Gaaawwd, I hate the way this thread is progressing, even though this is just
about my "most loved" thread running on cq-contest right now.
Ugh, did you really have to say something like that?
There is a big diffeence between running DOS in a Windows window and
allowing Windows to arbitrate your use of I/O space and running a "VM" to
arbitrate the assignment of resources. Unfortunately, you are probably not
off target too far if you are talking about using a Microsoft VM to assign
Ultimately, the issue is more about whether you have enough "resources"
available to pile all of those operating systems on top of each other to
still have enough resources to run your contesting software.
There are a remarkable number of different computers these days spanning a
suprising range of usefulmess. Old, slow computers will run CT and similar
software on DOS (of one variety or another) quite well, unless a lot of
microprocessor cycles are expended doing networking, filtering packet spots,
and building band maps. If you tie a couple of computers together for a
multi-single operation, or run packet you need a more-than-minimal pentium
Running any kind of virtual machine on an old, slow, sub-GHz pentium class
box suggests you are willing to accept frequent stalls of tens of
milliseconds, in other words, on CT your CW will be chopped up something
awful. It's about the same as trying to run CT on a DOS window on Windows95
on a 300 MHz pentium. The microprocessor jumps back and forth between a
bunch of tasks, many of which are simply checks to see "if I need to do
anything right now". By the time it gets back to the CW-sending task, your
dot has turned into a dash.
Try the same thing on a high performance "game box" and the results could be
quite different. On a high performance "game box" there might be four 3.7
GHz pentiums running with 8 GB of memory fast enough to keep up with the
damands of the microprocessors. In this environment you could run CT on a
DOS window on Windows95 on one virtual machine and at the same time run the
K1TTT packet cluster on Linux with only a 10^-4 chance of your contacts
logging you as K4PI.
"uber-geeks" indeed. There are no uber-geeks. Only grown-up kids with
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Brandon" <email@example.com>
To: "'cq-contest reflector'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Microsoft Virtual PC - multiple operating systems
> It's definitely an interesting tool, although not the first of its type on
> the block. And the price is certainly right. :-) It allows you to run
> multiple operating systems *simultaneously* on a single machine. Its
> primary uses in the business world are reducing the hardware requirements
> test labs/training labs and allowing uber-geeks to bounce between a Linux
> machine, Windows machine, etc. with just one physical computer. On the
> server side, it allows consolidation and isolation of several applications
> on a single physical machine, quick restores to a previous states, etc.
> Unfortunately, programs like Virtual PC do NOT get around the problem that
> DOS applications face when running on NT/2K/XP/Vista. The DOS programs
> written to communicate directly with hardware. This made it easy to send
> perfectly timed dits and dahs to a serial/parallel port. Windows 95/98/ME
> would still allow that because they were based on DOS. NT/2K/XP/Vista
> intercept and referee all calls to the hardware. If anything, VPC adds
> another layer of referees.
> Robert K5PI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Dave Hachadorian
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:48 PM
> To: cq-contest reflector
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Microsoft Virtual PC - multiple operating systems
> I just stumbled across a reference to Microsoft Virtual PC,
> a free program from Microsoft that supposedly allows the use
> of multiple operating systems on one PC.
> Any thoughts on whether this would be suitable for running
> DOS logging applications on an XP computer, or running
> windows loggers under XP on a Vista computer?
> There's probably a catch, because the computer
> wonk/contesters out there should have tipped us off to this
> by now.
> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
> Yuma, AZ
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list