Virtual Box for 64-bit systems?? - OS2

This is a discussion on Virtual Box for 64-bit systems?? - OS2 ; Virtual Box is said to support 64-bit hardware, but not a 64-bit host OS. Does anyone have a clue about when that limitation can be expected to be lifted? -- Stan Goodman Qiryat Tiv'on Israel...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

  1. Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    Virtual Box is said to support 64-bit hardware, but not a 64-bit host
    OS. Does anyone have a clue about when that limitation can be expected
    to be lifted?

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


  2. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    Stan Goodman wrote:

    > Virtual Box is said to support 64-bit hardware, but not a 64-bit host
    > OS. Does anyone have a clue about when that limitation can be expected
    > to be lifted?


    This probably isn't the best place to ask, considering there will never
    be a 64-bit version of OS/2.

  3. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:12:00 UTC, Steve Wendt
    opined:
    > Stan Goodman wrote:
    >
    > > Virtual Box is said to support 64-bit hardware, but not a 64-bit host
    > > OS. Does anyone have a clue about when that limitation can be expected
    > > to be lifted?

    >
    > This probably isn't the best place to ask, considering there will never
    > be a 64-bit version of OS/2.


    That's why this is a very good place to ask. The point of a 64-bit
    Virtual Box (like Parallels, which also doesn't support 64-bit host
    OS) would be operation under a 64-bit host OS, e.g. Linux 86_64. with
    virtualized guest OS(es), e.g. OS/2.

    The Virtual Box page of the Netlabs website notes that a 64-bit
    version is "on the way", but offers nothing at all about what "on the
    way" means, which is wise given the history of this industry.

    Yes, I did enquire with Netlabs.

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


  4. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    Stan Goodman wrote:
    > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:12:00 UTC, Steve Wendt
    > opined:
    >> Stan Goodman wrote:
    >>
    >>> Virtual Box is said to support 64-bit hardware, but not a 64-bit host
    >>> OS. Does anyone have a clue about when that limitation can be expected
    >>> to be lifted?

    >> This probably isn't the best place to ask, considering there will never
    >> be a 64-bit version of OS/2.

    >
    > That's why this is a very good place to ask. The point of a 64-bit
    > Virtual Box (like Parallels, which also doesn't support 64-bit host
    > OS) would be operation under a 64-bit host OS, e.g. Linux 86_64. with
    > virtualized guest OS(es), e.g. OS/2.
    >
    > The Virtual Box page of the Netlabs website notes that a 64-bit
    > version is "on the way", but offers nothing at all about what "on the
    > way" means, which is wise given the history of this industry.
    >
    > Yes, I did enquire with Netlabs.
    >

    Windows Virtual PC has a version that will run on a 64 bit Microsoft
    Windows OS and that runs OS/2 just fine.

  5. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    On a pleasant day while strolling in comp.os.os2.apps, a
    person by the name of Stan Goodman exclaimed:
    > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:12:00 UTC, Steve Wendt
    > opined:
    > > Stan Goodman wrote:
    > >
    > > > Virtual Box is said to support 64-bit hardware, but not a 64-bit host
    > > > OS. Does anyone have a clue about when that limitation can be expected
    > > > to be lifted?

    > >
    > > This probably isn't the best place to ask, considering there will never
    > > be a 64-bit version of OS/2.

    >
    > That's why this is a very good place to ask. The point of a 64-bit
    > Virtual Box (like Parallels, which also doesn't support 64-bit host
    > OS) would be operation under a 64-bit host OS, e.g. Linux 86_64. with
    > virtualized guest OS(es), e.g. OS/2.


    Indeed.

    It's not really clear to me why anyone would want to run
    OS/2 native anymore, when PCs are so incredibly fast and
    OS/2 apps generally not requiring much CPU power; so a
    virtual box is usually more compatible and convenient in
    nearly every way... no need to worry about OS/2 drivers
    for new hardware...



    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

  6. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    > It's not really clear to me why anyone would want to run
    > OS/2 native anymore, when PCs are so incredibly fast and
    > OS/2 apps generally not requiring much CPU power; so a
    > virtual box is usually more compatible and convenient in
    > nearly every way... no need to worry about OS/2 drivers
    > for new hardware...


    An average user doesn't want to maintain 2 operating systems
    just to run one! This is the wrong thinking.

    An OS should run applications, not other OSes. All what exists
    in terms of emulation or virtualization makes only sense for
    developers (want to test cross-platform compatibility) or
    servers (different OS provided to guests).

    If a normal user needs this, he/she is probably most likely
    running the wrong OS for his/her purposes.

    I agree that OS/2 apps are usually not so bloated but this
    does not mean they can't make use of the CPU power. If you
    don't need so much power, get a cheaper CPU.

  7. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:51:18 UTC, Aaron Lawrence
    opined:
    > On a pleasant day while strolling in comp.os.os2.apps, a
    > person by the name of Stan Goodman exclaimed:
    > > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:12:00 UTC, Steve Wendt
    > > opined:
    > > > Stan Goodman wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Virtual Box is said to support 64-bit hardware, but not a 64-bit host
    > > > > OS. Does anyone have a clue about when that limitation can be expected
    > > > > to be lifted?
    > > >
    > > > This probably isn't the best place to ask, considering there will never
    > > > be a 64-bit version of OS/2.

    > >
    > > That's why this is a very good place to ask. The point of a 64-bit
    > > Virtual Box (like Parallels, which also doesn't support 64-bit host
    > > OS) would be operation under a 64-bit host OS, e.g. Linux 86_64. with
    > > virtualized guest OS(es), e.g. OS/2.

    >
    > Indeed.
    >
    > It's not really clear to me why anyone would want to run
    > OS/2 native anymore, when PCs are so incredibly fast and
    > OS/2 apps generally not requiring much CPU power; so a
    > virtual box is usually more compatible and convenient in
    > nearly every way... no need to worry about OS/2 drivers
    > for new hardware...


    I agree entirely. What I am hoping for is a virtualizer that will
    operate in a 64bit Linux host, and accept a 32bit guest OS (OS/2 comes
    to mind). That seems clear from my paragraph above.

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


  8. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:45:39 UTC, Heiko Nitzsche
    opined:
    > > It's not really clear to me why anyone would want to run
    > > OS/2 native anymore, when PCs are so incredibly fast and
    > > OS/2 apps generally not requiring much CPU power; so a
    > > virtual box is usually more compatible and convenient in
    > > nearly every way... no need to worry about OS/2 drivers
    > > for new hardware...

    >
    > An average user doesn't want to maintain 2 operating systems
    > just to run one! This is the wrong thinking.


    The key to that is the word "average". My own reason for seeking this
    kind of solution, although I am not a developer, is that:

    1) From lack of applications that are necessary for folk like me, but
    are absent in OS/2, I feel it is necessary for me to use another OS,
    something I swore for years that I would not do (because it never
    looked necessary until recently).

    2) So I picked Linux, which I like, in general, though I think it
    suffers from tertiary bloat.

    3) Many of the features of Linux are dramatic improvement over what I
    have been used to here, but some of its most central applications are,
    in my own personal view, the pits; e.g. the available newsreaders. I
    don't like the mailers either, come to that. If I can enjoy both
    worlds by using a virtualizer within Linux, I will do so, especially
    because I have both OSes. I wince when I hear "This is the wrong
    thinking". What is the wrong thinking for one is an ideal sollution
    for another.

    Microsoft is the chief practitioner of the "An average user" approach,
    aka "homogenization", or "do it my way, or else". The OS/2 approach,
    on the other hand, is one of great flexibility ("different strokes for
    different folks").

    > An OS should run applications, not other OSes. All what exists
    > in terms of emulation or virtualization makes only sense for
    > developers (want to test cross-platform compatibility) or
    > servers (different OS provided to guests).


    This is certainly true, or would be in The Best of All Possible
    Worlds.

    > If a normal user needs this, he/she is probably most likely
    > running the wrong OS for his/her purposes.


    See above. I would be delighted if there were a version of OS/2 with a
    wide variety of well thought out and up-to-date applications that did
    not suffer from all the diseases of Windows. Is there such a release?

    > I agree that OS/2 apps are usually not so bloated but this
    > does not mean they can't make use of the CPU power. If you
    > don't need so much power, get a cheaper CPU.


    That's a non sequitur; it has nothing to do with multiple OSes.

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


  9. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    Aaron Lawrence wrote:
    >
    > It's not really clear to me why anyone would want to run
    > OS/2 native anymore, when PCs are so incredibly fast and
    > OS/2 apps generally not requiring much CPU power; so a
    > virtual box is usually more compatible and convenient in
    > nearly every way... no need to worry about OS/2 drivers
    > for new hardware...
    >


    No, that's not right. You still need drivers for the hardware you want
    to use with OS/2 from the virtual box. For example, if you want to
    print from an OS/2 application, you would need an OS/2 driver for the
    printer you want to print to in the virtual box, even if you were
    'printing to file.' Running OS/2 on a virtual box doesn't make any
    sense to me, unless you are migrating to another OS and just want to
    keep access to some OS/2 applications for a while.

    I run Windows in a virtual box on an OS/2 native system which gives me
    access to Windows apps occasionally but I wouldn't bother to do that if
    I wanted to work in Windows on a more frequent basis since it would make
    more sense (and be much more practical) to run Windows natively.

    There are still a few advantages to running OS/2 natively, the biggest
    one for me being better control over the system to ensure reliable and
    consistent operation.


    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and Sea Monkey 1.5a
    

  10. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    Hi David !

    You wrote:
    ......
    > I run Windows in a virtual box on an OS/2 native system
    > which gives me access to Windows apps occasionally

    ......

    Fantastic ! How do you do this ? What virtual system ?

    John.

  11. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    John H. Lindsay wrote:
    > Hi David !
    >
    > You wrote:
    > .....
    > > I run Windows in a virtual box on an OS/2 native system
    > > which gives me access to Windows apps occasionally

    > .....
    >
    > Fantastic ! How do you do this ? What virtual system ?
    >


    Virtual PC 5.1 for OS/2 that Innotek and Connectix released before
    Microsoft bought Connectix.


    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and Sea Monkey 1.5a
    

  12. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:51:18 +1200, Aaron Lawrence
    wrote:
    > It's not really clear to me why anyone would want to run OS/2 native
    > anymore, when PCs are so incredibly fast and OS/2 apps generally not
    > requiring much CPU power; so a virtual box is usually more compatible
    > and convenient in nearly every way... no need to worry about OS/2
    > drivers for new hardware...


    I've never really bought into this approach.

    I don't run OS/2 because I like using any particular OS/2 applications. I
    run OS/2 because I like _OS/2_.

    If I was going to run Windows or Linux, I'd run Windows or Linux.

    As I see it, running virtualized OS/2 on another host platform is a way of
    keeping OS/2 applications while you migrate to the new platform. It's
    inevitable that you're gradually going to spend more and more time in the
    host OS itself... until one day you turn around and realize you're not
    using OS/2 at all anymore.


    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex

    Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

  13. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:28:04 UTC, Alex Taylor
    wrote:

    -> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:51:18 +1200, Aaron Lawrence
    -> wrote:
    -> > It's not really clear to me why anyone would want to run OS/2 native
    -> > anymore, when PCs are so incredibly fast and OS/2 apps generally not
    -> > requiring much CPU power; so a virtual box is usually more compatible
    -> > and convenient in nearly every way... no need to worry about OS/2
    -> > drivers for new hardware...
    ->
    -> I've never really bought into this approach.
    ->
    -> I don't run OS/2 because I like using any particular OS/2 applications. I
    -> run OS/2 because I like _OS/2_.
    ->
    -> If I was going to run Windows or Linux, I'd run Windows or Linux.
    ->
    -> As I see it, running virtualized OS/2 on another host platform is a way of
    -> keeping OS/2 applications while you migrate to the new platform. It's
    -> inevitable that you're gradually going to spend more and more time in the
    -> host OS itself... until one day you turn around and realize you're not
    -> using OS/2 at all anymore.
    ->
    ->

    Exactly. That is why I have a Mac box for the things I can't do in
    eCS, but still need. But the Mac gets only limited use. I also have
    VPC/2, but that is only used for doing my taxes. I've tried Linux and
    OSX, but neither is as good as eCS.

    Mark

    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: http://www.warpstock.org
    Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
    http://www.warpstock.eu

  14. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    On a pleasant day while strolling in comp.os.os2.apps, a
    person by the name of Alex Taylor exclaimed:
    > As I see it, running virtualized OS/2 on another host platform is a way of
    > keeping OS/2 applications while you migrate to the new platform. It's
    > inevitable that you're gradually going to spend more and more time in the
    > host OS itself... until one day you turn around and realize you're not
    > using OS/2 at all anymore.


    Quite ... isn't that the rational approach?

    Hm... clearly my attitude has changed the last few
    years...

    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

  15. Re: Virtual Box for 64-bit systems??

    Here in comp.os.os2.apps,
    Alex Taylor spake unto us, saying:

    >On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:51:18 +1200, Aaron Lawrence
    > wrote:
    >
    >> It's not really clear to me why anyone would want to run OS/2 native
    >> anymore, when PCs are so incredibly fast and OS/2 apps generally not
    >> requiring much CPU power; so a virtual box is usually more compatible
    >> and convenient in nearly every way... no need to worry about OS/2
    >> drivers for new hardware...

    >
    >I've never really bought into this approach.


    I could do it, but not as a first choice. :-)

    Of course, the fact that I'm actually running OS/2 on hardware from the
    same time period means that virtualizion is a harder thing to use due
    to my system having fewer clock cycles to play with.

    >I don't run OS/2 because I like using any particular OS/2 applications.
    >I run OS/2 because I like _OS/2_.


    That's true for me as well. Not that there aren't older OS/2 apps that
    I really like. But most of my attraction to OS/2 has been the ease of
    use I've been able to cobble together over almost 16 years of use.

    It's like an old familiar house. :-)

    --
    -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
    Mainframe/Unix bit twiddler by day, OS/2+Linux+DOS hobbyist by night.
    WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

+ Reply to Thread