XP Virtual Machine in Win 7 - strange happenings

[John Whitworth]

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87mobpFgs4U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 14/06/2010 13:23, Adrian C wrote:
>> On 14/06/2010 10:13, Roger Mills wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>> They are probably trying to create and write a temp file in the same
>> folder as the opened file, and not succeeding. Normally the opening
>> application should then state "read only mode" and open the file, but
>> there might be subtle things afloat stopping it.
>>
>
> That implies that the virtual machine has read access but not write access
> to files on the host machine. But other applications running on the
> virtual machine can write to the host quite happily - so I still don't
> understand why Word should be any different.
>
>
>> Try setting an audit policy in Windows 7 and then check out 7's event
>> log.
>>
>> Maybe host folders are accessed in WinXP as Win7's adminstrative file
>> shares.
>>
>> http://microsoftblog.globalknowledg...u-to-monitor-access-to-windows-7-file-shares/
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have a look.

I'd still be inclined to update whilst hunting for alternative solutions.
When Office 2000 was first brought out, Virtual computing was rather less
common.

JW

 

[Bill]

In message <87ma56Fp11U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@gmail.com> writes
>but why should Word (and other Office 2000 applications) behave
>differently from (say) Quicken in this respect? Any ideas?

Oooh, have you got Quicken installed and registered and in the UK?
Someone I was trying to help had it running perfectly on XPMode, but hit
a succession of immovable Quicken nonsenses when trying to get it
registered.
As far as I remember, she found that the UK registration site is no
more, Intuit UK said get lost, the Americans refused access and then
wouldn't deal with anyone outside their borders when she rang.
--
Bill

 

[Roger Mills]

On 14/06/2010 15:09, Bill wrote:

>
> Oooh, have you got Quicken installed and registered and in the UK?
> Someone I was trying to help had it running perfectly on XPMode, but hit
> a succession of immovable Quicken nonsenses when trying to get it
> registered.
> As far as I remember, she found that the UK registration site is no
> more, Intuit UK said get lost, the Americans refused access and then
> wouldn't deal with anyone outside their borders when she rang.

For me, registration isn't an issue - I've still got the original
Registration Number, and simply keyed that in when asked, with no need
to contact Intuit. I'm still using the free upgrade to Quicken 98 which
made it millennium compliant!

I've actually installed it on *both* the Win 7 host and the XP Virtual
machine. For most purposes - for managing my personal finances - it
works perfectly ok under Win 7. However, I also manage the finances of a
voluntary organisation which needs to issue the occasional invoice and -
for some inexplicable reason - the invoice function doesn't work in Win 7!

Incidentally, that's not the only program whose behaviour is different
between XP and Win 7. I have a program which scans music scores and
performs a sort of OCR on them to produce computer-readable music
notation. Under Win 7, everything come up in GERMAN - with no choice of
lanuage. Run the same program under XP, and it defaults to English -
with an option to use German instead. Explain that if you will!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

 

[dave]

On 14/06/2010 11:09, John Whitworth wrote:
>
>
> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
> news:87mcckF676U4@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2010-06-14, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's presumably got something to do with sharing and file privileges
>>> etc., but why should Word (and other Office 2000 applications) behave
>>> differently from (say) Quicken in this respect? Any ideas?
>>
>> Because Microsoft are incompetent scum?
>
> Useful...give yourself a pat on the back.

But he hit the nail right on the head though.

Wife is ADC for the town's Beaver Scout Groups and has to send minutes
from the many meetings she has to attend, to many Beaver Scout Colonies.

When she bought herself a new fancy computer, she got complaints from
group Scout leaders that they couldn't open the minutes she was sending
them. Needless to say, she was using Word 2003. There is a problem with
later versions of word that they can't communicate with earlier versions.

I showed her how to make a RTF document and there have been no problems
since.

Dave

 

[Roger Mills]

On 14/06/2010 17:15, dave wrote:

>
> Wife is ADC for the town's Beaver Scout Groups and has to send minutes
> from the many meetings she has to attend, to many Beaver Scout Colonies.
>
> When she bought herself a new fancy computer, she got complaints from
> group Scout leaders that they couldn't open the minutes she was sending
> them. Needless to say, she was using Word 2003. There is a problem with
> later versions of word that they can't communicate with earlier versions.
>
> I showed her how to make a RTF document and there have been no problems
> since.
>
> Dave

Are you sure you don't mean Word 2007? AFAIK, all versions of word from
97 through 2003 used the same format - but 2007 defaults to docx format.
nevertheless, it's a trivial matter to tell it to save in 97-2003 format
- then everyone should be able to receive it.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

 

[John Whitworth]

"dave" <davenpat@btopenowrld.com> wrote in message
news:L4adnaOtkYB6y4vRnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 14/06/2010 11:09, John Whitworth wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:87mcckF676U4@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 2010-06-14, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's presumably got something to do with sharing and file privileges
>>>> etc., but why should Word (and other Office 2000 applications) behave
>>>> differently from (say) Quicken in this respect? Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Because Microsoft are incompetent scum?
>>
>> Useful...give yourself a pat on the back.
>
> But he hit the nail right on the head though.

He didn't really, did he? He just came out with the usual "I really do not
have a clue about computers or software development - lets blame everything
on Microsoft" argument. The nail sits with a file handling issue, which
shows it's ugly head when using virtualisation - something which didn't
exist in that form in 1999/2000 (Connectix Virtual PC 4 came about in 2001).

 

[Bob Eager]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:41:12 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

> Are you sure you don't mean Word 2007? AFAIK, all versions of word from
> 97 through 2003 used the same format - but 2007 defaults to docx format.
> nevertheless, it's a trivial matter to tell it to save in 97-2003 format
> - then everyone should be able to receive it.

More to the point, there's an easy to install add-on for 2003 that allows
it to handle the 2007 formats...

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

 

[Huge]

On 2010-06-14, John Whitworth <sexyjw@g_EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE_mail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "dave" <davenpat@btopenowrld.com> wrote in message
> news:L4adnaOtkYB6y4vRnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> On 14/06/2010 11:09, John Whitworth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:87mcckF676U4@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 2010-06-14, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's presumably got something to do with sharing and file privileges
>>>>> etc., but why should Word (and other Office 2000 applications) behave
>>>>> differently from (say) Quicken in this respect? Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Because Microsoft are incompetent scum?
>>>
>>> Useful...give yourself a pat on the back.
>>
>> But he hit the nail right on the head though.
>
> He didn't really, did he? He just came out with the usual "I really do not
> have a clue about computers or software development - lets blame everything
> on Microsoft" argument.

Oh, how sweet. Is there a lot of money in jumping to incorrect conclusions,
or is it just a hobby? You are aware that Microsoft are convicted monopolists,
aren't you? And there are well documented cases of them designing APIs
to prevent competitors software from running? Or are you too busy sucking
Bill Gates' dick to notice?

--
Today is Setting Orange, the 19th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3176
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine...

 

[John Whitworth]

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
news:87nf95Fms5U2@mid.individual.net...
> On 2010-06-14, John Whitworth <sexyjw@g_EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE_mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "dave" <davenpat@btopenowrld.com> wrote in message
>> news:L4adnaOtkYB6y4vRnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> On 14/06/2010 11:09, John Whitworth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:87mcckF676U4@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 2010-06-14, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's presumably got something to do with sharing and file privileges
>>>>>> etc., but why should Word (and other Office 2000 applications) behave
>>>>>> differently from (say) Quicken in this respect? Any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because Microsoft are incompetent scum?
>>>>
>>>> Useful...give yourself a pat on the back.
>>>
>>> But he hit the nail right on the head though.
>>
>> He didn't really, did he? He just came out with the usual "I really do
>> not
>> have a clue about computers or software development - lets blame
>> everything
>> on Microsoft" argument.
>
> Oh, how sweet. Is there a lot of money in jumping to incorrect
> conclusions,
> or is it just a hobby? You are aware that Microsoft are convicted
> monopolists,
> aren't you? And there are well documented cases of them designing APIs
> to prevent competitors software from running? Or are you too busy sucking
> Bill Gates' dick to notice?

My gosh, yes. I take it all back. Word 2000 doesn't work because of all the
reasons you state - particularly what I am doing with Bill.

Thanks for your well reasoned and considered response to this solution. It
all fits into place nicely now. I'm sure the OP is much happier.

One more for the killfile!

 

[geoff]

In message <hv526m$vkv$1@news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50
<BillW50@aol.kom> writes
>In news:87mfmsF676U7@mid.individual.net,
>Huge typed on 14 Jun 2010 10:47:57 GMT:
>> On 2010-06-14, John Whitworth
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:87mcckF676U4@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 2010-06-14, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's presumably got something to do with sharing and file
>>>>> privileges etc., but why should Word (and other Office 2000
>>>>> applications) behave differently from (say) Quicken in this
>>>>> respect? Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Because Microsoft are incompetent scum?
>>>
>>> Useful...
>>
>> Really? It wasn't intended to be. In the same way that what is likely
>> happening is that MS don't want you to be able to do what the OP
>> wants - they want you to buy another copy of Office for the host
>> machine. Although this is only a guess, based on years of experience
>> of watching people empty
>> their wallets into Bill Gates bank account.
>>
>>> give yourself a pat on the back.
>>
>> Thanks, but there's no need.
>
>Really? I bought MS Office 97 and MS Office 2000 and I stopped there. I
>had to upgrade from MSO 97 because it had too many bugs that MSO 2000
>fixed. I felt no reason to get the later versions as MS Office 2000
>works just fine for me.
>
>I do regret buying two copies of Windows 7 that still sit up on the
>shelf unopened. As I was running two copies of Windows 7 Ultimate RC for
>about a year and I was unimpressed with it.
>

Better send one to me then

--
geoff

 

[Roger Mills]

On 14/06/2010 19:05, John Whitworth wrote:
>
> The nail sits with a file handling
> issue, which shows it's ugly head when using virtualisation - something
> which didn't exist in that form in 1999/2000 (Connectix Virtual PC 4
> came about in 2001).

True. having said that, though, some applications (such as Quicken) -
which were also developed before virtualisation was around - *don't*
have a file handling issue. Strange!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

 

[BillW50]

In news:87nluiFc6lU1@mid.individual.net,
Roger Mills typed on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:404 +0100:
> On 14/06/2010 19:05, John Whitworth wrote:
>>
>> The nail sits with a file handling
>> issue, which shows it's ugly head when using virtualisation -
>> something which didn't exist in that form in 1999/2000 (Connectix
>> Virtual PC 4 came about in 2001).
>
> True. having said that, though, some applications (such as Quicken) -
> which were also developed before virtualisation was around - *don't*
> have a file handling issue. Strange!

Well my experience with Word 97/2000, I must say Word puts temporary
files in some really weird places. Not a problem normally, but under
virtualization I can see this as a possible problem. I don't know, how
does the later versions of Word handle it? Does it handle it
differently?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3

 

[BillW50]

In news:eN5ntnVr7oFMFwAy@demon.co.uk,
geoff typed on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:19:55 +0100:
>> I do regret buying two copies of Windows 7 that still sit up on the
>> shelf unopened. As I was running two copies of Windows 7 Ultimate RC
>> for about a year and I was unimpressed with it.
>
> Better send one to me then

Really? You like Windows 7? After using it for about a year, I saw it
only capable of running 95% of what I want to do vs. Windows XP which
runs 100% of what I want. And Windows 7 eats up lots of CPU time just
while you are doing nothing. Windows XP when you are doing nothing, the
CPU is actually at or near idle. And running something that is very CPU
intensive like games, always runs slower under Windows 7 than it does
under Windows XP. So I don't see Windows 7 as any big deal and I can see
why some want to downgrade their Vista and Windows 7 machines. And I
don't blame them one bit.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3

 

[Bill]

In message <87n02kF11dU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@gmail.com> writes
>On 14/06/2010 15:09, Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> Oooh, have you got Quicken installed and registered and in the UK?
>> Someone I was trying to help had it running perfectly on XPMode, but hit
>> a succession of immovable Quicken nonsenses when trying to get it
>> registered.
>> As far as I remember, she found that the UK registration site is no
>> more, Intuit UK said get lost, the Americans refused access and then
>> wouldn't deal with anyone outside their borders when she rang.
>
>For me, registration isn't an issue - I've still got the original
>Registration Number, and simply keyed that in when asked, with no need
>to contact Intuit. I'm still using the free upgrade to Quicken 98 which
>made it millennium compliant!
>
>I've actually installed it on *both* the Win 7 host and the XP Virtual
>machine. For most purposes - for managing my personal finances - it
>works perfectly ok under Win 7. However, I also manage the finances of
>a voluntary organisation which needs to issue the occasional invoice
>and - for some inexplicable reason - the invoice function doesn't work
>in Win 7!
>
>Incidentally, that's not the only program whose behaviour is different
>between XP and Win 7. I have a program which scans music scores and
>performs a sort of OCR on them to produce computer-readable music
>notation. Under Win 7, everything come up in GERMAN - with no choice of
>lanuage. Run the same program under XP, and it defaults to English -
>with an option to use German instead. Explain that if you will!

That's interesting. I was fairly sure that her version had a serial
number that then took something from inside the machine, produced
another number that had to be checked in with Intuit to give the real
registration.
I've just checked with her and she says she gave up, and her accountant
produced a later version that didn't have to be registered. So all is
right with the world..
--
Bill

 

[geoff]

In message <hv69p7$b0e$1@news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50
<BillW50@aol.kom> writes
>In news:eN5ntnVr7oFMFwAy@demon.co.uk,
>geoff typed on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:19:55 +0100:
>>> I do regret buying two copies of Windows 7 that still sit up on the
>>> shelf unopened. As I was running two copies of Windows 7 Ultimate RC
>>> for about a year and I was unimpressed with it.
>>
>> Better send one to me then
>
>Really? You like Windows 7? After using it for about a year, I saw it
>only capable of running 95% of what I want to do vs. Windows XP which
>runs 100% of what I want. And Windows 7 eats up lots of CPU time just
>while you are doing nothing. Windows XP when you are doing nothing, the
>CPU is actually at or near idle. And running something that is very CPU
>intensive like games, always runs slower under Windows 7 than it does
>under Windows XP. So I don't see Windows 7 as any big deal and I can see
>why some want to downgrade their Vista and Windows 7 machines. And I
>don't blame them one bit.
>

Wouldn't touch for my work machines, but, using VM , having bought a new
webcam, etc, it sort of works well enough

even turnpike is almost OK

but I agree

XP is rockandroll

--
geoff

 

[dennis@home]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:hv69p7$b0e$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:eN5ntnVr7oFMFwAy@demon.co.uk,
> geoff typed on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:19:55 +0100:
>>> I do regret buying two copies of Windows 7 that still sit up on the
>>> shelf unopened. As I was running two copies of Windows 7 Ultimate RC
>>> for about a year and I was unimpressed with it.
>>
>> Better send one to me then
>
> Really? You like Windows 7? After using it for about a year, I saw it only
> capable of running 95% of what I want to do vs. Windows XP which runs 100%
> of what I want. And Windows 7 eats up lots of CPU time just while you are
> doing nothing. Windows XP when you are doing nothing, the CPU is actually
> at or near idle. And running something that is very CPU intensive like
> games, always runs slower under Windows 7 than it does under Windows XP.
> So I don't see Windows 7 as any big deal and I can see why some want to
> downgrade their Vista and Windows 7 machines. And I don't blame them one
> bit.

Are you sure you actually have looked at windows 7?
None of what you say is true for me or anyone else I know with windows 7.
You can send me the other win7 if you don't want it.

 

[Doctor Drivel]

"geoff" <troll@uk-diy.org> wrote in message
news:uwz7ClqA7qFMFwlX@demon.co.uk...

> XP is rockandroll

Maxie, your showmanship is emerging once again. Fantastic. What a man! Do
you play a vuvuzela on stage in your Paddy Band with your turned down
wellies on? Unbelievable. Such originality to this man. Fantastic indeed.

 

[Mike Barnes]

geoff <troll@uk-diy.org>:
>In message <hv69p7$b0e$1@news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50
><BillW50@aol.kom> writes
>>In news:eN5ntnVr7oFMFwAy@demon.co.uk,
>>geoff typed on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:19:55 +0100:
>>>> I do regret buying two copies of Windows 7 that still sit up on the
>>>> shelf unopened. As I was running two copies of Windows 7 Ultimate RC
>>>> for about a year and I was unimpressed with it.
>>>
>>> Better send one to me then
>>
>>Really? You like Windows 7? After using it for about a year, I saw it
>>only capable of running 95% of what I want to do vs. Windows XP which
>>runs 100% of what I want. And Windows 7 eats up lots of CPU time just
>>while you are doing nothing. Windows XP when you are doing nothing, the
>>CPU is actually at or near idle. And running something that is very CPU
>>intensive like games, always runs slower under Windows 7 than it does
>>under Windows XP. So I don't see Windows 7 as any big deal and I can see
>>why some want to downgrade their Vista and Windows 7 machines. And I
>>don't blame them one bit.
>>
>
>Wouldn't touch for my work machines, but, using VM , having bought a
>new webcam, etc, it sort of works well enough
>
>even turnpike is almost OK
>
>but I agree
>
>XP is rockandroll

Interesting.

I just made a spare partition and put Windows 7 onto it, so I can now
boot XP or 7. As time permits I'm intending to configure the Win7
partition and install my (numerous) apps on it, with the eventual aim of
moving to Win7 full time.

After a day or so at it I find that I'm looking at Win7's new features,
finding them useless or worse, and expending almost all of my effort on
making Win7 work like XP does.

And I'm wondering why I'm bothering.

The way I'm thinking now, I'll not waste any more time on Windows 7
until I buy a new PC, when I'd be doing all that configuring and
installing anyway.

--
Mike Barnes

 

[BillW50]

In news:hv7e7p$bmp$3@news.datemas.de,
dennis@home typed on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 097:56 +0100:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:hv69p7$b0e$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In news:eN5ntnVr7oFMFwAy@demon.co.uk,
>> geoff typed on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:19:55 +0100:
>>>> I do regret buying two copies of Windows 7 that still sit up on the
>>>> shelf unopened. As I was running two copies of Windows 7 Ultimate
>>>> RC for about a year and I was unimpressed with it.
>>>
>>> Better send one to me then
>>
>> Really? You like Windows 7? After using it for about a year, I saw
>> it only capable of running 95% of what I want to do vs. Windows XP
>> which runs 100% of what I want. And Windows 7 eats up lots of CPU
>> time just while you are doing nothing. Windows XP when you are doing
>> nothing, the CPU is actually at or near idle. And running something
>> that is very CPU intensive like games, always runs slower under
>> Windows 7 than it does under Windows XP. So I don't see Windows 7 as
>> any big deal and I can see why some want to downgrade their Vista
>> and Windows 7 machines. And I don't blame them one bit.
>
> Are you sure you actually have looked at windows 7?
> None of what you say is true for me or anyone else I know with
> windows 7. You can send me the other win7 if you don't want it.

What kind of computers are you running Windows 7 on? I ran Windows 7
Ultimate RC on three different computers. One on a Gateway MX6124, a
Gateway M465e, and an Asus 702 netbook. All three uses Celeron CPUs with
2GB of installed RAM. All three has Intel graphics (915 and 945). And
only this machine here could run Aero.

And it was always the same. Much higher CPU usage and much higher
average core temperatures (up by 20°F) than it was when compared to XP
on the same machines. If you didn't monitor the CPU usage and/or the
core temperatures. I can see how somebody wouldn't even know that
Windows 7 is working very hard in the background.

As Windows 7 is very clever in appearances. But that is all it is, just
an illusion. Even the minimum specs for high powered PC games are higher
for Vista and Windows 7 than they are for Windows XP. That should tell
you something wrong right there. As why would you need a faster
processor and massive more memory for the same game if Windows 7 really
didn't slow things down?

And as for the two unopened Windows 7 copies, right now they are holding
my books up straight on the shelf. And I am thinking the DVDs might also
make some pretty nifty drink coasters too.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3

 

[dave]

On 14/06/2010 17:41, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 14/06/2010 17:15, dave wrote:
>
>>
>> Wife is ADC for the town's Beaver Scout Groups and has to send minutes
>> from the many meetings she has to attend, to many Beaver Scout Colonies.
>>
>> When she bought herself a new fancy computer, she got complaints from
>> group Scout leaders that they couldn't open the minutes she was sending
>> them. Needless to say, she was using Word 2003. There is a problem with
>> later versions of word that they can't communicate with earlier versions.
>>
>> I showed her how to make a RTF document and there have been no problems
>> since.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Are you sure you don't mean Word 2007? AFAIK, all versions of word from
> 97 through 2003 used the same format - but 2007 defaults to docx format.
> nevertheless, it's a trivial matter to tell it to save in 97-2003 format
> - then everyone should be able to receive it.

I know there is a work round, but try telling that to a total computer
illiterate

My easiest escape route was to teach her how to change the file format
to RTF. This is a computer user that has to ask how she attaches
something to an e mail, be it a text file, or even worse, a photo that
wants re-sizing.

Regards

Dave