win2K-SP4-IE6-O2K.cab
>>    02/23/2007  12:16 PM       441,530,936 XPP2-VB-O2K.cab
>>    02/12/2007  11:10 AM       459,783,776 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
>>    02/23/2007  02:06 PM       768,065,402 XPP2-VB-O2K3.cab
>>    02/28/2007  06:15 PM     2,349,559,142 Vista.zip
>>
>> Which causes me to wonder how I messed up the W95 such that is *so* much
> bigger than
>> the W98!  I found cabarc.exe did a better compression job than winzip, in
> general,
>> but that it can't handle files much bigger than 2Gb very gracefully.  Had
> to switch
>> over to winzip for Vista!  Here's an example of some XP builds:
>>
>>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM       784,659,968 XP-Bare.vhd
>>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM            13,082 XP-Bare.vmc
>>    02/23/2007  11:50 AM     1,409,698,304 XPP2-VB-O2K.vhd
>>    02/23/2007  11:20 AM            12,178 XPP2-VB-O2K.vmc
>>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM     1,860,696,064 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vhd
>>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM            12,342 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vmc
>>    02/23/2007  10:26 AM     1,264,959,488 XPP2-VB.vhd
>>    02/23/2007  10:14 AM            12,162 XPP2-VB.vmc
>>    02/13/2007  05:45 PM     1,061,486,080 XPP2.vhd
>>    02/13/2007  05:40 PM            12,130 XPP2.vmc
>>
>> The VMC file is an XML "virtual machine configuration" file, and can be
> hand editted
>> to point to different locations for the VHD.  (This relation will make
> more sense
>> after you've built your first VM.)
>>
>> --
>> .NET: It's About Trust!
>>  http://vfred.mvps.org
>>
>>
>
>

"Norm" <NormF4@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23OD0MLtfHHA.444@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Rick,
>
> I could only answer two of your questions.
>
> Norm
>
> "Rick Raisley" <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote in message
> news:ORlPF5rfHHA.4936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > Karl Peterson had a lot of good advice last month concerning Virtual PC
> > (much of which is below), and now that I've finally got a Vista machine,
> > I'm
> > fooling around with it. Fooling around is probably the best word here,
as
> > I
> > haven't gotten such good results yet, and I was hoping Karl and/or
someone
> > else might help out a bit.
> >
> > I've so far only installed a single Vista Home Premium Virtual Machine
set
> > up, and it has resulted in a number of questions:
> >
> > * I have a small builder edition of Vista Ultimate 32-bit, included with
> > my
> > new PC. Can I install the virtual machines, temporarily, as any other
> > version? I have to say on the license agreement that I have that
version,
> > even though I don't, so didn't know. This is just for testing, of
course.
> >
> > * Are Virtual Drives /necessary/ with the Virtual PC? Reason I ask is
that
> > it seems that VPC makes its own "system drive", without adding anything
> > else. But I'm not sure.
>
> VPC makes the first hard drive and you can add up to two more if you want
> them, all of which will be virtual drives.
> >
> > * Size is a problem; my Vista install is (so far) over 10 GB in size.
> > Yours
> > was 2.3 GB (the zip at least). How do I get the size smaller? I have the
> > Coding Horror article, but it's about installing WinXP, and I wasn't
sure
> > how to do it with Vista. Especially since a lot of programs and
utilities
> > don't work with Vista.
> >
> > * I /thought/ I'd have to "save" my virtual PC to keep the changes I
made
> > during a session, but that appears to be automatic? That being the case,
I
> > guess I need to /save/ it with another name, or location (or to DVD)
when
> > it's the way I want, before testing, so as to start with a virgin test
> > setup?
>
> VPC will save all the changes automatically unless you go to settings,
Undo
> Disks and enable this function. Then when you close it will ask you if you
> want to save the changes or not. If you are going to be testing I would
> definitly enable this fuction.
>
> What I usually do is install the basic OS that I want and then if you have
> room on your hard drive make a copy of the basic install, that way you can
> always put that back if something screws up. I then enable Undo Disks and
> test away.
>
> >
> > * I made two accounts, an Admin account with admin privileges, and a
> > Testing
> > account with standard user privileges. I want to test my installs as a
> > normal user, but will need admin to do checks and make changes. Does
that
> > sound right?
> >
> > * How does the 30 day expiration date of a trial install work out here?
If
> > it uses the install date, won't installing a 31 day old copy from a DVD
> > end
> > up being out of date, and therefore unusable? This part is really
> > confusing
> > to me (like the rest isn't).  ;-)
> >
> > * You/Karl mention about shrinking down the VHD as small as possible,
> > before
> > burning. How is that done?
> >
> > I'm afraid I'll have more questions after I get further along, but I'm
> > finding this really interesting and want to install virtual environments
> > of
> > all of the OS's for testing. I have full versions, not currently used,
of
> > XP, 2000, ME, 98 and probably even 95 laying around somewhere. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rick Raisley
> >
> > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
> > news:%235zlPoDXHHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> Rick Raisley <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote:
> >> > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%
> >> >>
> >> >> It's fun.  Took a couple tries to get down how I wanted to do it,
but
> > yeah, it's
> >> >> definitely fun.  I filled one DVD with VMs of permutations of
> > 95/98/2K/XP,
> >> >> clean/withVB5-6/withOffice2000-2003.  I can whip any of them out,
and
> > have 'em
> >> >> running in minutes now.  It's definitely an "art" getting the VHD
> > (virtual hard
> >> >> drive) file whittled down to the minimum size necessary, for
> >> >> archiving,
> > though.
> >> >> To give you an idea...
> >> >
> >> > DVDs? I thought these would be in partitions, or directories, on the
> > hard
> >> > drive, no? They don't /run/ off the DVD, do they? Or are the DVDs
just
> > so
> >> > you can put one in place quickly on your hard drive, without taking
> > space up
> >> > all the time.
> >>
> >> Yeah, the latter.  VPC creates what it calls a "virtual hard drive" as
a
> > single VHD
> >> file.  These are, by default, dynamically sized, so they start out
small
> > and grow
> >> and grow and grow and grow...  When I get a VM setup the way I want to
> > preserve it,
> >> I attempt to shrink down the VHD file as small as possible, then burn
to
> > DVD so I
> >> can instantly restore an entire operating system!  Very slick.  But to
> > give you an
> >> idea of the storage sizes you're looking at (or aiming for <g>), here
are
> > a few I
> >> have online at the moment:
> >>
> >>    02/09/2007  05:10 PM        55,417,150 Win98-IE4.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  05:13 PM       120,601,116 Win98-IE6.cab
> >>    02/23/2007  05:58 PM       130,423,492 W95.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  05:28 PM       160,569,346 Win98-IE6-VB.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  05:21 PM       178,678,986 Win98-IE6-O2K.cab
> >>    02/13/2007  11:18 AM       183,245,352 XP-Pro (stripped).cab
> >>    02/13/2007  01:54 PM       198,542,446 XP-Bare.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  05:53 PM       216,374,452 Win98-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  06:52 PM       297,034,590 Win2K-SP0.cab
> >>    02/13/2007  05:06 PM       300,436,094 XPP2.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  07:05 PM       323,784,796 Win2K-SP4.cab
> >>    02/23/2007  11:02 AM       371,535,154 XPP2-VB.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  07:22 PM       382,041,220 Win2K-SP4-IE6.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  07:59 PM       417,612,140 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB.cab
> >>    02/09/2007  07:40 PM       422,082,082 Win2K-SP4-IE6-O2K.cab
> >>    02/23/2007  12:16 PM       441,530,936 XPP2-VB-O2K.cab
> >>    02/12/2007  11:10 AM       459,783,776 Win2K-SP4-IE6-VB-O2K.cab
> >>    02/23/2007  02:06 PM       768,065,402 XPP2-VB-O2K3.cab
> >>    02/28/2007  06:15 PM     2,349,559,142 Vista.zip
> >>
> >> Which causes me to wonder how I messed up the W95 such that is *so*
much
> > bigger than
> >> the W98!  I found cabarc.exe did a better compression job than winzip,
in
> > general,
> >> but that it can't handle files much bigger than 2Gb very gracefully.
Had
> > to switch
> >> over to winzip for Vista!  Here's an example of some XP builds:
> >>
> >>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM       784,659,968 XP-Bare.vhd
> >>    02/28/2007  05:49 PM            13,082 XP-Bare.vmc
> >>    02/23/2007  11:50 AM     1,409,698,304 XPP2-VB-O2K.vhd
> >>    02/23/2007  11:20 AM            12,178 XPP2-VB-O2K.vmc
> >>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM     1,860,696,064 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vhd
> >>    02/23/2007  03:46 PM            12,342 XPP2-VB-O2K3.vmc
> >>    02/23/2007  10:26 AM     1,264,959,488 XPP2-VB.vhd
> >>    02/23/2007  10:14 AM            12,162 XPP2-VB.vmc
> >>    02/13/2007  05:45 PM     1,061,486,080 XPP2.vhd
> >>    02/13/2007  05:40 PM            12,130 XPP2.vmc
> >>
> >> The VMC file is an XML "virtual machine configuration" file, and can be
> > hand editted
> >> to point to different locations for the VHD.  (This relation will make
> > more sense
> >> after you've built your first VM.)
> >>
> >> --
> >> .NET: It's About Trust!
> >>  http://vfred.mvps.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23ACHCBIgHHA.3388@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Rick Raisley <rraisley-A-T-harscotrack-D-O-T-com> wrote:
> > * I have a small builder edition of Vista Ultimate 32-bit, included with
my
> > new PC. Can I install the virtual machines, temporarily, as any other
> > version? I have to say on the license agreement that I have that
version,
> > even though I don't, so didn't know. This is just for testing, of
course.
>
> Only a MSFT lawyer could make sense of those licenses, and you probably
wouldn't
> like their answer to that sort of question.  Read that as you will.
>

>
> > * Size is a problem; my Vista install is (so far) over 10 GB in size.
Yours
> > was 2.3 GB (the zip at least). How do I get the size smaller? I have the
> > Coding Horror article, but it's about installing WinXP, and I wasn't
sure
> > how to do it with Vista. Especially since a lot of programs and
utilities
> > don't work with Vista.
>
> Delete stuff. <G>  Viciously.  I think my final Vista VHDs came in around
5.5Gb
> before ZIPping.  One really neat trick I learned was to follow a routine
like this,
> right before archiving:
>
>   * Mount the VHD in another VPC, as drive D:
>   * Delete the swapfile!  It'll regen on its own, next time you boot.
>   * Run a defragger on it.
>   * Run sdelete to wipe all the ununsed space.
>   * Shutdown this secondary VPC.
>   * Run the "Virtual Disk Wizard" to compact what's left of the VHD.
>   * ZIP it!
>

> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> * Size is a problem; my Vista install is (so far) over 10 GB in size. Yours
>>> was 2.3 GB (the zip at least). How do I get the size smaller? I have the
>>> Coding Horror article, but it's about installing WinXP, and I wasn't sure
>>> how to do it with Vista. Especially since a lot of programs and utilities
>>> don't work with Vista.
>>
>> Delete stuff. <G>  Viciously.  I think my final Vista VHDs came in around 5.5Gb
>> before ZIPping.  One really neat trick I learned was to follow a routine like
>> this, right before archiving:
>>
>>   * Mount the VHD in another VPC, as drive D:
>>   * Delete the swapfile!  It'll regen on its own, next time you boot.
>>   * Run a defragger on it.
>>   * Run sdelete to wipe all the ununsed space.
>>   * Shutdown this secondary VPC.
>>   * Run the "Virtual Disk Wizard" to compact what's left of the VHD.
>>   * ZIP it!
>
> I'll try that. But starting out with over 10 GB, I'm sure I did something
> wrong to start with.

>Rick Raisley <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net> wrote:
>> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> * Size is a problem; my Vista install is (so far) over 10 GB in size. Yours
>>>> was 2.3 GB (the zip at least). How do I get the size smaller? I have the
>>>> Coding Horror article, but it's about installing WinXP, and I wasn't sure
>>>> how to do it with Vista. Especially since a lot of programs and utilities
>>>> don't work with Vista.
>>>
>>> Delete stuff. <G>  Viciously.  I think my final Vista VHDs came in around 5.5Gb
>>> before ZIPping.  One really neat trick I learned was to follow a routine like
>>> this, right before archiving:
>>>
>>>   * Mount the VHD in another VPC, as drive D:
>>>   * Delete the swapfile!  It'll regen on its own, next time you boot.
>>>   * Run a defragger on it.
>>>   * Run sdelete to wipe all the ununsed space.
>>>   * Shutdown this secondary VPC.
>>>   * Run the "Virtual Disk Wizard" to compact what's left of the VHD.
>>>   * ZIP it!
>>
>> I'll try that. But starting out with over 10 GB, I'm sure I did something
>> wrong to start with.
>
>I don't think so.  The swapfile alone is huge.  That sounds about where mine
>started, as well.  The steps above cut it about in half, then WinZip took another
>~50% cut.

"MikeD" <nob***@nowhere.edu> wrote in message
news:eaOEZ$GXHHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:u5paDuGXHHA.4872@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> MikeD <nob***@nowhere.edu> wrote:
>>> From what I've seen so far between VPC2004 and VPC2007 (keep in mind
>>> that
>>> the 2007 version is still beta),
>>
>> It actually RTW'd early last week.
>
> Didn't know that. I guess I should check more often.
>
>>
>>> there's VERY little that's different. In
>>> fact, so far, the ONLY difference I can see is that Vista is
>>> "officially"
>>> supported under VPC2007, but Vista also works fine with VPC2004.
>>
>> Hang onto 2004!  The VM extensions from it will work in older operating
>> systems than those from 2007.  They pretty much restricted them to .NET
>> compliant platforms.
>
> What extensions, specifically? Are you referring to the Virtual Machine
> Additions?
>
>>
>>> largest hard disk you can have is 16 GB,
>>
>> Ah, another difference.  I think it's 64Gb now.
>
> Obviously, I haven't done much experimenting with VPC2007 yet.  In fact,
> I've only used it with VMCs and VHDs I created with VPC2004. It worked
> fine with those, though. <g>.  I DID check the hardware that VPC2007
> emulates and it's pretty much the same as VPC2004, which I was extremely
> disappointed about. The emulated video card is not going to support many
> of the display capabilities of Vista (at least from my understanding of
> what Vista's graphics capabilities are). I thought for sure that the
> emulated hardware would be better in VPC2007 (and not just going from a
> max 16GB hard drive to a 64GB).
>
> --
> Mike
> Microsoft MVP Visual Basic
>
>

>
> > largest hard disk you can have is 16 GB,
>
> Ah, another difference.  I think it's 64Gb now.
>

> In article <vu8gu2hca33h2kr7i8f8bo1s915omtr***@4ax.com>,
> UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com says...
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 07:37:19 -0500, UseNet via Cable Modem <nospam@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ?
>> ? Any idea where I could find VPC2004?  It doesn't seem to be on M$
>> ? download anymore.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=6D58729D-DFA8-40BF-AFAF-20BCB7F01CD1&displaylang=en
>
> So that's the whole thing?  I found that yesterday, but thought it was
> just the service pack, not the full install.