Gave up Vista as host

just bob · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 5

When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of files,
Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff within a VM
but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest... so I can test apps
and do desktop support for the few clients I have using it.

Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk space
loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and multimedia
features will not be supported?

Many thanks for the tips and tricks.

Archived from group: microsoft>public>virtualpc

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

As long as you have the memory to do it that way it should work fine. Vista
Ultimate in a vm can run OK with 768MB allocated but it is better with more.

"just bob" wrote in message $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of files,
> Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff within a VM
> but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest... so I can test
> apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have using it.
>
> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk space
> loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and multimedia
> features will not be supported?
>
> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

Absolutely. XP in a vm is outstanding for me. It whizzes right along. I
can't tell any difference between its performance in a vm on my quadcore
host and how it ran natively on the hardware of just a couple of years ago.

"Bill Grant" wrote in message @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Personally I would stick with your original idea. XP as a vm on Vista
> is a much better plan than vice versa.
>
> Vista will run in a vm but it is pretty limited. XP runs well.
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
> @microsoft.com...
>> As long as you have the memory to do it that way it should work fine.
>> Vista Ultimate in a vm can run OK with 768MB allocated but it is better
>> with more.
>>
>> "just bob" wrote in message
>> $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of
>>> files, Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff
>>> within a VM but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest... so
>>> I can test apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have using
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk
>>> space loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and
>>> multimedia features will not be supported?
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>>>
>>
>

Bill Grant · Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 1094

Personally I would stick with your original idea. XP as a vm on Vista is
a much better plan than vice versa.

Vista will run in a vm but it is pretty limited. XP runs well.

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message @microsoft.com...
> As long as you have the memory to do it that way it should work fine.
> Vista Ultimate in a vm can run OK with 768MB allocated but it is better
> with more.
>
> "just bob" wrote in message
> $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of
>> files, Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff
>> within a VM but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest... so
>> I can test apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have using
>> it.
>>
>> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk space
>> loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and
>> multimedia features will not be supported?
>>
>> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>>
>

just bob · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 5

Bill, Colin,

Thanks for the encouragement to get Vista going again as host and XP as VM.
My real issue is I work with thousands of RAW image files in Photoshop - we
are talking as much as 60 GB of files that I would have to push and pull off
the VM for processing and without having USB to move these files I'm stuck.
Any suggestions for this?

Thanks!

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message @microsoft.com...
> Absolutely. XP in a vm is outstanding for me. It whizzes right along. I
> can't tell any difference between its performance in a vm on my quadcore
> host and how it ran natively on the hardware of just a couple of years
> ago.
>
> "Bill Grant" wrote in message
> @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Personally I would stick with your original idea. XP as a vm on Vista
>> is a much better plan than vice versa.
>>
>> Vista will run in a vm but it is pretty limited. XP runs well.
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
>> @microsoft.com...
>>> As long as you have the memory to do it that way it should work fine.
>>> Vista Ultimate in a vm can run OK with 768MB allocated but it is better
>>> with more.
>>>
>>> "just bob" wrote in message
>>> $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of
>>>> files, Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff
>>>> within a VM but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest...
>>>> so I can test apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have
>>>> using it.
>>>>
>>>> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk
>>>> space loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and
>>>> multimedia features will not be supported?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Steve Jain · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 835

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:04:26 -0800, "just bob"
wrote:

>Bill, Colin,
>
>Thanks for the encouragement to get Vista going again as host and XP as VM.
>My real issue is I work with thousands of RAW image files in Photoshop - we
>are talking as much as 60 GB of files that I would have to push and pull off
>the VM for processing and without having USB to move these files I'm stuck.
>Any suggestions for this?
>
>Thanks!
>

Network share between the host and the VM?

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

Which version of Photoshop?

"just bob" wrote in message $0$84227$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Bill, Colin,
>
> Thanks for the encouragement to get Vista going again as host and XP as
> VM. My real issue is I work with thousands of RAW image files in
> Photoshop - we are talking as much as 60 GB of files that I would have to
> push and pull off the VM for processing and without having USB to move
> these files I'm stuck. Any suggestions for this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
> @microsoft.com...
>> Absolutely. XP in a vm is outstanding for me. It whizzes right along.
>> I can't tell any difference between its performance in a vm on my
>> quadcore host and how it ran natively on the hardware of just a couple of
>> years ago.
>>
>> "Bill Grant" wrote in message
>> @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Personally I would stick with your original idea. XP as a vm on Vista
>>> is a much better plan than vice versa.
>>>
>>> Vista will run in a vm but it is pretty limited. XP runs well.
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
>>> @microsoft.com...
>>>> As long as you have the memory to do it that way it should work fine.
>>>> Vista Ultimate in a vm can run OK with 768MB allocated but it is better
>>>> with more.
>>>>
>>>> "just bob" wrote in message
>>>> $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of
>>>>> files, Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff
>>>>> within a VM but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest...
>>>>> so I can test apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have
>>>>> using it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk
>>>>> space loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and
>>>>> multimedia features will not be supported?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

just bob · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 5

I have both CS2 and CS3 loaded. I prefer CS2 for speed and stability but I
do love ACR v4 and the metadata filters in CS3. However, I spend 99% of my
time in Bridge which for CS3 is sluggish and unstable on any wintel machine
and/or OS when you have a few thousands large RAW files in one folder and
you are trying to do mass changes to RAW settings. I have a newer camera not
supported by ACR v3 for CS2 so I will batch DNG convert and this workflow
is perfect for me especially if I DNG convert in batch while downloading
from the media. I also do a lot of file management as I have to prepare
different sorts, build html galleries and ftp them, all of which works great
in XP but not so with Vista.

I hope this is all clear - it has been a long week and long day and I'm a
bit tired.

-Bob

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message @microsoft.com...
> Which version of Photoshop?
>
> "just bob" wrote in message
> $0$84227$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Bill, Colin,
>>
>> Thanks for the encouragement to get Vista going again as host and XP as
>> VM. My real issue is I work with thousands of RAW image files in
>> Photoshop - we are talking as much as 60 GB of files that I would have to
>> push and pull off the VM for processing and without having USB to move
>> these files I'm stuck. Any suggestions for this?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
>> @microsoft.com...
>>> Absolutely. XP in a vm is outstanding for me. It whizzes right along.
>>> I can't tell any difference between its performance in a vm on my
>>> quadcore host and how it ran natively on the hardware of just a couple
>>> of years ago.
>>>
>>> "Bill Grant" wrote in message
>>> @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Personally I would stick with your original idea. XP as a vm on
>>>> Vista is a much better plan than vice versa.
>>>>
>>>> Vista will run in a vm but it is pretty limited. XP runs well.
>>>>
>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
>>>> @microsoft.com...
>>>>> As long as you have the memory to do it that way it should work fine.
>>>>> Vista Ultimate in a vm can run OK with 768MB allocated but it is
>>>>> better with more.
>>>>>
>>>>> "just bob" wrote in message
>>>>> $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>>> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of
>>>>>> files, Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff
>>>>>> within a VM but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest...
>>>>>> so I can test apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have
>>>>>> using it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk
>>>>>> space loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and
>>>>>> multimedia features will not be supported?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

just bob · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 5

"Steve Jain" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:04:26 -0800, "just bob"
> wrote:
>
>>Bill, Colin,
>>
>>Thanks for the encouragement to get Vista going again as host and XP as
>>VM.
>>My real issue is I work with thousands of RAW image files in Photoshop -
>>we
>>are talking as much as 60 GB of files that I would have to push and pull
>>off
>>the VM for processing and without having USB to move these files I'm
>>stuck.
>>Any suggestions for this?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>
> Network share between the host and the VM?

I have yet to try this. With VMware I could do direct access and get the USB
support I need. But VMware server is not so good on Vista host.

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

Is there some reason you are not using CS on the host or am I misreading?

"just bob" wrote in message $0$84214$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>I have both CS2 and CS3 loaded. I prefer CS2 for speed and stability but I
>do love ACR v4 and the metadata filters in CS3. However, I spend 99% of my
>time in Bridge which for CS3 is sluggish and unstable on any wintel machine
>and/or OS when you have a few thousands large RAW files in one folder and
>you are trying to do mass changes to RAW settings. I have a newer camera
>not supported by ACR v3 for CS2 so I will batch DNG convert and this
>workflow is perfect for me especially if I DNG convert in batch while
>downloading from the media. I also do a lot of file management as I have to
>prepare different sorts, build html galleries and ftp them, all of which
>works great in XP but not so with Vista.
>
> I hope this is all clear - it has been a long week and long day and I'm a
> bit tired.
>
> -Bob
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
> @microsoft.com...
>> Which version of Photoshop?
>>
>> "just bob" wrote in message
>> $0$84227$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Bill, Colin,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the encouragement to get Vista going again as host and XP as
>>> VM. My real issue is I work with thousands of RAW image files in
>>> Photoshop - we are talking as much as 60 GB of files that I would have
>>> to push and pull off the VM for processing and without having USB to
>>> move these files I'm stuck. Any suggestions for this?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
>>> @microsoft.com...
>>>> Absolutely. XP in a vm is outstanding for me. It whizzes right along.
>>>> I can't tell any difference between its performance in a vm on my
>>>> quadcore host and how it ran natively on the hardware of just a couple
>>>> of years ago.
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Grant" wrote in message
>>>> @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Personally I would stick with your original idea. XP as a vm on
>>>>> Vista is a much better plan than vice versa.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vista will run in a vm but it is pretty limited. XP runs well.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
>>>>> @microsoft.com...
>>>>>> As long as you have the memory to do it that way it should work fine.
>>>>>> Vista Ultimate in a vm can run OK with 768MB allocated but it is
>>>>>> better with more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "just bob" wrote in message
>>>>>> $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>>>> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of
>>>>>>> files, Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP
>>>>>>> stuff within a VM but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a
>>>>>>> guest... so I can test apps and do desktop support for the few
>>>>>>> clients I have using it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk
>>>>>>> space loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty
>>>>>>> and multimedia features will not be supported?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

Vista x86 SP1 now shows 4GB on the system properties page. The amount
available to user programs has not changed, however, just what is reported
on the sp page.

"Jim Kay" wrote in message @microsoft.com...
>I have a couple of AMD machines that each have 4 gig of RAM. Running XP as
>the host I 'see' 4 gig of RAM but running Vista as the host I only 'see' 2
>gig of RAM. (There is a long and convoluted KB article that 'explains' why
>Vista should only 'see' 2 gig but that doesn't explain why XP can see all 4
>gig.)
>
> One solution is to run Vista 64 bit on my machine and then Vista sees the
> whole 4 gig. (Unfortunately, there are still so many third-party devices
> that don't install on 64bit systems.
>
> Another solution is to run Server 2008 on the real machine and then any
> guest will be fine.
>
> Joschka
>
> "just bob" wrote in message
> $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of
>> files, Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff
>> within a VM but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest... so
>> I can test apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have using
>> it.
>>
>> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk space
>> loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and
>> multimedia features will not be supported?
>>
>> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>>
>

Jim Kay · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 7

I have a couple of AMD machines that each have 4 gig of RAM. Running XP as
the host I 'see' 4 gig of RAM but running Vista as the host I only 'see' 2
gig of RAM. (There is a long and convoluted KB article that 'explains' why
Vista should only 'see' 2 gig but that doesn't explain why XP can see all 4
gig.)

One solution is to run Vista 64 bit on my machine and then Vista sees the
whole 4 gig. (Unfortunately, there are still so many third-party devices
that don't install on 64bit systems.

Another solution is to run Server 2008 on the real machine and then any
guest will be fine.

Joschka

"just bob" wrote in message $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of files,
> Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff within a VM
> but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest... so I can test
> apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have using it.
>
> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk space
> loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and multimedia
> features will not be supported?
>
> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>

Jim Kay · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 7

I just looked at my system information page:

Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 4.00 Gb
Total Physical Memory 2.00 Gb

That's even more misleading than it was before. But, yes, it's different.

Joschka

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message @microsoft.com...
> Vista x86 SP1 now shows 4GB on the system properties page. The amount
> available to user programs has not changed, however, just what is reported
> on the sp page.
>
> "Jim Kay" wrote in message
> @microsoft.com...
>>I have a couple of AMD machines that each have 4 gig of RAM. Running XP as
>>the host I 'see' 4 gig of RAM but running Vista as the host I only 'see' 2
>>gig of RAM. (There is a long and convoluted KB article that 'explains' why
>>Vista should only 'see' 2 gig but that doesn't explain why XP can see all
>>4 gig.)
>>
>> One solution is to run Vista 64 bit on my machine and then Vista sees the
>> whole 4 gig. (Unfortunately, there are still so many third-party devices
>> that don't install on 64bit systems.
>>
>> Another solution is to run Server 2008 on the real machine and then any
>> guest will be fine.
>>
>> Joschka
>>
>> "just bob" wrote in message
>> $0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> When I need to get heavy work done,especially managing thousands of
>>> files, Vista is not working for me. I thought I would run my XP stuff
>>> within a VM but I think I am instead going to run Vista as a guest... so
>>> I can test apps and do desktop support for the few clients I have using
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Any drawbacks to running XP host and Vista guest? Am I wasting disk
>>> space loading Vista Ultimate under VPC 2007 as most of the pretty and
>>> multimedia features will not be supported?
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the tips and tricks.
>>>
>>
>

Paul Adare · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 134

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:32:52 -0500, Jim Kay wrote:

> I just looked at my system information page:
>
> Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 4.00 Gb
> Total Physical Memory 2.00 Gb

You've got a BIOS problem then. Even with Vista 32-bit if you've got 4 GB
installed you should be seeing at least 3 or 3.5 GB.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Virtual Machines
http://www.identit.ca
Hackers have kernel knowledge.