Legacy OS VM

D

devman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
2,400
Is there some virtualization software I can use to run a Legacy OS like DOS?
 
If you're running Windows already, really, VirtualPC 2004 from Microsoft works really damned well for just some old DOS stuff. It's way less resource intensive than VMWare is in terms of memory, CPU usage, etc, especially for something so simple as a DOS VM. It doesn't "infiltrate" your current OS with all the networking gumbledeegook like VMWare does - it doesn't typically force a disconnect from your network to install the NAT or bridging, etc.

Takes a few seconds to install, a few seconds to create a VM for DOS, wham bam you're done.

www.microsoft.com/virtualpc

It's free, by the way - as is VMWare Server, but that's the big one; VMWare Workstation isn't free and is better suited to individual workstations, obviously. But VirtualPC 2004 is probably your best bet at this point for just a DOS VM.

If you're running Linux then VMWare is the only game that really matters to be able to run other OSes in VMs; if you're running OSX then Parallels has that market locked up right now with VMWare trying to play catch-up.

Hope this helps...
 
dosbox works for old dos emulation. I use it for xcom1,2 all the time.

Those were the days. :)
 
lol I saw running a legacy OS in vmware, and I laughed and I said. I think that some smart ass saying can I run XP (now that vista is out haha) in a virtual machine :)

Anyway, can someone clear up something for me. VMware server is free? and the workstation version is not wtf. Ok, so you can use the server version to run personal operating systems no doubt, people are doing so. This just really surprises me that it is not the other way around.
 
If DOS games are your reason for needing this, I'd place DOSBox as #1 and Microsoft Virtual PC as #2, but you need real DOS for the latter. Anything else, including VMWare, isn't as good for MSDOS.

DOSBox 0.66 is almost out and includes a ton of fixes from DOSBox 0.65. It'll even run Windows 3.1 with full SB16 support. A great unofficial build is here:
http://ykhwong.x-y.net/cvs/frame.html
For now you'll need to install it on top of DOSBox 0.65, after deleting the duplicate (old) files in 0.65.

If you enjoy tweaking CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT on MSDOS 6.22 as much as playing old games, then here is my "walkthrough" for that "game". :D
Optimized configs


-Robert

Edit: DOSBox 0.70 has been released. DOSBox 0.66 was just a beta/RC.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
If you're running Windows already, really, VirtualPC 2004 from Microsoft works really damned well for just some old DOS stuff. It's way less resource intensive than VMWare is in terms of memory, CPU usage, etc, especially for something so simple as a DOS VM.
Click to expand...
From what I recall, you are a person that often asks for some form of `proof' when people make claims like this. Care to show me a comparison detailing for VPC is less resource intensive than VMWare (server, workstation or player)?

bbz_Ghost said:
It doesn't "infiltrate" your current OS with all the networking gumbledeegook like VMWare does - it doesn't typically force a disconnect from your network to install the NAT or bridging, etc.
Click to expand...
After the initial install of the VMWare network cards, you do not need to disconnect from the network for a VM that uses NAT. At least that is how it worked in VMWare Workstation 5.5. But yes, installing VMWare Workstation/ Server requires at least one (1) reboot.

bbz_Ghost said:
It's free, by the way - as is VMWare Server, but that's the big one; VMWare Workstation isn't free and is better suited to individual workstations, obviously.
Click to expand...
here's a comparison of the two:
http://kontrawize.blogs.com/kontrawize/2006/03/vmware_server_v.html
and a comparison on the VMWare forums:
http://www.vmware.com/community/message.jspa?messageID=347924

bbz_Ghost said:
If you're running Linux then VMWare is the only game that really matters to be able to run other OSes in VMs;
Click to expand...
Or you can use Xen virtualization or KVM (kernel virtual machines), which may or may not be related.
 
Hence the specific reason I said "the only game that really matters" there. Everybody knows VMWare owns the virtualization marketplace, so my implication was real-world usage - I doubt any company serious about virtualization is going to spend time with DOSBox since it's just a DOS emulator. How many companies give a shit about DOS anymore?

And I also said "to be able to run other OSes in VMs" which still holds true: DOSBox runs DOS, and that's pretty much it. But I get your point, even so...
 
Parallels also runs on Linux, Mac and Windows - although it sucks for games.

Robert
 
drizzt81 said:
From what I recall, you are a person that often asks for some form of `proof' when people make claims like this. Care to show me a comparison detailing for VPC is less resource intensive than VMWare (server, workstation or player)?
Click to expand...

Sure thing...

I just downloaded (30.4MB setup file) and installed VirtualPC 2007 and noticed a very lite footprint on resources under Vista Ultimate which is what I'm running, and by "lite footprint" I mean it's taking 20MB of RAM (ok, you got me, it's 19.27MB) as listed by Peak Working Set in Task Manager (and yes I know that one reading isn't indicative of all of it, bleh). The VirtualPC directory is 36.5MB in size on the hard drive. It's a single application running, also - just the "Virtual PC 2007.exe" and that's it - as nothing else is noted running in Task Manager that's tied to the Virtual PC 2007 application.

Contrast that with VMWare Server installed on this same machine. The download is 145MB (4.25x larger), the install space consumed on the hard drive is 121MB or so. In Task Manager I have the following items listed that are VMWare specific:

vmnat.exe 1.7MB
vmnetdhcp.exe 1MB
vmserverdWin3.exe 19.75MB
vmsrvc.exe 424K
vmusrvc.exe 232K
vmware.exe 21.75MB
vmware-authd.exe 5.2MB

Soooo... while this isn't absolute proof that VirtualPC 2007 is liter on resources, my specific situation as of this moment shows VirtualPC 2007 running under Vista Ultimate most certainly is - and it's faster too, at least to me, but we all know how subjective that kind of judgement can be.

And also note: When Virtual PC 2007 isn't running or sitting in the Taskbar, it's not consuming any resources whatsoever - there is absolutely nothing left over when it's not in operation: no services at all.

When VMWare itself isn't running and no VMs are actively in operation, it still requires resources on several fronts as these services are still running:

vmnat.exe
vmnetdhcp.exe
vmount2.exe
vmserverdWin32.exe
vmusrvc.exe
vmware-authd.exe

and while they may or may not be active, they are there, and they are consuming RAM, regardless. So...

If you need to run additional versions of Windows as guests while you're running a Windows host OS, there's really no better solution that VirtualPC 2007 for most people. If you're in a serious working situation where more abilities are required, or more serious support in case of issues that pop up, then perhaps VMWare would be the better choice.

But for me, since VirtualPC 2007 is so lite on the resources, and since I typically only need to do testing with 2K or now XP since I'm using Vista as my primary OS, then VirtualPC 2007 is now my virtualization solution.

Hope this helps...

EDIT:
I didn't mess with Workstation or the Player since I have no use for either; Workstation is a pay for play product and I'd prefer not to install a trial edition just for testing, and Player requires the VM already be created. And yes, I know how to create VMs almost at will with a few simple tools like VMXBuilder and others, but it simply doesn't compare to the featureset of VirtualPC 2007 so I ignored it. This comparison was primarily for the complete virtualization solutions from Microsoft and VMWare that are free and readily available and usable right after the installation.
 
Well, it's fairly limited - anyone and their little brother (or sister, as the case may be, or big brother, or big sister, etc) can plainly see from the specs for VirtualPC 2007 that Microsoft could care less if you wanted to run other OSes on their virtualization software <hint, hint>.

I'm not saying what Microsoft's intentions there are by "limiting" the OSes you're supposed to be able to run, but but but... it ain't hard to see they have a slant away from those "L" words, and I ain't talking about the lipstick ones. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top