virtualbox.org

I've looked around, and this is a known problem. Trouble is, i had to revert to 1.6.6 just to install Win 2K Pro and Office 2K Pro on the client side, but now I find from reading that I need to go back to Guest Additions 1.6.0 if I want to share folders between host and guest, and I don't know if any GA after 1.6.6 takes care of this, as I cannot find any way to download GA 1.6.0 (I am forbidden acces to a Sun site from trying to get it there).

In other words, maybe it's time to see if someone else can chip in and help me work out what to do next. Perhaps if I downloaded one of the older VirtualBox versions, I could pull the Guest Additions out of it, but I don't even know which files are involved (there is very little real documentation that I've come across that point out these matters, and I am guided mostly by other posts and responses).

Seems you lose, you gain. And if you gain, you lose. I did get Ubuntu 9.04 and VirtualBox 1.6.6 to live together, and I felt I was getting close to getting all of this whipped. But apparently not. So a bit of help here in getting to my shared folders would be appreciated. And oh yes, if anyone has puzzled out the best way to back up and restore a whole system with a mix of Windows and Linux on it, or just Linux as host, it would also be appreciated. That would probably be my next challenge. I mean, you spend time and effort to get so far, you want to make sure you save it, so as not to have to do it all over again somewhere down the road.

Have you tried 2.08 ?

Well, the problem seems to be a question what works best if I want to install Windows 2000 Pro as my guest OS. I tried 2.2.2 and 2.0.0 and neither worked as I needed them to (got into problems during the install of both Windows and Office), but then I tried 1.6.6, and that took. Seems to be a question of how much faster a virtual hard drive responds than an actual one, so there are instructions on adding a delay to drive access during the install process. That might do it here. I'm looking at some online ISO images of Windows 2000 Pro with SP4, and wondering what difference going at it that way might make. I guess I will find out.

Why Windows 2000 Pro? Well, I 've used it for years and never felt compelled to move up beyond it. It is much like XP, but without the layer of garnish put on XP mostly for looks. I also did not like the authentication and registration process that Microsoft adopted for XP, and its partial limitation on hardware enhancements.

And Vista? Answer that one for yourself. Or anything to follow. To many, Win98 was as good as it got if you were into 16 bits, and XP adopted that look and feel on top of Windows 2000 to win the same favor among users. In my book, that is about as good as it needs to get. The selling points for Vista and beyond do not overwhelm me, but obviously the need to new apps to replace functional ones just to accept the new OSes does not hit my sweet spot.

So why some distro of Linux if I like Windows 2000 so much? Because they can live together, work together, and Linux makes a pretty good shelter for Windows if it is the host. Besides, the price is right, and one can expect that Linux will keep on expanding and growing, so I might get to a point where I won't want or need Windows at all. Now wouldn't that be a shame? Hey, I look forward to the day.

Big holdup right now is that I need suitable email client that accepts what i have in the way of filed messages and contacts, and I am sort of accustomed to the way that Word works, and I am not there yet with OpenOffice 3.1.0 Writer. Oh, one more thing: For anyone with Adminsitrator rights, there are GUI links into the heart of the machine, and things to see or do there that help when you are using any version of Windows. That seems to be somewhat missing in Linux. That will be missed.

I've had no problems with nt 4 server/ts/workstation or w2k sp2/sp4 server or workstation, not even a w2k server p2v after a kernal replacement. GA also works at it should. vbox 2.08.

Thanks for the information. If it worked for you, I would expect it to work for me. I will have to give 2.0.8 a chance. You know, when you jump from the head to near the tail in a string of revisions, you can't be sure of what you are skipping over. If they behave much the same in some regards, you are inclined to think that it holds true for all the revisions in between. That's not always the case, as apparently reported here, so now I know what to go check out.