Microsoft Entertainment Pack 3

[Andrew Rossmann]

Nope, it's for the following editions of Windows 7:

- Professional
- Ultimate
- Enterprise

What is this "Business" edition you mention? Never heard of it.

I goofed and was working from memory. It's so confusing keeping track of
all these variations of Windows...

Instead of another Windows license if the OP doesn't have an XP-mode
compatible Windows, they could use Ubuntu Linux in it's VM mode, and
maybe it will work with WINE under that. Yes, a VM in a VM!!

 

[VanguardLH]

What do you mean by "the CPU is real in an VM"? (I'm not saying
you're wrong, I just don't understand.)

All hardware is emulated inside the VM except the CPU.

This was a summary. As I recall, there are VMs that will also emulate
the CPU but they are very slow (I think Bochs was one). VMware,
VirtualBox, VirtualPC aren't that type of VMM. See:

Well, other than backward compatibility issues such as those we're
discussing, are there actually _dis_advantages to 64 bit (enough to
justify "conned" anyway)?

The biggest hurdle for most users switching to 64-bit versions of
Windows is finding the drivers for the hardware. The drivers must be
the same bit-width as the OS. There is a lot of hardware still out
there that has no 64-bit drivers, especially the old hardware that
users drag forward when updating or migrating from an old platform to a
new 64-bit capable platform. Unless the user can actually say "See,
here are the 64-bit apps that I must have despite there are 32-bit
versions which, to me, aren't doable" then they should go with 32-bit
Windows 7 for now. Less headaches.

In the past, the concept of a "killer app" that pushed the requirement
for different hardware was what got the new hardware sold. For select
users doing high CPU and mega-memory workloads, they have that killer
app to qualify going to 64-bit. You don't need 64-bit for a word
processor, e-mail client, web browser, greeting card maker, and most
end-user apps. Without a real need for 64-bit apps, it's like putting
racing stripes on a Pinto: looks/sounds cool but doesn't go any faster.

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

All hardware is emulated inside the VM except the CPU.

I would say it is emulated, but almost entirely in hardware that runs at
full speed.

This was a summary. As I recall, there are VMs that will also emulate
the CPU but they are very slow (I think Bochs was one). VMware,
VirtualBox, VirtualPC aren't that type of VMM. See:


The biggest hurdle for most users switching to 64-bit versions of
Windows is finding the drivers for the hardware. The drivers must be
the same bit-width as the OS. There is a lot of hardware still out
there that has no 64-bit drivers, especially the old hardware that
users drag forward when updating or migrating from an old platform to a
new 64-bit capable platform. Unless the user can actually say "See,
here are the 64-bit apps that I must have despite there are 32-bit
versions which, to me, aren't doable" then they should go with 32-bit
Windows 7 for now. Less headaches.

In the past, the concept of a "killer app" that pushed the requirement
for different hardware was what got the new hardware sold. For select
users doing high CPU and mega-memory workloads, they have that killer
app to qualify going to 64-bit. You don't need 64-bit for a word
processor, e-mail client, web browser, greeting card maker, and most
end-user apps. Without a real need for 64-bit apps, it's like putting
racing stripes on a Pinto: looks/sounds cool but doesn't go any faster.

64 bit code might even go slightly slower in some cases.

 

[Stan Brown]

Have you tried using XP mode?

No, because I have Home Premium. (It sounds like you think XP Mode
is a form of compatibility mode. Unless I'm mistaken, it's not.)

I did however install XP in a virtual machine, and the games that I
tried worked fine. They also work fine in 32-bit Windows 7, when I
tried them on a computer that is so equipped.

 

[Rob]

All hardware is emulated inside the VM except the CPU.

This was a summary. As I recall, there are VMs that will also emulate
the CPU but they are very slow (I think Bochs was one). VMware,
VirtualBox, VirtualPC aren't that type of VMM. See:


The biggest hurdle for most users switching to 64-bit versions of
Windows is finding the drivers for the hardware. The drivers must be
the same bit-width as the OS. There is a lot of hardware still out
there that has no 64-bit drivers, especially the old hardware that
users drag forward when updating or migrating from an old platform to a
new 64-bit capable platform. Unless the user can actually say "See,
here are the 64-bit apps that I must have despite there are 32-bit
versions which, to me, aren't doable" then they should go with 32-bit
Windows 7 for now. Less headaches.

In the past, the concept of a "killer app" that pushed the requirement
for different hardware was what got the new hardware sold. For select
users doing high CPU and mega-memory workloads, they have that killer
app to qualify going to 64-bit. You don't need 64-bit for a word
processor, e-mail client, web browser, greeting card maker, and most
end-user apps. Without a real need for 64-bit apps, it's like putting
racing stripes on a Pinto: looks/sounds cool but doesn't go any faster.

The big advantage to Win7x64 (for 32-bit apps) is having 4GB available
for *each* 32-bit process, so having several 32-bit applications open at
once means that they don't have to all share 4GB (ignoring that it's actually
3.x GB for now) or use the swap file, providing you have lots of RAM installed.
This can provide *serious* increases in speed for those who have several
memory-hungry apps open simultaneously and so is a great reason to go to
Win7x64, even if there aren't yet 64-bit versions of your favourite
applications.

 

[Paul]

I would say it is emulated, but almost entirely in hardware that runs at
full speed.

Any instructions that are restricted inside the VM, are trapped and handled
by whatever is considered appropriate for emulation. If a privileged instruction
was attempted, you'd want to trap that for safety reasons.

VirtualPC runs native, in the sense that most normal user mode code runs
natively (instruction just executes with no fuss). In a benchmark, I was
getting around 90% of the same speed as I'd get running a program directly
in Windows. I ran the SuperPI benchmark inside VPC2007. The benchmark is
single threaded (to match the uniprocessor emulation inside VPC2007),
and it ran at about 90% of native Windows speed.

This is in sharp contrast to the way virtual machines used to run on other
platforms. For example, I have the (paid-for) version of VirtualPC for Macintosh,
where an x86 instruction is replaced with an equivalent sequence of PowerPC
instructions, and you're lucky if that runs at 10% of the regular speed.

The slowest I've ever used, was probably SoftWindows running on a Sparc workstation,
where the workstation was already hobbled by running at 400MHz, and then the virtual
machine ran at about 10% of that. (That converts x86 code to Sun Sparc code.) The
first virtual machines did a lot of trapping of things, which made them like slide
shows. Some kinds of operations on the frame buffer, were pitifully slow. You could
watch the pixels being updated, row by row.

By comparison, the modern VMs, at least the ones running x86 on x86 (i.e. same arch),
run at almost full speed.

In my testing, I also found that the so-called "hardware virtualization support"
VT-X, made no difference at all to user level performance. So whatever instructions
that convert from traps to native, seem to make no difference to the user
experience. The only time that kind of setting makes a difference, is when it
makes a Linux VM crash :-( That's the only reason for changing the preference on
a virtual machine setup, is to stop crashing.

Paul

 

[ArtReid]

Tried everything suggest here, (ie, installing XP mode (two separate
versions). One that opened in its own WinXP window and another that seemed
to integrate XP Mode into Win7??? At any rate, still cold not install the
Entertainment pack with same msg, 'Your system/this program not
compatible'...

I guess I will have to do without the Old Entertainment pack 3 and Fuji
Golf.

Thanks for every ones help...

"ArtReid" wrote in message
I have finally located a download of subject pack. when I attempt to install
it and play Fuji Golf on my Win 7 X64 machine I get the msg. that it is not
compatible with my windows version.

Can anyone tell me how I Install/run a Win95 game Win7 X64 machine?

 

[Andrew Rossmann]

Tried everything suggest here, (ie, installing XP mode (two separate
versions). One that opened in its own WinXP window and another that seemed
to integrate XP Mode into Win7??? At any rate, still cold not install the
Entertainment pack with same msg, 'Your system/this program not
compatible'...

I guess I will have to do without the Old Entertainment pack 3 and Fuji
Golf.

Thanks for every ones help...

Maybe use a generic VM handler like Virtual PC, then find an old Win98
or Win95 license and disks and install it.

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

The big advantage to Win7x64 (for 32-bit apps) is having 4GB available
for *each* 32-bit process, so having several 32-bit applications open at
once means that they don't have to all share 4GB (ignoring that it's
actually
3.x GB for now) or use the swap file, providing you have lots of RAM
installed.
This can provide *serious* increases in speed for those who have several
memory-hungry apps open simultaneously and so is a great reason to go to
Win7x64, even if there aren't yet 64-bit versions of your favourite
applications.

32 bit Linux can happily use 64GB of RAM.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

I wish Windows could, but I think Microsoft is fairly happy to begin the
process of forcing us to move to 64 bit.

I wish Intel had managed to make the Itanium work better in 32 bit mode so
we didn't have this daft new 64 bit mode that retains the same basic
architecture and all it's inefficiencies while being totally incompatible as
far as operating systems and drivers are concerned.

 

[Paul]

32 bit Linux can happily use 64GB of RAM.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

I wish Windows could, but I think Microsoft is fairly happy to begin the
process of forcing us to move to 64 bit.

I wish Intel had managed to make the Itanium work better in 32 bit mode so
we didn't have this daft new 64 bit mode that retains the same basic
architecture and all it's inefficiencies while being totally incompatible as
far as operating systems and drivers are concerned.

I think you missed the news. WinXP SP3 *is* using PAE. It's just the
memory license from Microsoft that determines the rules of usage.

PAE is enabled by default, to allow a single bit to be defined for
the purposes of NX protection (no-execute bit). That's why it's turned
on. But at the same time, the memory license is still limited to 4GB.

I have exceeded the limit, and so can you. For example, I installed
6GB of RAM in a P5E Deluxe motherboard, and installed this RAMDisk product
on my WinXP SP3 x32 system.

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

Dataram_RAMDisk_V3.5.130R18.msi

When that is running, it reports it can define a 2GB RAMDisk. I had
a report of "3GB available" in Windows, at the same time as I had a
2GB RAMDisk defined with files stored in it. That is a total of 5GB.
And accessing that would not have been possible, without paging set
up PAE style. (PAE uses a different definition of page tables, than
the regular mode.)

The reason that works, is the RAMDisk program is a driver, and the
memory license rules are different for drivers, than for user space
programs.

There is more info here, on hacking 32 bit kernels to break licensing.
Someone offered a download to do that as well, but I would not trust
such a download, because of the possibility it is malware. The OS
example here is Vista, but it still demonstrates the same point, that
the restriction is artificial. There were vaguely worded claims in the
past, it was done for driver reasons, but you have to wonder.

http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm

Paul

 

[Char Jackson]

Tried everything suggest here, (ie, installing XP mode (two separate
versions). One that opened in its own WinXP window and another that seemed
to integrate XP Mode into Win7??? At any rate, still cold not install the
Entertainment pack with same msg, 'Your system/this program not
compatible'...

Forgive me if this question offends you, but did you remember to try
to install your old games *in* the virtual machine? It sort of sounds
like you installed various virtual PC solutions and then attempted to
install your old games *outside* of the virtual machine, in which case
the message you saw would be expected.

 

[Tim Slattery]

32 bit Linux can happily use 64GB of RAM.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

By using the PAE kludge.

I wish Windows could, but I think Microsoft is fairly happy to begin the
process of forcing us to move to 64 bit.

MS implements PAE in its server systems, but not the client systems.
(But I understand there's a way to turn it on in client systems.)
Actual 64-bit hardware is a much better solution than PAE.

 

[Seth]

Forgive me if this question offends you, but did you remember to try
to install your old games *in* the virtual machine? It sort of sounds
like you installed various virtual PC solutions and then attempted to
install your old games *outside* of the virtual machine, in which case
the message you saw would be expected.

I had the same thought.

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

I think you missed the news. WinXP SP3 *is* using PAE. It's just the
memory license from Microsoft that determines the rules of usage.

No, actually I have read the article I posted a link to.

 

[Stan Brown]

Forgive me if this question offends you, but did you remember to try
to install your old games *in* the virtual machine? It sort of sounds
like you installed various virtual PC solutions and then attempted to
install your old games *outside* of the virtual machine, in which case
the message you saw would be expected.

It's not just you, Char. I had the same impression.