 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Today, I'm installing Windoze on a virtual machine for the first time.
If you thought installing Windoze on real hardware was slow, you gotta
try installing it under emulation! ;-) (Especially on a machine that's
barely powerful enough to run one OS, let alone two...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> If you thought installing Windoze on real hardware was slow, you gotta
> try installing it under emulation! ;-) (Especially on a machine that's
> barely powerful enough to run one OS, let alone two...)
It's completed the text-mode part of the install and is now "installing
devices". Which, considering my virtual machine doesn't *have* anything
interesting, is taking a damned long time.
"Setup will complete in approximately 33 minutes." Oh I *really* don't
think so! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> "Setup will complete in approximately 33 minutes." Oh I *really* don't
> think so! ;-)
...and it's crashed.
For some reason, QEMU seems moderately unstable on my machine at work.
And yet, it's absolutely 100% rock solid on my machine at home. What gives?
(On my work machine, it has a habit of hanging on startup. Sometimes the
emulated software locks up, appearing to do work but comsuming 0% CPU
and 0% I/O. Sometimes I get a visit from Dr Watson when trying to start
QEMU. None of these things happen on my home PC. Ever.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> "Setup will complete in approximately 33 minutes." Oh I *really* don't
> think so! ;-)
I installed Windows 2003 on a VM at work. It took quite less time to install
than the installer said. A virtual machine on today's hardware is faster
than the hardware available when Win2003 came out.
And I don't exactly have a high-end machine at work. Single-core AMD, can't
remember speed. 768MB of RAM.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "Setup will complete in approximately 33 minutes." Oh I *really* don't
>> think so! ;-)
>
> I installed Windows 2003 on a VM at work. It took quite less time to install
> than the installer said. A virtual machine on today's hardware is faster
> than the hardware available when Win2003 came out.
>
> And I don't exactly have a high-end machine at work. Single-core AMD, can't
> remember speed. 768MB of RAM.
The machine I'm using was purchased in roughly 2003, and it was fairly
cheap at the time. You do the math...
It was actually quite funny that time I installed Windows XP on a bunch
of brand new machines, and they all claimed that setup would take 30
minutes but it actually took 11. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It was actually quite funny that time I installed Windows XP on a bunch
> of brand new machines, and they all claimed that setup would take 30
> minutes but it actually took 11. ;-)
11 minutes is slow for an OS install?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> 11 minutes is slow for an OS install?
Not in my book...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 11 minutes is slow for an OS install?
>
> Not in my book...
Why this comment then?
"If you thought installing Windoze on real hardware was slow, you gotta
try installing it under emulation! ;-) "
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> 11 minutes is slow for an OS install?
>>
>> Not in my book...
>
> Why this comment then?
>
> "If you thought installing Windoze on real hardware was slow, you gotta
> try installing it under emulation! ;-) "
I was talking about a different install.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
