It seems all three of my problems may be from this setting

I made all 500GB (HD) into an NTFS partition
(GParted was too fast in formatting - worried)
bash fsck instead of fdisk worked fine - no errors
the check disk in gparted menu didn't complain either

But trying to install XP finds some CHKDSK error
(tells me to chkdsk - gives me four hex numbers)
But Windows Setup loads all the drivers and
only blows when trying to start Windows itself

Setting back from Legacy to UEFI gives "check media[failed]"

This problem showed up when I moved the Win7 partiton
(hopefully now gone - deleted partitions, reformatted)

Also Knoppix (Quantian) can't find the filesystem
knoppix home=/dev/sda1/knoppix.img won't work either

One wierd possibility - I burned the ISOs on DVDs
Maybe they should be CD?

I know - my flawed memory (of doing this a decade ago) is confusing me

--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---

Am 31.01.2023 um 21:42:39 Uhr schrieb
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com:

> But trying to install XP finds some CHKDSK error
> (tells me to chkdsk - gives me four hex numbers)
> But Windows Setup loads all the drivers and
> only blows when trying to start Windows itself

Use badblocks in Linux to completely check the entire drive for defect
sectors.

In <trd2rb$7oqe$2@dont-email.me> by Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> on Wed, 01 Feb 2023 02:03:07 we perused:
81#81*+-Am 31.01.2023 um 21:42:39 Uhr schrieb
*+-vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com:

*+-> But trying to install XP finds some CHKDSK error
*+-> (tells me to chkdsk - gives me four hex numbers)
*+-> But Windows Setup loads all the drivers and
*+-> only blows when trying to start Windows itself

*+-Use badblocks in Linux to completely check the entire drive for defect
*+-sectors.

THanks. THe only OS that can currently run is the bash under gparted
which thankflully seems rather complete.

--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---

On 1/31/23 13:42, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> It seems all three of my problems may be from this setting
>
> I made all 500GB (HD) into an NTFS partition
> (GParted was too fast in formatting - worried)
> bash fsck instead of fdisk worked fine - no errors
> the check disk in gparted menu didn't complain either
>
> But trying to install XP finds some CHKDSK error
> (tells me to chkdsk - gives me four hex numbers)
> But Windows Setup loads all the drivers and
> only blows when trying to start Windows itself
>
> Setting back from Legacy to UEFI gives "check media[failed]"
>
> This problem showed up when I moved the Win7 partiton
> (hopefully now gone - deleted partitions, reformatted)
>
> Also Knoppix (Quantian) can't find the filesystem
> knoppix home=/dev/sda1/knoppix.img won't work either

Of course it cannot find the file system but if you run GPartEd from
Knoppix it will be able to create a file system which Knoppix can
find. That is an ext4 or other Linux Filesystem.

>
>
>
> One wierd possibility - I burned the ISOs on DVDs
> Maybe they should be CD?
>
> I know - my flawed memory (of doing this a decade ago) is confusing me
>
Currently best usage is a late live iso file burned to a Flash Drive of
adequate size. If you burn Knoppix iso file to a Flash Drive
of 8 GB you should as well be able to create a persistent space of about
3.6 GB in which you can store notes and changes.

bliss - on the ever-faithful Dell Latitude E7450, PCLinuxOS 2022
KDE Plasma 5.26.5 Kernel: 6.1.8-pclos1 (64-bit)
KDE Frameworks 5.102.0 - Qt Version: 5.15.6
Graphics : X11 - Mesa Intel® HD Graphics 5500
15.5 GiB of RAM - CPU 4 × Intel® Core™ i7-5600U CPU @ 2.60GHz
Actually 2 real cores and 2 virtual cores.

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

THanks, does this link add any info?

https://superuser.com/questions/122316/how-to-install-windows-xp-over-windows-7

--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 21:45:59 -0000 (UTC), vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>
> THanks, does this link add any info?
>
> https://superuser.com/questions/122316/how-to-install-windows-xp-over-windows-7

Umm, how about the other way around?

Have some problems getting a VM running on Linux and thought to instead
install Windows 10 (I have an image somewhere).

Currently it looks like

NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda 8:0 0 298.1G 0 disk
├─sda1 8:1 0 512M 0 part /boot/efi
├─sda2 8:2 0 195.3G 0 part /
└─sda3 8:3 0 7.8G 0 part [SWAP]

here. There is some not allocated space of may be 80 GB I'd use for
Windows. Thus Windows won't be on the first partition.

Is it a problem to install Windows after Linux?
--
Andreas

Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:

> Is it a problem to install Windows after Linux?

I don't think so. I'd make an image of the Linux partition just in case
and a copy of the partition table too.

In the bad old days Windows would overwrite your boot loader and so
you'd need some way of reinstalling it. In these UEFI days you should
be able to boot Linux from the UEFI boot menu even if that happens.

On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 14:34:37 +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:
>
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
>
>> Is it a problem to install Windows after Linux?
>
> I don't think so. I'd make an image of the Linux partition just in case
> and a copy of the partition table too.
>
> In the bad old days Windows would overwrite your boot loader and so
> you'd need some way of reinstalling it. In these UEFI days you should
> be able to boot Linux from the UEFI boot menu even if that happens.

Thanks.

Am just worried the Windows installation might be similar dumb as Chrome
OS Flex, to not let the user choose a partition to be installed at.

Well, not planned any time soon anyway, so I keep looking for info.
--
Andreas

On 2/4/23 15:06, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 14:34:37 +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:
>>
>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
>>
>>> Is it a problem to install Windows after Linux?
>>
>> I don't think so. I'd make an image of the Linux partition just in case
>> and a copy of the partition table too.
>>
>> In the bad old days Windows would overwrite your boot loader and so
>> you'd need some way of reinstalling it. In these UEFI days you should
>> be able to boot Linux from the UEFI boot menu even if that happens.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Am just worried the Windows installation might be similar dumb as Chrome
> OS Flex, to not let the user choose a partition to be installed at.
>
> Well, not planned any time soon anyway, so I keep looking for info.

Well when Windows does a kernel update it has to rewrite the Windows
boot loader which will require a boot re-install if you have
Linux on the same disk.

bliss - “Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux computer. Many do.”
After all here I am...

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 04/02/2023 23:06, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 14:34:37 +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:
>>
>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
>>
>>> Is it a problem to install Windows after Linux?
>>
>> I don't think so. I'd make an image of the Linux partition just in case
>> and a copy of the partition table too.
>>
>> In the bad old days Windows would overwrite your boot loader and so
>> you'd need some way of reinstalling it. In these UEFI days you should
>> be able to boot Linux from the UEFI boot menu even if that happens.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Am just worried the Windows installation might be similar dumb as Chrome
> OS Flex, to not let the user choose a partition to be installed at.
>
> Well, not planned any time soon anyway, so I keep looking for info.

In general Windows does not see the need to parallel install, but Linux
does, ergo its usually safer to install windows first and let Linux sort
out the mess.
But really its far easier to use virtual box if you have spare RAM

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 20:34:05 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>
> On 2/4/23 15:06, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> Am just worried the Windows installation might be similar dumb as
>> Chrome
>> OS Flex, to not let the user choose a partition to be installed at.
>> Well, not planned any time soon anyway, so I keep looking for info.
>
> Well when Windows does a kernel update it has to rewrite the
> Windows boot loader which will require a boot re-install if
> you have
> Linux on the same disk.

Eeeeks!

I had Windows until Windows 2000, but it never messed with MBR back then
when there was an update.

If Windows 10 (I have an ISO) really does this I won't install it next to
Linux. Game over, Windows!
--
Andreas

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:34:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 04/02/2023 23:06, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>> Am just worried the Windows installation might be similar dumb as
>> Chrome
>> OS Flex, to not let the user choose a partition to be installed at.
>> Well, not planned any time soon anyway, so I keep looking for info.
>
> In general Windows does not see the need to parallel install, but
> Linux does, ergo its usually safer to install windows first and let
> Linux sort out the mess.

I put a lot of effort into Linux already, so won't reinstall it only to
have Windows.

> But really its far easier to use virtual box if you have spare RAM

Only 8 GB here. Also had trouble trying to get Qemu working (some errors
with devices it couldn't find on initial launch).

May be I'll try VirtualBox at some point.
--
Andreas

On 2023-02-06, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:34:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> In general Windows does not see the need to parallel install, but
>> Linux does, ergo its usually safer to install windows first and let
>> Linux sort out the mess.

I'd reword that to: Windows sees the need to not parallel install.
Gotta keep that monopoly going somehow.

> I put a lot of effort into Linux already, so won't reinstall it only to
> have Windows.
>
>> But really its far easier to use virtual box if you have spare RAM
>
> Only 8 GB here. Also had trouble trying to get Qemu working (some errors
> with devices it couldn't find on initial launch).
>
> May be I'll try VirtualBox at some point.

If you don't have to be bleeding-edge, try my solution:
I run XP under VirtualBox, and it runs fine with 512MB of memory.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2/5/23 11:34 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2023-02-06, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:34:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> In general Windows does not see the need to parallel install, but
>>> Linux does, ergo its usually safer to install windows first and let
>>> Linux sort out the mess.
>
> I'd reword that to: Windows sees the need to not parallel install.
> Gotta keep that monopoly going somehow.

Absolutely correct. M$ is fully, totally, sociopathically,
IN IT FOR THE MONEY.

Won't be long before it does a SCAN for "alternate OS's"
on boot - and freezes the machine if if finds anything.
I'll bet Win-12. Oh, and you'll have to scrap yer gen8
boxes too so M$ can get a chunk of all the REQUIRED gen12+
boxes. Nobody says anything, nobody does anything, no big
lawsuits or anti-trust actions ...........

>> I put a lot of effort into Linux already, so won't reinstall it only to
>> have Windows.

I don't use Winders for anything. Haven't for many years.

But not everybody has that option.

>>> But really its far easier to use virtual box if you have spare RAM
>>
>> Only 8 GB here. Also had trouble trying to get Qemu working (some errors
>> with devices it couldn't find on initial launch).
>>
>> May be I'll try VirtualBox at some point.
>
> If you don't have to be bleeding-edge, try my solution:
> I run XP under VirtualBox, and it runs fine with 512MB of memory.

But for how much longer ? Oh, and how long will the
bosses put up with "obsolete" OS's they've been told
are "insecure"/"inadequate" ??? They REALLY don't know
any better but DO control the paycheck$.

VirtualBox is good - and KVM/VMware can do most of
what VB does. "WINE" just announced a major new
upgrade ... haven't checked yet if it can run Win-11
stuff decently.

Oh well, I'm old enough to retire at any time. Not all
of you are in that position however ........

My only satisfaction ... I started with PDP-11's and
punch cards and can do electronics/embedded. I don't
see much of any "new me's" as practical replacements.
I suspect a Giant Flushing Sound one the me's leave
the scene :-)

Well ... note my other thread on ChatGPT and what M$
is merging into it ... there may BE NO "programmers"
anymore, we finally outsmarted ourselves ........

On 2023-02-06, 26C.Z968 <26C.Z968@noaada.net> wrote:

> On 2/5/23 11:34 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2023-02-06, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:34:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> In general Windows does not see the need to parallel install, but
>>>> Linux does, ergo its usually safer to install windows first and let
>>>> Linux sort out the mess.
>>
>> I'd reword that to: Windows sees the need to not parallel install.
>> Gotta keep that monopoly going somehow.
>
> Absolutely correct. M$ is fully, totally, sociopathically,
> IN IT FOR THE MONEY.
>
> Won't be long before it does a SCAN for "alternate OS's"
> on boot - and freezes the machine if if finds anything.
> I'll bet Win-12. Oh, and you'll have to scrap yer gen8
> boxes too so M$ can get a chunk of all the REQUIRED gen12+
> boxes. Nobody says anything, nobody does anything, no big
> lawsuits or anti-trust actions ...........

Stuff like this has been going on since the Windows 95 Registration
Troj^H^H^H^HWizard, which someone discovered was scanning your machine
for over 200 different software packages (most of them from other
vendors) and reporting the results back to the mother ship.

Then there was UEFI, which for all its good intentions was turned
into an attempt to make it impossible to boot anything but Windows
on what is laughingly referred to as "your" computer.

>> If you don't have to be bleeding-edge, try my solution:
>> I run XP under VirtualBox, and it runs fine with 512MB of memory.
>
> But for how much longer ? Oh, and how long will the
> bosses put up with "obsolete" OS's they've been told
> are "insecure"/"inadequate" ??? They REALLY don't know
> any better but DO control the paycheck$.

I'm in a good position - I work for a small outfit and can
use XP to compile and test my stuff, which I've designed to
run on anything from 95 to the latest version. (Plus Linux -
we're starting to get some customers who want some freedom
themselves.)

> Oh well, I'm old enough to retire at any time. Not all
> of you are in that position however ........

I am, but I still get satisfaction from my work. And the
money really helps in these inflated times...

> My only satisfaction ... I started with PDP-11's and
> punch cards and can do electronics/embedded. I don't
> see much of any "new me's" as practical replacements.
> I suspect a Giant Flushing Sound one the me's leave
> the scene :-)

I'm with you there. I started on small mainframes - where
"small" meant that 32K of memory was lots of room.

> Well ... note my other thread on ChatGPT and what M$
> is merging into it ... there may BE NO "programmers"
> anymore, we finally outsmarted ourselves ........

Time to go underground.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 1/31/23 13:42, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> It seems all three of my problems may be from this setting
>
> I made all 500GB (HD) into an NTFS partition
> (GParted was too fast in formatting - worried)
> bash fsck instead of fdisk worked fine - no errors
> the check disk in gparted menu didn't complain either

The problem is that you worked too fast.
GPartEd has two version of the NTFS.
You might try the other one. But read on.
>
> But trying to install XP finds some CHKDSK error
> (tells me to chkdsk - gives me four hex numbers)
> But Windows Setup loads all the drivers and
> only blows when trying to start Windows itself
What partitioning scheme are you using? the old MS
thing or UEFI. Windows XP predates that latter system.

>
> Setting back from Legacy to UEFI gives "check media[failed]" >
> This problem showed up when I moved the Win7 partiton
> (hopefully now gone - deleted partitions, reformatted)

Since you cannot start Windows at all use the GPartED
to create all your partitions 100 GB is the max I would allocate
to any MS-OS product.
Might be easier to run Windows XP from a VirtualBox or other
virtual machine system. Then you would not need to leave space
for it. There is lots of information about this on the net
and I found some by searching on "running Windows XP on Virtual
box. There seem to be some videos on doing so. If I remember
correctly you want to run a DOS as well and there is information
there about that whether you want to run MS-DOS or FreeDOS.
>
> Also Knoppix (Quantian) can't find the filesystem
> knoppix home=/dev/sda1/knoppix.img won't work either

Well I don't know which version you are using but
I started with Knoppix 3.1 and current is 9.1 or even 9.2
if it has been released for general use.

> One wierd possibility - I burned the ISOs on DVDs
> Maybe they should be CD?

They should be Flash Drives if your system can
boot from that.
You have to turn off the Secure Boot in the BIOS to get
non-MS booting from most Linux systems. Ubuntu, Red Hat and
others have paid MS for a Key to allow booting on the secure
system but not Knoppix, nor PCLinuxOS.
DVDs are Ok but very slow.

>
> I know - my flawed memory (of doing this a decade ago) is confusing me

Not only that but you have not kept up with the technology
of the Linux systems.

I started with Mandriva about 17 years ago and it is now out of
business despite its convenience and ease. I now use PCLinuxOS which
was/is based on the preceding system Mandrake and which had taken images
from the Mandriva before a bad business model drove it into bankruptcy
which is not uncommon with high tech commercial ventures.

I dunno if you can see my e-mail address with whatever tool
you are using but I suggest that since you have gotten behind on
the tech that you find a nearby Linux Users Group which might afford
you more timely help than you can find on Usenet.

Good luck
bliss - “Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux computer. Many do.”
After all here I am...again..

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 2/6/23 1:18 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2023-02-06, 26C.Z968 <26C.Z968@noaada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/23 11:34 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-02-06, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:34:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In general Windows does not see the need to parallel install, but
>>>>> Linux does, ergo its usually safer to install windows first and let
>>>>> Linux sort out the mess.
>>>
>>> I'd reword that to: Windows sees the need to not parallel install.
>>> Gotta keep that monopoly going somehow.
>>
>> Absolutely correct. M$ is fully, totally, sociopathically,
>> IN IT FOR THE MONEY.
>>
>> Won't be long before it does a SCAN for "alternate OS's"
>> on boot - and freezes the machine if if finds anything.
>> I'll bet Win-12. Oh, and you'll have to scrap yer gen8
>> boxes too so M$ can get a chunk of all the REQUIRED gen12+
>> boxes. Nobody says anything, nobody does anything, no big
>> lawsuits or anti-trust actions ...........
>
> Stuff like this has been going on since the Windows 95 Registration
> Troj^H^H^H^HWizard, which someone discovered was scanning your machine
> for over 200 different software packages (most of them from other
> vendors) and reporting the results back to the mother ship.
>
> Then there was UEFI, which for all its good intentions was turned
> into an attempt to make it impossible to boot anything but Windows
> on what is laughingly referred to as "your" computer.
>
>>> If you don't have to be bleeding-edge, try my solution:
>>> I run XP under VirtualBox, and it runs fine with 512MB of memory.
>>
>> But for how much longer ? Oh, and how long will the
>> bosses put up with "obsolete" OS's they've been told
>> are "insecure"/"inadequate" ??? They REALLY don't know
>> any better but DO control the paycheck$.
>
> I'm in a good position - I work for a small outfit and can
> use XP to compile and test my stuff, which I've designed to
> run on anything from 95 to the latest version. (Plus Linux -
> we're starting to get some customers who want some freedom
> themselves.)
>
>> Oh well, I'm old enough to retire at any time. Not all
>> of you are in that position however ........
>
> I am, but I still get satisfaction from my work. And the
> money really helps in these inflated times...

I'd like to stretch the paychecks & insurance plan
at least another year ... but I dunno .....

>> My only satisfaction ... I started with PDP-11's and
>> punch cards and can do electronics/embedded. I don't
>> see much of any "new me's" as practical replacements.
>> I suspect a Giant Flushing Sound one the me's leave
>> the scene :-)
>
> I'm with you there. I started on small mainframes - where
> "small" meant that 32K of memory was lots of room.

The bastards with the PDP-11 did have terminals, but
we low-lives were expected to punch cards just like
THEY had to do :-)

Surprised they didn't give us drum drives and mercury-
delay "ram" .......

>> Well ... note my other thread on ChatGPT and what M$
>> is merging into it ... there may BE NO "programmers"
>> anymore, we finally outsmarted ourselves ........
>
> Time to go underground.

It'll work for awhile, but the "AI"s and their
inefficient but CHEAP approach to software WILL
win in the end unless the Giant Solar Flare
happens.

Oh well, I kinda remember how to make radios
with vacuum tubes .......

On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 04:34:50 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-06, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> Only 8 GB here. Also had trouble trying to get Qemu working (some errors
>> with devices it couldn't find on initial launch).
>>
>> May be I'll try VirtualBox at some point.

May the I have not activated the VM option in the BIOS (I didn't even
know something like this exists). Will have to check next time I reboot.

Or can it be checked on a running Linux? May be with inxi?

> If you don't have to be bleeding-edge, try my solution:
> I run XP under VirtualBox, and it runs fine with 512MB of memory.

The program I want to run is a game which needs at least Windows 8.
--
Andreas

Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> If you don't have to be bleeding-edge, try my solution:
>> I run XP under VirtualBox, and it runs fine with 512MB of memory.
>
> The program I want to run is a game which needs at least Windows 8.

Maybe check whether it works in Wine as well? Note that you have to
install 32bit libs if your Linux installation is 64bit for Wine to
work (or at least I did, but I'm running 32bit Windows XP
programs).

https://appdb.winehq.org/

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 09/02/2023 05:18, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> The program I want to run is a game which needs at least Windows 8.

Does it require fast graphics? That is the one thing that is not great
on virtual machines..

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 9 Feb 2023 17:06:08 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't have to be bleeding-edge, try my solution:
>>> I run XP under VirtualBox, and it runs fine with 512MB of memory.
>>
>> The program I want to run is a game which needs at least Windows 8.
>
> Maybe check whether it works in Wine as well? Note that you have to
> install 32bit libs if your Linux installation is 64bit for Wine to
> work (or at least I did, but I'm running 32bit Windows XP
> programs).
>
> https://appdb.winehq.org/

Thanks. Will try Wine at some point. Have it already for VPinball and it
works great.
--
Andreas

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 11:31:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 09/02/2023 05:18, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> The program I want to run is a game which needs at least Windows 8.
>
> Does it require fast graphics? That is the one thing that is not great
> on virtual machines..

Game I'm looking for to get running is Serious Sam 4. As I only see now
it requires Windows 10 (not just Windows 8 as I recalled). Suppose it
needs a decent graphic card. Something I also didn't think about, as my
computer is already 10 years old.
--
Andreas

On 2/9/23 12:18 AM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 04:34:50 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-02-06, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Only 8 GB here. Also had trouble trying to get Qemu working (some errors
>>> with devices it couldn't find on initial launch).
>>>
>>> May be I'll try VirtualBox at some point.
>
> May the I have not activated the VM option in the BIOS (I didn't even
> know something like this exists). Will have to check next time I reboot.
>
> Or can it be checked on a running Linux? May be with inxi?\\

SOME utilities will tell you, I think inxi will if you
use the correct flags. However just BOOT the computer
and F2 or whatever to the BIOS screen. Somewhere in there
there will be an option for turning on hardware VM. Not
all Intel chips HAVE it however.

Anyway, it considerably speeds up yer VMs. QEMU is
basically a SOFTWARE solution and is notably slower
than hardware-assisted solutions.

Anytime I buy a board/chip I do look for inbuilt
VM capability. May never use it, but it's good to
know it's there.

KVM *can* do almost anything VirtualBox can do - but
it's a lot klunkier - some manual editing of config
files is often needed and expanding virtual diskspace
is a two or three step manual process. Xen isn't any
better. KVM also installs a tweaked kernel which may
or may not be compatible with what you're doing. So,
for most users, I'd strongly suggest VirtualBox - but
you DO need to install that 'accessory' stuff so you
can get at the hardware and storage better.

SOME users, usually corps, go whole-hawg on virtual
machines. Their money people say "why buy multiple
boxes ?" and it SOUNDS sane. So, they buy ONE good
box and VMWare and put *everything* on there. Then
the board burns out ....

NEVER let the penny-counters make technical recs !
They do NOT have a clue. Anyplace that starts
catering to them - QUIT ! - it's DOOMED.

Boxes, even now, are relatively cheap. Buy several and
dedicate. Then *everything* won't die if the Magic
Smoke escapes.

Note the Gen-12 hexcore i5's are faster than the
gen-7/8 i7's of recent yesteryear - and a LOT
cheaper than the new i7s. For "servers" you may
not NEED today's i7/i9/Xeon power/price. An easy
way to save lotsa money. File servers, software-based
routers, DBs and such are generally I/O limited ...
ie it doesn't matter HOW fast the CHIP is, the
networking and/or 'disks' define the real-world
performance.

BIG Biz, with hundreds of users AND some VMs,
maybe one of the good Xeon's are worth it ...
maybe. Do the math. Oh, just PRICE a dual-Xeon
64-core board/chip these days - SuperMicro
has one of those "Let us give you a quote"
things, same with IBM blades :-)

>> If you don't have to be bleeding-edge, try my solution:
>> I run XP under VirtualBox, and it runs fine with 512MB of memory.
>
> The program I want to run is a game which needs at least Windows 8.

I often deal with "devices" that insist on Win-compat plugins
for their interface/setup. Almost all will still work with XP.
So, an XP-VM takes care of it. Then I turn it off.

As for games ... WINE really *might* take care of it. DO search
online for the EXACT set of params to feed WINE however (and
there are a LOT of possibilities there). WINE can be the
easiest solution sometimes. VMs are 'cleaner', but a bit less
convenient.