Virtual Box question


A

Art Todesco

I have been using the MS XP emulator. It definitely has its problems.
I was wondering what others have thought about Virtual Box and their
personal experiences. Thanks all.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Nil

I have been using the MS XP emulator. It definitely has its
problems. I was wondering what others have thought about Virtual
Box and their personal experiences. Thanks all.
I've been using it for the past couple of years, and I like it. I've
got three different Linuxs, and OS/2, a Win XP, a Win 8, and an Android
virtual machined.
 
Z

Zaphod Beeblebrox

I have been using the MS XP emulator. It definitely has its problems.
I was wondering what others have thought about Virtual Box and their
personal experiences. Thanks all.

I've run Linux (Ubuntu) in Virtual Box and it worked well, but I've
never run any Windows versions in it so I can't say. I have been
running XP Mode under Windows 7 and it has been adequate, but it does
lack some features. I guess the biggest advantage to XP Mode is that
it doesn't require you to buy a license for XP.
 
C

Chet

I have been using the MS XP emulator. It definitely has its
problems. I was wondering what others have thought about Virtual Box
and their personal experiences. Thanks all.
I've had very good luck with VirtualBox running on my Win7 Pro x64
(12GB RAM) desktop running Windows guests; currently I have both an
x86 and an x64 version of the Windows 8 Consumer Preview that runs
fine, even full screen on my 23" monitor with its start screen.

I also have evaluation versions of Windows 7 Enterprise x86 and x64
installed that run very well. If you're interested in these versions
they're good til Jan 31, 2013:

Windows 7 Enterprise 90-day Trial
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/cc442495.aspx

The .iso installs easily into VirtualBox and the Key is embedded.
You have 10 days to activate the 90-day trial; you can use the
"slmgr -rearm" command at an elevated cmd prompt to reset the trial
on the last day, I think you can rearm three times getting a total
of a 120-day trial.

I also have VirtualBox on this Dell 1764 laptop with Win7 Home
Premium x64 (4GB RAM - 3.8GB useable due to HD onboard graphics).
All I have installed is the Windows 8 Consumer Preview x86 version
and its running great, despite the problem trying to install the
VirtualBox extensions. The max I can allocate for RAM is only
1,920MB; I do not know if this is the issue or what is, but if I
install the VB Extensions, Windows 8 will fail to start-up. Without
the Extensions installed Windows 8 runs just fine, I cannot
copy/paste between guest and host, and stuff like that, but I still
have local and Internet network access, and for changing to a custom
1366x768 screen resolution for snap apps to work properly I found a
nice .vbox file mod that works just fine in my situation.

On my desktop I also have Microsoft Virtual PC installed with XPMode
and several other Windows guests, including a Windows 7 Enterprise
x86, basically identical to an install in VirtualBox. NO, I cannot
run both MS Virtual PC and VirtualBox at the same time, it causes
BIG problems on my system (BSODs); but it does allow me to see how
they compare to each other, and I prefer VirtualBox. Especially from
the standpoint of configuration and being able to run 64-bit
operating systems.

Anyway, that's my 2cents,
 
N

Nil

I also have VirtualBox on this Dell 1764 laptop with Win7 Home
Premium x64 (4GB RAM - 3.8GB useable due to HD onboard graphics).
All I have installed is the Windows 8 Consumer Preview x86 version
and its running great, despite the problem trying to install the
VirtualBox extensions. The max I can allocate for RAM is only
1,920MB; I do not know if this is the issue or what is, but if I
install the VB Extensions, Windows 8 will fail to start-up. Without
the Extensions installed Windows 8 runs just fine, I cannot
copy/paste between guest and host, and stuff like that, but I still
have local and Internet network access, and for changing to a custom
1366x768 screen resolution for snap apps to work properly I found a
nice .vbox file mod that works just fine in my situation.
Did you resolve the Guest Extensions problem or not? I haven't been
able to install them - when I try, I get a black screen midway through
the process, and only a System Restore or Repair Install of Windows 8
can rescue me. Win8 also runs deadly slow for me, but it's good enough
to get a sense of what's in store for us.
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

I have been using the MS XP emulator. It definitely has its problems. I
was wondering what others have thought about Virtual Box and their
personal experiences. Thanks all.
Yes, the MS XP Mode is absolutely bog slow, or at least it was until I
upgraded to an SSD! It looks like no matter how much RAM you throw at
it, the XP Mode is always disk-bound. So when you upgrade the disk to an
SSD, XP Mode finally becomes livable. I hadn't used XP Mode in months
prior to upgrading to the SSD, and at least several weeks since
upgrading to the SSD, because I just needed it for a specific test I
did, and it really was too painful to use.

After restarting it recently (yesterday, as a matter of fact), I
couldn't believe how responsive it became. It booted much faster than a
real XP running on this same machine ever did, and clicking on big
resource hogs like Firefox and Security Essentials, everything responded
within less than a second. I think it's virtual HD is the biggest reason
for its problems.

Yousuf Khan
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Chet

Did you resolve the Guest Extensions problem or not? I haven't been
able to install them - when I try, I get a black screen midway through
the process, and only a System Restore or Repair Install of Windows 8
can rescue me. Win8 also runs deadly slow for me, but it's good enough
to get a sense of what's in store for us.
No, I never did resolve it on the Dell laptop; when I try to
install the extensions I get the same results as you. I even
tried installing the newer version of VirtualBox and Guest
Extensions, v.4.1.12, still with the same results. I made a copy
of the virtual hdd (.vdi) so I could just replace the .vdi as I
was getting tired of doing re-installs, refreshes, etc.

I also tried many of the suggestions in the thread below from
EightForums, but none worked for me. I ended up using kado897's
post (03-14-2012) as a guide for setting my screen resolution to
1366x768 at least.

Virtualbox 4.1.10 Released - Windows 8 adaptations
<http://www.eightforums.com/virtualization/4900-virtualbox-4-1-10-released-windows-8-adaptations.html>

Without the Guest Extensions, Windows 8 runs fine, in fact, my
wife had me put it on her Dell 1764 just so she could play the
Wordament game app!

On my desktop the extensions installed perfectly for the Windows
8 installs, both the x64 and x86 versions; but it has more system
resources compared to the laptop.
 
P

Paul

Yousuf said:
Yes, the MS XP Mode is absolutely bog slow, or at least it was until I
upgraded to an SSD! It looks like no matter how much RAM you throw at
it, the XP Mode is always disk-bound. So when you upgrade the disk to an
SSD, XP Mode finally becomes livable. I hadn't used XP Mode in months
prior to upgrading to the SSD, and at least several weeks since
upgrading to the SSD, because I just needed it for a specific test I
did, and it really was too painful to use.

After restarting it recently (yesterday, as a matter of fact), I
couldn't believe how responsive it became. It booted much faster than a
real XP running on this same machine ever did, and clicking on big
resource hogs like Firefox and Security Essentials, everything responded
within less than a second. I think it's virtual HD is the biggest reason
for its problems.

Yousuf Khan
The WinXP Mode uses Microsoft Virtual PC, a successor to VPC2007.
And VPC2007 is I/O bound on several interfaces. For example, you
can be using a network interface with proven 117MB/sec transfer
rates, and the virtual network interface will do 1 to 1.5MB/sec.
There are similar, illogical limitations, on storage. I'm really
surprised the SSD helped you. It should have been smothered by
the purposeful bottleneck in the virtual machine software.

At one time, you couldn't even have a full sized DVD "passed through"
to the virtual machine. The last time I tried, I think I could read
up to the 4GB mark in a VM. If you insert a dual layer DVD, I'm not
sure a VM can read out to the end of it. All I could figure was,
the optical drive interface seen inside the virtual machine, was
memory mapped somehow, and that was presenting a limit to the size
of the optical media. Perhaps if you have a movie player in WinXP
Mode, you could test that out and see. I doubt they would fix that,
for the Windows 7 version of Virtual PC. If the test can make it past
the 4GB mark, then probably anything would work (like Blu Ray playback
in WinXP Mode).

Paul
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

At one time, you couldn't even have a full sized DVD "passed through"
to the virtual machine. The last time I tried, I think I could read
up to the 4GB mark in a VM. If you insert a dual layer DVD, I'm not
sure a VM can read out to the end of it. All I could figure was,
the optical drive interface seen inside the virtual machine, was
memory mapped somehow, and that was presenting a limit to the size
of the optical media. Perhaps if you have a movie player in WinXP
Mode, you could test that out and see. I doubt they would fix that,
for the Windows 7 version of Virtual PC. If the test can make it past
the 4GB mark, then probably anything would work (like Blu Ray playback
in WinXP Mode).
Okay Paul, so I took an *.mkv file of 5.94GiB, and copied it to a
dual-layer DVD. I then took an MD5 checksum of the files using
WinMD5Sum. Here's the results:

HDD file (W7): da1ab56d8112d444d3c8a556ee2fde3e
ODD file (W7): da1ab56d8112d444d3c8a556ee2fde3e
ODD file (XP): da1ab56d8112d444d3c8a556ee2fde3e

The HDD file was the original file on the hard disk. The ODD files are
the same file on the optical disk: as read through Windows 7, and then
through virtual Windows XP, using the same physical ODD. Checksums were
identical, therefore it was read properly under the virtual XP too.

Yousuf Khan
 
B

BillW50

In
Paul said:
The WinXP Mode uses Microsoft Virtual PC, a successor to VPC2007.
And VPC2007 is I/O bound on several interfaces. For example, you
can be using a network interface with proven 117MB/sec transfer
rates, and the virtual network interface will do 1 to 1.5MB/sec.
There are similar, illogical limitations, on storage. I'm really
surprised the SSD helped you. It should have been smothered by
the purposeful bottleneck in the virtual machine software.

At one time, you couldn't even have a full sized DVD "passed through"
to the virtual machine. The last time I tried, I think I could read
up to the 4GB mark in a VM. If you insert a dual layer DVD, I'm not
sure a VM can read out to the end of it. All I could figure was,
the optical drive interface seen inside the virtual machine, was
memory mapped somehow, and that was presenting a limit to the size
of the optical media. Perhaps if you have a movie player in WinXP
Mode, you could test that out and see. I doubt they would fix that,
for the Windows 7 version of Virtual PC. If the test can make it past
the 4GB mark, then probably anything would work (like Blu Ray playback
in WinXP Mode).
I don't get why some gets all excited over running XP mode under Windows
7? Yeah I can see the fun of doing so, but it just isn't practical. As
nothing runs XP better than XP itself.

It's funny my first home computer was back in '81. And one computer was
really great! But I soon discovered that two computers is even far
better. And three is better yet, but two was the largest jump in
greatness. Back then I wasn't using multitasking OS. So only one
application could run on each machine at a time. So if I wanted to have
four applications running at once, I needed four machines.

One would think the practical need for multiple computers would end when
multitasking OS became popular. It did sort of. But a single computer
still can't do it all very well. Even today I find more than one
computer is still more practical for so many reasons. And just like back
in '81, they all don't even have to run the same OS to get virtually all
of the benefits.

Heck just yesterday, I finally got around to installing my AverMedia TV
tuner software under Windows 8. I should have done that on day one and I
don't know why I waited so long. Anyway I thought it was working just
fine. Although when I ran it under the Media Center, the same problems
popped up that pops up under Windows 7. The Media Center overwhelms my
dual core CPUs and the video turns into a slideshow instead of a video.
But at least I remember that my AverMedia TV tuner software would work
fine running without the Media Center under Windows 7.

Although the shock I got yesterday was my AverMedia TV tuner software
wasn't fine under Windows 8 even without the Media Center. Now I am
going to have to retest this under Windows 7 once again. As using the
time shifting feature was just too much for my Intel Core2 Duo T7400, as
it got choppy. Worse was recording into another format, which means the
software has to convert the video in real time into another format. This
uses lots of CPU power. I've never seen any of my dual core CPUs ever
peg all of the cores to max before. NEVER! But it did yesterday
converting the video in real time.

Oddly enough, this isn't a problem under XP even on this T2400 CPU. In
fact, this CPU under XP has Speedswitch enabled and most of the time it
is clocking at the lowest speed. This isn't true if I am running Windows
7 or Windows 8. They are running at max most of the time just idling. I
haven't tested XP with Media Center yet because I never installed that
version yet (it is on my things to do list).

Now I never ran XP mode under Windows 7 yet (and may never get around to
it). But I am so sure without even trying it out that running my
AverMedia TV tuner software under XP mode would be a total bust! True
that would be a bad example, but others things would also suffer. So why
bother? If you need XP mode, just fire up another computer running XP
itself. What's the big deal?
 
A

Art Todesco

In

I don't get why some gets all excited over running XP mode under Windows
7? Yeah I can see the fun of doing so, but it just isn't practical. As
nothing runs XP better than XP itself.

It's funny my first home computer was back in '81. And one computer was
really great! But I soon discovered that two computers is even far
better. And three is better yet, but two was the largest jump in
greatness. Back then I wasn't using multitasking OS. So only one
application could run on each machine at a time. So if I wanted to have
four applications running at once, I needed four machines.

One would think the practical need for multiple computers would end when
multitasking OS became popular. It did sort of. But a single computer
still can't do it all very well. Even today I find more than one
computer is still more practical for so many reasons. And just like back
in '81, they all don't even have to run the same OS to get virtually all
of the benefits.

Heck just yesterday, I finally got around to installing my AverMedia TV
tuner software under Windows 8. I should have done that on day one and I
don't know why I waited so long. Anyway I thought it was working just
fine. Although when I ran it under the Media Center, the same problems
popped up that pops up under Windows 7. The Media Center overwhelms my
dual core CPUs and the video turns into a slideshow instead of a video.
But at least I remember that my AverMedia TV tuner software would work
fine running without the Media Center under Windows 7.

Although the shock I got yesterday was my AverMedia TV tuner software
wasn't fine under Windows 8 even without the Media Center. Now I am
going to have to retest this under Windows 7 once again. As using the
time shifting feature was just too much for my Intel Core2 Duo T7400, as
it got choppy. Worse was recording into another format, which means the
software has to convert the video in real time into another format. This
uses lots of CPU power. I've never seen any of my dual core CPUs ever
peg all of the cores to max before. NEVER! But it did yesterday
converting the video in real time.

Oddly enough, this isn't a problem under XP even on this T2400 CPU. In
fact, this CPU under XP has Speedswitch enabled and most of the time it
is clocking at the lowest speed. This isn't true if I am running Windows
7 or Windows 8. They are running at max most of the time just idling. I
haven't tested XP with Media Center yet because I never installed that
version yet (it is on my things to do list).

Now I never ran XP mode under Windows 7 yet (and may never get around to
it). But I am so sure without even trying it out that running my
AverMedia TV tuner software under XP mode would be a total bust! True
that would be a bad example, but others things would also suffer. So why
bother? If you need XP mode, just fire up another computer running XP
itself. What's the big deal?
Some of us just happen to want to run some software on our only Windows
7 box .... well in my case it's not my only computer, I have some XP
computers. But, my Windows 7 computer is my main computer. It would be
nice to be able to run my graphics program of choice, of which I am most
familiar, on my main computer (W7). I could, for lots of $$$, buy the
latest release of the software, however, the software company has been
bought by a different company and has merged "my program" with their
existing program, IMO destroying it. Others may not think so. But
that's a reason for wanting XP mode.
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Springer

that's a reason for wanting XP mode.
We computer users seem to be an interesting bunch. We'll buy a piece of
software, 15 years ago, for computer system X. Then we buy a new
computer system X and complain the software from 15 years ago won't work.

But how many of us bought this nice accessory for that new car 15 years
ago, and expect it to work in the new car we bought yesterday? LOL

What's wrong with us? <grin>


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.1.2
 
P

Paul

BillW50 said:
In

I don't get why some gets all excited over running XP mode under Windows
7? Yeah I can see the fun of doing so, but it just isn't practical. As
nothing runs XP better than XP itself.

It's funny my first home computer was back in '81. And one computer was
really great! But I soon discovered that two computers is even far
better. And three is better yet, but two was the largest jump in
greatness. Back then I wasn't using multitasking OS. So only one
application could run on each machine at a time. So if I wanted to have
four applications running at once, I needed four machines.

One would think the practical need for multiple computers would end when
multitasking OS became popular. It did sort of. But a single computer
still can't do it all very well. Even today I find more than one
computer is still more practical for so many reasons. And just like back
in '81, they all don't even have to run the same OS to get virtually all
of the benefits.

Heck just yesterday, I finally got around to installing my AverMedia TV
tuner software under Windows 8. I should have done that on day one and I
don't know why I waited so long. Anyway I thought it was working just
fine. Although when I ran it under the Media Center, the same problems
popped up that pops up under Windows 7. The Media Center overwhelms my
dual core CPUs and the video turns into a slideshow instead of a video.
But at least I remember that my AverMedia TV tuner software would work
fine running without the Media Center under Windows 7.

Although the shock I got yesterday was my AverMedia TV tuner software
wasn't fine under Windows 8 even without the Media Center. Now I am
going to have to retest this under Windows 7 once again. As using the
time shifting feature was just too much for my Intel Core2 Duo T7400, as
it got choppy. Worse was recording into another format, which means the
software has to convert the video in real time into another format. This
uses lots of CPU power. I've never seen any of my dual core CPUs ever
peg all of the cores to max before. NEVER! But it did yesterday
converting the video in real time.

Oddly enough, this isn't a problem under XP even on this T2400 CPU. In
fact, this CPU under XP has Speedswitch enabled and most of the time it
is clocking at the lowest speed. This isn't true if I am running Windows
7 or Windows 8. They are running at max most of the time just idling. I
haven't tested XP with Media Center yet because I never installed that
version yet (it is on my things to do list).

Now I never ran XP mode under Windows 7 yet (and may never get around to
it). But I am so sure without even trying it out that running my
AverMedia TV tuner software under XP mode would be a total bust! True
that would be a bad example, but others things would also suffer. So why
bother? If you need XP mode, just fire up another computer running XP
itself. What's the big deal?
People who use WinXP Mode, are generally using it because they want
a guarantee they can run some software which is important to them.
Like, perhaps being able to run that "16 bit installer" in 32 bit WinXP
mode, when the 64 bit OS they got won't do it.

*******

There is quite a disparity, between the best and worst written video software.
If what you got is pegging a core, keep looking. I've seen up to a factor
of 10, between the best and the worst software. In Linux, one movie player
pegs a core to 100% and drops the odd frame. Another runs at 10% CPU.
The difference could be, one using SSE4 and the other one doesn't.

I know some of the software, decodes at one resolution, and then uses
the scaler in the video card, to do full screen. If you do that with
the CPU, without the video card helping, that eats 40% of a core. It
doesn't take much, if the software is written in a wasteful way.

To watch TV here, I use a Windows program called DScaler, which as far
as I know, is specific for BT848/BT878 based WinTV cards. I just checked
now, and watching some TV, it uses a grand total of 4% CPU. Great software...
Nice looking picture. Since the analog switchover, I kept my WinTV card,
and just feed it composite+audio from an STB. Good enough for watching the
news.

Paul
 
B

BillW50

In
Art said:
Some of us just happen to want to run some software on our only
Windows 7 box .... well in my case it's not my only computer, I have
some XP computers. But, my Windows 7 computer is my main computer. It
would be nice to be able to run my graphics program of choice, of
which I am most familiar, on my main computer (W7). I could, for
lots of $$$, buy the latest release of the software, however, the
software company has been bought by a different company and has
merged "my program" with their existing program, IMO destroying it.
Others may not think so. But that's a reason for wanting XP mode.
I fully understand totally! And I love the idea of doing everything on
one computer. But I never found one computer to be very practical at
all. It just doesn't work well. Although for example, it can at times.

Like I only have one computer running right now and I am browsing web
pages, email, newsgroups, and streaming a radio show. One modern day
computer handles this just fine. Heck I have three netbooks and even one
of them can handle all of that. But these are light duty tasks. If I
wanted to also record TV, convert video formats, make backups, or
something else, one computer just doesn't cut it anymore.
 
B

BillW50

In
Ken said:
We computer users seem to be an interesting bunch. We'll buy a piece
of software, 15 years ago, for computer system X. Then we buy a new
computer system X and complain the software from 15 years ago won't
work.
But how many of us bought this nice accessory for that new car 15
years ago, and expect it to work in the new car we bought yesterday?
LOL
What's wrong with us? <grin>
It sure beats what the manufactures want. As they want what you just
brought home from the store to be obsolete before you get the box
opened. Oh sure you could keep using obsolete stuff if you want to, but
they ask why would you? ;-)
 
B

BillW50

In
Paul said:
People who use WinXP Mode, are generally using it because they want a
guarantee they can run some software which is important to them. Like,
perhaps being able to run that "16 bit installer" in 32 bit WinXP
mode, when the 64 bit OS they got won't do it.
I get that Paul... but I would ask a number of things. Why are you
running 64 bit OS anyway? Do you really need to run a 64 bit OS? Some do
I am sure, but most people don't, including me. And secondly, most 16
bit software requires virtually no CPU power. So even a wimpy netbook
could be used to handle most of these jobs.
*******

There is quite a disparity, between the best and worst written video
software. If what you got is pegging a core, keep looking. I've seen
up to a factor of 10, between the best and the worst software. In
Linux, one movie player pegs a core to 100% and drops the odd frame.
Another runs at 10% CPU. The difference could be, one using SSE4 and
the other one doesn't.

I know some of the software, decodes at one resolution, and then uses
the scaler in the video card, to do full screen. If you do that with
the CPU, without the video card helping, that eats 40% of a core. It
doesn't take much, if the software is written in a wasteful way.

To watch TV here, I use a Windows program called DScaler, which as far
as I know, is specific for BT848/BT878 based WinTV cards. I just
checked now, and watching some TV, it uses a grand total of 4% CPU.
Great software... Nice looking picture. Since the analog switchover, I
kept my WinTV card, and just feed it composite+audio from an STB. Good
enough for watching the news.
Paul, yes I too have seen a big difference between video programs. For
example, I thought for years that VLC was a really great one. That is
until I tried it on a Linux netbook and it was terrible. Yet VLC ran
just fine under XP on the same machine. So I blamed Linux and not VLC
itself.

That is until I tried VLC under Windows 2000 on the same machine. VLC is
terrible once again. So it must be that Linux and Windows 2000 are just
poor multimedia OS.

Now back to my AverMedia TV tuner software. It runs extremely well under
XP with power to spare. And since my AverMedia TV tuner sports a MPG
decoder in the hardware, there is virtually no CPU power needed to watch
TV. Both Windows 7 and Windows 8 also have no problems with the same
tuner. The problem that W7/8 has is when it has to do more work like
recording while time shifting, or recording into another format in real
time. Now you need CPU power and now it's a big problem.

What is odd is this machine is one of my slowest dual core machines. Not
fast enough for W7/8, but fine for XP. And this task is a breeze on this
machine with lots of CPU power to spare. Although my fastest machine
running W7/8 it is just too much work for it.

I remember back in 2009, I installed Windows 7 on three Celeron
machines. And all three where a disaster! Sure the faster the single
core CPU runs, the better it was. And by adjusting the clock speed, I
found Windows 7 itself at idle eats half of the CPU power at 600MHz. And
if you ask Windows 7 to do anything at all at 600Mhz, you have to wait
and wait. Same test underclocking XP to 600Mhz, and XP is still
lightning fast! There is a huge difference between XP and Windows 7
here.

Sure run Windows 7/8 under a multi-core CPU at high clock speeds and
most won't notice that Windows 7/8 is actually using more CPU power than
XP is. And IMHO Windows 7/8 is better than XP at doing far more tasks at
one time compared to XP, that some will even claim things speeded up
under Windows 7/8 compared to XP. Sure, if you throw more powerful CPUs
at Windows 7/8, it sure will. And one of the tip offs for me is that the
CPU runs hotter running the same tasks under Windows 7/8 than it does on
the same machine running XP.

So the problem isn't the AverMedia TV tuner software, but it is the OS
(just like VLC). Sure you could throw more hardware at the problem and
that should do nicely. But I found using an OS that handles the current
hardware just fine to be the better solution and far less costly. ;-)
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jeff

I've been using it for the past couple of years, and I like it. I've
got three different Linuxs, and OS/2, a Win XP, a Win 8, and an Android
virtual machined.
How did you get an android virtual machine on it?

Thanks, Jeff
 
N

Nil

How did you get an android virtual machine on it?
I found an few different pre-made Virtual Box images on the 'net
somewhere. Don't remember where, though. They're not very useful, but
it was interesting to see them in that context.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Stefan Patric

We computer users seem to be an interesting bunch. We'll buy a piece of
software, 15 years ago, for computer system X. Then we buy a new
computer system X and complain the software from 15 years ago won't
work.
The Commodore Amiga could do that.

I owned several models from an A500, first purchased late '87, and
upgraded over the years, to my last, a very expanded A3000/040, and all
the software regardless of how new or old, or which version of
AmigaOS--1.2 to 3.5--ran without problems on all the systems.
But how many of us bought this nice accessory for that new car 15 years
ago, and expect it to work in the new car we bought yesterday? LOL
Hey! My hula doll and fuzzy dice still work fine. Although, the A-
oooogah horn wore out. ;-)
What's wrong with us? <grin>
Nothing. It's everybody else who's crazy. :))

Stef
 
Ad

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. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top