Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [softrock40] W7 and VirtualPC question

Expand Messages
  • Mike Porter
    ... XP Mode only comes with Professional or better. However, you can run VirtualPC under lower versions of 7, even under Vista or XP. VirtualPC runs much
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 1, 2010
      On 1/31/2010 7:29 AM, Kirk Maskalenko wrote:
       
      Hi Christos,
       
      I have Windows 7/64 bit Professional but have not tried running in xp mode.  As I found more about the limitations of  the virtualization layer I concluded it would not work as expected when working with applications that require specific devices to be available. All the drivers including sound cards are emulated as a generic device so your Delta card or whatever appears as a generic sound device. Something else to consider is that xp mode capabilities are part of the Professional or better versions of Windows 7.  Windows 7 Home does not come with the virtual box.
       
      I have not tried your latest trial version with windows 7/64 bit. The last time I looked  at earlier versions I was experiencing tuning issues other folks were seeing with later firmware versions of the USB2I2C. Rocky with I2C tuning was working so the drivers are OK in 64 bit (in test mode that supports unsigned drivers).  I will give it another try once I get a chance.


      "XP Mode" only comes with Professional or better.  However, you can run VirtualPC under lower versions of 7, even under Vista or XP.  VirtualPC runs much better with hardware virtualization support, of course.  I believe, though I have not tested this yet, that VirtualPC requires virtualization for USB to emulate.  The difference is that you need a valid license for XP to run this way.  You can get a valid "test" image of XP from Microsoft, if you agree to their license terms for its use.

      I actually had to do this at work after they "upgraded" my machine to IE 8, which broke my ability to access some work functions that required IE6.  I installed virtualPC (on XP), with the test copy of XP/IE6 from Microsoft.  Now when I need to access that site, I load VirtualPC, boot the XP image, and I have IE6.... yeah, it's ugly, but it works better than any of the mutiple-ie workarounds I tried.  And even without hardware virtualization support, it runs tolerably well, provided I am not running too much on the host machine.

      mike

      __
    • Bruce Tanner
      Mine brings up an email blank with Unsubscribe as the Subject. I suspect you just have to send that as it already has an address and your email address would
      Message 32 of 32 , Feb 9, 2010
        Mine brings up an email blank with 'Unsubscribe' as the Subject. I
        suspect you just have to send that as it already has an address and your
        email address would be added to finish the job once you send it.

        bet


        Bruce wrote:
        >
        >
        > 
        >
        > yea, you click on it and it says application not found, doesnt help
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > *From:* R R Robson <mailto:rrrobson@...>
        > *To:* softrock40@yahoogroups.com <mailto:softrock40@yahoogroups.com>
        > *Sent:* Monday, February 08, 2010 2:18 PM
        > *Subject:* Re: [softrock40] unscribe
        >
        >
        >
        > it is very tiny, at the bottom right-hand side of the very bottom
        > of the page (underneath the advertisement):
        > mailto:softrock40-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
        > <mailto:softrock40-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
        > *From:* robnj74@... <mailto:robnj74@...>
        > *Sent:* Monday, February 08, 2010 10:50 AM
        > *To:* softrock40@yahoogroups.com <mailto:softrock40@yahoogroups.com>
        > *Subject:* Re: [softrock40] unscribe
        >
        >
        >
        > Scroll to the very bottom of this email and you will see the
        > unsubscribe link
        >
        > Rob K2RJJ
        >
        > In a message dated 2/8/2010 11:48:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        > N2LIV@... <mailto:N2LIV@...> writes:
        >
        >
        >
        > how do you unscribe no link found on bottom
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > *From:* Alan <mailto:alan4alan@...>
        > *To:* softrock40@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:softrock40@yahoogroups.com>
        > *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:16 AM
        > *Subject:* Re: [softrock40] Re: Single band RXTX design?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "g8voip"
        > Subject: [softrock40] Re: Single band RXTX design?
        >
        > > Hi Tony,
        > >
        > > I am sure from the comments already posted, the single
        > band transceiver
        > > will be very popular and demand for them very high.
        > >
        > > Whilst I understand the desire to keep the cost of the
        > kit to a minimum, I
        > > wonder ultimately if this is actually false economy?
        > >
        > > As Dave and others have already commented, I found when
        > I built my 40/80m
        > > v6.1 TX/RX, very soon it became frustrating being
        > limited to only a small
        > > portion of the band, and of course its never quite the
        > part you want.
        > >
        >
        > This is what I thought when I read Tony's suggestion.
        > Like Bob, I have found my 6.1 with two crystals to be too
        > restrictive, I
        > soon added an external Si570.
        > I'm not quite so sure now but do think a single range 6.3
        > style kit with a
        > Si570 and perhaps PIC or USB alternatives would satisfy
        > more users. On the
        > other hand this would only save a couple of small PCBs
        > over the 6.3 built
        > for one range. If a single preset centre frequency is
        > required the USB
        > controller will do this with the option of full tuning.
        >
        > I think it depends whether there are some out there that
        > really find the
        > cost too much, but as a computer setup is also required
        > how many will that
        > be?
        >
        > 73 Alan G4ZFQ
        >
        > > With so many different areas of interest, CW, data
        > modes, SSB etc, I would
        > > think you would need to keep stock of a large number of
        > custom programmed
        > > Si590 devices to satisfy all requirement, multiplied of
        > course by the
        > > number of bands on offer.
        > >
        > > I suspect many builders would quickly go out and buy one
        > of the SDR-kits
        > > USB Synths or similar external controllers / oscillators
        > to provide full
        > > band coverage, thus extra expenditure.
        > >
        > > I see the Si570 and Si590 share the same foot print, and
        > the pin out is
        > > similar with the exception of the output enable pin OE.
        > >
        > > Although it would require a little more real estate on
        > the PCB, I wonder
        > > if it would make more sense to layout the board to take
        > either the Si590
        > > for a simple cheaper, but limited coverage solution, or
        > have the
        > > additional layout available to fit a Si570 and
        > associated ATtiny
        > > controller to provide full band capability and USB control.
        > >
        > > Although initially a little more expensive, I suspect
        > the Si570 / USB
        > > controller option would end up being the more popular
        > solution. That would
        > > also give you both the PTT and CW key functions
        > available with the
        > > existing AVR controller, and much greater compatibility
        > with the existing
        > > SDR software available.
        > >
        > > One last though, if you adopted the dual Si590 or Si570
        > / USB controller
        > > approach, having the option to fit a type 'B' USB socket
        > directly to the
        > > PCB would be far more preferable to the current USB
        > flying lead.
        > >
        > > The SoftRock progression has always been to gradually
        > increase the
        > > capability of the hardware with each new generation, yet
        > keep it within
        > > the capability of the majority to construct and get going.
        > >
        > > Obviously now the multi band option available using the
        > v6.3 TX/RX and add
        > > on v4.3 motherboard has taken that design much further,
        > but possibly
        > > beyond the capability of many constructors.
        > >
        > > As the design for the Si570 and USB controller is now
        > well established and
        > > proven both in functionality and software compatibility,
        > to me it possibly
        > > appears to be a step in the wrong direction introducing
        > a new design with
        > > the restricted capability, when something potentially
        > far more versatile
        > > is easily achievable.
        > >
        > > I believe the cost aspect is not really an issue, and
        > most constructors
        > > would be willing to pay the extra to have the enhanced
        > full band coverage
        > > and control capability, but I could be wrong.
        > >
        > > 73, Bob G8VOI
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
        > signature database 4852 (20100209) __________
        >
        > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
        >
        > http://www.eset.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.