> I thought this product was to be OS neutral.
> I haven't tried to reinstall any of my old OSes until recently because of
> having a library already built up from the past. Anyway, I needed a version
> of Windows 95 when I discovered it would just crash after the first reboot
> upon installation. This happened on a dual core processor machine running
> Windows XP SP3 as a host. As luck would have it, a friend of mine was trying
> to do something similar with Windows 98 SE on a quad core machine and having
> the same problems too.
> Problem aside, I decided to try again with a uni-core machine that I had
> used before which worked well with older versions of Virtual PC.
> That solution almost worked, but with lots of problems.
> To make a long story short, the problems I experienced was floppy drive read
> errors while installing programs;
> All sorts of General Protection Faults while trying to get programs
> installed and then again when I actually got them installed and trying to run
> them;
> Application hangs with no explanation;
> Programs that would just stop responding while installing them from a CDROM.
> All of the problems I experienced was similar what I had experienced a time
> or two before when I was trying to install programs and applications on to a
> REAL CCOMPUTER that actually had real hardware issues. It's just uncanny when
> a Virtual PC can do the same thing.
> All of these problems disappeared when I went back to Virtual PC 2004 and
> yes, everthing worked fine on my dual core machine as well.
> I just leaves me to wonder what was really trying to be acheived with
> Virtual PC 2007? If it was only to make Vista work with it, I think more
> homework needs to be done. In my opinion, Virual PC 2007 is one very buggy
> piece of software and I would not recommend it to anyone.

> Um this is the Mac Virtual PC forum. Try microsoft.public.virtualpc forum.
>
> But to attempt to answer your question though. At work I run an older dual
> core Pentium D Dell XP SP3 machine with VPC 2007. Works just fine. I never
> tried Windows 95 but it should run. For a project I had to install Windows
> 98 SE and it installed and ran without issue.
>
> Normally though I make ISOs of all CDs and disk images for all floppies as
> standard procedure so I never have to dig for a missing disk plus the
> install goes 500% faster as it is being read directly from hard disk and not
> actual media. There may possibly be an issue of timing when reading from
> the physical media that is causing the problems. Try making ISOs and disk
> images of the floppies and see if that cures the install pains.
>
>
> On 10/5/08 4:38 AM, in article
> (email address - cut out), "Rick"
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
> > I thought this product was to be OS neutral.
> > I haven't tried to reinstall any of my old OSes until recently because of
> > having a library already built up from the past. Anyway, I needed a version
> > of Windows 95 when I discovered it would just crash after the first reboot
> > upon installation. This happened on a dual core processor machine running
> > Windows XP SP3 as a host. As luck would have it, a friend of mine was trying
> > to do something similar with Windows 98 SE on a quad core machine and having
> > the same problems too.
> > Problem aside, I decided to try again with a uni-core machine that I had
> > used before which worked well with older versions of Virtual PC.
> > That solution almost worked, but with lots of problems.
> > To make a long story short, the problems I experienced was floppy drive read
> > errors while installing programs;
> > All sorts of General Protection Faults while trying to get programs
> > installed and then again when I actually got them installed and trying to run
> > them;
> > Application hangs with no explanation;
> > Programs that would just stop responding while installing them from a CDROM.
> > All of the problems I experienced was similar what I had experienced a time
> > or two before when I was trying to install programs and applications on to a
> > REAL CCOMPUTER that actually had real hardware issues. It's just uncanny when
> > a Virtual PC can do the same thing.
> > All of these problems disappeared when I went back to Virtual PC 2004 and
> > yes, everthing worked fine on my dual core machine as well.
> > I just leaves me to wonder what was really trying to be acheived with
> > Virtual PC 2007? If it was only to make Vista work with it, I think more
> > homework needs to be done. In my opinion, Virual PC 2007 is one very buggy
> > piece of software and I would not recommend it to anyone.
>
>