Jump to content

Oxford Hachette Dictionary on Seven?


pointertovoid

Recommended Posts


Sure, but I'll bet void* is more used to using Win 2000.  :)

 

The point is, with a virtualization system you can run any and all systems you want (within licensing limitations of course).

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the idea is to run 16-bit Windows and DOS applications, a VM running Win 98SE should better than 2k for doing just that. And lightier, too.

 

 

Sure, but I'll bet void* is more used to using Win 2000.  :)

 

The point is, with a virtualization system you can run any and all systems you want (within licensing limitations of course).

 

But, the question is "How to run the Oxford Hachette thingy I own in the stupid OS I am running now?"

 

It is not really a "generic" virtualization question, given that a VM is slower than the "natively booted" OS and that the virtualized OS would be in this particular case only the means to run a single, specific tool, the simpler the OS in the VM is, the faster the Oxford Hachette will load.

 

All the rest, every single byte, every single additional feature of a newer (or better) OS that is not used to load the Oxford Hachette thingy is unneeded and would (even if "how much exactly" would of course need to be measured) only slow down the user experience, in this particular case, as nothing will be actually done (except running the dictionary) inside the VM.

 

The VM itself will need less memory (which is subtracted from the memory of the machine), the OS image will take less space on the hard disk, etc., etc., only to give a reference these are the default VM RAM settings in Qemu Manager:

Windows 95 32 Mb

Windows NT 64 Mb

Windows 98 64 Mb

Windows 2k 128 Mb

WindowsXP 256 Mb

Windows Vista :ph34r: 1024

which are the mimimum OS requirements and should really-really be doubled to make the VM faster.

 

A "normal install" of Windows 3.x would be running more than OK with 8 Mb or RAM from a disk image 16 Mb or less ( a Minibox will use a much smaller image of course).

 

Still "normal installs" (without reducing source, or removing unused apps and subsystems, etc.) typical HD base space requirements (please read as minimum size of the disk image):

 

Windows 95 60 Mb

Windows NT 150 Mb

Windows 98 200 Mb

Windows 2k 800 Mb

WindowsXP 1800 Mb

Windows Vista :ph34r: 16000 Mb

 

 

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the thread had moved on beyond the original point and into more general territory.  Kind of a "I need to put together a scratching post, which hammer should I get?" drifting to a "The Swiss Army Hammer has many great uses" kind of response...  Sorry if it's forbidden to go off topic.

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if it's forbidden to go off topic.

Naah, no need to be sorry :), it is not really "forbidden" to go off-topic, if you go off-topic in good faith the most you might get is a stern look of disapproval :w00t::ph34r:, and after all it was the OP that steered it into "what runs not on my system" ....

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but I'll bet void* is more used to using Win 2000.  :)

Well, in any case, it seems to me our friend void* isn't much interested in participating in any of the multiple threads he opens when he decides to pay us a visit.

 

 

Sorry if it's forbidden to go off topic.

We do go off-topic very often, as you know... I did return to the 9x point because I do feel for most uses 95c or 98SE should be at the perfect balance between functionality and size. And because 95c+ is much more stable and reliable than 3.x... As always, just my 2¢, so, in a way, I'm too venturing off-topic, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be reassured I'm interested in participating! It's just that I do too many things in parallel. Just checking what runs or not on Seven took me a day. Discovering the added protections on Seven, the Xp mode and the Dos Box, trying to assess what Paint Shop Pro and Oxford-Hachette do wrong - that's an awful lot of new information. Add that my new installation of Xp is already bricked, that my Internet data volume was exhausted, plus all the normal (I mean, computer unrelated) acitivites...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 10/6/2015 at 5:18 PM, pointertovoid said:

I had begun to imagine that Windows could sandbox the applications that modify files or keys they shouldn't: say, Paint Shop Pro would modify freely its own excerpt of [Hklm], find the values again next time, but leave the common ones untouched. Though, this has drawbacks: for instance the associations of file extensions cannot be local to one application.

Maybe someone would be wiling to program it if Microsoft doesn't? If it's only a matter of the application fiddling with [HKLocalMachine], maybe a dll added near the application could intercept the calls by the application and redirect them to a local equivalent of [HKLM] where the application finds its data back and 7-64 doesn't complain?

Runasdate succeeds in a similar function on 7-64 too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...