Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to set up file sharing between my Mac OS and Windows 98. I think the reason it's not working at the moment is that I haven't installed Guest Additions.
However, Guest Additions .iso is attached in Media Manager. It also looks fine in settings (see screengrabs, correct me if I'm wrong).
Settings:
In the virtual machine it doesn't automatically run, and if I try to manually run it nothing happens.
Bottom two .exe files don't run in W98, top .exe does nothing if you click on it:
Any ideas?
VirtualBox Guest Additions don't exist for Windows 98.
VirtualBox Guest Additions work fine for Windows XP.
Modern Macs do not support SMB Network sharing with pre-XP operating systems like Windows 98 (my old Leopard machine did it fine, my new Mavericks machine won't do it at all), otherwise, you could switch on sharing with your Win98 virtual machine, and access files on there in OSX's Finder.
So what's the work around?
Make a WinXP virtual machine.
Either just use that instead, and use the Guest Additions to share files;
Or use WinXP as a middleman - and network your Win98 VM with your WinXP VM, and copy your files from Win98 to WinXP and then to OSX.
Most Win98 programs run fine in WinXP, so most people just use WinXP with Guest Additions, and leave it at that.
Andrew is right. VirtualBox Guest Additions don't exist for Windows 98, even if it exists there is no easy way to install it. And without Guest Addition shared folder will not going to work.
(when I try to execute the guest addition executable, its just throw error)
There is no such issue with the Windows XP virtual machine.
Currently, Guest Additions does not support Windows 98, only NT-based versions of Windows are supported. I hope this gets fixed soon. (Windows 98 is not NT-based. And also, any version of Windows that came after 2000, excluding ME, is definitely NT-based. So is NT, obviously.)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
Here's the problem - I need my Bluetooth Low Energy-Only device to be able to connect to Windows 7 computers. Preferably using a regular CSR dongle, if possible. Is there any way or workaround?
I spent the two last days googling stuff to make my designer mouse working on my Lenovo T450 under Windows 7.
The solution I found may not apply to everyone: your computer must have a Bluetooth 4.0 capability (which as I understand allows Bluetooth Low Energy (aka BLE or Bluetooth Smart) to work.
The BLE drivers are not native to Windows 7 so you need to install them: go to your manufacturer's website and download the latest Intel Bluetooth drivers. Depending on the make, they might have various combinations of drivers (sometimes with overall wireless drivers, sometimes Bluetooth separately,.. I had to try about 3 - 4 different without really knowing what they meant). Once those drivers installed, you should be able to see your mouse/keyboard and pair to them.
I had to reboot my laptop multiple times and had to download a lot of different drivers from various sources but the one thing that worked was googling: Intel Bluetooth driver "your laptop make and model" and downloading the drivers.
Ps. I have also downloaded the "Microsoft Mouse and Keyboard Center" application and although opening it and trying to use it did not help at all, it might have help setting something in the background that made the drivers get installed smoothly (not an IT person, I have no idea).
I hope it helps!
Good luck
You need Bluetooth hardware that supports Bluetooth 4.0 or higher. Then just install the driver for Windows 7. Don't use Windows' internal update service (its lying and will tell you that your driver is up to date). I used this:
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/28510/Intel-Wireless-Bluetooth-for-Windows-7-
Well, Logitech Mx Anywhere 2 surprisingly started working with Windows 7 (Dell 380 Module on E6430 laptop) with IVT Bluesoleil Stack (unfortunately not freeware). Context menu of its icon in tray has "Bluetooth 4.0 functions", that allow adding BLE/Smart devices.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I need two systems running, with a mic on system A going to speakers on system B, and vice versa, in realtime.
I currently have three systems set up:
Fedora
Jack works fine
Ubuntu
Jack has problems recognizing microphones
Windows
Jack works fine
I can connect Jack between the two linux systems fine, but since the ubuntu system is having jack problems regarding microphones, I'm trying to get Windows to communicate with either of them, to no avail so far. I've tried googling around but people seem to either say "It works!" or "It has problems!" without giving details.
Is there a canonical method for using netjack W<->L?
Would really appreciate any help I can get on this.
you could try jacktrip, that has an experimental windows client.
people also reported that soundjack.eu is supposed to work great, but i have never tested it (and couldn't find a linux client on their website)
I was able to get audio playback working from Windows to Linux with netjack2.
I did a small write-up of it here: https://gist.github.com/kotarou3/3813bbf7833a0e4618f7fbe8a377872d
Partially quoting here for posterity:
Stream audio from Windows to Linux
Tested on Ubuntu 16.04 and Windows 10 Redstone 1
Both boxes need to be on the same network (such that multicast packets
can be passed between them)
Installing
Linux
Setup JACK (easy to do with Cadence)
Windows
Install JACK and ASIO Bridge on the Windows
box
Run regsvr32 32bits\JackRouter.dll and regsvr32 64bits\JackRouter.dll from JACK installation directory
Modify 32bits\JackRouter.ini and 64bits\JackRouter.ini to match your channel and sample config
(Optional) Set the ASIO Bridge (Hi-Fi Audio) input as the default playback device
Running
Start the netjack2 server on Linux with jack_load netmanager (probably also possible to add to .jackdrc for it to autoload)
Run JACK NetDriver on Windows (it's in the Start menu), or jackd -R -d net
A new device named the hostname of the Windows box should have appeared on the Linux JACK patch panel
(Catia if you're
using Cadence). Connect it as you see fit (Note: Channels might not
match up as expected if you have more than 2).
Run ASIO Bridge (also in the Start menu), turn ASIO on, and set the ASIO device to JackRouter
The ASIO Bridge should have automatically set up routes to the system device in the Windows JACK patch panel. You can double check
with qjackctl (Jack Control in the Start menu) → Connections
and connect them if not
I imagine this can be further adapted to get microphone input from Windows as well by using Windows' microphone to speaker loopback feature (it's in the microphone config for Windows 10), albeit at the cost of more latency.
Basically get Windows to send the microphone to the ASIO Bridge input.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Ok so I just got a new SSD for my laptop. I have installed Windows 7 on the SSD and can successfully boot into Windows 7.
I took the SSD out and put in the normal hard drive and installed Ubuntu onto it. So now when I add the other SSD back into the laptop I go into the BIOS and boot override into the SSD to try and get to my Windows 7 install.
I at least make it to the "Starting Windows" screen for about a second. Then it starts saying "Loading files" like its doing a recovery. It opens up recovery and tries to repair forever but then after 5 minutes will say that it can't repair.
If I try to boot override into the Ubuntu hard drive it works just fine.
If I take out the Ubuntu hard drive I can then boot into Windows 7.
The expected behavior is that I will be able to use the BIOS to boot into either hard drive.
You should configure the master boot record of one of the two hard drives to point to both operating systems, and then use it as a primary for booting.
I recommend using grub2 on the SSD with linux, primarily because it is the easier to configure and less risky than modifying the boot partition of the Windows hard drive.
Here is the documentation for grub: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB2
I ran into an issue once where there was a competition between two hard drives because they were in master/slave configuration, and Windows was not configured to recognize itself as a primary boot, even when specified in the bios, if it was in a slave position.
It is possible however to boot linux from a slave position relatively easily.
Also, whenever you insert two hard drives, with both expecting to be booted, it changes the partition and hard drive numbering: see the paragraph titled "GRUB Notation" here. Be aware of this, because this can also effect how a OS boots.
My guess is that the reason Windows fails to load, is because the MBR was installed and configured with the assumption that is would be booted without changing its hard drive number. Thus, windows may attempt to load, but actually be pointing to the wrong hard drive when searching for whatever core files it loads at start-up. However, this seems less likely to me than the master/slave issue.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am doing .net programming in addition to c and c++ development and want more flexibility on my home machine. I want to be able to have both Linux (probably Ubuntu) and Windows Vista on my home computer. Is there a way I can install both and on boot be prompted for which one to start? Is there a way to set Windows to default?
I have seen this before in CS labs in undergrad.
Also, I assume there would be no problem if I were to use Windows 32-bit along with Ubuntu 64-bit. Any advise?
The latest versions of Ubuntu include an installer called Wubi, which installs Ubuntu as a windows application (ie: it can be uninstalled from Add/Remove programs) and sets up the dual boot for you! It's great for those who want to give Linux a try without a system overhaul!
You can dual boot, but I would recommend using a Virtual Machine for what you want to do.
Look at VMWare and Virtual PC.
For more information on Virtual PC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Virtual_PC
For more information on VMWare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMware_Workstation
You should note that dual booting Windows and Linux can be a little risky and is a bit permanent. Running in a Virtual Machine means that you can run the Linux install in a window and not worry about it affecting your development machine at all. The software will not know the difference, so your testing is not affected.
Consider that the Virtual Machine is like a sandbox, where you can try new and different things out, without fear of consequences.
Virtual machines do run with a bit of overhead, and therefore you should not expect to be playing games or anything through them. I would say it is very much like logging into a machine through Remote Desktop (good LAN connection) as far as performance goes.
EDIT: There is also VirtualBox that you could check out. Thanks for the helpers in my comments for that one.
I, too, recommend using a virtual machine for this purpose.
I've had problems with Virtual PC on some Linux distros (Fedora Core comes to mind), but no problems with VMWare or Virtual Box.
Think very hard before installing another operating system even as dual boot. It is rarely simple, even with installers like Ubuntu's that don't require you to mess around on a command line. There is a good risk you'll spend days trying to get your usual OS back to normal especially if you're using Vista.
VMWare and Virtual PC are both good options. Do a test install on one of these and use the OS for a while before making the decision to install.
One other great thing about using a virtual machine is that you only have to worry about getting your network settings sorted on your main OS, because VMWare (etc) will borrow those.
Also, try using the operating system on Live CD or DVD to start with if at all possible. You may also find that you can run an OS from a USB stick. This is obviously good for portability - but note that you can also carry your virtual machines on a removable USB drive.
All you have to do is go to http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download and follow the directions. I downloaded Ubuntu, burned it to CD, and rebooted with the CD in the drive. I did not have to get a second hard drive or worry about it messing with my Vista Home Premium installation.
With Ubuntu (as with most distros with a Live CD install) all you need to do is pop in a disc, boot, and click through the menus. The dual boot is set up perfectly by default, you don't even have to think about it. I've done this with Ubuntu, Debian, PC Linux OS, Freespire, and Xandros on my Vista Home Premium machine and they all worked that way.
If you are paranoid, then you should back up your PC. As cheap as hard drives (USB or internal) are these days, there really is no excuse to not have a full back up of your system. It's too easy. I use Acronis True Image, but I've heard good things about Norton Ghost as well.
Regadless, you don't need Wubi or VMWare, or any virtual anything, a straight install with a dual boot set up is the default on a typical Live CD Linux install and it works even with Vista.
I've done it different ways over the years, and I'd say using a virtual machine is the one that I like best. I've tried both VMWare and VirtualBox, both free, and I like VirtualBox a little better because you can use it with the .iso straight. You don't need somebody to have created a virtual machine image for you.
Another option is to actually run Linux as an application on Windows so you get Linux running at almost full speed but also the ability to run Windows applications along side it. Check it out at http://www.colinux.org/.
I haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but an option that looks promising for me is a tool in Ubuntu to create a bootable USB drive with Ubuntu on it. It has the benefit of a live cd (no effect on your system), better performance than a live CD and the ability to persist your data from session to session. I've used Wubi before, but I can't remember why I uninstalled it.
Have a look at "cygwin".
This istalls a "linux like" windowing application within your windows
environment. It has good support for gcc and most of the standard
gnu/linux development tools.
You dont have to mess with dual boot. Its especially good for testing
windows to/from unix communictions as you can get everything up and
running in one box.
What you're looking for is called 'Dual booting'. it allows one to choose which operating system to boot at the start. It's well supported in Linux, especially Ubuntu. Just install Ubuntu and it will set up dual booting by default.
You could go either way, a dual-boot or use a VM. I think it depends on whether you'll want to use any Windows apps while developing in the Linux environment. If so, I'd go with a VM, otherwise, here's a tutorial for setting up a dual-boot computer. It has a part on installing both OSes, and a part on if you already have Windows installed.
Wubi is a great (Ubuntu specific) solution.. The only problem I've found was installing Wubi on a FAT formatted Windows partition - I had serious problems then. Also, it might run slightly slower, as there is another layer when doing disk acccess, but I can't say I've noticed.
I dual boot Vista Ultimate 32-bit and Ubuntu 8.10 beta 64-bit with no problems. The key thing, in my opinion, is to have a completely separate hard drive to install Ubuntu on. That removes a lot of the risk since you don't have to fuss around partitioning your primary HDD and makes removing Ubuntu very straightforward as well if you decide you don't want it.
Just be careful and pay attention on which drive you select when you do the install. It's easy for me to tell them apart since my Linux drive is a different size than my main Vista and data storage drives.
If you'd rather go the VM route, VMware Player works well, and I've heard good things about VirtualBox.
try a live cd install of ubuntu :D
creating a bootable flash disk is easy - unetbootin from sourceforge.net
I have dual booted Ubuntu and Xp many times with absolutely no problems. I doubt you could do the virtual thing with one OS 32 bit and the other 64. This would not be a problem with a dual boot.
I have had problems using wubi and my boot into windows7 is now unstable at best, so given the choice would favour a VM solution in hindsight. However on other machines I have run Ubuntu Live on USB (installed using pendrivelinux.com) by picking the try ubuntu option at boot and that has worked well and was quite quick to get going.