|
“If you want to test 64 bit you are
kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well...” Just don’t like VPC, do you?
:o) What about USB are you looking for? What does VMWare do with
USB that is this vital? I doubt it’s the USB coffee warmer… As to the 64-bit support, I guess that
would concern me if my laptop had an x64 chip. But, then I could use VS
2005 R2. But, I’m not going to argue the
virtues of VMWare vs. VPC. I Use VPC because it’s what 100% of the
material that I get from internal is supplied on. And, I get about 100 or
so DVD’s with all types of imaginable configurations. I’m
glad that you’ve got the time to put together all of these disks, joe.
I wish I had that kind of time. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of joe I am not a big workstation OS type of
person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing
for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway.
VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf
or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you
can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind
of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Hehe…. Let me know how that
full-out testing of I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal
method to running different OS’s, but if you want the OS to have the full
machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed
– I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing /
learning environment. And, make no mistake – this is
coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT
VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love
virtualization…. It’s just not the right thing for all
situations. Rick From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you
to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same
time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the
installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of
the dodo, the "new" thing is to virtualization software so you have
both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naser Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I
installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same
hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only
login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning
if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and
disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in
windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it
from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I
can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account
is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the
domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but
same thing happens. is there a way to do that? (login to domain using both OS's
without having to disjoin?) Thank you |
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 joe
- Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 steve patrick
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Brian Desmond
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Rick Kingslan
- Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Al Mulnick
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Bernard, Aric
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Alex Fontana
